CAR_Public/070918.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, September 18, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 184

                            Headlines


AEGIS MORTGAGE: Former Employees Allege Violation of WARN Act
ALLIANZ SE: Discovery Stayed in N.J. Contingent Commissions Suit
ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Faces Several Mutual Fund-Related Lawsuits
ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces Lawsuits Over Deferred Annuity Products
AMERICAN HOME: Former Employees Complain of WARN Act Violation

AMERIGAS INC: Still Faces W.Va. Lawsuit Over Propane Accident
AVAYA INC: Reaches Deal to Settle Del., N.J. Merger Lawsuits
BALLY TOTAL: Moves to Set Oct. Deadline for 510(b) Equity Claims
B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Recalls Hazardous “SFR” Saline Flush Syringes
CALPINE CORP: Objects to Hawaii Structural's $60M Claim

FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Toys that Fail Lead Paint Safety Standard
FLASH MEMORY LITIGATION: 24 Firms Face Suit Over Price Fixing
HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Soups, Chili Mix with Undeclared Milk
HOMEBANC: Former Workers File Suit Against Bankrupt Employer
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Cal. Court Mulls Motion to Nix Securities Suit

JUPITERMEDIA CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Ads for Gambling Sites
HUNTSMAN CORP: Del. Court Consolidates Lawsuits Over Disposal
HYTHIAM INC: CompCare Merger Suit Moot After Termination of Plan
LYCOMING ENGINES: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Crankshaft Suit
MATTEL INC: Barbie Accessories Exceed Lead Paint Safety Standard

NEW CENTURY: NYS Teachers' Retirement System Moves for Discovery
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Challenges Securities Class Certification
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Sept. 28 Hearing Set for Consumer Suit Deal
NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: Settles Suit Over Sale to Madison Dearborn
NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: Faces Lawsuits Over Madison Dearborn Deal

OCWEN FEDERAL: Court Orders Clarification of MDL-1604 Claims
OMNICARE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
OSI RESTAURANT: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Oct. 30
PACER INT'L: September 2007 Trial Set for “Renteria” in Cal.
PARMALAT SPA: Banca Nazionale, Credit Suisse Dropped from Suit

PEOPLE'S CHOICE: Asbury's Motion to Lift Automatic Stay Granted
PNC FINANCIAL: Appeal Against Securities Suit Settlement Nixed


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HEELYS INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
QIAO XING: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
RAIT FINANCIAL: Scott+Scott Files Pa. Securities Fraud Suit
TWEEN BRANDS: Strauss & Troy Files Ohio Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                            *********


AEGIS MORTGAGE: Former Employees Allege Violation of WARN Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain former employees of Aegis Mortgage Corp., which is now in bankruptcy,
have commenced a class action against the company and its debtor affiliates
(Debtors) and other parties to recover 60 days' worth of pay and benefits
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The complaint was filed by Maricia Rommel and Lawonda Williams, and charges
the defendants of violating the former employees' rights under the Workers
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2101 et seq.

Aegis Wholesale Corporation, Aegis' affiliate, and Cerberus
Capital Management L.P., an Aegis shareholder, were named co-defendants.

Mses. Rommel and Williams were terminated by Aegis on August 7, 2007, as part
of a mass layoff or plant closing.  They argue that the defendants failed to
give them at least 60 days' advance notice of termination.  They assert that
their claim for back pay is entitled to administrative priority status under
Section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code since the claim arose after the
Debtors' bankruptcy filing.

Mses. Rommel and Williams purport to represent other Aegis employees who were
terminated on August 7, 2007.

The former employees seek payment of wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, and
accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation pay for 60 days following their
termination.  The former employees also want the Debtors to make 401(k)
contributions and provide health insurance coverage and other employee
benefits under the ERISA for 60 days following their termination.

The former employees also ask the Court to (i) certify that the terminated
employees constitute a single class, and (ii) appoint them as class
representatives and their counsel as class counsel.

The former employees are represented by Stuart J. Miller, Esq., at Lankenau &
Miller, LLP, in New York, and James E. Huggett, Esq., at Margolis Edelstein
in Wilmington, Delaware.

The company together with 10 affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on
Aug. 13, 2007.  Its exclusive period to file a plan expires on Dec. 11, 2007.

(Aegis Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 3 Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or    
215/945-7000).


ALLIANZ SE: Discovery Stayed in N.J. Contingent Commissions Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is stayed in a purported class action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey against subsidiaries of Allianz SE,
among others.

Three members of the Fireman's Fund group of companies in the U.S., all
subsidiaries of Allianz SE, are among the roughly 135 defendants named in a
class action filed on August 1, 2005 in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey
in connection with allegations relating to contingent commissions in the
insurance industry.  

No class has been certified for this class action.  The court dismissed,
without prejudice to refile, the federal law causes of action and the
plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint.

Discovery is stayed pending a determination of whether the suit can proceed
in federal court, according to the company's June 14, 2007 Form 20-F Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Allianz SE -- http://www.allianz.com–- is one of the world's biggest  
insurers.  It offers a range of insurance products and services -- including
life, health, and property/casualty -- through some 100 subsidiaries and
affiliates.


ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Faces Several Mutual Fund-Related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Allianz Global Investors of America L.P. and some of its subsidiaries have
been named defendants in multiple civil U.S. lawsuits commenced as putative
class actions and other proceedings related to matters involving market
timing and revenue sharing in the mutual fund industry, according to Allianz
SE's June 14, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Newport Beach, California-based Allianz Global Investors of America L.P. --
http://www.allianzinvestors.com-- offers institutional and individual  
investors such products and services as mutual funds, separate account
management, and financial advice.  


ALLIANZ LIFE: Faces Lawsuits Over Deferred Annuity Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America, a subsidiary of Allianz SE, is
named defendant in various putative class actions in Minnesota and California
in connection with the marketing and sale of deferred annuity products,
according to Allianz SE's June 14, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Two lawsuits in Minnesota and three in California have been certified as
class actions.  

The complaints allege that the defendant engaged in, among other practices,
deceptive trade practices and misleading advertising in connection with the
sale of such products, including, with the respect to the Minnesota lawsuit,
the violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud and Deceptive and Unlawful
Trade Practices Act.

Minnesota-based Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America --
http://www.allianzlife.com– through its subsidiaries and affiliates offer a  
range of insurance, investment, and savings products throughout the U.S.  It
boasts more than 200,000 independent agents and financial planners selling
such products as mutual funds and other broker-dealer services; variable and
fixed life insurance and annuity products; and long-term care insurance.  
Allianz Life also offers life, health, and annuity reinsurance and other
products geared to health care providers and to employers with self-funded
benefits plans. Allianz Life became a subsidiary of Allianz SE in 1979 and
has been operating as such ever since.


AMERICAN HOME: Former Employees Complain of WARN Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. have commenced a
class action against the company and its affiliates to recover 60 days' worth
of pay and benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The complaint was filed by Ahmad Rasheed and Michael S. Surowiec, and charges
the company of violating employee rights under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2101 et seq.

Messrs. Rasheed and Surowiec purport to represent similarly situated
employees who were terminated on or within the 30-day period before August 3,
2007, as part of mass lay-offs or plant closings conducted by the company.   

On August 3, the company implemented a massive reduction in workforce
resulting in the termination of more than 6,500 employees.

On August 6, 2007, American Home Mortgage and seven affiliates (Debtors)
filed for chapter 11 protection.

The complaint alleges that the company and its affiliates violated the WARN
Act by failing to give the employees at least 60 days' advance notice of
termination.   

The former employees want the companies to (i) pay them wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday and vacation pay,
as well as (ii) make pension and 401(k) contributions for 60 days following
their termination.

The former employees contend that their claims for 60 days' worth of backpay
are entitled to administrative expense priority status under Section 503(b)(1)
(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The former employees also ask the Court to (i) certify that the terminated
employees constitute a single class, and (ii) appoint them as class
representatives and their counsel as class counsel.

The former employees are represented by Stuart J. Miller, Esq., at Lankenau &
Miller, LLP, in New York, and James E. Huggett, Esq., at Margolis Edelstein
in Wilmington, Delaware.

American Home Mortgage and seven affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection
on August 6, 2007.  The Debtors' exclusive period to file a plan expires on
Dec. 4, 2007.

(American Home Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 3 Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or    
215/945-7000).


AMERIGAS INC: Still Faces W.Va. Lawsuit Over Propane Accident
-------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriGas, Inc. continues to face a purported class action before the Circuit
Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia over a fire that resulted from a
propane leak.

In July 2001, the suit, "Swiger, et al. v. UGI/AmeriGas, Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. 98-C-298," was filed against the company.

Plaintiffs Samuel and Brenda Swiger and their son sustained personal injuries
and property damage as a result of a fire that occurred when propane that
leaked from an underground line ignited.

The suit sought to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive
damages and attorney's fees, for themselves and on behalf of persons in West
Virginia for whom the defendants had installed propane gas lines, allegedly
resulting from the defendants' failure to install underground propane lines
at depths required by applicable safety standards.

The court recently granted the plaintiffs' motion to include customers
acquired from Columbia Propane in August 2001 as additional potential class
members, and to amend their complaint to name additional parties consistent
with such ruling.

In 2003, the defendants settled the individual personal injury and property
damage claims of the Swigers.  Class counsel has indicated that the class is
seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12 million plus punitive damages,
civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

In 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to include customers
acquired from Columbia Propane in August 2001 as additional potential class
members, and the plaintiffs amended their complaint to name additional
parties pursuant to such ruling.

The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 9 form 10-Q
filing for the period ended June 30, 2007.

AmeriGas Partners, L.P. -- http://www.amerigas.com/-- is a retail propane  
distributor in the U.S.  As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company served
approximately 1.3 million residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural
and motor fuel customers from approximately 600 district locations in 46
states.


AVAYA INC: Reaches Deal to Settle Del., N.J. Merger Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached for class actions filed against Avaya,
Inc. in New Jersey and Delaware relating to a Merger Agreement with Silver
Lake Partners, L.L.P. and TPG Capital, L.P., according to the company's
DEFM14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Aug. 15, 2007.

On June 4, 2007, Avaya entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Sierra Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation (Parent), and Sierra Merger
Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger
Sub) (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 20, 2007).

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and
into Avaya Inc., with Avaya continuing as the surviving corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.  

Parent was formed by two private equity funds, Silver Lake Partners III, L.P.
and TPG Partners V, L.P. (collectively, the Sponsors), solely for the purpose
of entering into the Merger Agreement and consummating the Merger.  

The Merger Agreement provides for a purchase price of $17.50 per share of
Avaya common stock, or approximately $8.21 billion in the aggregate
(excluding fees and expenses in connection with the Merger of approximately
$0.28 billion).

