CAR_Public/070917.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, September 17, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 183

                            Headlines


AON CORP: Approval of “Daniel” Suit Settlement Under Appeal
AON CORP: Still Faces RICO, Antitrust Lawsuits in California
AON CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud, ERISA Litigation in Ill.
BANKERS LIFE: Class Status Sought for Insurance Agents Suit
BEAZER HOMES: Accused of Running Shady Business in Del. Lawsuit

BROWN & BROWN: Settles Insurance-Related Antitrust Suits in N.J.
CHOICE HOTELS: Colo. Court Considers Motions in Securities Suits
CONSECO HEALTH: Appeals Certification of La. “Doiron” Case
CONSECO INC: No Ruling Yet in Bid to Junk Ind. Securities Suit
CONSECO INSURANCE: 2008 Trial Set in RICO Act Violations Suit

DELPHI CORP: Mich. Court Approves $295.1M Settlement in MDL-1725
EI DUPONT: Trial in W.Va. Medical Monitoring Suit Begins
ELLSWORTH COOPERATIVE: Employees File Overtime Wage Suit in Wis.
EVERLASTING DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Smoked Sardine for Health Risk
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Face Calif. Data Breach Lawsuit

GRANDVIEW MEMORIAL: Owners, Operators Face Litigation in Ind.
GREENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Canadian School Accused of Student Abuse
HOMELAND SECURITY: Workers Sue to Stop Mass Arrests, Detentions
ILLINOIS: Lawsuit Against Winnebago Officials Withdrawn
JAKKS PACIFIC: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit

JENSEN’S OLD: Recalls Salmon Spreads on Possible Health Risk
LAX HOTELS: Employees File Suit to Recoup Tips, Services Fees
MEDSTAFF INC: Still Faces Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Calif. Court
NEW YORK: Ground Zero Workers Sue Over Alleged Labor Law Breach
SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP: Suits Over “Off-Label” Drugs Consolidated

SPRINT NEXTEL: $30M Deal in Universal Services Fund Suit Okayed
WEBLOYALTY.COM: Defrauds Retailers, Lawsuit in Mass. Alleges
* Average Settlement Hits Record High; Could Decline, NERA Says


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVANCED MEDICAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
JONES SODA: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
JONES SODA: Schiffrin Barroway Files Wash. Securities Fraud Suit
LCA-VISION: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
TWEEN BRANDS: Coughlin Stoia Files Ohio Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


AON CORP: Approval of “Daniel” Suit Settlement Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties objecting to a $40 million settlement of the purported class
action, "Daniel v. Aon (Affinity)," continue to appeal the final approval of
the deal by the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Several suits were initially filed against Aon Corp. units Affinity Insurance
Services Inc. and K&K Insurance Group, alleging that they entered
into "profit-sharing" relationships with the underwriters without disclosing
the income to their policyholder clients.

The suit seeks to determine whether the company's having received or being
eligible for receipt, without consent of its clients, undisclosed commissions
or 'kickbacks' in connection with the placement of insurance, violates the
fiduciary or confidential obligations imposed under Illinois law.

The suit was filed on behalf of current or former policyholders of the Aon
Corp., Aon Group, and Aon Services Group as class members alongside lead
Plaintiffs Alan S. Daniel and the Williamson County (Illinois) Agricultural
Association.

On July 28, 2004, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On March 9, 2005, the court gave preliminary approval to a nationwide class
action settlement within the $40 million reserve established in the fourth
quarter of 2004.

The court granted final approval to the settlement in March 2006.  Parties
that objected to the settlement have appealed.

The company 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.

Settlement Administrator’s contact:

         Daniel Settlement Administrator
         2807 Allen St., PMB #801
         Dallas, TX, 75204-4094
         Phone: 1-800-714-9815
         Web site: http://www.aon-daniel-settlement.com

The suit is "Daniel v. Aon (Affinity), Case No. 1999-CH-11893," filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, under Judge
Julia M. Nowicki.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Hartunian Futterman & How
         122 S. Michigan 1850
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 427-3600

Represented the company is:

         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 E. Randolph Dr.
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 861-2000


AON CORP: Still Faces RICO, Antitrust Lawsuits in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corp. continues to face several purported class actions in California
courts generally alleging violations of the federal antitrust and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Beginning in June 2004, a number of other putative class actions were filed
against Aon and other companies by purported classes of clients under a
variety of legal theories, including state tort, contract, fiduciary duty,
antitrust and statutory theories and federal antitrust and theories.  

These actions are currently pending in state court in California and in
federal court in New Jersey.  

In the New Jersey federal class actions, the Court on April 5, 2007
dismissed, without prejudice, the plaintiffs’ federal antitrust and RICO
claims.   

The Court granted plaintiffs one opportunity to replead their claims, and Aon
and other defendants have moved to dismiss the new complaints.  

The company reported no new 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.

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com-- through its various subsidiaries  
worldwide, serves its clients through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Brokerage Services, which acts as an advisor and insurance broker,
helping clients manage their risks, as well as negotiating and placing
insurance risk with insurance carriers through its global distribution
network; Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting, communications, human
resource outsourcing, human resource consulting, and financial advisory and
litigation consulting; and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty
insurance products.


AON CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud, ERISA Litigation in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corp. continues to face several purported class actions in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging either violations of the
securities laws or Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Beginning in late October 2004, several putative securities class actions
were filed against Aon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.  

Also beginning in late October 2004, several putative ERISA class actions
were filed against Aon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.  

The company reported no further details in the matters 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.

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com-- through its various subsidiaries  
worldwide, serves its clients through three operating segments: Risk and
Insurance Brokerage Services, which acts as an advisor and insurance broker,
helping clients manage their risks, as well as negotiating and placing
insurance risk with insurance carriers through its global distribution
network; Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting, communications, human
resource outsourcing, human resource consulting, and financial advisory and
litigation consulting; and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty
insurance products.


BANKERS LIFE: Class Status Sought for Insurance Agents Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A motion was filed seeking class-action status for lawsuits filed against
Bankers Life & Casualty Co., an operating segment of Conseco, Inc., in
connection with its alleged misclassification of California insurance agents
as independent contractors.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, “Holly Walker,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company, an insurance
company domiciled in the State of Illinois, and Does 1 to 100, Case No.
BC358690.”

In her complaint, plaintiff alleged Bankers Life and Casualty Company
intentionally misclassified its California insurance agents as independent
contractors when they should have been classified as employees.

Plaintiff sought relief on behalf of the class alleging claims for
preliminary and permanent injunction, misclassification, indemnification,
conversion and unfair business practices.

Bankers Life & Casualty Co. caused the case to be removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 18, 2006.  

An order was entered on Nov. 20, 2006 transferring the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Case No.
06C6906.  

The Court has dismissed with prejudice plaintiff's allegations of preliminary
and permanent injunction and misclassification.

A first amended complaint was filed on June 12, 2007 adding Carole Paradise
as the new class representative and naming Holly Walker as an individual
plaintiff.

This complaint alleges claims of indemnification, conversion and unfair
business practices.  On July 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification.

The suit is “Walker v. Bankers Life And Casualty Company et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-06906,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel A. Crawford, Esq.
          Quisenberry Law Firm
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 220
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 785-7966
          E-mail: dcrawford@quislaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Shanthi V. Gaur, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson, P.C.
          200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 372-5520
          E-mail: sgaur@littler.com


BEAZER HOMES: Accused of Running Shady Business in Del. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Directors of Beazer Homes USA are facing a class-action complaint filed Sept.
12 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County accusing them of running a shady business, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of nominal
defendant Beazer Homes USA, Inc. by one of its shareholders against its
entire board for alleged breach of their fiduciary duties of care, good faith
and loyalty, waste of Beazer's corporate assets, and unjust enrichment that,
among other things, has substantially damaged the company, its reputation and
goodwill.

Beazer shareholders accuse them of unjustly enriching themselves at
shareholders’ expense by shady business practices, including falsifying loan
documents, encouraging customers to falsify documents, leading to
investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue
Service and the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development and another securities
fraud class action complaint, depressing Beazer stock price.

Defendants also allegedly issued false and misleading financial statements,
engaged in inside trading, failed to prevent inside trading, improperly
granted themselves bonuses and stock options and misappropriated and misused
corporate property, shareholders say.

Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

     -- against all of the Individual Defendants and in favor of
        the company for the amount of damages sustained by the
        company as a result of the Individual defendants'
        breaches of their fiduciary duties;

     -- directing Beazer to take all necessary actions to reform
        and improve their corporate governance and international
        procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect
        Beazer and its shareholders from a repeat of the
        damaging events described, including, but not limited
        to, putting forward for shareholder vote resolutions for
        amendments to the company's By-Laws or Articles of
        Incorporation and taking such other action as may be
        necessary to place before shareholders for a vote for
        Corporate Governance Policies that include:

        (a) a proposal to strengthen the Board's supervision of
            operations and develop and implement procedures for
            greater shareholder input into the policies and
            guidelines of the board;

        (b) a provision to permit the shareholders of Beazer to
            nominate at least three candidates for election to
            the Board; and

        (c) tests to strengthen the internal audit and control
            functions;

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

     -- awarding to Beazer restitution from the defendants, and
        each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits,
        benefits and other compensation obtained by the
        defendants;

     -- awarding to plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the
        action, including reasonable attorney's fees,
        accountants' and experts' fees, costs and expenses; and

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

The suit is "Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund et al. v. Ian J,
McCarthy et al., Case No. 3225," filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Rigrodsky & Long, PA
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 295-5310

          - and -

          Ann K. Ritter, Esq.
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
          Phone: (843) 216-9000


BROWN & BROWN: Settles Insurance-Related Antitrust Suits in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brown & Brown, Inc. reached a settlement in two consolidated antitrust class
actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
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.

Previously, the Company was one of more than ten insurance intermediaries
named together with a number of insurance companies as defendants in putative
class actions purporting to be brought on behalf of policyholders.

The Company initially became a defendant in certain of those actions in
October and December of 2004.  

In February 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
consolidated these cases, together with other putative class actions in which
Brown & Brown, Inc. was not named as a party, to a single jurisdiction, the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, for pre-trial purposes.

One of the consolidated actions, “In Re: Employee-Benefits Insurance
Antitrust Litigation,” concerns employee benefits insurance and the other,
styled “In Re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation,” involves other
lines of insurance. They are collectively referred to by the company as
the “Antitrust Actions.”  

On April 5, 2007, the court dismissed the federal claims in the Antitrust
Actions against all defendants, including the Company, but allowed the
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by May 22, 2007.

Subsequently, the Company reached its settlement with the named plaintiffs in
the Antitrust Actions and no further litigation has ensued.

On May 21, 2007, the named plaintiffs in the Antitrust Actions settled with
the Company in exchange for the Company’s agreement to waive its claims for
sanctions and to reasonably cooperate with plaintiffs in the event that they
seek additional information from the Company.

Brown & Brown, Inc. -- http://www.bbinsurance.com-- is a diversified  
insurance agency, brokerage and service organization.  The Company markets
and sells to its customers insurance products and services, primarily in the
property, casualty and employee benefits areas.


CHOICE HOTELS: Colo. Court Considers Motions in Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to rule on
motions by both parties with regards to two purported securities fraud class
actions filed against Choice Hotels International, Inc. in April 2007.

The suits were brought on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's stock between April 25, 2006, and July 26, 2006.  They assert
claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the company, its
current vice chairman and chief executive officer, and its former executive
vice president and chief financial officer.

These claims are related to the Company's July 25, 2006 announcement of its
results of operations for the second quarter of 2006.

Since the initial filings, the Company has filed a motion to transfer the
litigation from Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.  

Additionally, one plaintiff has petitioned the Court to be named lead
plaintiff in the dispute.  

The company disclosed no rulings on the motions at 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 first identified complaint is "Anthony Genovese, et al. v. Choice Hotels
International, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case are:

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY, 11747
         Phone: 631.367.7100
         Fax: 631.367.1173

              - and -

         Shuman & Berens LLP
         801 East 17th Avenue
         Denver, CO, 80218-1417
         Phone: 303.861.3003
         Fax: 303.830.6920
         E-mail: info@dyershuman.com


CONSECO HEALTH: Appeals Certification of La. “Doiron” Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Health Insurance Co. filed its initial appellate brief with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in connection to a decision by the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana to grant class-
action status to the case, “Doiron v. Conseco Health Ins., Case No. 3:04-cv-
00784-JJB-CN.”

Initially, on Sept. 24, 2004, a purported statewide class action was filed in
the 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana,
captioned, “Diana Doiron, et al. v. Conseco Health Insurance Company, Case
No. 61,534.”

In her complaint, plaintiff claims that she was damaged due to Conseco Health
Insurance Co.'s failure to pay claims made under her cancer policy, and seeks
compensatory and statutory damages along with declaratory and injunctive
relief.

Conseco caused the case to be removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana on Nov. 3, 2004.

An order was issued on Feb. 15, 2007 granting plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The order specifically certifies two sub-classes identifying
them as the radiation treatment sub-class and the chemotherapy treatment sub-
class.

The company has appealed the certification order and on April 23, 2007, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit accepted jurisdiction over the
company’s appeal.  Its initial appellate brief was filed on July 16, 2007,
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.

The suit is “Doiron v. Conseco Health Ins., Case No. 3:04-cv-00784-JJB-CN,”
on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
under Judge James J. Brady with referral to Judge Christine Noland.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stanley P. Baudin, Esq.
         Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP
         P.O. Drawer 71, 24110 Eden St.
         Plaquemine, LA 70764-0071
         Phone: 225-687-6396
         Fax: 225-687-6398
         E-mail: sbaudin@pbclawfirm.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Raymond J. Pajares, Esq.
         Pajares & Schexnaydre, LLC
         103 Northpark Boulevard, Suite 110
         Covington, LA 70433
         Phone: 985-292-2000
         Fax: 985-292-2001
         E-mail: rpajares@pajares-schexnaydre.com


CONSECO INC: No Ruling Yet in Bid to Junk Ind. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has yet to rule
on a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in a consolidated
securities class action filed against Conseco, Inc., and some of its former
officers.

After the company’s predecessor (Conseco, Inc., incorporated in Indiana)
announced its intention to restructure on Aug. 9, 2002, eight purported
securities fraud class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.  

These suits were filed on behalf of persons or entities that purchased its
Predecessor's common stock on various dates between Oct. 24, 2001 and Aug. 9,
2002.  

The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and allege material omissions and
dissemination of materially misleading statements regarding, among other
things, the liquidity of Conseco and alleged problems in Conseco Finance
Corp.’s manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the artificial
inflation of the company's Predecessor's stock price.

On March 13, 2003, all of these cases were consolidated into one case in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, captioned, "Franz
Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel
and James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB."

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint with respect to the individual
defendants on Dec. 8, 2003.

A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Mr. Shea, Mr. Wendt and
Mr. Chokel and on July 14, 2005, this matter was dismissed.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Aug. 24, 2005.  The company
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on Nov. 7, 2005.  The
court has not yet ruled on this motion, 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.

The suit is "Schleicher, et al. v. Wendt, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-01332-DFH-
TAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
under Judge David Frank Hamilton with referral to Judge Tim A. Baker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kwasi Abraham Asiedu, Esq.
         3858 Carson Street, Suite 204
         Torrance, CA 90503
         Phone: (310) 792-3948
         Fax: (310) 792-0600
         E-mail: laskido@hotmail.com

              - and -

         Brian Joseph Barry, Esq.
         Law Offices Of Brian Barry
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307
         Los Angeles, CA 90046
         Phone: (310) 788-0831
         Fax: (310) 788-0841
         E-mail: bribarry1@yahoo.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Kenneth Huffer, Esq.
         Huffer & Weathers
         151 North Delaware Street, Suite 1850
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Phone: (317) 822-8010
         Fax: (317) 822-8088
         E-mail: steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com

              - and -

         Robert J. Kopecky, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis
         200 East Randolph Drive
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 861-2084
         Fax: (317) 660-0412
         E-mail: rkopecky@kirkland.com


CONSECO INSURANCE: 2008 Trial Set in RICO Act Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to
grant class-action status to a consolidated consumer lawsuit filed against
Conseco Insurance Co. over its sale of annuity products to seniors 65 years
and older.

On Nov. 17, 2005, the complaint "Robert H. Hansen v. Conseco Insurance Co.,
f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Co., Case No. C0504726" was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity in 2000 and is
claiming relief on behalf of the proposed national class over alleged:

      -- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
         Corrupt Organizations Act;

      -- elder abuse;

      -- unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices;

      -- unlawful, deceptive and misleading advertising;

      -- breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of breach
         of fiduciary duty; and

      -- unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust.

On Jan. 27, 2006, a similar complaint was filed in the same court, “Friou P.
Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco
Insurance Company, an Illinois company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance
Company, Cause No. C06-00537.”  Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity in 2003.  

Each case alleged that the annuity sold was inappropriate and that the
annuity products in question are inherently unsuitable for seniors age 65 and
older.

On March 3, 2006 a first amended complaint was filed in the Hansen case
adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment and breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing.

In an order dated April 14, 2006, the court consolidated the two cases under
the original Hansen cause number and retitled the consolidated action: “In re
Conseco Insurance Co. Annuity Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation.”

