CAR_Public/070919.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, September 19, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 185

                            Headlines


BEAR STEARNS: Navigator Capital Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
BRANTLEY CAPITAL: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit for $3.75M
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Ken. Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Dismissed
DYNEGY INC: Settles Tex. ERISA Fraud Lawsuit for $9.97 Million
FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Bongo Band Toys on High Lead Content

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: U.K. Pension Funds Vie to Lead Avandia Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Faces Suits in Canada Over Diabetes Drug
GLOBAL HORIZONS: Trial Begins in Hispanic Workers’ Lawsuit
HONEYWELL INT’L: Recalls Faulty Security System Control Panels
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Suit Accuses CFO of Inflating Share Price

INFOUSA INC: Still Faces Consolidated Suit by Investors in Del.
INPHONIC INC: Lead Plaintiff Motions in Securities Suit Filed
INPHONIC INC: Still Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Rebate Offers
INPHONIC INC: N.Y. Court Considers Motions in Rebate Offers Suit
MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.

MGM MIRAGE: Faces Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations in Nevada
NEW CENTURY: Rubio, et al. Allowed to Pursue Overtime Pay Claim
PHILIP MORRIS: 1st Circuit Revives Maine Residents’ Light Suit
QUANTUM CORP: ADIC Suit Settlement Yet to Get Final Approval
QUEST CHEROKEE: Sued by Cherokee Basin Royalty Interests Owners

S&M NUTEC: Reaches Settlement in Greenies Dog Chews Lawsuit
TEXAS: Law Firm Plans to File Lawsuit Over “Illegal” Tip Pooling
TYSON FOODS: Lawsuits Filed by Employees Consolidated in Georgia
UNITED STATES: Workers Sue to Stop Mass Arrests, Detentions
VIRGIN ATLANTIC: Cohen Milstein Launches Price-Fixing Lawsuit

WILD EDIBLES: Employees File Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime
W.R. GRACE: Anderson Memorial Moves for Class Certification


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHINA SUNERGY: Eric Bell Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
HEELYS INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
LCA-VISION INC: Alfred Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio


                            *********


BEAR STEARNS: Navigator Capital Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navigator Capital Partners, L.P. on behalf of itself and a class consisting
of all investors who held interests in Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured
Credit Strategies, L.P. at any time during the period August 1, 2006, through
July 18, 2007, filed a class and derivative action against Bear Stearns
entities.

Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies, L.P., was organized
under the laws of the state of Delaware on August 26,
2003.  It commenced operations on October 1, 2003, and offered to sell
Interests by way of offering document entitled "Confidential Private
Placement Memorandum," dated August 31, 2004.  Additional Interests were
offered by way of a Confidential Private Placement Memorandum issued in
August 2006.

The primary objective of the Partnership was "to seek high current income and
capital appreciation relative to LIBOR primarily through leveraged
investments in investment-grade structured finance securities with an
emphasis on triple-A and double-A rated structured finance securities,"
Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq., at Entistle & Cappucci, LLP, in New York, relates.

Bear Stearns Asset Management, Inc., the general partner, invested the
Partnership's funds into collateralized debt obligations backed by sub-prime
mortgages.  During the United States' recent housing boom, which occurred
from late 2001 until mid-2006, CDOs backed by sub-prime loans became very
common investments and generated high rates of return.  However, beginning at
least as early as August 1, 2006, as home prices leveled off and decline in
parts of the country, more borrowers have fallen behind on their mortgage
payments.  This event has led to a decrease in the value of CDOs backed by
those mortgage loans.

Despite the deteriorating market conditions, Ralph Cioffi,
Raymond McGarrigal and Matthew Tanin, managing directors of BSAM, continued
to invest the Partnership's money in risky sub-prime mortgage-backed
securities, while at the same time failing to implement hedging and other
strategies to minimize risk effectively, Mr. Cappucci alleges.

The Partnership invested substantially all of its assets through the Bear
Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd., through
a "master-feeder" arrangement.  The Master
Fund was formed under Cayman Islands law and commenced operations on
September 12, 2003.  As of December 31, 2006, the Partnership's beneficial
ownership of the Master Fund's assets was 28.58%.

In a report to investors for the month ended February 28, 2007,
BSAM stated that the Partnership had returned an estimated 0.08%.  For March
2007, the Fund returned an estimated 3.71%.  As of April 30, 2007, the Fund
returned an estimated 6.24%.