                       New Jersey Actions

In June and July 2007, seven complaints were filed against Avaya, the members
of its Board -- two of whom also serve as officers of Avaya -- and Silver
Lake and TPG, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County, related
to the Merger, which the company refers to as the "New Jersey Actions."

The complaints contain allegations substantially similar to one another and
allege that the price of $17.50 per share for the company's outstanding
common stock is inadequate and unfair consideration for an acquisition of the
Company.

The complaints also allege that the Company and the members of its Board
breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders by entering into the
Merger Agreement.  

Silver Lake and TPG are alleged to have aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duties.  Plaintiffs seek to have the court certify the cases as
class actions, enjoin the Merger and award plaintiffs their costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

                        Delaware Action

On Aug. 7, 2007, an eighth putative class action complaint was filed against
the same defendants, as well as Donald K. Peterson, the company's former
chairman, president and chief executive officer, Parent and Merger Sub, in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, related to the Merger, which
the company refers to as the "Delaware Action."

The Delaware Action contains allegations substantially similar to the New
Jersey Actions, and also alleges that the company's preliminary proxy
statement, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19,
2007, omitted certain material information concerning the Merger.

Specifically, the plaintiff in the Delaware Action alleges, among other
things, that the members of our Board breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the buyout of Avaya by failing to fully consider possible
alternative transactions with other potential buyers, including Financial
Sponsor A and Strategic Party A; approving allegedly improper deal protection
devices, including a two tiered termination fee; and by agreeing to an
inadequate per share merger consideration.

The plaintiff in the Delaware Action claims that the company's Board engaged
in a flawed sale process by, among other things, permitting Avaya's
management to lead the negotiation process, discouraging other potential
investors from submitting competing bids, and forming multiple board
committees that allegedly were not fully involved in the discussions with
interested buyers and did not retain independent financial advisors.

The plaintiff in the Delaware Action also alleges that the Board's process
was tainted by conflicts of interest, including that seven of our eight
directors hold outstanding options that as a result of the Merger will be
canceled and terminated in exchange for significant cash payments and that
one of the company's directors, Mark Leslie, was a limited partner of Silver
Lake Partners II, L.P. and had made a commitment to invest in Silver Lake
Partners III, L.P., one of the entities funding the Merger.

The plaintiff also claims that the Investors aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  

The plaintiff in the Delaware Action seeks, among other things, to have the
court certify the case as a class action, enjoin the Merger, award plaintiff
and the putative class damages for all profits and special benefits obtained
by the defendants in connection with the Merger, impose a constructive trust
with respect to any such benefits, and award plaintiff his cost and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

During the course of negotiations and discussions with the representatives of
the plaintiffs in the New Jersey and Delaware Actions, representatives of the
plaintiffs in the New Jersey Actions informed the company that they had
intended to file an amended putative class action complaint that makes
additional allegations including, among other things, that:


       -- the company's management improperly favored the Merger
          over other potential transactions because its
          management could purportedly retain their positions
          with Avaya and receive significant financial payments
          from the early vesting of their stock options and
          deferred compensation; and

       -- Credit Suisse was conflicted in the Merger as a result
          of its allegedly lucrative and continuing financial
          relationship with the Investors.

The plaintiffs also intended to add several disclosure based allegations.  

                       Tentative Settlement

Following substantial negotiations and discussions between representatives of
the plaintiffs in both the Delaware Action and New Jersey Actions and the
defendants in those actions, an agreement in principle was reached with the
plaintiffs in both the Delaware Action and New Jersey Actions that the
disclosure in this proxy statement was satisfactory.

Settlement of these actions is contingent on execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding, a stipulation of settlement (both documents in form
satisfactory to all parties), confirmatory discovery and court approval.

There can be no assurances that an MOU will be executed and that a settlement
will be submitted for court approval.

Avaya, Inc. -- http://www.avaya.com-- provides communication systems,  
applications and services for enterprises, including businesses, government
agencies and other organizations.


BALLY TOTAL: Moves to Set Oct. Deadline for 510(b) Equity Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Bally Total Fitness’ Modified First Amended Prepackaged Plan,
holders of old common stock and 510(b) equity claims would receive a
distribution aggregating $16,500,000 -- approximately $0.40 per share.  

Bally Total and its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on July 31,
2007 after obtaining requisite number of votes in favor of their pre-packaged
chapter 11 plan.  The Debtors filed their Joint Prepackaged Plan & Disclosure
Statement on July 31, 2007.  On Aug. 13, 2007, they filed an Amended Joint
Prepackaged Plan and on Aug. 17 filed a Modified Amended Prepackaged Plan.

David S. Heller, Esq., at Latham & Watkins LLP, in Chicago,
Illinois, states that a "510(b) Equity Claim" means:

  * any claim subordinated pursuant to Section 510(b) of the
    Bankruptcy Code, including, without limitation, those claims
    arising from the rescission of a purchase or sale of Old
    Common Stock or rights relating to the Old Common Stock; or   

  * any claim for damages arising from the purchase or sale of
    Old Common Stock or any Claim for reimbursement,
    contribution, or indemnification.

Currently, Bally’s two 510(b) Equity Claimants are (i) a consolidated class
action with a pending appeal at the Seventh Circuit of the United States
Court of Appeals, and (b) Douglas Levine, who has a pending lawsuit at the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Law Division).

According to Mr. Heller, Bally needs to know the asserted amount of 510(b)
Equity Claims so that proper distribution reserves can be established from
the Old Common Stock cash amount.

By this motion, the Debtors ask the Court to establish Oct. 31, 2007, at 5:00
p.m. (prevailing Eastern time) as the deadline by which holders of 510(b)
Equity Claims must file their proofs of claim.

                  Proposed Notice Procedures

Any person or entity holding a 510(b) Equity Claim against any
Debtor that arose prior to the Petition Date must:

  (a) file with the Court an original, written proof of claim on
      or before the proposed Bar Date; and

  (b) serve a copy of the proof of claim so as to be actually
      received on or before the proposed Bar Date by Kurtzman
      Carson Consultants LLC, the Debtors' claims and notice
      agent.

Any holder of a 510(b) Equity Claim who is required, but fails, to file a
proof of claim in accordance with the Court's order before the proposed Bar
Date will be forever barred, estopped and enjoined from asserting the Claim
against the Debtors.   

Moreover, any 510(b) Equity Claim holder who fails to timely file a proof of
claim will not be treated as a creditor with respect to the Claim for
purposes of distribution in the Debtors' Chapter 11 proceedings, or be
entitled to receive further notices regarding the 510(b) Equity Claim

Accordingly, the Debtors' property will be forever discharged from any and
all indebtedness or liability with respect to the
Claim.

Given the anticipated limited number of holders of 510(b) Equity
Claims, the Debtors propose not to publish a Bar Date notice.   

Instead, a disclosure regarding the Court's Order on 510(b)
Equity Claims and the establishment of the 510(b) Equity Claim
Bar Date will be included in the Debtors' "Notice of Confirmed Plan", which
will be provided to the Debtors' entire mailing matrix and published once in
the Wall Street Journal.

(Bally Total Fitness Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 8 Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or    
215/945-7000).


B. BRAUN MEDICAL: Recalls Hazardous “SFR” Saline Flush Syringes
---------------------------------------------------------------
B. Braun Medical Inc., of Bethlehem, Pa., announced on July 30 a voluntary
nationwide recall of Normal Saline Flush syringes with lot numbers ending
in "SFR" due to an increase in customer complaints for particulate matter in
the saline.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been apprised of this
action.

The introduction of particulate matter into the blood stream may result in
phlebitis and/or damage to vital organs such as the brain, kidneys, heart and
lungs. To a less likely extent, there is a potential for the development of
pulmonary embolism or silicone embolism syndrome, which could cause severe
injury and/ or death.

Symptoms would generally be expected to develop quickly and are unlikely to
develop more than 24 - 48 hours after the administration of the product.
However, the risk associated with use of this product is cumulative and
increases with each additional exposure. A patient may not develop any
symptoms until they have received multiple doses of the product. To date, B.
Braun has received no reports of any patient injury associated with this
issue.

This voluntary recall affects normal saline 3mL in 12mL syringes, designated
by product code 513584, and normal saline 10mL in 12mL syringes, designated
by product code 513587. Between June 11 and July 18 of this year, B. Braun
Medical Inc. distributed approximately 33,000 units of product code 513584
and 1.2 million units of product code 513587 of lot numbers ending in "SFR"
to hospitals and distributors. The product code, identified as REF, and lot
number, identified as LOT, can be found on the syringe label just below the
product description.

These flush syringes have been found to contain particulate matter, which has
been identified as a medical grade silicone. While this silicone is
biocompatible, routinely used in the medical device industry and is an
expected component of these syringes, the visible particulate matter caused
by the silicone in these "SFR" lots may pose a health risk.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this
product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program
either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Customers that have the recalled product in their possession should
discontinue use immediately and contact their physician if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to usage of this product.

Customers that have the affected product in their possession may contact the
B. Braun Medical Inc. Customer Support Department at (800) 227-2862, Monday
through Friday, 8 AM to 7 PM EST for instructions for handling the affected
product and to arrange for replacement product.


CALPINE CORP: Objects to Hawaii Structural's $60M Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Corp. said in March 2003 that it was restating its net income for
2000, 2001 and a portion of 2002 by an immaterial amount, ranging from
approximately 1.5% to 3% of income, to reflect a different accounting
treatment of sale/leaseback transactions for two power plants as recommended
by the company's auditors.

After Calpine's announcement, the Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust
Fund, on behalf of itself and a putative class of shareholders, commenced a
class action complaint in the Superior Court of the state of California,
County of San Diego against Calpine, certain directors and officer defendants
and certain underwrites of Calpine Corp.'s stock offering in 2002.

The Hawaii Fund asserted that the statements that Calpine Corp. filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2002 were materially false and
misleading because they concealed the fact that the company's financial
results and projections were overstated and concealed adverse trends that the
company was then experiencing.

In the California Lawsuit, the Hawaii Fund alleged that:

  * a registration statement and prospectus for Calpine's April
    2002 follow-on offering of shares contained false or
    misleading material statements;

  * a forecast for 2002 earnings included in the April 2002
    offering documents turned out to be incorrect at the end of
    2002, eight months later;

  * Calpine's former chief executive officer, Peter Cartwright,
    one of the Individual Defendants, intended to sell shares
    within 90 days of the 2002 Offering but failed to disclose
    the intent in the offering documents; and

  * Calpine failed to disclose 31 purported "wash" trades
    between 2000 and 2001.