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part and denied in
part, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

The second amended complaint includes the same causes of action as the prior
complaint, but adds as defendants Conseco, Inc., Conseco Services, LLC,
Conseco Marketing, LLC and 40|86 Advisors, Inc.

The company intends to file a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  The case is set for trial commencing Feb. 12, 2008.

The court has not yet made a determination whether the case should go forward
as a class action, 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.

The suit is "Robert H. Hansen v. Conseco Insurance Co., Case No. 5:05-cv-
04726-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Richard
Seeborg.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Howard D. Finkelstein, Esq.
         Finkelstein & Krinsk
         501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
         San Diego, CA 92101-3593
         Phone: 619-238-1333
         Fax: 619-238-5425
         E-mail: fk@classactionlaw.com

         Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C.
         2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         Fax: 602-274-1199

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

         Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
         James J. Dries, Esq.
         Mark L. Karasik, Esq.
         Baker & McKenzie, LLP
         130 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 3500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-8000
         Fax: 312-861-2899
         E-mail: Thomas.A.Doyle@bakernet.com
                 James.J.Dries@bakernet.com
                 Mark.L.Karasik@bakernet.com


DELPHI CORP: Mich. Court Approves $295.1M Settlement in MDL-1725
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division has
preliminarily certified a class consisting of:

     -- all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
        acquired publicly traded securities of Delphi Corp.,
        including securities issued by Delphi Trust I and Delphi
        Trust II between March 7, 2000 and March 3, 2005,
        inclusive, and who suffered damages thereby, including

        * all persons and entities who acquired shares of Delphi
          common stock and preferred stock in the secondary
          market and all persons or entities who acquired debt
          securities of Delphi in the secondary market or
          pursuant to a registration statement.

The Court also preliminarily approved a Settlement providing for a recovery
with a potential value of $295,100,000, comprised of the following payments
to be made by or on behalf of the Settling Defendants:

     i) a claim in the Delphi Bankruptcy Case with a potential
        value of $204,000,000 in Delphi Plan Currency;

    ii) $78,600,000 in cash on behalf of the Delphi Officer and
        Director Defendants;

   iii) $1,500,000 in cash by or on behalf of certain of the
        Underwriter Defendants; and

    iv) contingent payments of a maximum of $11,000,000, also to
        be paid on behalf of the Delphi Officer and Director
        Defendants (collectively, the "Settling Defendants").

As Delphi is currently a debtor and debtor-in-possession in a Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceeding, this Settlement is wholly contingent upon approval by
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain, for the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York of Delphi's Plan of Reorganization,
which was filed on September 6, 2007, and incorporates the Settlement.

If the Settlement and Delphi's Plan of Reorganization are approved, the
Settlement will resolve all of Lead Plaintiffs' claims in this litigation
against the Settling Defendants. The Delphi Plan Currency will be paid by
Delphi following its emergence from the Delphi Bankruptcy Case in accordance
with the Delphi Plan of Reorganization. The Class will also receive interest
on the cash payments described herein.

At this time, Co-Lead Counsel estimates that the Delphi Plan Currency will be
comprised of common stock in the reorganized Delphi and cash. However, the
form of the Delphi Plan Currency could change and, even if not, the
allocation between cash and stock will not be identified until the Bankruptcy
Court confirms the Delphi Plan of Reorganization. In addition, the precise
dollar value of the Delphi Plan Currency will not be known until Delphi
emerges from bankruptcy and pays the Delphi Plan Currency.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerald E. Rosen in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, Theodore Levin Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit,
Michigan 48226 in Courtroom 733, at 9:30 a.m., on November 13, 2007.

                       ERISA Litigation

One group of putative class actions, which are purportedly brought on behalf
of participants in certain of the company's and its subsidiaries' defined
contribution employee benefit pension plans that invested in Delphi common
stock, is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs in the ERISA Actions allege, among others, that the plans suffered
losses as a result of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA.  

On Oct. 21, 2005, the ERISA Actions were consolidated before one judge in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The ERISA Actions
were subsequently transferred to the Multidistrict Litigation.

On March 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint with
a putative class period of May 28, 1999 to Nov. 1, 2005.  

                    Securities Fraud Lawsuit

A second group of putative class actions variously alleges, among other
things, that the company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers and others made materially false and misleading statements in
violation of federal securities laws.

On Sept. 23, 2005, these securities actions were consolidated before one
judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded
securities of the company, including securities issued by Delphi Trust I and
Delphi Trust II, during a putative class period of March 7, 2000 through
March 3, 2005.

The amended securities action names several new defendants, including Delphi
Trust II, certain former directors, and underwriters and other third parties,
and includes securities claims regarding additional offerings of Delphi
securities.

The securities actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (and a related securities action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida concerning Delphi
Trust I) were subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan as part of the Multidistrict Litigation.

                       Derivative Lawsuit   

The third group of lawsuits is comprised of shareholder derivative actions
against certain current and former directors and officers of the company.

A total of four complaints were filed: two in the federal court (one in the
Eastern District of Michigan and another in the Southern District of New
York) and two in Michigan state court (Oakland County Circuit Court in
Pontiac, Michigan).

These suits alleged that certain current and former directors and officers of
the Company breached a variety of duties owed by them to Delphi in connection
with matters related to the company's restatement of its financial results.

The federal cases were consolidated with the securities and
ERISA class actions before Judge Gerald E. Rosen in the Eastern
District of Michigan, described above.

Following the filing on Oct. 8, 2005 of the Debtors' petitions for
reorganization relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code, all the derivative cases were administratively closed.

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

Representing some of the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

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

Representing the company are:

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

              - and -

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


EI DUPONT: Trial in W.Va. Medical Monitoring Suit Begins
--------------------------------------------------------
Jurors heard arguments last week in a class action filed against E.I. DuPont
De Nemours & Co. in West Virginia seeking long-term medical monitoring,
property damages and punitive damages for thousands of people in and around
Spelter.

Dupont bought the property in 1899.  It reassumed ownership of the zinc
smelting plant when it was shut down in 2001.  

During opening arguments on Wednesday, DuPont lawyers portrayed the company
as a good corporate neighbor, according to Associated Press.  Ten property
owners, on the other hand, say it puts profits ahead of community safety.  
The trial could last four months, according to the report.  

The property owners are suing Dupont and other companies claiming the
defendants ruined their homes and property values, and put their health at
lifelong risk by dumping heavy metals on the Spelter site for 90 years.

Defendants are:

     -- Dupont;

     -- T.L. Diamond & Co. in New York and plant manager Joe
        Puashel;

     -- Nuzum Trucking Co. of Shinnston; and
        two defunct companies:
     
        * Matthiesen & Hegeler Zinc Co. Inc. of Illinois, and
        * Meadowbrook Corp. of West Virginia.

DuPont has set aside $15 million to deal with the lawsuit, according to an
Aug. 1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The defendants deny wrongdoing.


ELLSWORTH COOPERATIVE: Employees File Overtime Wage Suit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ellsworth Cooperative Creamery (ECC) faces a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin over allegations the
company doesn't pay some of its production workers overtime pay, Kevin Murphy
of The Pierce County Herald.

The court claim, which seeks class-action status, generally alleges thatthe
co-op hasn’t paid overtime to some of its employees, even though it requires
them to work beyond their shifts.

According to a complaint, obtained by The Pierce County Herald:

       -- Fourteen employees allege ECC requires them to be in
          uniform and at their work areas 10 minutes before the
          start of their shift but doesn’t pay them for pre-
          shift duties including changing into their work
          clothes.

       -- The employees need to be present before each shift
          change to receive current production conditions from
          co-workers, which allows production machinery to
          operate continuously during shift changes. Employees
          are reprimanded if they are not at their work areas 10
          minutes early.

       -- After their shift, employees can’t leave their
          workstations until the workers on the next shift are
          present.  However, when their relief is late,
          employees aren’t paid for working past their regular
          shift.  Instead, they are told to collect wages
          directly from the tardy employees.

       -- ECC employees clock in and out for work but are paid
          only eight hours per shift regardless of the time
          recorded on their time cards.  ECC rounds all time
          records downward in the cooperative’s favor and when
          employees arrive late they are docked 15 minutes of
          time for tardiness.

Four employees have signed on as plaintiffs to the suit and 10 others have
signed consent-to-sue forms including, Philip Halverson, a cheese maker,
employed by ECC since 1968.  During that time, ECC hasn’t paid any overtime,
Mr. Halverson told The Pierce County Herald.  

The workers are represented by attorney Nathan D. Eisenberg.  He is seeking
class-action status for the suit.

According to the claim, ECC’s practice of not paying overtime or for pre- and
post-shift work violates the Federal Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin wage
and hour regulations.