However, on July 18, 2007, Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., parent of BSAM,
informed investors that there was very little value left for the investors in
the High-Grade Fund as of June 30, 2007, and that the High-Grade Fund will
seek an orderly wind-down of the Funds over time.

In this regard, Navigator Capital Partners, L.P., on behalf of itself and a
class consisting of all investors who held Interests in the Partnership at
any time during the period August 1, 2006, through July 18, 2007, filed a
class and derivative action against:

     * the Partnership,
     * the Management,
     * Bear Stearns Companies,
     * Bear, Stearns Securities Corporation and
     * Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,

in the U.S. Supreme Court in the state of New York, county of New York.

Mr. Cappucci says Navigator invested more than $700,000 in the
Partnership from August 25, 2004, through April 13, 2005.  From
January 1, 2007, through April 1, 2007, Navigator contributed
$14,250,000 to the Partnership and withdrew $9,200,289.

Navigator asserts a class and derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Management under Delaware law.  Mr. Cappucci notes that under
Delaware law, the Management owed to Navigator and the Class the highest
obligation to due care, good faith, candor, loyalty and fair dealing.  But
notwithstanding the Management's obligation to adequately assess, monitor and
hedge the credit risks of investment held by the Partnership, and their
admitted ability to do so, they Management failed to do so, in breach of
their fiduciary duties under Delaware law.

In addition, the Management systematically and continuously failed to
disclose to investors that they:

  (a) were not sufficiently monitoring and adequately assessing
      the credit risk inherent in the Partnership's investments;

  (b) were not determining the frequency and severity of
      defaults of the assets of each of the structured finance
      securities invested in by the Partnership;

  (c) were not developing and implementing credit enhancement
      mechanisms, which could cause cash flow to be diverted
      away from the Partnership's riskier investments under
      certain market conditions; and

  (d) were not otherwise adequately engaging in hedging
      techniques to maximize risk.

Had the Management disclosed these facts, Mr. Cappucci says the investors
would have taken steps to avoid the massive losses they suffered, like
withdraw their funds from the Partnership, remove BSAM as General Partner,
institute their own hedges and bring a lawsuit before the value of their
investments plummeted.

The Class has suffered damages caused by the Management's breaches of
fiduciary duties and thus the Management are liable to pay the Class damages
in an amount to be proven at trial, Mr.
Cappucci asserts.   

Navigator also asserts a class and derivative claim for aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty against Bear Stearns Companies, Bear Stearns
Securities and BS&Co. under Delaware law.   Mr. Cappucci asserts that these
companies knowingly participated in the Management's breaches of fiduciary
duties.   

Mr. Cappucci relates that the Partnership's daily mark-to-market was done in-
house by Bear Stearns Companies' repo desk and the portfolio management team,
which admittedly kept in touch with any price movements that could foretell
problems in any one of the Fund's investments.   Bear Stearns Companies' risk
management department monitored the Fund's positions and things like as
minimum rating requirements, overall and net leverage and any portfolio
concentrations, and BSC's global credit department would meet with the
portfolio management team to discuss their positions, risk management and
hedging techniques.

Mr. Cappucci further asserts that Bear Stearns Securities knowingly
participated in the Management's breach of fiduciary duties in its role as
custodian and prime broker to the Partnership and the High-Grade Fund.

Moreover, the Class asserts a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Management under Delaware law

Navigator asks the New York Supreme Court to:

  (a) declare that its action is a proper derivative and class
      action;

  (b) declare that it be the representative of the Class

  (c) declare that Management and each of them have violated
      their fiduciary duties to the Partnership and to the
      Investors;

  (d) declare that Bear Stearns Companies, Bear Stearns
      Securities and BS&Co. aided and abetted the Management's
      breaches of fiduciary duties;

  (e) direct Defendants, joint and severally, to accoun to the
      Investors for all damages suffered or to be suffered by
      them or by the Partnership as a result of the Defendants'
      actions;

  (f) award it, the Class and the Partnership damages in an
      amount to be proven at trial, including judgment interest;
      and

  (g) award it the costs and disbursements of the action, as
      well as reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

(Bear Stearns Funds Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 1; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or    
215/945-7000).


BRANTLEY CAPITAL: Settles N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit for $3.75M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brantley Capital Corp. has entered into a memorandum of understanding
providing the terms of a settlement in principle to resolve two pending
lawsuits to which the Company is a party.