On Dec. 20, 2005, the company and its affiliates (Debtors) filed for chapter
11 protection.  In August 2006, the Hawaii Fund filed, on behalf of itself
and the Class, Claim No. 5166 asserting "at least $60,000,000" in damages
against Calpine Corporation.  In June 2007, the Hawaii Fund asked the
Bankruptcy Court to certify its class for purposes of the Class Claim.  The
request is still pending with the Bankruptcy Court.

In August 2007, the Debtors, the Individual Defendants, the
Underwriters and the Hawaii Fund participated in a mediation designed to
facilitate a consensual resolution of Claim No. 5166.   

The mediation was not successful.

Mark E. McKane, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, in New York, asserts that
slight adjustments associated with the 2003 Restatement were immaterial.  He
adds that the decline in Calpine's share price between April 2002 and March
2003 happened before the restatement was confirmed and is attributable to
factors other than the restatement, none of which can subject the Debtors to
any liability.

The Hawaii Fund also seeks to use 20/20 hindsight to recover damages on the
basis that the company and its debtor affiliates (Debtors) failed to meet
good faith projections.  Mr. McKane says that it is blackletter law that,
absent fraud, a company is not liable for failing to meet good faith
projections.  The burden then, he says, is on Hawaii Fund to prove that the
forecast was made with actual knowledge of its falsity.

With regards to Mr. Cartwright's stock sales, Mr. McKane notes that the
offering documents explicitly stated that any sale would occur only after Mr.
Cartwright obtained certain consents.  Mr. Cartwright indisputably secured
those consents and advised the market months before the offering of his
intent to sell shares, Mr. McKane further says.

Moreover, Mr. McKane asserts that Calpine need not disclose the
purported "wash" trades because they were not "wash" trades.   
Even if the trades had been "wash" trades, they represented, in the
aggregate, approximately 0.001% of Calpine's revenues and had no impact
whatsoever on the company's gross profits, Mr. McKane adds.

Accordingly, the Debtors ask Judge Lifland to expunge Claim No.
5166.

(Calpine Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 60 Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or    
215/945-7000).


FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Toys that Fail Lead Paint Safety Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher-Price Inc., of East Aurora, New York, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 90,000 Geo Trax
locomotive toys.

The company said surface paints on the toys contain excessive levels of lead.
No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the Geo Trax Freightway Transport and Geo Trax Special
Track Pack locomotive toys. These toys are red with yellow paint on the
ladder and horn details. The recalled models were manufactured between July
31, 2006 and August 20, 2007 and have a date code between 212-6CK through 325-
6CK or 001-7CK through 232-7CK marked on the bottom of the product. The
packaging on the Freightway Transport model is marked H5705 and the packaging
on the Special Track Pack model is marked K3013.

These recalled locomotive toys were manufactured in China and are being sold
at retail stores nationwide from September 2006 through August 2007 for
between $3 and $16.

Picture of recalled locomotive toys:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07302.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away from
children and contact Fisher-Price. Consumers will need to return the product
in order to receive a free replacement toy.

For additional information, contact Fisher-Price toll-free at (888) 496-8330
anytime or visit http://www.service.mattel.com


FLASH MEMORY LITIGATION: 24 Firms Face Suit Over Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corp. said in a regulatory filing that on Aug. 31, 2007, the company
and 23 others were sued in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District
of California in a purported consumer class action captioned “Stuart Go et
al. v. Lexar Media, Inc. et al., Civil Case No. 07-cv-04547-VRW.”

The suit alleges a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
pricing of flash memory, and concealment thereof, in violation of state and
federal laws.  The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers
of flash memory.  The lawsuit seeks restitution, injunction and damages,
including treble damages, in an unspecified amount.

This week the company and its chief executive officer received grand jury
subpoenas issued from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California indicating a Department of Justice investigation into
possible antitrust violations in the NAND flash memory industry.  

The Company also received a notice from the Canadian Competition Bureau that
the Bureau has commenced an industry-wide investigation with respect to
alleged anti-competitive activity regarding the conduct of companies engaged
in the supply of NAND flash memory chips to Canada and requesting that the
Company preserve any records relevant to such investigation.

According to Mark LaPedus of EE Times, the suit names as defendants:

     * Lexar,
     * Hitachi America,
     * Hitachi Ltd.,
     * Hitachi Electronic Devices USA,
     * Hynix Semiconductor America,
     * Hynix Semiconductor,
     * Micron Technology,
     * Micron Semiconductor Products,
     * Mitsubishi,
     * Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA,
     * Mosel Vitelic Corp.,
     * Mosel Vitelic Inc.,
     * Renesas Technology,
     * Renesas Technology America,
     * SanDisk,
     * Samsung Semiconductor,
     * Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
     * STMicroelectronics N.V.,
     * STMicroelectronics Inc.,
     * Toshiba,
     * Toshiba America Inc.,
     * Toshiba America Electronic Components,
     * Winbond Electronics Corp., and
     * Winbond Electronics Corporation America.

The lawsuit seeks restitution, injunction and damages, including treble
damages, in an unspecified amount.


HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Soups, Chili Mix with Undeclared Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harry & David Operations Corp., of Medford, Oregon, is recalling
approximately 1440 bags of Harry and David Hearthside Soups, Southwestern
Chicken Chili Mix, because they may actually contain another chili soup mix,
and thus contain a milk ingredient (whey), not declared in the ingredient
statement.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to dairy products run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

Harry & David is recalling all Harry and David Hearthside Soups, Southwestern
Chicken Chili Mix with a 8221-1 lot code. These products include: Clear
plastic bags of soup mix, 12 to 16 oz. in weight, tied at the top with a
cream and red colored ribbon. The lot code can be found on the price sticker
on the bottom of the bag. Please note that the price sticker states "Fajita
Chili". This product was made for Harry & David by Conifer Specialty, Inc., a
co-packer.

These products were distributed throughout the United States through Harry
and David Stores beginning March 5th, 2007.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with this product to date.
Anyone concerned about an illness associated with this product should contact
a physician immediately.

This problem occurred when bags labeled for a previous run of Southwestern
Chicken Chili Mix were inadvertently used for a subsequent run of a different
product, Fajita Chili Mix. The Fajita Chili Mix contains a milk ingredient
not declared on the Southwestern Chicken Chili Mix ingredient statement. The
problem will be prevented in the future by assuring that the production line
is cleared of labeled bags during product change over.

Consumers with questions about the recalled product may phone the Customer
Service division at 800-345-5655, 24 hours a day. Customers may arrange for
refunds through this number as well.


HOMEBANC: Former Workers File Suit Against Bankrupt Employer
------------------------------------------------------------
Hiwot Mekonnen, Kyiesha Shepard, and Sharon Thompson are former employees who
worked for HomeBanc Mortgage Corporation, HomeBanc
Corp., HomeBanc Funding Corp., HomeBanc Funding Corp. II, HMB Acceptance
Corp., and HMB Mortgage Partners, LLC.  The former employees worked at the
company’s corporate headquarters located at 2002 Summit Boulevard, in
Atlanta, Georgia, until their termination on August 10, 2007.

HomeBanc Mortgage together with five affiliates (Debtors) filed for chapter
11 protection on Aug. 9, 2007.  The Debtors' exclusive period to file a plan
ends on Dec. 7, 2007.

The Former Employees sue under Rules 7023(a) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated former employees who worked for the Debtors and who were terminated
without cause, as part of, or as the result of, a mass layoff or plant
closing ordered by the Debtors and who were not provided 60 days advance
written notice of their terminations, as required by the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.  

The persons in the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, Brian J. McLaughlin, Esq., at Monzack Mersky McLaughlin and
Browder, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware, relates.

Mr. McLaughlin tells the Court that neither the Former Employees, nor the
other Class members, received written notice that complied with the
requirements of the WARN Act.  The Debtors also failed to pay the Former
Employees and other Class members their respective wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60
calendar days following their respective terminations.  Moreover, the Debtors
failed to make 401(k) contributions and provide the Class members with health
insurance coverage and other employee benefits under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act for 60 calendar days from and after the dates of their
respective terminations, he argues.

The Former Employees ask the Court for:

   -- certification of the action as a class action;

   -- designation of the Former Employees as Class
      Representatives;

   -- appointment of the firm, Monzack, as Class Counsel;

   -- a first priority administrative expense claim in favor of
      each of the Former Employees and Class members equal to
      the sum of their unpaid wages, salary, commissions,
      bonuses, accrued holidays pay, accrued vacation pay,
      pension and 401(k) contributions and other ERISA benefits,
      for 60 days, that would have been covered and paid under
      the then-applicable employee benefit plans had that
      coverage continued for that period, or, alternatively,
      determine that the first $10,950 of the WARN Act claims of
      the Former Employees and Class members is entitled to
      priority status, and the remainder is a general unsecured
      claim; and

   -- allowed administrative expense priority claim for the
      reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs and disbursements
      that the Former Employees incurs in prosecuting the
      action, as authorized by the WARN Act.

Mr. McLaughlin states that a class action is superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this matter, particularly
in the context of WARN Act litigation, where individual Former Employees and
Class members may lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute a
lawsuit in federal court against a corporate defendant.

According to Mr. McLaughlin, there are questions of law and fact common to
the Class members that predominate over any questions solely affecting
individual Class members, including:

   -- whether the Class members were employees of the Debtors
      who worked at or reported to the Debtors' facilities;

   -- whether Debtors, as a single employer, terminated the
      employment of the Class members without cause on their
      part and without giving them 60 days' advance written
      notice; and

   -- whether the Debtors paid the Class members 60 days' wages
      and benefits, as required by the WARN Act.

(HomeBanc Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 5 Bankruptcy Creditors' Service Inc.;
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or    
215/945-7000).


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Cal. Court Mulls Motion to Nix Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juniper Networks, Inc. is seeking to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On July 14, 2006, a purported class-action complaint captioned, "Garber v.
Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C-06-4327 MJJ," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the company
and certain of its officers and directors.  Plaintiff filed a corrected
complaint on July 28, 2006.

The Garber class action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Juniper
Networks' common stock between Sept. 1, 2003 and May 22, 2006.

On Aug. 29, 2006, another purported class-action complaint captioned, "Peters
v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., No. C 06 5303 JW," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the company
and certain of its officers and directors.  

The Peters class action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Juniper
Networks' common stock between April 10, 2003 and Aug. 10, 2006.

Both of these purported class actions allege that the company and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by manipulating
stock option grant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing false
and misleading statements including, among others, incorrect financial
statements due to the improper accounting of stock option grants.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the court appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead
plaintiffs.  The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
on Jan. 12, 2007.  

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of all purchasers of, or
those who otherwise acquired, Juniper Networks' publicly traded securities
from April 10, 2003 through
and including Aug. 20, 2006.

It alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.  