The litigation seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime for hours
employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week and for unpaid hours worked
up to 40 hours at their regular hourly rate.  It also seeks a court order
prohibiting ECC from violating state and federal wage laws.

For more details, contact:

    Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
    Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman, S.C.
    1555 N. River Center Dr., Suite 202
    Milwaukee, WI 53212
    Phone: (414) 271-4500 or (800) 841-5232
    Fax: (414) 271-6308
    Web site: http://www.previant.com


EVERLASTING DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Smoked Sardine for Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everlasting Distributors, Inc. of Bayonne, N.J., is recalling its Blue Ocean
Smoked Indian Sardine Tamban 8oz. packaged frozen products because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which
can cause life-threatening illness or death.

Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell
spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following
symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and trouble with
speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles,
abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People
experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

Blue Ocean Smoked Indian Sardine Tamban was distributed in New York and New
Jersey areas and it reached consumers through retail stores.

Blue Ocean Indian Sardine Tamban comes in an uncoded white styropor foam tray
and vacuum packed with a clear plastic bag.

The potential for contamination was noted after routing testing.

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

Consumers who have purchased the Blue Ocean Smoked Indian Sardine Tamban 8oz.
frozen product are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact Everlasting Distributors, Inc.
at (201) 823-0800.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Face Calif. Data Breach Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. and its subsidiary Certegy Check
Services, Inc. continue to face a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California over a data breach that exposed
8.5 million people to identity theft.

Theodore Borreson, a Los Angeles, Calif. native was the named plaintiff in
the litigation which was captioned, “Theodore Borreson v. William G .Sullivan
et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05309-GAF-MAN.”  Eric H. Gibbs of Girard Gibbs LLP
is representing Mr.  Borreson in the matter.

The suit, filed on Aug. 14, 2007, was brought on behalf of approximately 8.5
million consumers nationwide whose financial and personal data was stolen by
an employee of the company and released to unauthorized third parties.

Aside from Fidelity National and Certegy Check, two other defendants were
named in the lawsuit.  They are:

       -- William G. Sullivan, and
       -- S & S Computer Services, Inc.

Generally, the complaint alleges that a senior database administrator
misappropriated the confidential information of millions of consumers and
then sold the data to direct marketing firms and data brokers who may have
resold it to others.  It asserts claims of negligence, invasion of privacy
and breach of implied contract (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007).

The complaint alleges that Certegy Check and Fidelity National failed to
implement and maintain adequate security measures to protect consumers'
confidential financial and personal information.  Their failure to properly
monitor and supervise their employee subjected consumers to risk of data
theft and other fraudulent actions.

Prior to the public announcement by Certegy Check and Fidelity National of
the data breach, Mr. Borreson started noticing an influx of direct marketing
and promotional offers as well as phone calls to his home.  

After subsequently receiving a letter from Certegy Check informing him that
his personal data may have been compromised by one of its employees, the
plaintiff engaged a credit monitoring service.

Certegy Check and Fidelity National merged in 2006.  Certegy check provides
check-verification services to major U.S. retailers such as Wal-Mart, Sears,
Bed Bath & Beyond and Amazon.com.  

Due to the nature of the services provided by Certegy Check and Fidelity
National, and their undisclosed role in financial transactions, consumers do
not choose to use the services of these companies but rather are forced to do
so.

The suit is “Theodore Borreson v. William G Sullivan et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
05309-GAF-MAN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Gary A. Feess with referral to Judge Margaret A. Nagle.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com


GRANDVIEW MEMORIAL: Owners, Operators Face Litigation in Ind.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Previous and current owners and operators of Grandview Memorial Gardens are
facing a purported class action in Jefferson Circuit Court in Indiana, Peggy
Vlerebome of The Madison Courier reports.

The suit covers anyone who has ever bought cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview from the time it opened in 1969 until the case was
filed.

The suit, filed on Aug. 17, 2007, generally alleges breach of contract,
negligence, fraud, malice, bad faith, reckless misconduct, infliction of
emotional distress, civil conspiracy, criminal conduct.

Plaintiffs' attorney Tony Goebel was recently swamped with questions about
the matter, and so decided to get hold a meeting to answer them, according to
Marcia Taylor Smith, secretary of Volunteers for Grandview Committee.


GREENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Canadian School Accused of Student Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Burlington lawyer is preparing a class action against the now-closed
Grenville Christian College for alleged abuses to former students, Kim Lunman
of Brockville Recorder and Times reports.

Personal injury lawyer Christopher Haber has set up an Internet message board
where former students can contact him.  He said "over 1,000" potential
plaintiffs across North America have contacted him over the past several
days, according to the report.  Complaints against the school include
psychological and physical abuses when punishing former students.

Mr. Haber said complaints of physical abuse "would definitely be part of the
allegations in the claim."  He expects to file the suit as early as this week

Grenville Christian College is a private boarding school in east Brockville.  
It suddenly closed last month, and since then it has been subject of
controversial reports in the media and on the Internet.

For more information, contact:

          Christopher Haber, Esq.
          Haber & Associates
          3370 South Service Road,
          Burlington, ON L7N 3M6
          Phone: 905-639-8894
          Fax: 905-639-0459
          Web site: http://www.haber-lawyer.com/index-4.html


HOMELAND SECURITY: Workers Sue to Stop Mass Arrests, Detentions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) sought
court intervention to protect the 4th Amendment rights of all Americans and
enjoin the government from illegally arresting and detaining workers
including U.S. citizens and legal residents while at their workplace,
according to a statement by the UFCW.

The lawsuit -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas -- names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency as defendants.  The suit
calls for an injunction against the excessive, illegal and unnecessary
worksite raids conducted by ICE agents.

"This lawsuit is about ensuring that workers are protected and that their
constitutional rights are respected,” said UFCW International President Joe
Hansen at a press conference announcing the lawsuit. "It is unconscionable
that our government would round up hundreds, sometimes thousands, of innocent
workers in an effort to target a few select individuals."

More than 12,000 meatpacking workers—including citizens, legal residents and
immigrants in the process of legalization—were swept up in ICE raids on
December 12, 2006, at six meat packing plants across the country. The UFCW
represents workers at five of the plants including Worthington, Minn.;
Greeley, Colo.; Cactus, Tex.; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Grand Island, Neb.
Despite this unprecedented, unwarranted and excessive use of force, only 65
workers were indicted for identity theft.

The legal complaint contends that during the December 12th raids workers were
denied access to telephones, bathrooms and legal counsel. Citizens and legal
residents also were deprived of the opportunity to retrieve documents to
establish their legal status. Some workers were handcuffed. Others were
shipped out on buses. Families, schools and daycare centers could not be
contacted to make arrangements for the children of detained workers. Families
were left divided and scared—not knowing where or when they might see a
missing family member again.

"When I tried to report to the cafeteria during the raid, ICE agents accused
me of trying to run away. They held me in handcuffs. I'm a U.S. Citizen, born
in Iowa. My parents live in Mississippi. My government treated me like a
criminal, and I didn’t do anything wrong. I knew our rights were being
violated. What they're doing in these raids is illegal," said Mike Graves,
who has lived in the United States his entire life, works at the
Marshalltown, Iowa, Swift and Company plant, and is a member of UFCW Local
1149.

Peter Schey, President of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law and the lead counsel in the UFCW litigation said, “The
Department of Homeland Security routinely violates the Constitution and
federal law when it conducts work place raids to detect undocumented workers
by engaging in mass detentions of all workers without any basis for believing
that they have violated any laws. Such mass detentions have long been
considered unlawful by the U.S. courts. While the Department of Homeland
Security has a legitimate function to perform enforcing the nation’s
immigration laws, it cannot do so by running roughshod over the well-
established constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and lawful resident
workers. If DHS Secretary Chertoff is unwilling or unable to stop the
unconstitutional conduct of his agents, then we are sure the federal courts
will step in to do so.”

The lawsuit also includes in its complaint that union lawyers and
representatives were not given prompt access to UFCW members during and
immediately after the raids. In many cases, union lawyers were denied access
to UFCW members, a direct violation of a worker’s right to legal counsel.

"Work is not a crime, and workers do not leave their constitutional rights at
the plant gate," said Mr. Hansen. "To inflict this kind of enforcement on
innocent workers—to arrest and illegally detain massive numbers of people
against their will, to treat them as criminals—is not just unacceptable, it
is un-American.”

The UFCW expects members of the union, civil rights, religious, and immigrant
rights communities to file amicus briefs on behalf of the UFCW suit.

In addition to the class action announced, the UFCW said it will continue to
hold field hearings across the country to investigate and expose these
punitive actions against hardworking families. The UFCW also will press
Congress to hold hearings into the issue and to renew its efforts to pass
comprehensive immigration reform.

The UFCW represents 1.3 million workers across the country, including 250,000
in the packing and food processing industries.