In 2006, Brantley was named defendant in a purported securities fraud class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 5, 2007).

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Brantley Capital between Aug. 14, 2003 and Oct.
24, 2005.

It alleges that the company and certain officers and directors violated
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements
concerning the company's valuation.

On February 7, 2007 the Company filed a lawsuit against its former investment
manager, Brantley Capital Management LLC, certain associated individuals, and
affiliated entities alleging various wrongful acts by the Company's former
management team.

Under the proposed settlement, $3.75 million, in significant part from
insurance carriers, is to be paid into an escrow account designated by the
lead plaintiff in the Class Action, both lawsuits are to be dismissed with
prejudice, and the Company and its present and former officers, directors,
employees, and advisers are to receive releases, including from, among other
things, previously announced indemnification demands.

The Company understands that the escrow account funds would be used to make
payments to class members, to cover claims administration and notice costs,
and to cover the Class Action lead plaintiff's attorneys fees and expenses.
The Company would not be required under the proposed settlement to contribute
any money to the settlement.

The Company is unable to predict when or if the settlement will be finalized.
The settlement is subject to the negotiation and execution of definitive
settlement documents, and settlement of the Class Action is subject to court
approval. The defendants in the Class Action, including the Company, will
also have the option to withdraw from the settlement if the number of
assertedly eligible shares of the Company opting out of the settlement is in
excess of 30,000 shares.

The settlement will only be effective if the settlements of both the Company
Action and the Class Action are finalized simultaneously.

The Company currently has approximately $3.10 per share in net assets.
However, the amount ultimately available for distribution to shareholders
pursuant to the previously approved Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution of
the Company could be materially more or less than that amount, depending on
various contingencies, including finalization of the settlement. The Company
does not anticipate making any cash distributions to its shareholders prior
to court approval of the settlement and the resolution or expiration of time
for any appeal.

The suit is "Strougo v. Brantley Capital Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-13315-
LTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert I. Harwood
          Wechsler Harwood LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-935-7400
          Fax: 212 753-3630
          E-mail: rharwood@whesq.com


DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Ken. Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Fayette Senior Judge Gary Payne agreed to dismiss a sexual abuse suit filed
against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington, Brandon Ortiz of Herald
Leader reports.  Judge Payne ruled that the statute of limitations bar it
from proceeding.  

In the suit, Samuel Lee Edwards Greywolf alleged that the Rev. John B. Modica
sexually abused him when he was 17 years old.  

Greywolf's attorney, Chuck Arnold of Lexington, said he will appeal the
ruling, according to Mr. Ortiz.


DYNEGY INC: Settles Tex. ERISA Fraud Lawsuit for $9.97 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ewing Werlein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern  
District of Texas approved a $9.975 million settlement of a class action
filed against Dynegy Inc. in a hearing held in Houston on Friday afternoon,
Sept. 14.

The suit was filed in September 2005 by two former Illinois Power Co.
salaried employees who were participants in the Dynegy Midwest Generation,
Inc. (DMG) 401(k) Savings Plan for salaried employees (formerly known as the
Illinois Power Incentive Savings Plan), which the company refers to as
the "DMG Salaried Plan.  The plaintiffs purport to represent all DMG Salaried
Plan participants who held Dynegy common stock through the DMG Salaried Plan
from Jan. 1, 2002 through Jan. 30, 2003.

The complaint alleges violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act
in connection with the DMG Salaried Plan.  It seeks unspecified damages for
the losses to the plan, as well as attorney's fees and other costs.

In December 2005, Dynegy filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, in response
to which plaintiffs' counsel filed a second putative class action on behalf
of three alleged plan participants that is materially identical to the
original action.

In March 2006, the court dismissed the original action with prejudice based
on lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the
plaintiffs in that matter have appealed that dismissal.

In Sept. 2006, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the original class action
against Dynegy and several individual defendants (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 27, 2006).

"We are pleased that we were able to help these Illinois Power employees
recover some of what they lost in their retirement plan," said Scott
Clearman, attorney for the employees.

The suit is "Holtzscher, et al. v. Dynegy Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-
03293," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
under Judge Sim Lake.