On Feb. 15, 2007, the parties agreed that plaintiffs may file an amended
consolidated complaint within 30 days after the company files its restated
financial statements with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission and the
court approved the stipulation on Feb. 16, 2007.

On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of the
claims.

The suit is "In Re: Juniper Securities Litigation, Case NO.
5:06-cv-04327-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California under Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Patricia V.
Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard Bemporad, Esq.
         Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad Selinger & Cohen, P.C.
         White Plains Plaza, 1 North Broadway, 5th Floor
         White Plains, NY 10601-2310
         Phone: (914) 997-0500
         E-mail: rbemporad@ldbs.com

              - and -

         William M. Audet, Esq.
         Audet & Partners
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-982-1776
         Fax: 415-576-1776
         E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joni L. Ostler, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100
         E-mail: jostler@wsgr.com


JUPITERMEDIA CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Ads for Gambling Sites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jupitermedia Corp. continues to face a putative antitrust class action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco over
advertisements for gambling-related Web sites.

On Aug. 3, 2004, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight filed a class action on
behalf of themselves and all others situated and/or the general public
against the company and 12 co-defendant companies that operate Internet
search engines.  

The suit alleges that defendants posting of paid advertising providing links
to Internet gambling Web sites constitute unfair competition and unlawful
business acts and practices under  
California law.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits and restitution.  

On Sept. 3, 2004, Jupitermedia blocked all advertisements from being
published on its Web properties from third-party search engines for the
gambling-related terms specified in the complaint.  

Moreover, Jupitermedia refused to accept advertisements for gambling-related
Web sites directly from companies that operate them.   

Jupitermedia has demanded contractual indemnity from two companies that
supplied advertisements that are the subject matter of the lawsuit.  

The company provided no development in the matter in its Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Mario Cisneros et al., v. Yahoo! Inc., et al., Case  
No. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court in  
San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Ira P. Rothken, Esq.
         The Rothken Law Firm
         1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 520
         San Rafael, CA 94903
         Phone: (415) 924-4250
         E-mail: feedback@techfirm.com
         Web site: http://www.techfirm.com/


HUNTSMAN CORP: Del. Court Consolidates Lawsuits Over Disposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court entered an order consolidating three Delaware
actions in relation to a termination of an agreement to sell the company to
Basell AF in favor of an offer from Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc., an
entity owned by an affiliate of Apollo Management L.P.

From July 5 to July 13, 2007, four shareholder class-action complaints were
filed against the Company and its directors alleging breaches of fiduciary
duty over the deal.

Three actions were filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware.  
They are:

       -- “Cohen v. Archibald, et al., No. 3070,” (filed July 5,
          2007);

       -- “Augenstein v. Archibald, et al., No. 3076,” (filed
          July 9, 2007);” and

       -- “Murphy v. Huntsman, et al., No. 3094,” (filed July
          13, 2007).

Another action, entitled, “Schwoegler v. Huntsman Corp., et al., Cause No. 07-
07-06993-CV,” was filed in the 9th Judicial District Court of Montgomery
County, Texas on July 6, 2007.

Some complaints also named Basell entities as additional defendants alleging
claims of aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaints collectively allege that the directors of the Company failed
to conduct a sufficient process to investigate and obtain maximum value for
the Company’s shares, prematurely entered into a merger agreement with Basell
at an inadequate price of $25.25 per share as evidenced by a superior
proposal later received from Hexion, improperly agreed to a $200 million
termination fee to Basell, failed to make adequate disclosures concerning the
Basell transaction, and engaged in self-dealing by manipulating the timing of
the Basell transaction to benefit officers and directors of the Company more
than shareholders.

They seek injunctive relief on behalf of a class of shareholders to enjoin
the proposed merger with Basell, rescission of the Basell merger agreement
and the $200 million termination fee, and plaintiffs’ costs including
reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Since the cases were filed, the Company has terminated the Basell Agreement
and entered into the Merger Agreement with Hexion.  

On July 30, 2007, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order consolidating
the three Delaware actions into the first-filed action, requiring the
plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint as soon as practicable,
and extending the deadline for all defendants to answer or respond in the
Delaware action until 30 days after the consolidated amended complaint is
filed.

The Texas action was only recently served on the company.

Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/--  manufactures chemical products  
and formulations that are marketed in more than 100 countries to a group of
consumer and industrial customers.  Its products are used in a range of
applications, including those in the adhesives, aerospace, automotive,
construction products, durable and non-durable consumer products,
electronics, medical, packaging, paints and coatings, power generation,
refining and synthetic fiber industries.


HYTHIAM INC: CompCare Merger Suit Moot After Termination of Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in purported class actions filed against Hythiam, Inc. over a
proposed merger with Comprehensive Care Corp. (CompCare) have yet to dismiss
the lawsuits, which became moot after the termination of the proposed deal,
according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission of the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.  

The company along with CompCare and officers and board members of CompCare,
were named defendants in two class actions filed in Delaware Chancery Court
by CompCare stockholders on Jan. 23, 2007 and Feb. 1, 2007.

The suits seek to enjoin the company's merger with CompCare on the grounds
that it is unfair and that the directors of CompCare breached their fiduciary
duties to CompCare's minority stockholders in approving the transaction.

On May 25, 2007, the parties mutually terminated the merger agreement.  

The plaintiffs’ counsel has agreed to dismiss the lawsuits, but have not yet
done so.  In addition, they may seek to recover legal fees incurred before
the merger was terminated.

Hythiam, Inc. -- http://www.hythiam.com/-- is a healthcare services  
management company focused on delivering solutions for those suffering from
alcoholism and other substance dependencies.  


LYCOMING ENGINES: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Crankshaft Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has approved a
class in a suit pending against Lycoming Engines over the replacement of
engine crankshafts, Russ Niles of the AVweb reports.

The suit, “Bristow v. Lycoming Engines et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01947-LKK-
GGH,” was filed against Lycoming over crankshaft problems affecting 3,774
Lycoming 360- and 540-series engines for airplanes.

Senior Judge Lawrence Karlton approved the class for the suit filed by owners
of aircraft with Lycoming engines who will be required to replace, at their
own cost, the crankshafts, by Feb. 21, 2009, in those engines because they
might be flawed.

Lycoming is selling the crankshaft kits at the reduced cost of $2,000 but
labor is up to the owner.

                           Case Background

Aside from Lycoming, his suit also names AVCO Corp. and Textron Inc., as
defendants.  Lycoming Engines is a division of AVCO Corp. and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Textron, Inc.


Richard A. Bristow filed the suit for himself and a class of others similarly
situated in California, who own or lease airplanes with piston aircraft
engines manufactured by Lycoming and subject to Lycoming's "Mandatory Early
Retirement" Service Bulletin Nos. 569 and 569A (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
19, 2006).

The "early retirement" program announced by Lycoming in February  
2006, impacts over 5000 planes and is a direct result of Lycoming's alleged
defective design, manufacture, and testing of its engines, which can lead to
premature failure of the engine crankshafts causing power loss, engine
failure, damage to the airplane and possible loss of life.  The complaint
claims defendants knew these problems for years.

By issuing an "early retirement" program that forces owners to pay for the
replacement of the defective and unsafe Lycoming crankshafts, instead of
issuing a recall where Lycoming would bear the costs, defendants have
allegedly engaged in deceptive, unlawful and unfair conduct.

The plaintiff brings the action as a class action pursuant to  
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of:

     -- a class of all persons and entities in California:

        * who currently own or lease a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A;  

        * who formerly owned or leased a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A  
          when the Lycoming Crankshaft was replaced pursuant to  
          Service Bulletin 569 or 569A; or  

        * who formerly owned a plane with a Lycoming Crankshaft  
          subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A and sold the  
          plane on or after Feb. 21, 2006; and  

     -- a consumer subclass of all persons and entities in  
        California who -- primarily for personal, family or  
        Household purposes:

        * currently own or lease a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A;  

        * formerly owned or leased a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A  
          when the Lycoming Crankshaft was replaced pursuant to  
          Service Bulletin 569 or 569A; or  

        * who formerly owned a plane with a Lycoming Crankshaft  
          subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A and sold the  
          plane on or after Feb. 21, 2006.

The complaint raises claims of violation of Unfair Competition Law,
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 for unfair business
practice, fraudulent business practice, and illegal business practice; and
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act California Civil Code Section 1750.

The suit seeks, among others:

     -- certification of the proposed class and consumer  
        subclass;

     -- injunctive relief requiring the defendants cease  
        omitting material information regarding the Lycoming  
        crankshafts covered by SB569A, replace the Lycoming   
        crankshafts, repair any additional damage to parts  
        caused by that replacement, and pay for all costs  
        including parts, labor, and other consequential costs;  

     -- a declaration that defendants must provide full  
        restitution;

     -- an order temporarily and permanently enjoining  
        defendants from continuing the unfair business practices  
        alleged in this complaint; and

     -- an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?11d3

The suit is “Bristow v. Lycoming Engines et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01947-LKK-
GGH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
under Judge Lawrence K. Karlton with referral to Judge Gregory G. Hollows.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert Wade Mills, Esq.
         Mills Law Firm
         145 Marina Boulevard
         San Rafael, CA 94901
         Phone: 415-455-1326
         Fax: 415-455-1327
         E-mail: deepbluesky341@hotmail.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Marla Ruth Weston, Esq.
         Ryan and Fong
         2379 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 100
         Sacramento, CA 95833
         Phone: (916) 924-1912
         Fax: (916) 923-3872
         E-mail: mweston@ryanfong.com


MATTEL INC: Barbie Accessories Exceed Lead Paint Safety Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel Inc., of El Segundo, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 675,000 carious Barbie
accessory toys.

The company said the surface paints on the toys contain excessive levels of
lead which is prohibited under federal law.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves various Barbie accessory toys that were manufactured
between September 30, 2006 and August 20, 2007. The product and date code
numbers are printed on the largest component of the toy sets.

These recalled Barbie accessory toys were manufactured in China and are being
sold at retail stores nationwide from October 2006 through August 2007 for
about $10.

Product names and pictures of recalled Barbie accessory toys:

Barbie Dream Puppy House (lead paint on dog)
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07301asm.jpg

Barbie Dream Kitty Condo Playset (lead paint on cat)
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07301bsm.jpg

Barbie Table and Chairs Kitchen Playset (lead paint on dog, chip platter,
dinner plates)
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07301csm.jpg

Barbie Bathtub and Toilet Playset (lead point on cat)
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07301dsm.jpg

Barbie Futon and Table Living Room Playset (lead paint on cat)
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07301fsm.jpg

Barbie Desk and Chair Bedroom Playset (lead paint on dog)
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07301fsm.jpg

Barbie Couch & Table Living Room Playset (lead paint on purse)
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07301gsm.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away from
children and contact Mattel for instructions on how to receive a free
replacement toy of equal value.