For more information, contact:

          Jill Cashen
          United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
          Phone: 202-728-4797
          E-mail: jcashen@ufcw.org


ILLINOIS: Lawsuit Against Winnebago Officials Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------
Three women suing several Winnebago County officials for civil rights
violation filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice because of
problems with their attorney, Dani Maxwell of WREX-TV reports.

According to the report, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission says their lawyer, Stanley Kaplan, has been suspended and put on
probation within the last few years, and has another complaint pending.  

The women’s suit was filed against Judge Steven Nordquist, the Department of
Children and Family Services, Rockford schools, and others.  The plaintiffs
hope to refile the suit with a new attorney within a year, according to the
report.


JAKKS PACIFIC: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule
on a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
Jakks Pacific, Inc.

The suits filed against the company are:

     -- Garcia v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
        04-8807 (filed on Nov. 5, 2004);

     -- Jonco Investors, LLC v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
        Civil Action No. 04-9021 (filed on Nov. 16, 2004);

     -- Kahn v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
        04-8910 (filed on Nov. 10, 2004);

     -- Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
        Civil Action No. 04-8877 (filed on Nov. 9, 2004); and

     -- Irvine v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action
        No. 04-9078 (filed on Nov. 16, 2004).

The complaints allege that defendants issued positive statements concerning
increasing sales of its World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) licensed products
which were false and misleading because the WWE licenses had allegedly been
obtained through a pattern of commercial bribery, its relationship with the
WWE was being negatively impacted by the WWE's contentions and there was an
increased risk that the WWE would either seek modification or nullification
of the licensing agreements with the company.  

Plaintiffs also allege that the company misleadingly failed to disclose the
alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained through an unlawful bribery
scheme.

The plaintiffs are purchasers of the company's common stock between Oct. 26,
1999 and late as Oct. 19, 2004.  

The suits seek compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount.  It
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by each of the defendants -- the
company and Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett -- and violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett.  

On Jan. 25, 2005, the court consolidated the class actions as "In re JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action Litigation, Case No. 04-8807."

On May 11, 2005, the court appointed co-lead counsels and provided until July
11, 2005 for an amended complaint to be filed and a briefing schedule
thereafter with respect to a motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and argument occurred on Nov.
30, 2006.  The motion is still pending.

The company 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 "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action Litigation,
Case No. 04-8807," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eric James Belfi, Esq.
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 907-0790
         Fax: (212) 883-7579
         E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com

              - and -

         Ken H. Chang, Esq.
         Wolf, Popper, L.L.P.
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 451-9667
         Fax: (212) 486-2093
         E-mail: kchang@wolfpopper.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael H. Gruenglas, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate,Meagher & Flom, LLP
         Four Times Square, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: (212) 735-3567
         Fax: (917)-777-3567
         E-mail: mgruengl@skadden.com

              - and -

         Jonathan Honig, Esq.
         Feder Kaszovitz Isaacson Weber Skala Bass & Rhine, LLP
         750 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 986-1116
         Fax: 212-888-5968
         E-mail: jhonig@fkiwsb.com


JENSEN’S OLD: Recalls Salmon Spreads on Possible Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jensen's Old Fashioned Smokehouse Inc. of Seattle, Wash. is recalling 480
tubs of Jensen's Seattle Style Wild Smoked Salmon Spread Lemon Dill and Onion
and 132 tubs of PCC brand Smoked Salmon Spread all–natural, because they have
the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea,
Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

Seattle Style Wild Smoked Salmon Spread Lemon Dill and Onion, and PCC brand
Smoked Salmon Spread all – natural were distributed in retail stores in
Western Washington.

Jensen's Seattle Style Wild Smoked Salmon Spread Lemon Dill and Onion is
coded Sell By 10/14/07 and 10/15/07, and PCC brand Smoked Salmon Spread all–
natural is coded Sell By 9/29/07. Both products were sold in 7 oz. plastic
tubs.

No illnesses have been CONFIRMED to date. The recall was the result of a
routine sampling program by the company which revealed that the finished
products contained the bacteria.

Consumers who have purchased Jensen's Seattle Style Wild Smoked Salmon Spread
Lemon Dill and Onion, and PCC brand Smoked Salmon Spread all – natural are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the Quality Assurance Department at Jensen's Smokehouse
at 206-364-5569.


LAX HOTELS: Employees File Suit to Recoup Tips, Services Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eight hotels near Los Angeles International Airport are facing a class action
over allegations they are pocketing fees that are supposed to be paid to
employees, the American Chronicle reports.

The lawsuit claims the hotels violated a city law that requires LAX area
hotels to pay employees all tips and services fees collected on their
behalf.  The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Defendants are Four Points, Marriot, Renaissance, Embassy Suites, Courtyard,
Westin, Hilton and Radisson.

According to the report, “The amount of fees and gratuities withheld by the
eight hotels is staggering, with a typical Century Boulevard Hotel doing an
estimated $5,000,000 - $6,000,000 a year in banquet business alone.”

Representing the employees is:

          Randy Renick, Esq.
          Hadsell & Stormer  
          Marine Building
          Suite 204
          128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3645
          Phone: (626) 585-9600
          Fax: (626) 577-7079


MEDSTAFF INC: Still Faces Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Calif. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medstaff, Inc., a subsidiary of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., continues to
face a certified class action in the Superior Court of California in
Riverside County.

Filed on Feb. 18, 2005, the lawsuit, "Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda v.
MedStaff, Inc.," relates to MedStaff corporate employees.  It alleges
violations of certain sections of the California Labor Code, the California
Business and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid wages and penalties.   

MedStaff currently has less than 50 corporate employees in California.  
Plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda purport to sue on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that MedStaff:

      -- failed, under California law, to provide meal period  
         and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods  
         and rest breaks;  

      -- failed to compensate the employees for all hours  
         worked;  

      -- failed to compensate the employees for working  
         overtime; and  

      -- failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of  
         time worked

Plaintiffs seek:  

      -- an order enjoining MedStaff from engaging in the  
         practices challenged in the complaint;  

      -- for an order for full restitution of all monies  
         MedStaff allegedly failed to pay plaintiffs and their  
         purported class;  

      -- for interest;  

      -- for certain penalties provided for by the California  
         Labor Code; and  

      -- for attorneys' fees and costs.  

The court ordered plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by
Sept. 5, 2006.  On July 21, 2006, the company filed a motion seeking a stay
of all proceedings until the conditionally certified collective action
in "Henry v. MedStaff,  
Inc., et al.," has been either decertified or granted final certification.  

On Aug. 25, 2006, the court granted in part the company's motion and
prohibited plaintiffs from filing a motion for class certification prior to
Oct. 16, 2006.   

A joint stipulation was subsequently filed prohibiting plaintiffs' from
moving for class certification prior to Oct. 25, 2006 in order to allow for
the completion of pre-certification discovery and to allow for the completion
of the opt-in period in "Henry v. MedStaff, Inc., et al."   

On Oct. 27, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class Certification.  On Feb.
5, 2007, the court granted class certification.

The company reported no new 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.

Boca Raton, Florida-based Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. --
http://www.crosscountry.com/ccinc/-- is a provider of healthcare staffing  
services in the U.S.  Its healthcare staffing business segment is comprised
of travel and per diem nurse staffing, allied health staffing, as well as
clinical research trials staffing.  Cross Country's brands include Cross
Country TravCorps and MedStaff.


NEW YORK: Ground Zero Workers Sue Over Alleged Labor Law Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several companies that relied on thousands of low-wage workers to clean World
Trade Center-area buildings after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New
York violated state labor laws as they generated record profits, according to
the legal team for workers who sued the companies.

In a case filed in New York state court, nine named plaintiffs seek to
recover unpaid overtime pay and other wages allegedly earned by workers who
risked their health and safety to perform heavy cleaning work in offices,
stores, hospitals, churches, apartments, and other public and private
buildings near Ground Zero.

The defendants include:

          -- Maxons Restorations, Inc.,
          -- Branch Construction Co., Inc.;
          -- Crystal Restoration Enterprises, Inc.;
          -- Milro Services, Inc.; and
          -- Milro Associates, Inc.

According to the Complaint, "Defendants profited handsomely from these clean-
up jobs. Despite their new profits and cash surpluses, Defendants failed at
one of their most basic obligations -- to pay their workers properly."

The Complaint further alleges that some of the Defendants "subcontracted"
Ground Zero clean-up work to smaller companies, intending to hide behind the
smaller companies if the workers attempted to enforce their legal rights.

Lead plaintiff Lucelly Gil, of Queens, New York, said, "We risked our health
and worked very hard to help restore Lower Manhattan after 9/11. These
companies took advantage of this tragedy to enrich themselves at our expense.
We are demanding justice."