Representing the defendants are:

          Scott Monroe Clearman
          McClanahan & Clearman
          700 Louisiana, Ste. 4100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-223-2005
          Fax: 713-223-3664
          E-mail: scott@mcllp.com

          - and -

          Thomas R. McDade
          McDade & Fogler
          909 Fannin, Ste. 1200
          Houston, TX 77010-1006
          Phone: 713-654-4300
          Fax: 713-654-4343

Representing the defendants are:

          Morgan D. Hodgson
          Steptoe & Johnson, LLP
          1330 Connecticutt Ave.
          NW, Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-429-6219
          Fax: 202-261-9021
          E-mail: mhodgson@steptoe.com

          - and -

          Jacks C. Nickens
          Nickens Keeton, et al.
          600 Travis, Ste. 7500
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-571-9191
          Fax: 713-571-9652


FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Bongo Band Toys on High Lead Content
----------------------------------------------------------
Fisher-Price Inc., of East Aurora, New York, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 8,900 Big Big World 6-
in-1 bongo band toys.

The company said surface paints on the toys contain excessive levels of lead,
which violates the federal law prohibiting lead paint on children's toys.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled toys have two bongos, including one with a yellow and green
plastic drum base with a blue drum surface. The other bongo is yellow and
green plastic drum base with an orange drum surface with “It’s a Big, Big
World” printed on it. The toys were sold with animal shaped accessories
including a monkey, bird, tambourine and drum stick. The toys have product
number K9343 inside the orange drum. A date code between 139-7SH and 232-7SH
is printed on the drum’s orange ring surface. Bongo Band toys included in
this recall must have both the product number and date code.

These recalled bongo band toys were manufactured in China and are being sold
at retail stores nationwide from July 2007 through August 2007 for about $20.

Picture of recalled bongo band toys:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07303.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away from
children and contact Fisher-Price for instructions on returning the product
in order to receive a free replacement toy.

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


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: U.K. Pension Funds Vie to Lead Avandia Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.K. pension funds North Yorkshire Pension Fund and Avon Pension Fund have
both applied to be lead plaintiff in a class action filed against
GlaxoSmithKline Plc over its diabetes drug Avandia, reports say.

The suit was filed June 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  It alleges that the company misled investors about the
safety of Avandia.

According to Herman and Robin Pagnamenta of the Times Online, although U.K.
funds frequently join U.S. class actions as minor players, it is highly
unusual for them to seek such a prominent role.

But Heather Dale of the Global Pensions said Avon Pension Fund could become
lead plaintiff as a spokesperson for the fund said its losses had been
substantial.

In June, Kaplan Fox filed the suit alleging defendants violated Sections 10
(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a
series of false and misleading statements regarding Avandia, GSK's popular
diabetes drug (Class Action Reporter, June 13, 2007).

In particular, the Complaint alleges that GSK failed to adequately disclose
the fact that it had performed a meta-analysis (a pooled analysis of several
clinical trials) related to Avandia which showed an increased risk of heart
attacks.

Preliminary results of this analysis were presented to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration in September 2005 and updated results were disclosed to the
FDA in August 2006. However, the results of GSK's meta-analysis were never
adequately disclosed to the investing public.

As alleged in the Complaint, on May 21, 2007, before the close of trading,
the results of a meta-analysis on Avandia conducted by a doctor with the
Cleveland Clinic was reported and published in the New England Journal of
Medicine. Similar to GSK's meta-analysis conducted in 2005 and 2006, the
results of the meta-analysis published in the Journal revealed that Avandia
increased the risk of heart attacks and possibly heart-related deaths. As a
result of the reports regarding the meta-analysis, the price of GSK
securities declined $4.53 per share, or 7.8%, to close at $53.18 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased GSK securities between October 27, 2005 and May 21, 2007, inclusive.

In a statement GSK said it believed the results did not confirm a difference
in the safety profile of Avandia.

The funds -- local government schemes that together manage more than $5.97
billion in assets -- have jointly appointed Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman
and Robbins, a New York law firm, to represent them.

A German and a U.S. group are also seeking to act as lead plaintiff in the
suit.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Faces Suits in Canada Over Diabetes Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Kernel of Virden, Manitoba filed a statement of claim in Manitoba
Court of Queen's Bench against the makers of diabetes drug Avandia and the
federal government, The Canadian Press reports.

The 66-year-old Manitoban filed the suit against GlaxoSmithKline and the
federal attorney general on behalf of all Canadians who suffered medical
problems as a result of taking Avandia, a drug used to treat Type 2 diabetes.