For additional information, contact Mattel’s Fisher-Price hotline at (888)
496-8330 anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site at http://www.mattel.com/safety


NEW CENTURY: NYS Teachers' Retirement System Moves for Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a securities fraud suit filed against New Century in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is seeking
permission to obtain a copy of documents and materials from the company,
which is now in bankruptcy.

The New York State Teachers' Retirement System is the Court-appointed lead
plaintiff in a securities fraud class action, Case No. CV 07-00931, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The putative class consists of investors who purchased securities of New
Century Financial during February 2, 2005, to March 2, 2007.

The Securities Litigation asserted violations by the company and its debtor
affiliates (Debtors) and certain of their current and former officers and
directors of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on false and
misleading statements concerning the Debtors' financial results and business
made during the Class Period.

NYTRS seeks a limited modification of the automatic stay as to the Debtors,
to permit NYTRS to obtain a copy of documents and materials from the Debtors.

The documents pertain to those Debtors have produced, or will produce,
regarding any investigations on their accounting and financial statement
irregularities, errors, and misstatements, including:

  (i) the potential restatement of the Debtors' financial
      statements for the first three quarters of 2006; and

(ii) the conclusion reached by the Debtors' management and
      Audit Committee that the Debtors pre-tax earnings in the
      2005 and 2006 financial statements.

According to Christopher P. Simon, Esq., at Cross & Simon LLC, in Wilmington,
Delaware, modifying the stay will impose no additional burden on the Debtors,
who have already gathered and produced the materials that NYSTRS seeks.

Mr. Simon asserts that the Court has granted similar motions in
cases, citing In re Enron Corp., Case No. 01-16034 (AJG)
(Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), and In re WorldCom, Inc., Case No. 02-13533 (AJG)
(Bankr.S.D.N.Y.).  In these cases, the Court permitted the production of
documents by the respective debtors that had been gathered and provided to
the federal government and others in connection with investigations into
those companies.

Mr. Simon also notes that that Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code gives
the Court broad discretion to terminate, modify, annul, or condition the
automatic stay to protect the rights of parties-in-interest, including NYSTRS.

Founded in 1995, Irvine, Calif.-based New Century Financial
Corporation (NYSE: NEW) -- http://www.ncen.com/-- is a real estate  
investment trust, providing mortgage products to borrowers nationwide through
its operating subsidiaries, New Century Mortgage Corporation and Home123
Corporation.  The company offers a broad range of mortgage products designed
to meet the needs of all borrowers.

The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection on
April 2, 2007.  The Debtors' exclusive period to file a plan expires on Nov.
28, 2007.

(New Century Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 19 Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or    
215/945-7000).


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Challenges Securities Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. is challenging a certification of a class in the
consolidated securities fraud class action, "In Re: Novastar Financial
Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS,"

Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar securities class actions
against the company and three of its executive officers were filed and
consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.  

The consolidated complaint generally alleged that the defendants made public
statements that were misleading or failed to disclose certain regulatory and
licensing matters.  

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- the company;
     -- Lance W. Anderson, president, and chief operating
        officer;
     -- Michael L. Bamburg, senior vice president and chief
        investment officer;
     -- Scott Hartman, chairman of the board and chief executive
        officer; and
     -- Rodney E. Schwatken, vice president, secretary,
        treasurer, and controller.

The plaintiffs purported to bring this consolidated action on behalf of all
persons who purchased the company's common stock and sellers of put options
on the company's common stock during the period Oct. 29, 2003 through April
8, 2004.  

According to the complaint, NovaStar fostered an aggressive- growth culture
throughout the class period.  NovaStar touted its rapid growth in earnings,
production, and its securities portfolio and highlighted the increasing
number of NovaStar- affiliated branch offices.  

In 2003, the company reported that it had doubled the number of branch
offices in operation and that its earnings had more than doubled in 2003 to
$112 million.

On Aug. 23, 2004, Judge Ortrie D. Smith issued an order consolidating all
related cases into one class action as, "In re NovaStar Financial Securities
Litigation" and appointed lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  Lead
plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint on Nov. 12, 2004.

On Jan 14, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss this action, and on
May 12, 2005, the court denied such motion.   

On Feb. 8, 2007, the court certified the case as a class action, and the
Company’s petition for permission to appeal the class certification decision
has been denied but is the subject of a pending petition for rehearing.  

The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation,   Case No. 4:04-
cv-00330-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri under Judge Ortrie D. Smith.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
          1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 607-6871
          Fax: (404) 876-4476
          E-mail: jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          William W. Wickersham, Esq.
          Entwitle & Cappucci, LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10171
          Phone: 212-894-7200

Representing the defendants are:

          Erin Bansal, Esq.
          William F. Alderman, Esq.
          Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5700
          Fax: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: walderman@orrick.com


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Sept. 28 Hearing Set for Consumer Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 28, 2007 final hearing is scheduled for a proposed settlement of a
consumer fraud class action filed against NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., a
subsidiary of Novastar Financial, Inc.

In December 2005, a putative class action was filed against NovaStar
Mortgage, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington entitled, “Pierce et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.”

Plaintiffs contend that NovaStar Mortgage failed to disclose prior to closing
that a broker payment would be made on their loans, which was an unfair and
deceptive practice in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiffs seek excess interest charged, and treble damages as provided in
the Washington Consumer Protection Act and attorney’s fees.

On Oct. 31, 2006, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a
Washington state class.  For business reasons, NovaStar Mortgage entered into
a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs on June 21, 2007.  

The agreement, which must be approved by the district court, calls for
NovaStar Mortgage to pay class members $3.3 million and to pay $1.8 million
in attorneys’ fees.

On June 27, 2007, the district court tentatively approved the settlement
agreement and scheduled a hearing for Sept. 28, 2007 to consider final
approval of the settlement, according to the Novastar Financial, Inc.'s Aug.
9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Pierce, et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-
05835-RJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington under Judge Robert J. Bryan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq.
         The Law Office Of Matthew Bergman
         705 2ND Avenue, Suite 1601
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-957-9510
         E-mail: matt@bergmanlegal.com

              - and -

         Ari Y. Brown, Esq.
         Bergman & Frockt
         705 Second Avenue, Ste. 1601
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-957-9510
         E-mail: ari@bergmanlegal.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Donald C. Brown, Jr. Esq.
         Weiner Brodsky Sidmann Kider
         1300 19TH St., NW, 5th Fl.
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-628-2000
         E-mail: brown@wbsk.com

              - and -

         Sal Mungia, Esq.
         Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson & Daheim
         P.O. BOX 1157
         Tacoma, WA 98401-1157
         Phone: 253-620-6500
         Fax: 1-253-620-6565
         E-mail: smungia@gth-law.com


NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: Settles Suit Over Sale to Madison Dearborn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asset manager Nuveen Investments Inc. settled shareholder lawsuits related to
the company's $5.75 billion acquisition by Chicago firm Madison Dearborn
Partners LLC, reports say.

Nuveen Investments (NYSE: JNC), the industry's biggest manager of closed-end
mutual funds, faced a putative class action filed June 20 in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division by a purported stockholder
(Class Action Reporter, June 28, 2007).

Named defendants in the suit are:

          -- Nuveen Investments,

          -- members of its Board of Directors:
             * Timothy R. Schwertfeger,
             * John P. Amboian,
             * Willard L. Boyd,
             * Connie K. Duckworth,
             * Duane R. Kullberg,
             * Roderick A. Palmore; and

          -- Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC.

The suit is a stockholder class action for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
and other violations of applicable law arising out of the previously
announced pending acquisition of Nuveen Investments by the investor group led
by the private equity firm Madison Dearborn.

The complaint alleges that in entering into the proposed transaction with the
investor group led by Madison Dearborn, the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair
dealing or have aided and abetted such breaches.

The individuals named in this lawsuit are current members of the Board of
Directors of Nuveen Investments, except for Mr. Leroy who resigned from
Nuveen Investments' Board of Directors on April 23, 2007.

On June 21, 2007, a substantially similar putative stockholder class action
suit was filed in the same court against Nuveen Investments and members of
its Board.

Chicago-based Nuveen said its Aug. 31 memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs will not affect the terms of the deal with Chicago private-equity
firm Madison Dearborn.

Nuveen did not disclose the terms of the settlement, but said it would pay $1
million to the plaintiffs' lawyers. It also said it did not admit wrongdoing
in agreeing to settle.

The proposed settlement requires approval by the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Nuveen said.

                           Case Background

Aside from Lycoming, his suit also names AVCO Corp. and Textron Inc., as
defendants.  Lycoming Engines is a division of AVCO Corp. and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Textron, Inc.

Mr. Bristow filed the suit for himself and a class of others similarly
situated in California, who own or lease airplanes with piston aircraft
engines manufactured by Lycoming and subject to Lycoming's "Mandatory Early
Retirement" Service Bulletin Nos. 569 and 569A (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
19, 2006).

The "early retirement" program announced by Lycoming in February  
2006, impacts over 5000 planes and is a direct result of Lycoming's alleged
defective design, manufacture, and testing of its engines, which can lead to
premature failure of the engine crankshafts causing power loss, engine
failure, damage to the airplane and possible loss of life.  The complaint
claims defendants knew these problems for years.

By issuing an "early retirement" program that forces owners to pay for the
replacement of the defective and unsafe Lycoming crankshafts, instead of
issuing a recall where Lycoming would bear the costs, defendants have
allegedly engaged in deceptive, unlawful and unfair conduct.

The plaintiff brings the action as a class action pursuant to  
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of:

     -- a class of all persons and entities in California:

        * who currently own or lease a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A;  

        * who formerly owned or leased a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A  
          when the Lycoming Crankshaft was replaced pursuant to  
          Service Bulletin 569 or 569A; or  

        * who formerly owned a plane with a Lycoming Crankshaft  
          subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A and sold the  
          plane on or after Feb. 21, 2006; and  

     -- a consumer subclass of all persons and entities in  
        California who -- primarily for personal, family or  
        Household purposes:

        * currently own or lease a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A;  

        * formerly owned or leased a plane with a Lycoming  
          Crankshaft subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A  
          when the Lycoming Crankshaft was replaced pursuant to  
          Service Bulletin 569 or 569A; or  

        * who formerly owned a plane with a Lycoming Crankshaft  
          subject to Service Bulletin 569 or 569A and sold the  
          plane on or after Feb. 21, 2006.

The complaint raises claims of violation of Unfair Competition Law,
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 for unfair business
practice, fraudulent business practice, and illegal business practice; and
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act California Civil Code Section 1750.