The workers are represented by Outten & Golden LLP, of New York; Emery Celli
Brinckherhoff & Abady LLP, of New York; and The Legal Aid Society of New York.

The legal team will seek to have the case certified as a class action that
includes all persons who were employed and/or jointly employed by one or more
of Defendants as cleaning workers in Lower Manhattan during the year after
Sept. 11, 2001.

Attorney Justin M. Swartz, of Outten & Golden LLP, said, "Some of these
companies saw significant profits and cash surpluses because of the post-9/11
work. They owe this success largely to our clients and their co-workers who
put themselves in harm's way to help get New York City back on its feet.
Other employers complied with the labor laws in perhaps the most difficult
period in our city's history, and these Defendants should have done so as
well."

Attorney Mariann Meier Wang, of Emery Celli Brinckherhoff & Abady LLP,
said, "Our clients tirelessly worked in and around Ground Zero, and helped
New York City begin to recover. These companies should be ashamed. They were
already profiting enormously from the critical labor performed by these
workers at a trying time, but then violated their legal rights so they could
profit even more."

The litigation evolved from the work of New York-based National Mobilization
Against Sweat Shops (NMASS). NMASS works with the Beyond Ground Zero Network
to address the severe health and economic impact of the 9/11 disaster on
workers and residents, especially Lower Manhattan's low-income and immigrant
communities.

Attorney Hollis Pfitsch, a Skadden Fellow at The Legal Aid Society of New
York, said, "In working with the Beyond Ground Zero Network, we realized that
the same workers who had sacrificed their health to clean up Lower Manhattan
had also been robbed of wages."

The case is "Lucelly Gil, et al., v. Maxons Restorations, Inc., et al," Index
No. 07603048,” filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York.

Attorney Contacts:

          Justin M. Swartz
          Mark Humowiecki
          Outten & Golden LLP
          New York
          Phone: (212) 245-1000
          Website: http://www.outtengolden.com

          Mariann Meier Wang
          Emery Celli
          Brinckherhoff & Abady LLP
          New York
          Phone: (212) 763-5000
          Website: http://www.ecbalaw.com

          - and -

          Hollis Pfitsch
          The Legal Aid Society of New York
          Phone: 212-577-3465
          Website: http://www.legal-aid.org


SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP: Suits Over “Off-Label” Drugs Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated on Aug. 16
eight putative class actions filed against Schering-Plough Corp. before U.S.
District Judge Stanley Chesler in Newark, N.J., Charles Toutant of New Jersey
Law Journal reports.

The suit concerns the company’s “off-label” promotion of its drugs for uses
not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  It does not suggest
users suffered ill effects from the drug.  The drugs are:

     -- Intron, approved by the FDA for chronic hepatitis, AIDS-
        related Kaposi's Scarcoma, melanoma and lymphoma;

     -- Temodar, for certain brain tumors; Eulexin, for prostate
        cancer;

     -- PEG-Intron, for chronic hepatitis;

     -- Rebeton, for hepatitis C;

     -- Integrilin, for heart conditions; and

     -- Fareston, for breast cancer.

Private drug users and third-party payers, such as unions and health
insurance companies, allege fraud against the company under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, common-law fraud and
negligent misrepresentation.  They seek compensatory and punitive damages,
proceeds of unjust enrichment, statutory damages and costs of suit.  

Schering had filed a motion to dismiss the suit on failure to state causes of
action because plaintiffs have not presented any identifiable injury arising
from the alleged misconduct.

Judge Chesler has appointed two plaintiffs lawyers as lead counsel for the
case:

      * John Keefe Jr., of Keefe Bartels in Shrewsbury, and
      * Jay Eisenhofer, of Grant & Eisenhofer in Wilmington,
        Del.

The case is “In Re: Schering-Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class
Action, 06-5774.”

Schering's lawyers are:

          Joan McPhee, Esq.
          Ropes & Gray LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, Massachusetts 02110
          (Suffolk Co.)
          Phone: 617-951-7000
          Fax: 617-951-7050
   
         -- and --  

         Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
         Lowenstein Sandler PC
         65 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, New Jersey 07068
         (Essex Co.)
         Phone: 973-597-2472
         Fax: 973-597-2473

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
          Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, Delaware 19801
          (New Castle Co.)
          Phone: 302-622-7000
          Fax: 302-622-7100


SPRINT NEXTEL: $30M Deal in Universal Services Fund Suit Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court of Kansas gave preliminary
approval to a $30 million settlement of a class action accusing Sprint Nextel
Corp. and AT&T Corp. of overcharging customers for assessments that help pay
for subsidized phone services, reports say.

Originally filed in 2003, the case accuses Sprint of scheming with AT&T and
MCI to charge business and residential customers more than the regulated fee
for the Universal Services Fund.

The Universal Service Fund was set up to help cover the cost of getting
service to high-cost rural areas, low-income customers, schools, libraries
and rural medical facilities.

Major U.S. telecom providers are required to contribute to the USF, which
subsidizes services available to low income, rural and high cost areas,
Austin Modine of The Register said. The Federal Communications Commission
sets the contribution rate.

According to Dan Margolies of The Kansas City Star, the five-year-old
antitrust case comprises dozens of class actions that were filed nationwide
and eventually consolidated in federal court in Kansas City, Kan.

The suits alleged that Sprint and AT&T conspired with each other and their
chief competitor at the time, MCI, to overcharge customers by passing on more
than 100 percent of the Universal Service Fund fee to business and
residential customers. The program subsidizes phone service to rural areas,
low-income customers and public facilities, such as schools, libraries and
rural hospitals. It further alleges the company overcharged in passing along
a federally mandated phone service subsidy.

In May, both sides agreed to a settlement in principle. The final agreement
was thrashed out in subsequent sessions.  Under the settlement, qualified
business and residential customers will receive prepaid telephone calling
cards with a face value of $25 million, and the plaintiffs’ attorneys will
get $4.99 million for their fees and costs.

Eligible customers who paid the USF overcharges at any time between Aug. 1,
2001, and March 31, 2003, will get prepaid phone cards with nominal face
values of $50. Eligible customers who paid the overcharges after March 31,
2003, will get cards with nominal face values of $20.

AT&T and MCI customers are included in the settlement because liability in
antitrust actions is “joint and several.”  Likewise, Sprint and MCI customers
will be eligible to participate in any settlement reached by AT&T with the
plaintiffs.

The settlement ends the litigation against Sprint only.  The litigation is
continuing against AT&T.

Matt Sullivan, a spokesman for Sprint, said that the company was “pleased to
resolve the issue.” He declined further comment.

Judge Lungstrum has scheduled a final hearing for the Sprint settlement on
March 3, 2008.

Sprint Nextel Corp. on the Net: http://www.sprint.com/.


WEBLOYALTY.COM: Defrauds Retailers, Lawsuit in Mass. Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Webloyalty.com and its “partners,” including Kraft Foods, are facing a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, claiming it cheats online consumers by charging monthly fees
for a deceptive “Reservation Rewards membership program,” CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The complaint alleges Webloyalty asks online shoppers if they want a discount
on their next purchase, and if they click Yes, and enter their email address
twice, “their confidential credit card or bank debit card information,
submitted to carry out the original, legitimate retail transaction, is
secretly obtained and/or intercepted by Webloyalty.”

The complaint alleges Webloyalty secretly obtains customers’ confidential
credit card or bank debit card information from legitimate retail
transaction.  It said Webloyalty asks online shoppers if they want a discount
on their next purchase, and if they click Yes, and enter their email address
twice their confidential information is secretly obtained and/or
intercepted.  Webloyalty then charges $7 to $10 a month for bogus “benefits”
such as “roadside assistance, hotel overbooking and baggage insurance.”

The charges are fraudulent because subscribers have no knowledge of
the “benefits,” they don’t use them or because the benefits do not really
exist, the complaint states.

Plaintiff brings this consumer class action on behalf of consumers and
entities who were charged any fees, or paid interest, as a result of becoming
subscribed to Webloyalty.com Inc.'s "Reservation Rewards" membership program,
and any other membership programs maintained by Webloyalty (including, but
not limited to "Shopper Discount," "Shopper Discount and Rewards," "Travel
Values Plus," and "Wallet Shield"), along with all those whose personal
credit or bank debit card information was improperly used to created such
subscriptions.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants developed and implemented a scheme
         to intentionally create unauthorized Membership Program
         accounts and to charge consumers and entities for such
         accounts;

     (b) whether defendants conspired with each other to
         intentionally create unauthorized Membership Program
         accounts and to charge consumers and entities for such
         accounts;

     (c) whether pursuant to the policies and practices
         described, defendants made "preauthorized electronic
         fund transfers" from the debit card accounts of EFTA
         members without first obtaining the EFTA Subclass
         members' written authorization;

     (d) whether defendants violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1693e
         with respect to the EFTA members;

     (e) whether defendants violated the ECPA, 18 U.S.C. Section
         2510;

     (f) whether Webloyalty committed civil theft, and whether
         the Retailer defendants aided and abetted such theft;

     (g) whether the conduct of defendants constituted unlawful,
         unfair, or fraudulent business practices in violation
         of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et. seq. as
         alleged;

     (h) whether defendants have been unjustly enriched at the
         expense of plaintiff and the class;

     (i) whether defendants are liable to plaintiff and the
         class for money had and received;

     (j) whether plaintiff and members of the class have
         sustained damages as a result of defendants' conduct,
         and if so, what is the appropriate measure of damages;

     (k) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to declaratory and/or injunctive relief to join the
         unlawful conduct alleged; and

     (l) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to punitive damages, and if so, in what amount.

Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants as follows:

     -- for an order certifying the class under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing
        plaintiff and her counsel of record to represent the
        class;

     -- for restitution, disgorgement and/or other equitable
        relief as the court deems proper;

     -- for compensatory damages sustained by plaintiff and all
        others similarly situated as a result of defendants'
        unlawful acts and conduct;

     -- on behalf of EFTA, for statutory damages under 15 U.S.C.
        Section 1693m;

     -- for statutory damages under 18 U.S.C. Section 25209b)(2)
        and (c), including punitive damages;

     -- for a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from
        engaging in the conduct and practices complained of
        herein;

     -- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
        including expert witness fees; and
     
     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        just and proper.

The suit is "Paula DeDomenico et al. v. Webloyalty.com Inc., et al. Case No.
07-CA-11696 JLT," filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Carlin J. Phillips
          Andrew J. Garcia
          Phillips & Garcia, LLP
          13 Ventura Drive
          North Dartmouth, MA 02747
          Phone: 508-998-0800
          Fax: 508-998-0919

          - and -

          David J. George
          Stuart A. Davidson
          Marisa N. Demato
          James L. Davidson
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & robbins LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364


* Average Settlement Hits Record High; Could Decline, NERA Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Headline-grabbing record shareholder class action settlements and low filings
continued through the first half of 2007, but there are also several
indications that these trends may be reversing, according to NERA Economic
Consulting's semi-annual benchmark study.

The report, "Recent Trends In Shareholder Class Action Litigation: Filings
Stay Low and Average Settlements Stay High--But Are These Trends Reversing?"
is authored by NERA economists Todd Foster, Ronald I. Miller, Stephanie
Plancich, Brian Saxton, and Svetlana Starykh, and includes data on filings
and settlements through 30 June 2007.

Have Average Settlement Values Peaked?

Average settlements hit record highs once again through the first half of
2007, and top settlements continued to dominate the news as additional
partial settlements were finalized in the Enron and McKesson litigation, and
a near-$3 billion tentative settlement was announced by Tyco. For the first
time, every one of the top 10 shareholder class action settlements exceeded
$1 billion. Before 2006, only three settlements had ever exceeded $1 billion.

However, there is evidence to suggest this trend may be poised to reverse
direction. High average settlement values in 2006 and 2007 are primarily the
result of resolutions for cases filed between 2002 and 2004. An examination
of cases filed since 2005 by the authors reveals the following indicators:

     -- Median Investor Losses Declining. Investor losses are a
        strong predictor of settlement values, and median
        investor losses for cases filed in 2006 and 2007 are
        lower than the median values in 2005.

     -- Filings with Accounting Allegations Declining. NERA's
        settlement prediction model reveals that filings with
        accounting allegations have historically been associated
        with higher settlements. In 2006, the percentage of
        cases involving accounting allegations was 57%. However,
        through 30 June the percentage of 2007 filings with such
        allegations has declined to 26%.

These trends indicate that recent filings may not lead to a continued
increase in average settlement values in the future, though it is still too
early to know which of the recently filed cases will result in settlement as
opposed to dismissal.

Filings on the Rise Again - Did They Bottom Out in 2006?

Although overall federal class action filings remain well below levels from
1998-2005, they are on pace to rise above 2006 totals. There were 136 cases
filed during 2006; with 76 cases filed through the first half of 2007, the
projected total of 152 would mark a 12% increase. However, these totals
include options backdating cases, which emerged in 2005 and spiked 2006 but
have fallen off sharply in 2007 (only four cases filed in the first half of
the year, compared with 22 in 2006). The increase in 2007 filings becomes far
more pronounced based on standard federal filings and comparing six-month
intervals.

In fact, standard filings in the first half of 2007 jumped 47% from the
second half of 2006, and are at their highest level since the second half of
2005. This sharp rise combined with the decline in backdating cases suggests
that the trend in filings may in fact be changing directions.

The Ninth Circuit: Bellwether for Filing Trends?

The authors also suggest that another indicator of this apparent increase may
be revealed through an analysis of filings by Circuit. The majority of
shareholder class action cases are filed in the Second and Ninth Circuits.
Filings fell in both jurisdictions from 2004-2006, although the Ninth Circuit
had a much sharper decline than the Second. However, while just 17 standard
cases were filed in the Ninth Circuit in 2006, there have already been 20
such cases through the first half of 2007.

Given that the Ninth Circuit previously led the downward trend in filings,
this may be a signal that other jurisdictions could also experience a rebound
in filings in the months to come, note the authors.

Filings against Non-US Companies on the Rise

The NERA report also examines the pattern of shareholder class action filings
against non-US companies. Historically, the percentage of all class action
filings made against non-US companies has been lower than the proportion of
non-US company listings. For example, in 2000 only 5% of filings were against
non-US companies, even though this group accounted for over 12% of listings.

In recent years, however, the authors note that this gap has been narrowing:
through the first half of 2007, the percentage of filings against non-US
companies had increased to 12%; but through the first half of 2006 they
accounted for 14.4% of listings.

Trends for 2007 and Beyond: Will Filings Start To Rise?

Although the stock market has performed relatively well in recent years, a
substantial market downturn could lead to an increase in filings. For
example, if significant losses are sustained by stakeholders in the subprime
meltdown, this could lead to a rise in shareholder class actions going
forward. With seven subprime related claims filed through 30 June, this
suggests that the subprime fallout may be the source of a significant number
of filings in the near future.

Among other findings in the NERA study:

     -- With the drop in filings, the average corporation now
        faces a 6.4% probability of being the target of at least
        one shareholder class action suit over a five-year
        period. The annual likelihood of a suit has fallen 27%
        since the period of 1993 to 1995, from 1.8% to 1.3%,
        prior to the PSLRA.

     -- Chances are also greater that shareholder class action
        cases will be dismissed. More than 39% of class action
        cases filed between 2001 and 2005 were dismissed.
        Dismissal rates have nearly doubled since the PSLRA.

     -- Dismissal rates vary widely by Circuit. The percentage
        of cases dismissed within two years of filings ranges
        from a low of 7% in the Tenth Circuit to 41% in the
        Fourth. The Second and Ninth Circuits - with the most
        filings - are both around 22%. Circuit-specific patterns
        have been relatively steady in recent years.

     -- Eight of the top 10 settlements of all time have
        resolved in 2006 and 2007, or are ongoing, with Enron
        remaining at the top with $7.2 billion. Tyco's announced
        tentative agreement of $2.975 billion would be the
        largest amount ever paid by a single settling defendant.
        All of the top 10 settlements are associated with
        enormous investor losses, the single most powerful
        predictor of settlement size.

     -- Average settlements continue to rise, even excluding
        mega-settlements. Excluding the top 10, average
        settlement values more than doubled in the 2002-2007
        period to $23.2 million, compared with $11.5 million
        from 1996-2001.

     -- Including the top 10 settlements, the average settlement
        value from 2002-2007 is $40.5 million. If the top
        settlements in 2006 and 2007 such as Tyco are finalized,
        the average for 2007 could surpass $100 million.

     -- Median settlements, which are more descriptive of
        typical cases, also reached a new high in the first half
        of 2007, at $9 million. This reflects a rise of more
        then 20% over the 2006 median of $7.3 million, and
        continues an upward trend. In 2004, nearly half (47%) of
        cases resolved for under $5 million, but in the first
        half of 2007 just 32% of settlements were resolved for
        under $5 million.

     -- Investor losses constitute the single most powerful
        publicly available determinant of settlements,
        explaining approximately 50% of their variation. Average
        investor losses have ballooned from $134 million in
        suits settled in 1996 to approximately $7 billion in
        2006. To date, average losses for cases settling in 2007
        are approximately $2 billion.

     -- Other factors helping to determine the size of
        settlements are the number of classes of securities
        involved (bonds and options boost the size of settlement
        values), the depth of defendant's pockets, and whether
        accounting improprieties are alleged. According to the
        report, the mere existence of allegations concerning
        accounting improprieties leads to an increase in the
        expected settlement of more than 20%.