Mr. Kernel said he took Avandia for five years until he suffered a heart
attack on April 7, 2006.  He alleges he suffered physical and emotional
damage directly linked to the drug.

"Andrew Kernel has suffered pain, loss of enjoyment in life, a probable
shortening of life, loss of earning and loss of earning capacity, and claims
both special damages and general damages, all caused by ingesting Avandia,"
Mr. Kernel's statement of claim alleged.

He alleges GlaxoSmithKline either knew or should have known Avandia is linked
to serious health effects and did shoddy pre- and post-marketing research and
testing "mainly for the purpose of obtaining financial benefit and ignoring
the potentially serious risks posed to the public," according to the report.

The statement of claim further alleges the Canadian government failed to stop
the sale of unsafe drugs, recall the product or warn consumers about the
drug's possible harm.

None of the allegations has been proven in court.


GLOBAL HORIZONS: Trial Begins in Hispanic Workers’ Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Trial has begun in a lawsuit filed in 2005 by three local Hispanic workers
who allege they were denied employment in 2004 at two Lower Valley (Wash.)
farms, Leah Beth Ward of Yakima Herald-Republic reports.

Plaintiffs in the suit allege that growers and their farm-labor contractor
intentionally displaced them with foreign workers from Thailand.  Hiring of
foreign farm workers are allowed under the federal H-2A program only if an
employer can prove a shortage of local workers.

Plaintiffs lawyers’ will argue in court that contractor Global Horizons of
Los Angeles and the growers engaged in an "elimination process" to fire local
Hispanic workers and replace them with the Thais.

Global's lawyer Chrystal Bobbitt will try to impeach the testimony of a
witness, a former Global employee, who testified that the company's owner,
Mordechai Orian, knowingly moved Thai workers around without U.S. Department
of Labor approval.

The case was originally assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Leavitt who
granted class-action status to the suit.  Judge Leavitt died in June of
complications from lymphoma, and the case went to U.S. District Judge Alan
McDonald, who issued a partial summary judgment for the workers in July.
Judge McDonald died in August after battling a series of health problems.  
The case is now before U.S. District Court Judge Robert Whaley.  It has been
divided into two phases with Global facing a jury trial and the growers being
tried before the judge.

The class has been estimated at between 200 and 600 workers.  

Columbia Legal Services (http://www.columbialegal.org/)is the lead counsel  
for the plaintiffs.

One of the lawyers for the workers is:

          Richard W. Kuhling, Esq.  
          Paine Hamblen LLP
          717 West Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200
          Spokane, Washington 99201-3505
          (Spokane Co.)
          Phone: 509-455-6000
          Fax: 509-838-0007



Representing Green Acre Farms and Valley Fruit is

          Ryan M. Edgley, Esq.
          Edgley & Beattie, P.S.   
          201 East "D" Street
          Yakima, WA 98901
          Phone: (509) 248-1740
          Fax: (509) 248-1573


HONEYWELL INT’L: Recalls Faulty Security System Control Panels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., of Syosset, New York, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,000 Apex-Brand
Destiny 6100 and 6100AN security system control panels.

The company said the memory chip in the control panel could lose programmed
values in the event of a power outage exceeding four hours. If this occurs,
the panel could fail to communicate with a central monitoring station and not
sound an audible notification in the event of a fire or home intrusion.

The firm has received three reports that the product failed to work during
installation. No injuries or property damage have been reported.

The recall involves Apex-Brand Destiny 6100 and 6100AN home security system
control panels with XICOR-brand memory chips. Only units with a date code
between K015 and K057 are subject to the recall. The date code appears on the
product packaging. The date code includes a letter to designate the year
(K=2007) followed by three numbers that indicate the day. For example, a
product manufactured on the 5th day of January 2007 would have the date
code "K005."

These recalled security system control panels were manufactured by Ademco de
Juarez SRL, of Mexico and are being sold at security distributors nationwide
from January 2007 through March 2007 for between $280 and $325. Distributors
sell the control panels to alarm dealers who directly install them.

Pictures of recalled security system control panels:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07575a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07575b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07575c.jpg

Honeywell International is contacting customers directly and is providing a
replacement control panel.