The suit seeks, among others:

     -- certification of the proposed class and consumer  
        subclass;

     -- injunctive relief requiring the defendants cease  
        omitting material information regarding the Lycoming  
        crankshafts covered by SB569A, replace the Lycoming   
        crankshafts, repair any additional damage to parts  
        caused by that replacement, and pay for all costs  
        including parts, labor, and other consequential costs;  

     -- a declaration that defendants must provide full  
        restitution;

     -- an order temporarily and permanently enjoining  
        defendants from continuing the unfair business practices  
        alleged in this complaint; and

     -- an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?11d3

The suit is “Bristow v. Lycoming Engines et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01947-LKK-
GGH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
under Judge Lawrence K. Karlton with referral to Judge Gregory G. Hollows.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert Wade Mills, Esq.
         Mills Law Firm
         145 Marina Boulevard
         San Rafael, CA 94901
         Phone: 415-455-1326
         Fax: 415-455-1327
         E-mail: deepbluesky341@hotmail.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Marla Ruth Weston, Esq.
         Ryan and Fong
         2379 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 100
         Sacramento, CA 95833
         Phone: (916) 924-1912
         Fax: (916) 923-3872
         E-mail: mweston@ryanfong.com


NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: Faces Lawsuits Over Madison Dearborn Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nuveen Investments, Inc. faces several purported class actions in Illinois
and Delaware over its acquisition by an investor group led by the private
equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners, according to the company's Aug. 8,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The company entered into a merger agreement on June 19, 2007 for the
acquisition of Nuveen Investments, Inc. by a corporation formed by a group of
investors led by Madison Dearborn, which merger will be presented to the
shareholders of Nuveen Investments, Inc. for the their approval at a
shareholders’ meeting expected to be held in the third quarter of 2007.

                        Illinois Litigation

On June 20, 2007, a putative class action suit was filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, by an alleged stockholder of
Nuveen Investments, naming Nuveen Investments, members of the board of
directors and Madison Dearborn Capital Partners as defendants in the
complaint.

The case is captioned, “Robert Summerfield v. Nuveen Investments, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07CH 16315.”  This is a stockholder class action for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty or other violations of applicable law arising out
of the pending merger.

It alleges that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing, or have aided
and abetted such breaches.

The plaintiff asks the court to declare the suit a proper class action and to
certify the plaintiff as class representative and plaintiff’s counsel as
class counsel.  Also, plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed merger, to have the Circuit Court declare that the directors of
Nuveen Investments have breached their fiduciary duties and to have
attorney’s fees awarded to plaintiff’s counsel.

On June 21, 2007, June 26, 2007 and June 27, 2007, similar putative class
action were filed in the same court by alleged stockholders of Nuveen
Investments.

The cases are captioned:

       -- “Samuel K. Rosen v. Nuveen Investments, Inc., et. al.,
          Case No. 07CH 16443,”

       -- “Levy Investments v. Nuveen Investments, Inc., et al.,
          Case No. 07CH 16832,” and

       -- “John Sudderth v. Nuveen Investments, Inc., et al.,
          Case No. 07CH 16939.

They name as defendants Nuveen Investments, members of its board of directors
and, in the case of Levy Investments, Madison Dearborn Capital Partners.

On July 31, 2007, the four cases were ordered consolidated before Judge
Philip Bronstein.  

                        Delaware Litigation

On June 28, 2007, a similar putative class action suit was filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

The case is captioned, “Brockton Contributory Retirement Sys. v. Nuveen
Investments, Inc., Case No. 3060,” and names as defendants Nuveen
Investments, members of its board of directors, Madison Dearborn Capital
Partners, and related parties.

The complaints similarly allege that by entering into the proposed
transaction, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due
care, independence, good faith and fair dealing.  

All of the plaintiffs ask the court to declare the suit a proper class action
suit and to certify the respective plaintiffs as class representative.  

Among other things, all complaints seek to enjoin the proposed merger.  

Additionally, two of the cases, “Sudderth,” and “Brockton Contributory
Retirement System,” seek imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of the
class, upon any benefits improperly received by defendants as a result of the
alleged misconduct.

Nuveen Investments, Inc. -- http://www.nuveen.com-- is primarily engaged in  
asset management and related research, as well as the development, marketing
and distribution of investment products and services for the affluent, high-
net-worth and institutional market segments.  

Nuveen Investments distributes its investment products and services,
including individually managed accounts, closed-end exchange-traded funds and
open-end mutual funds to affluent and high-net-worth market segments through
unaffiliated intermediary firms, including broker-dealers, commercial banks,
affiliates of insurance providers, financial planners, accountants,
consultants and investment advisors.


OCWEN FEDERAL: Court Orders Clarification of MDL-1604 Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is seeking clarification of
claims made in a consumer class action "In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage
Servicing Litigation, MDL-1604, Master Docket No. 04cv2714,"

Generally, the suit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act.

                        Case Background

On April 13, 2004, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation granted the company's petition to transfer and consolidate a
number of lawsuits against Ocwen Federal, Ocwen Financial and various third
parties in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
under the caption, "In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1604."

There were approximately 58 lawsuits consolidated in the MDL Proceeding
involving 74 mortgage loans that the company currently or previously
serviced.  

Additional similar lawsuits have been brought in other courts, some of which
may be transferred to and consolidated in the MDL Proceeding.

The borrowers in many of these lawsuits seek class-action certification.  

Others have brought individual actions.  No class has been certified in the
MDL Proceeding or any related lawsuits.

               Amended Consolidated Class Action

On May 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint containing various claims under federal statutes, including the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
federal bankruptcy laws, state deceptive trade practices statutes and common
law.

The claims are generally based on allegations of improper loan servicing
practices, including:

      -- charging borrowers allegedly improper or unnecessary
         fees such as breach letter fees, hazard insurance
         premiums, foreclosure-related fees, late fees, property
         inspection fees and bankruptcy-related fees;

      -- untimely posting and misapplication of borrower
         payments; and

      -- improperly treating borrowers as in default on their
         loans.  

                    Partial Summary Judgment

On April 25, 2005, the court entered an opinion and order granting the Bank
partial summary judgment finding that, as a matter of law, the mortgage loan
contracts signed by plaintiffs authorize the imposition of breach letter fees
and other legitimate default or foreclosure related expenses.

The court explained that it's ruling was in favor of defendants to the
specific and limited extent that plaintiffs' claims challenge the propriety
of the above-mentioned fees.  

                      Interlocutory Appeal

On May 16, 2006, after having denied defendants' motions to dismiss various
portions of the consolidated complaint on federal preemption and procedural
grounds, as well as the company's motion to dismiss Ocwen Financial from the
case for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court granted the company's
motion to take an interlocutory appeal on the federal preemption issue.  

On July 29, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit granted the
company's request to hear its appeal on the federal preemption issue.

On June 22, 2007, the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion holding that many of
the claims were preempted or failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of
the applicable rules of procedure and directing the trial judge to seek
clarification from the plaintiffs regarding various aspects of the
Consolidated Complaint so as to properly determine which particular claims
are to be dismissed.

The suit is "In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL-
1604, Master Docket No. 04cv2714," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.


OMNICARE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has yet to rule
on a motion seeking the dismissal of a second amended complaint in a
purported securities fraud class action filed against Omnicare Inc. in
relation to the company's December 2005 public offering.  

On Feb. 2 and Feb. 13, 2006, respectively, two substantially similar putative
class actions were filed against the company:

     -- "Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers   
        Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No.   
        2:06cv26," and   

     -- "Chi v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv31"  

These suits were filed against the company and two of its officers in the
U.S. District Court For the Eastern District of Kentucky, purporting to
assert claims for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaints, which purport to be brought on behalf of all company
shareholders, allege that the company artificially inflated its earnings by
engaging in improper generic drug substitution and that the defendants have
made false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects.

Thus, the suit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive
relief.

On March 7, 2006, the parties to both actions filed stipulations agreeing
that the cases should be consolidated and proposing a scheduling order for
the conduct of the actions upon consolidation.   

Those scheduling orders were entered on March 10, 2006.  On April 3, 2006
plaintiffs in the HOD Carriers case formally moved for consolidation and the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act  of 1995.   

On May 22, 2006, that motion was granted, the cases were consolidated, and a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.  

On July 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, adding a
third officer as a defendant and new factual allegations relating primarily
to revenue recognition, the valuation of receivables and the valuation of
inventories.  

On Oct. 31, 2006, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended
complaint, which was granted on January 26, 2007, on the condition that no
further amendments would be permitted absent extraordinary circumstances.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed their second amended complaint on Jan. 29, 2007.

The second amended complaint:

      -- expands the putative class to include all purchasers of
         Omnicare common stock from Aug. 3, 2005 through July
         27, 2006,

      -- names two members of the Company’s board of directors
         as additional defendants,

      -- adds a new plaintiff and a new claim for violation of
         Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
         alleged false and misleading statements in the
         registration statement filed in connection with the
         Company’s December 2005 public offering,

      -- alleges that the Company failed to timely disclose its
         contractual dispute with UnitedHealth, and

      -- alleges that the Company failed to timely record
         certain special litigation reserves.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March
12, 2007, claiming that plaintiffs had failed adequately to plead loss
causation, scienter or any actionable misstatement or omission.  That motion
was fully briefed as of May 1, 2007.

In response to certain arguments relating to the individual claims of the
named plaintiffs that were raised in defendants’ pending motion to dismiss,
plaintiffs filed a motion to add, or in the alternative, to intervene an
additional named plaintiff, Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, on July 27, 2007.

Oral argument was held on defendants’ motion to dismiss on Aug. 2, 2007 and
the court reserved decision, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers
Pension and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
00026-WOB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky under Judge William O. Bertelsman.  

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Shirley Huang, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: shirleyh@lerachlaw.com

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: rmaniskas@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Kevin L. Murphy, Esq.
         Graydon, Head & Ritchey, LLP
         2500 Chamber Center Drive, Suite 300, P.O. Box 17070
         Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017
         Phone: 859-344-0330
         Fax: 859-344-0886
         E-mail: kmurphy@graydon.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Richard W. Reinthaler, Esq.
         Dewey Ballantine LLP
         1301 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019-6092
         Phone: 212-258-8000
         Fax: 212-259-6333
         E-mail: lpmco@dbllp.com


OSI RESTAURANT: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Oct. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough
County, Florida, has set a hearing on Oct. 30, 2007 at 1:45 p.m. for a
proposed settlement of the suit “In Re OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc.
Securities Litigation.”

Deadline to file for objection is on October 23, 2007.