About NERA

NERA Economic Consulting – http://www.nera.com-- is an international firm of  
economists who understand how markets work. We provide economic analysis and
advice to corporations, governments, law firms, regulatory agencies, trade
associations, and international agencies. Our global team of more than 600
professionals operates in over 20 offices across North and South America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific.

NERA provides practical economic advice related to highly complex business
and legal issues arising from competition, regulation, public policy,
strategy, finance, and litigation.

For more information, contact:

          Benjamin Seggerson - Media Specialist
          NERA Economic Consulting
          Phone: +1-202-466-9232
          E-mail: ben.seggerson@nera.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. from
January 4, 2007 and May 25, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Advanced Medical and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Advanced
Medical is engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of medical
devices for the eye.

The Company has three product lines: cataract/implant, laser vision
correction, and eye care. One of the Company's primary eye care products was
Complete MoisturePlus, a single-bottle, multi-purpose solution with dual
demulcents that helped to prevent contact lens dryness and discomfort, and to
promote ocular health. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the chances of developing acanthamoeba keratitis
         ("AK") significantly increased for users of Complete;

     (2) as such, the Company would be forced to recall Complete
         from the marketplace due to these concerns;

     (3) that, as a result of the above, the Company's future
         sales of Complete would be materially impacted; and

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

The Company has three product lines: cataract/implant, laser vision
correction, and eye care. One of the Company's primary eye care products was
Complete MoisturePlus ("Complete"), a single-bottle, multi-purpose solution
with dual demulcents that helped to prevent contact lens dryness and
discomfort, and to promote ocular health.

In November 2006, the Company announced a voluntary recall of certain lots of
Complete as bacterial contamination had compromised its sterility. On news of
the recall, Advanced Medical's sales declined, but the defendants moved to
assure the market that the problem was isolated to Asia, and that the
prospects for Complete were favorable, since the recall was "a production-
line issue and [was] not related to [the Company's] formulations." On May 24,
2007, Advanced Medical announced that it was interested in acquiring Bausch &
Lomb, and offered a superior price to that of the previously announced $3.6
billion Warburg Pincus deal.

The following day, on May 25, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced a recall of Complete in response to multiple reported incidents of
AK, a serious infection of the cornea. While the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention estimates that AK is normally reported in
approximately one to two incidents per million contact lens users, the CDC
estimated a risk of at least seven times greater for those contact lens users
who used the Company's Complete solution against those who did not use the
product. As evidence of this, 21 of 46 patients who developed AK since
January 2005 reported using the Company's Complete solution. On this news,
the Company's shares declined $5.51 per share, or over 13.7 percent, to close
on May 29, 2007 at $34.69 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

For more information, contact:

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


JONES SODA: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Jones Soda Co.

The Complaint charges Jones Soda and certain of the Company's executive
officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business, operations and prospects caused Jones Soda's stock price
to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued positive
statements touting distribution and production agreements with numerous major
retailers. Defendants stated that each of these agreements was cemented and
that the Company was poised to reap financial benefits. These statements
further led the market to believe that major retailers had stocked the
Company's sodas on their shelves for sale, or that the sodas would be stocked
on these retailers' shelves.

Then, on August 3, 2007, the Company announced that earnings for the quarter
ended June 30, 2007 were well below Wall Street's expectations, and that the
Company's canned products were not on enough store shelves in time for the
peak summer season sales, which began during the Memorial Day weekend. As a
result of this news, the price of Jones Soda stock plummeted nearly 23
percent in after hours trading to $11.70 a share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 5, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

Jones Soda Co. engages in the development, production, marketing and
distribution of beverages primarily in the United States and Canada. Its
products include Jones Pure Cane Soda, Jones Organics, and Jones Energy,
among others.

For more information, contact:

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


JONES SODA: Schiffrin Barroway Files Wash. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP lodged a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf
of all purchasers of securities of Jones Soda Company from November 1, 2006
through August 2, 2007 inclusive.

The Complaint charges Jones Soda and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Jones Soda engages in
the development, production, marketing, and distribution of beverages
primarily in the United States and Canada.

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

      1. that the Company had experienced significant production
         and distribution delays in the national rollout of its
         canned products;

      2. that the Company lacked the necessary personnel to
         launch its national rollout of canned products;

      3. that the Company had failed to secure adequate retail
         shelf space for its canned products in advance of the
         Memorial Day holiday weekend, the start of the beverage
         selling season;

      4. as such, the Company's canned products would not be
         widely available for sale in major retail chains in
         time to capitalize on the Memorial Day holiday weekend
         sales opportunity;

      5. that the planned national rollout of the Company's
         canned products had failed to achieve internal
         expectations or targets;

      6. that the Company would be forced to cancel its
         advertising planned for the Memorial Day holiday
         weekend;

      7. that Starbucks had intended to discontinue sales of the
         Company's products; and

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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


LCA-VISION: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the U.S. States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of
LCA-Vision Inc. common stock during the period between February 12, 2007 and
July 30, 2007.

The complaint charges LCA and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LCA is engaged in the
provision of fixed-site laser vision correction services at its LasikPlus
vision centers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, including EPS guidance of $2.05 to $2.15 for 2007. As
a result of defendants' false statements, LCA stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $50.56 per share
in July 2007.

Then, on July 31, 2007, before the market opened, LCA issued a press release
announcing its financial and operational results for the three months and six
months ended June 30, 2007, and in a surprise announcement retracted the
Company's statements through the first seven months of the year that it would
earn $2.05 to $2.15 for the year, lowering it EPS guidance for 2007 to $1.90
to $2.00. On this news, LCA's stock collapsed to close at $35.51 per share, a
decline of 17%, on volume of 3.5 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants
but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows:

     (a) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the Company's projections and reported
         results issued during the Class Period were based upon
         defective assumptions about the Company's marketing
         budget and deferred revenue; and

     (b) the Company knew that its revenues were driven almost
         entirely by the number of procedures performed in its
         vision centers during the first quarter of the each
         year and that the Company's existing stores (in
         operation for over 12 months) were not showing growth
         and any overall growth was being derived from new store
         openings.

As a result, the Company's projections issued during the Class Period about
its forecasted 2007 EPS were at a minimum reckless.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of LCA common
stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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


TWEEN BRANDS: Coughlin Stoia Files Ohio Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Tween Brands, Inc. common stock during the
period between February 21, 2007 and August 21, 2007.

The complaint charges Tween and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tween is an operator of
two specialty retailing brands, Limited Too and Justice stores, which sell
apparel, footwear, and lifestyle and personal care products to girls aged
seven to 14.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and prospects. As a result of defendants' false statements, Tween stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $46.54 per share on July 6, 2007, and defendant Michael W. Rayden was
able to sell $8.7 million worth of his Tween stock.

Then, on August 22, 2007, before the market opened, Tween issued a press
release announcing lower than expected second quarter earnings and lowering
its outlook on its third and fourth quarters. The Company also stated that it
expected full-year earnings per diluted share of $1.80 to $1.95 compared to
its previous guidance of $2.10 to $2.25. On this news, Tween's stock
collapsed $11.00 per share to close at $27.59 per share, a decline of 29% on
volume of 8 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

     (a) Tween had bloated inventory which it could only dispose
         of at significant discounts at the Company's Limited
         Too stores;

     (b) Tween's promotional activities and increased markdowns
         were significantly undercutting the profit margins at
         the Company's Limited Too stores;

     (c) Tween's increased use of direct sourcing of its
         inventories did generate markdown risk and consequently
         was having a negative effect on margins;

     (d) Tween's new inventory management system was not
         significantly improving Tween's inventory levels and
         its inventory levels remained excessively high;

     (e) the Company's existing stores were performing badly and
         any sales growth was coming from the development of new
         stores and not from a growth in same-store sales such
         that future results would not be anywhere near as high
         as the defendants led the market to believe;

     (f) Tween's guidance miss on its second quarter 2007
         results was not due to the Company's underestimation of
         the impact of the shifting of back-to-school start
         dates later or due to the impact of Texas and Florida
         shifting their state sales tax holidays from July to
         August, but was due to a fundamental decline in demand
         for its products;

     (g) similarly, Tween's downward revision of its third
         quarter 2007 guidance was not due to the Company's
         underestimation of the impact of the calendar shift
         moving the first week of August out of the third
         quarter and into the second, but was due to fundamental
         problems in Tween's business; and

     (h) given the increase in competition with discount and
         chain-stores, the Company had no reasonable basis to
         make the projections it did about its 2007 results.

As a result, the Company's projections issued during the Class Period about
its 2007 results were at a minimum grossly reckless.

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

For more information, contact:

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


                            *********


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  * * *