For additional information, contact Honeywell International at (800) 573-0154
between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or go to the firm’s Web
site: http://www.security.honeywell.com


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Suit Accuses CFO of Inflating Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. chief financial officer J. Larry Sorsby is facing
a class-action complaint filed Sept. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California accusing him of inflating the home builder’s
share price through false and misleading statements, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Herbert Mankofsky brings this securities class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Hovnanian between Dec. 8, 2005 Aug. 13, 2007, for defendant's violations of
the Securities Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendant issued a materially
false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects. As a result of these misleading statements, Hovnanian stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the class period, reaching a high of
$54.29 per share in Jan. 2006.

As a result of defendant's misleading statements and failure to disclose,
Hovnanian stock traded at inflated levels during the class period. However,
as a direct result of the market learning of defendant's wrongdoing, the
price of Hovnanian shares declined and plaintiff and the class suffered a
loss on their investment in Hovnanian.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the 1934 Act was violated by defendant;

     (b) whether the defendant omitted and/or misrepresented
         material facts;

     (c) whether defendant's statements omitted material facts
         necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
         circumstances under which they were made, not
         misleading;

     (d) whether defendant knew or deliberately disregarded that
         his statements were false and misleading;

     (e) whether the price of Hovnanian common stock was
         artificially inflated; and

     (f) the extent of damage sustained by class members and the
         appropriate measure of damages.

He prays for judgment as follows:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the members of the class,
        damages, including interest;

     -- awarding plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney's fees;
        and

     -- awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as
        the court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Herbert Mankofsky et al. v. J. Larry Sorsby, Case No. CV07-
05994MMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Joon M. Khang
          Lee Hong Degerman Kang & Schmadeka
          660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Phone: (213) 623-2221
          Fax: (213) 623-2211
          E-mail: jkhang@lhlaw.com


INFOUSA INC: Still Faces Consolidated Suit by Investors in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
infoUSA Inc. continues to face a consolidated lawsuit filed in the Court of
Chancery for the state of Delaware in and for New Castle County against the
company and certain directors of the company including Vinod Gupta.

The lawsuit was filed on February 2006 as a derivative action on behalf of
the company and as a class action on behalf of Cardinal Value Equity
Partners, L.P., which beneficially owns 6.1% of the infoUSA's stock, and
other shareholders.  It asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks
an order that would require the company to reinstate the special committee of
directors.

The special committee was formed to consider a proposal from Mr. Gupta to
acquire the shares of the company not owned by him and was dissolved in
August 2005 following Mr. Gupta's withdrawal of his proposal.

The suit seeks an order awarding the company and the class unspecified
damages.

In May 2006, Cardinal amended its complaint to add several new allegations
and named two additional directors of the company as defendants.  The company
and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

On Oct. 17, 2006, the court granted that motion and dismissed the lawsuit
without prejudice.  The court's order permits Cardinal to file an amended
complaint within 60 days of the order.

Cardinal subsequently filed a third amended complaint, alleging derivative
claims of breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Delaware law.

In January 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to consolidate the
action with a similar action filed by Dolphin Limited Partnership I, L.P. et
al.

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

infoUSA, Inc. -- http://www.infousa.com/-- is a provider of sales leads,  
mailing lists, direct marketing, database marketing, e-mail marketing and
market research solutions.


INPHONIC INC: Lead Plaintiff Motions in Securities Suit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to rule on a
motion seeking for the appointment of a lead plaintiff in a purported
securities fraud class action against Inphonic, Inc.

On May 7 and 18, 2007, two putative federal securities law class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of
persons who purchased the company's common stock between Aug. 2, 2006, and
May 3, 2007.

These substantially similar lawsuits assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the company, its chief executive officer and
its former chief financial officer.

These claims are related to the company’s April 3, 2007, and May 4, 2007
announcements concerning the company's restatement of certain previously
issued financial statements.  One of these actions was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiff.

One group of three purported shareholder class members moved the court for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff by the July 6, 2007 deadline.  

InPhonic opposed that motion on the grounds that two of the three members of
the shareholder group are not qualified to serve as lead plaintiffs.

On July 25, 2007, the shareholder group filed a reply in further support of
their motion in which the two unqualified members withdrew from the group.  
The court has not yet ruled on the motion to appoint Lead Plaintiff,
according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

InPhonic, Inc. -- http://www.inphonic.com-- is an online seller of wireless  
services in the U.S.  

    
INPHONIC INC: Still Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Rebate Offers
---------------------------------------------------------
Inphonic, Inc. continues to face a consolidated federal court action filed
against it in relation to rebate offers for online purchases of wireless
telephones that it is sponsoring.