                      Florida Litigation

On Nov. 8, 2006, a putative class action complaint captioned, “Charter
Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System v. OSI Restaurant
Partners, Inc., et al., No. 06-CA-010348,” was filed in the Circuit Court of
the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida against:

     * the company,
     * each of its directors,
     * J. Timothy Gannon,
     * Bain Capital Partners, LLC, and
     * Catterton Partners,

challenging the proposed transaction as unfair and inadequate to the
company’s public stockholders.

On Jan. 25, 2007, plaintiff’s counsel in the Florida action voluntarily
dismissed the action as to Mr. Gannon and filed an amended complaint, which
did not name Mr. Gannon as a defendant, against the remaining defendants.

The amended complaint alleges that:

      -- company directors breached their fiduciary duties in
         connection with the proposed transaction by failing to
         maximize stockholder value and by approving a
         transaction that purportedly benefits the investor
         group at the expense of the company’s public
         stockholders;

      -- company directors breached their fiduciary duties by
         failing to disclose certain allegedly material
         information to stockholders; and

      -- the company, Bain Capital and Catterton aided and
         abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches.

The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed transaction, declaratory relief,
compensatory and/or rescissory damages to the putative class, and an award of
attorneys’ fees and expenses to plaintiffs.

Following a case management conference, the court granted plaintiff discovery
from the defendants.  

On Feb. 23, 2007, defendants answered the amended complaint and asserted
affirmative defenses.  The other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on the same date.

                        Delaware Litigation

On Jan. 30, 2007, a class action complaint captioned, “Robert Mann v. Chris
T. Sullivan, et al., No. CA2709-N,” was filed in the Court of Chancery of
Delaware in and for New Castle County against the same defendants stated
above, including Mr. Gannon and except that Catterton Management Company LLC
was named as a defendant rather than Catterton Partners.

Paul E. Avery, Joseph J. Kadow, and Dirk A. Montgomery were also named as
defendants.  The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed transaction, and that Mr. Gannon, Bain
Capital and Catterton aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, an injunction against the proposed
transaction, declaratory relief, compensatory and/or rescissory damages to
the putative class, and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to
plaintiffs.

                         Settlement

Counsel for the parties to these two suits have reached an agreement in
principle, expressed in a memorandum of understanding, providing for the
settlement of the suits subject to Florida court approval and on terms and
conditions that include, among other things, certain supplemental disclosure
in the proxy statement prepared in connection with the special meeting of
stockholders at which the adoption of the merger agreement will be voted upon
and, in the event that any termination fee becomes due and payable by the
company, an agreement by Bain Capital and Catterton to waive a portion of
such company termination fee (Class Action Reporter, June 21, 2007).

Tampa, Florida-based OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. --
http://www.osirestaurantpartners.com-- which was formerly known as Outback  
Steakhouse, Inc., is a casual dining restaurant company, with eight
restaurant concepts, nearly 1,400 system-wide restaurants.  The Company
operates in all 50 states and in 20 countries internationally, predominantly
through company-owned stores, but it also operates under a variety of
partnerships and franchises.  

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432

Counsel for Defendants:

          John D. Donovan, Esq.
          Ropes & Gray, LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110-2624


PACER INT'L: September 2007 Trial Set for “Renteria” in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
A September 2007 trial is slated for a California class action known as
the “Renteria,” which was filed against two subsidiaries of Pacer
International Inc. on behalf of a class of owner-operators.

The subsidiaries -- Interstate Consolidation, Inc., which was subsequently
merged into Pacer Cartage, Inc., and Intermodal Container Service -- engaged
in local cartage and harbor drayage operations.

The “Renteria” case specifically alleges that the subsidiaries providing
insurance for their owner-operators constitutes engaging in the insurance
business without a license in violation of California law and that charging
the putative class of owner-operators in Renteria for workers compensation
insurance that they elected to obtain through the subsidiaries violated
California’s Business and Professions Code.

In June 2007, the company's motion for summary adjudication on the insurance
issue was granted, so that the only remaining issue in the case is the
workers compensation claim.  

Trial on this claim is presently set for September 2007, according to the
company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission of the quarterly period ended June 29, 2007.

Pacer International, Inc. -- http://www.pacer-international.com/-- is a non-
asset-based North American logistics provider.  The Company focuses on its
core intermodal product, with intermodal sales representing approximately 80%
of its total revenues.

  
PARMALAT SPA: Banca Nazionale, Credit Suisse Dropped from Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hermes Focus Asset Management Europe Limited; Cattolica
Partecipazioni, S.p.A.; Capital & Finance Asset Management;
Societe Moderne des Terrassements Parisiens and Solotrat have asked Judge
Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to:

  (i) grant final approval of the partial settlement of their
      securities class action with Banca Nazionale del Lavoro
      S.p.A., Credit Suisse Group, Credit Suisse, Credit Suisse       
      International, and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe)
      Limited; and

(ii) certify a class for settlement purposes, including
      appointment of lead plaintiffs and additional plaintiffs
      as class representatives and plaintiffs' counsel as class
      counsel.

James J. Sabella, Esq., at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., in New York, relates that
the parties previously entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement,
which provides for a settlement of the Action as against the Settling
Defendants only.

In March 2007, the District Court entered an order preliminarily certifying a
Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The District Court held a settlement hearing on July 19 to determine, among
other things, whether (i) the terms and conditions of the Partial Settlement
are fair, reasonable and adequate and should therefore be approved, or (ii)
judgment should be entered dismissing the Complaint on the merits and with
prejudice as against the Settling Defendants.

Accordingly, based on submissions of the parties and on the arguments of
counsel at the Settlement Hearing, Judge Kaplan ordered that the judgment
approving the Class Action Settlement with BNL and the Credit Suisse
Defendants incorporates the
Stipulation and notices that were filed with the District Court
in February 2007, as attachments to Ms. Sabella's declaration.

Judge Kaplan finds that the Settlement Class certified in the
Preliminary Order meets all of the requirements of Civil Rules
23(a) and (b)(3).

Judge Kaplan therefore certifies, on a final basis, the
Settlement Class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or
acquired securities of Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. and its subsidiaries and
affiliates between and including Jan. 5, 1999, and December 18, 2003, and who
were damaged thereby.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are:

  * Parmalat;

  * the Settling Defendants and all other Defendants;

  * persons who, during the Class Period, were officers and
    directors of Parmalat or of its parent, subsidiaries
    and affiliates or of any of the corporate Defendants;

  * any entity in which any of the Defendants have or had a
    controlling interest;

  * the Settling Defendants' liability insurance carriers and
    any affiliates or subsidiaries;

  * members of the immediate families of any of those parties;
    and

  * the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of
    any of those excluded persons or entities.

Judge Kaplan permanently bars and enjoins any members of the Class who did
not opt out of the Settlement Class from filing, commencing, prosecuting or
maintaining in the District Court before which the Securities Action is
pending or in any other federal, foreign, state or local court, forum or
tribunal all claims relating to or arising out of the allegations of the
Complaint against the Settling Defendants.

In addition, Judge Kaplan bars all claims filed by:

  -- any person or entity against the Settling Defendants for
     contribution arising out of the Action; and

  -- the Settling Defendants against any person or entity for
     contribution arising out of the Action, other than a
     person whose liability has been extinguished by the
     Partial Settlement, each to the fullest extent permitted
     by 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(f)(7)(A) and any other
     applicable law or regulation.

Any final verdict or judgment that may be obtained by or on behalf of the
Class or a Class Member against a Non-Settling
Defendant will be reduced in accordance with the provisions of 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(f)(7)(B).

Judge Kaplan dismisses the Action as against the Settling Defendants only, on
the merits and with prejudice as of the Effective Date, without fees or costs
except as otherwise provided in the Judgment.

                    Lift Stay Motion Denied

Judge Kaplan denies the request of New Parmalat and Dr. Enrico
Bondi, as Extraordinary Administrator of Parmalat Finanziaria
S.p.A., et al., to lift the automatic stay of certain claims against New
Parmalat, pending their appeal from the District
Court's recent order denying the motions of:

  (a) Dr. Bondi for an order modifying the preliminary
      injunction issued under Section 304 to permit plaintiffs
      to sue Parmalat S.p.A., the post-reorganization successor
      to the original Parmalat S.p.A. in the United States; and

  (b) New Parmalat to dismiss the claims asserted against it in
      the third amended complaint.

In his three-page memorandum and order, Judge Kaplan states that
New Parmalat and Dr. Bondi "have no probability of success at all" because
the Order was not a final judgment and is, therefore, "not itself
appealable."

Judge Kaplan says the appeal to that extent appears to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals on the theory of pendent appelate
jurisidction.  He avers that if that theory survives at all, it applies only
in circumstances in which the merits of the ruling that is within the Court
of Appeals' jurisidiction are inextricably intertwined with those merits as
to which appelate jurisdiction is invoked.

Judge Kaplan finds that the interests of comity are more than adequately
served by leaving to the Italian courts the question whether and to what
extent to enforce any judgments that may be obtained in the District Court.

Judge Kaplan also believes that liquidation of the claims in the
District Court is a substantial assistance to the Italian courts, and that
resolution of those matters gives full and proper effect to Section 304
policies.

Furthermore, Judge Kaplan states that he sees no material irreparable harm to
Dr. Bondi or New Parmalat in the absence of a stay.

"Dr. Bondi is vigorously lititgating the merits of the Parmalat fraud on
several fronts in [the District] Court," Judge Kaplan says.  "New Parmalat's
liability, if any, is entirely derivative and entirely wrapped up in the
merits of the claims already being litigated."

According to Judge Kaplan, the marginal cost that might ensure from denial of
a stay pending appeal, if any, would be modest in relation to the vast
amounts that Dr. Bondi already must be spending.

Judge Kaplan also considers the substantial disruption that delay pending
appeal in the progress of the overall litigation would cause.

"There are too many parties spending too much money to move forward with this
case to permit the schedule to be knocked into a cocked hat simply because
these litigants wish to pursue appeals that appear to be entirely without
merit," Judge Kaplan maintains.

           Court Grants Claims Dismissal Requests of
                 Delloite Defendants, et al.

The District Court grants, in their entirety, the requests of:

  * Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Deloitte & Touche LLP and James
    E. Copeland;

  * Grant Thornton International and Grant Thornton LLP;

  * Bank of America Corp., Bank of America N.A. and Banc of
    America Securities Ltd.; and

  * Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Vialattea LLC, Buconero LLC
    and Eureka Securitisation plc,

to dismiss the claims of foreign purchasers pursuant to Civil Rule 12(c) on
the grounds that the District Court lacks subject matter jurisidiction over
the claims, the foreign purchasers fail to state a claim for relief, or both.

As an initial matter, Judge Kaplan says, the plaintiffs' arguments are
without merit, and that "they are further reflections of the scorched earth,
take no prisoners style of litigation that both sides have pursued here to
the detriment of the prompt, speedy and efficient resolution that should be
the goal of all litigation."

Judge Kaplan notes that the plaintiffs' assertion that the law of the case
doctrine bars consideration of the current motions is also unpersuasive.

Moreover, Judge Kaplan states, the law of the case doctrine is
discretionary, "and the decision whether or not to apply law-of- the-case is,
in turn, informed principally by the concern that disregard of an earlier
ruling not be allowed to prejudice the party seeking the benefit of the
doctrine," where the term prejudice "refers to a lack of sufficiency of
notice."

Moreover, in a separate order, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to permit Grant
Thornton International and Grant Thornton LLP to file third party claims
against Parmalat S.p.A. in Extraordinary Administration for contribution,
relating to the claims asserted against Grant Thornton by plaintiffs in
Parmalat Securities Litigation.

The District Court specifically stated that enforcement of any judgment
against itself would be left to the Italian Courts.

Parmalat S.p.A. points out that the potential liabilities have not been
assumed by it in the "Concordato," according to a company statement.

                       *     *     *

In a memorandum and opinion signed on August 8, 2007, the
District Court grants, in their entirety, the requests of the
Deloitte, Grant Thornton, the Bank of America and the Credit Suisse
Defendants and Banca Nazionale to dismiss the second amended complaints of
Smith and Pappas.

Judge Kaplan also grants Banca Intesa's request to dismiss Smith's second
amended complaint.

However, in its company statement issued August 10, Parmalat
S.p.A. advises that the District Court's Opinion does not refer to the cases
instituted by the company, but by the administrator of Parmalat USA's Plan of
Liquidation and by the litigation trustee of Farmland Dairies LLC Litigation
Trust.

Parmalat USA and Farmland Dairies LLC filed for Chapter 11 protection in the
Bankruptcy Court in February 2004, and were consequently forced out of the
Parmalat Group.

According to Parmalat S.p.A., those cases are totally independent from its
litigation, which is pending in the same District Court.

(Parmalat Bankruptcy News Issue Number 90, Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or    
215/945-7000).


PEOPLE'S CHOICE: Asbury's Motion to Lift Automatic Stay Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division granted a motion filed by Lillie Asbury to lift an automatic stay
under the bankruptcy code against People's Choice Home Loan, Inc.

On September 22, 2005, Lillie Asbury filed a class action complaint against
People's Choice Home Loan, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq.  The action is currently
pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, entitled Asbury v. People's Choice Home Loan, Inc., docket
no. 05-cv-5483.

Ms. Asbury believes PCHLI has an insurance policy with Chubb Group of
Insurance Companies.  She wants the automatic stay under Section 362 of the
Bankruptcy Code against PCHLI lifted to proceed against the Debtor with the
express understanding that any settlement or judgment will be collected only
against the insurance company.

Ms. Asbury asks the Court to lift the automatic stay against PCHLI to allow
her to adjudicate the merits of her District Court case.

(People's Choice Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 14; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or    
215/945-7000).


PNC FINANCIAL: Appeal Against Securities Suit Settlement Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a securities fraud class action filed against PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania have become final after  the company's auditors who opposed the
agreement dismissed their appeal against it.

The settlement relates to certain lawsuits and other claims  
related to three 2001 transactions (PAGIC transactions) that  
gave rise to a financial statement restatement the company  
announced on Jan. 29, 2002 and that were the subject of a July  
2002 consent order between the company and the U.S. Securities  
and Exchange Commission and a June 2003 Deferred Prosecution  
Agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and PNC ICLC  
Corp., one of its indirect non-bank subsidiaries.

The several putative class action complaints filed during 2002  
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of  
Pennsylvania arising out of the PAGIC transactions have been  
consolidated in a consolidated class action complaint brought on  
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between July  
19, 2001 and July 18, 2002.   

The consolidated class action complaint names the Company, its  
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial  
Officer, its Controller, and its independent auditors for 2001  
as defendants and seeks unquantified damages, interest,  
attorneys' fees and other expenses.   

The consolidated class action complaint alleges violations of  
federal securities laws related to disclosures regarding the  
PAGIC transactions and related matters.  

In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Labor began a formal  
investigation of the Administrative Committee of the company's  
Incentive Savings Plan in connection with the Administrative  
Committee's conduct relating to the Company's common stock held  
by the Plan.  Both the Administrative Committee and PNC are  
cooperating fully with the investigation.   

In June 2003, the Administrative Committee retained Independent  
Fiduciary Services, Inc. (IFS) to serve as an independent  
fiduciary charged with the exclusive authority and  
responsibility to act on behalf of the Plan in connection with  
the pending securities litigation referred to above and to  
evaluate any legal rights the Plan might have against any  
parties relating to the PAGIC transactions.   

This authority includes representing the Plan's interests in  
connection with the Restitution Fund set up under the Deferred  
Prosecution Agreement.  The Department of Labor has communicated  
with IFS in connection with the engagement.  

On Dec. 17, 2004, the company entered into a tentative  
settlement of the consolidated class action.  On March 25, 2005,  
the parties filed a stipulation of settlement of this lawsuit  
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of  
Pennsylvania.   

This settlement also covered claims by the plaintiffs against  
AIG Financial Products and others related to the PAGIC  
transactions.  

The tentative settlement of the consolidated class action  
remains subject to court approval.  The court held a hearing on  
Aug. 4, 2005 to determine whether to approve the proposed  
settlement agreement of the consolidated class action.  The court approved
the settlement in July 2006.

The company's former auditors appealed the court’s approval of  the
settlement.  While the appeal was pending, the company's former auditors
filed their own settlement agreement with the court in December 2006.  

When the auditors’ settlement became final in May 2007, they dismissed their
appeal of the company's settlement.

At that point, the company's settlement of the securities lawsuit became
final, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission of the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

The suit is "Ketterman v. PNC Financial, et al., Case No. 2:05-
cv-00629-DSC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania under Judge David S. Cercone.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
          Peirce Law Offices
          707 Grant Street, 2500 Gulf Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-7229
          Fax: (412) 281-4229
          E-mail: gpaul@peircelaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Mark R. Hornak, Esq.
          Buchanan Ingersoll
          301 Grant Street, One Oxford Centre, 20th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-562-8859
          E-mail: hornakmr@bipc.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HEELYS INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Heelys, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the common stock of Heelys pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its December
7, 2006 initial public offering, through August 7, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that on December 7, 2006, Heelys accomplished its IPO
of 6,425,000 shares at $21.00 per share for estimated net proceeds of $135
million to Heelys pursuant to the Registration Statement.

The Complaint further alleges that the Registration Statement was materially
false and misleading because at the time of the offering, Heelys did not
disclose that its distribution strategy was materially defective because the
Company was not able to adequately manage customer demand, resulting in the
shipment of materially more inventory than necessary to many of the Company's
customers, thus resulting in materially reduced orders being placed by these
customers for the Company's product in subsequent periods.

On August 7, 2007, after the close of trading, Heelys issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2007
and, among other things, updated its full year outlook, stating the following:

"The Company noted that it is experiencing challenges at retail related
primarily to an over-inventoried position of product at many of the Company's
domestic accounts which will have a significant adverse effect on its fourth
quarter 2007 results. Based on these factors, the Company now expects net
sales and net income growth of 10% - 15% in 2007 versus 2006."

The following trading day, Heelys' stock price declined from $21.99 per share
at the close of trading on August 7, 2007, to close at $11.42 per share on
August 8, 2007, a decline of approximately 48% on heavier than normal volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


QIAO XING: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Qiao Xing Universal Telephone Inc. between June 30, 2004 and
July 16, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Qiao Xing 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 operations and financial performance caused Qiao Xing's stock price
to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose material adverse facts,
including that:

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 8, 2007, for lead
plaintiff appointment.

Qiao Xing, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the manufacture and
distribution of telecommunications products, including mobile phone handsets
under the CECT and COSUN brands, primarily in the People's Republic China.

For more information, contact:

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


RAIT FINANCIAL: Scott+Scott Files Pa. Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, LLP, filed on September 15, 2007, a class action against RAIT
Financial Trust (f/k/a RAIT Investment Trust) and certain officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  The action is on behalf of RAIT common stock purchasers during
the period January 10, 2007 through July 31, 2007, inclusive, for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements
and material omissions regarding the Company's business and operations and
that, as a result, the price of the Company's securities was inflated during
the Class Period, thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants made false
and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's exposure to
risky mortgage-backed debt instruments. Unbeknownst to the investment
community, the Company's public disclosures served to actively conceal
materially false and misleading statements which misrepresented and otherwise
failed to disclose:

     (i) the financial relationship between RAIT and its trust
         preferred securities ("TruPS") issuer American Home
         Mortgage Investment Corp. (NYSE:AHM); despite the
         Company's representations to the contrary,

    (ii) the likelihood of non-payment on the TruPS issued by
         AHM had significantly increased as of AHM's withdrawal
         of guidance on June 28, 2007; and

   (iii) RAIT failed to insure or otherwise maintain adequate
         reserves to cover the risk of non-payment by issuers of
         TruPS, particularly for the loss of $95 million in
         value of TruPS issued by AHM.

Then, on July 31, 2007, the Company announced shocking news that the asset
portfolio of RAIT was seriously impaired, by as much as $95 million,
resulting from trust preferred financing provided to AHM in 2005. As a direct
result, the price of RAIT stock plummeted, losing over $5.72 or 36%, closing
$10.36 per share, on volume of over 21.9 million shares.

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

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


TWEEN BRANDS: Strauss & Troy Files Ohio Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Strauss & Troy filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Tween Brands, Inc. and Michael Rayden between
June 8, 2007 and August 21, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Tween Brands and its
Chief Executive Officer Michael Rayden (the "Defendants") violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose and misrepresenting
adverse facts which were known or recklessly disregarded by Defendants.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Tween Brands did not properly
disclose that:

     (1) consumer demand had significantly declined;

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

     (3) schools had pushed the beginning of the school year
         later into the summer.

On August 22, 2007, Tween Brands issued a press release and revealed that the
Company's financial performance had been lower than expected during the
second quarter due to a decline in retail traffic and lower store
transactions throughout the quarter and underestimating the impact of so many
schools moving their back-to-school start dates later. The Company has also
revised their third and fourth quarter outlook downward. On this news, the
Company's shares fell $11.00 per share, or 28.5%, closing at $27.59, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all individuals and entities
that purchased Tween Brands common stock during the Class Period.

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

For more information, contact:

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          Thomas P. Glass, Esq.
          Strauss & Troy
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Phone: 800-669-9341 or (513) 621-2120
          E-mail: rswayne@strauss-troy.com
          Website: http://www.strausstroy.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  * * *