Fifteen related putative federal court class actions have been filed against
the company arising out of InPhonic-sponsored rebate offers for online
purchases of wireless telephones.  Some of these lawsuits also name a third-
party rebate processor as a defendant.  

This rebate processor began to process claims for InPhonic-sponsored rebate
offers in or about July 2005, and InPhonic's agreement with the rebate
processor expired in or about July 2006.  One of these lawsuits also names
the company's current third-party rebate processor as a defendant.

Of the thirteen federal court actions, five are pending in the District of
Columbia, another five are pending in the District of Arizona, and one each
is pending in the federal courts Newark, New Jersey, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

On Oct. 25, 2006 the company received a decision by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation granting the company’s motion to consolidate the
federal court actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
before the Honorable Ellen Segal Huvelle.

The putative class action complaints allege, among other things, violations
of the consumer protection laws of various States and (in certain lawsuits)
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (anti-
racketeering) statute in connection with our disclosure and implementation of
the terms and conditions of rebate offers.  

The class action plaintiffs seek statutory penalties, treble damages,
attorneys' fees, and punitive damages under the consumer protection statutes,
and treble damages and attorneys' fees under the RICO statute, as well as
injunctions concerning the content of the company's websites.

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

The suit is "In Re: Inphonic, Inc., Wireless Phone Rebate Litigation - MDL-
1792, Case No. 1:06-mc-00507-ESH," filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.

Representing the defendant is:

          Mitchell R. Berger, Esq.
          PATTON BOGGS LLP
          2550 M Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20037
          Phone: (202)457-5601
          Fax: (202)457-6315
          E-mail: mberger@pattonboggs.com

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Steven N. Berk, Esq.
          Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (202) 789-3960
          Fax: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: stevenb@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Khalid A. ElHassan, Esq.
          Eichen, Levinson & Crutchlow L.L.P.
          40 Ethel Road
          Edison, NJ 08817
          Phone: (732) 777-0100
          Fax: (732) 248-8273


INPHONIC INC: N.Y. Court Considers Motions in Rebate Offers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York state court has yet to rule on Inphonic, Inc.'s motions in a
purported class action over rebate offers for online purchases of wireless
telephones that the company is sponsoring.

On or about March 21, 2007, a complaint was filed in New York state court,
asserting a claim relating to InPhonic-sponsored rebate offers under the New
York Deceptive Trade Practices Act on behalf of a proposed class of New York
consumers.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the action, or alternatively to
stay the action, under New York law because the plaintiff’s claim and the
proposed class are already part of the complaint in the matter, "In Re:
Inphonic, Inc., Wireless Phone Rebate Litigation - MDL-1792, Case No. 1:06-mc-
00507-ESH," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

The company is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss or to stay,
according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

InPhonic, Inc. -- http://www.inphonic.com-- is an online seller of wireless  
services in the U.S.  


MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medis Technologies, Ltd. continues to face a securities fraud class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on April 23, 2007 against the Company and, among others,
the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.

The complaint alleges that the Company issued a false and misleading press
release on April 13, 2007 regarding sales of the Company’s “24/7” fuel cell
power packs to a major international company by overstating the importance of
those sales, which resulted in the Company’s common stock being artificially
inflated.  

The complaint seeks relief under Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against, among others,
the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.  

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

The suit is “Kou v. Medis Technologies, Ltd. et al, Case No. 1:07-cv-03230-
PAC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Paul A. Crotty.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: (212) 686-1060
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com


MGM MIRAGE: Faces Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------
MGM MIRAGE, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada that is alleging willful violations of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On June 22, 2007, the Company was served with a purported nationwide class
action lawsuit filed in federal district court in Nevada, entitled, “Lety
Ramirez v. MGM MIRAGE, Inc., et al.”

The lawsuit asserts that the Company failed to comply timely with FACTA’s
directive that merchants who accept credit and/or debit cards not display
more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the card expiration date on
electronically-generated receipts provided to customers at the point of sale.

FACTA’s compliance deadline for electronic machines that were first put into
service before Jan. 1, 2005 was Dec. 4, 2006, while electronic machines put
into use on or after Jan. 1, 2005 required immediate compliance.

Although the complaint does not assert that the plaintiff sustained any
actual damage, the plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated putative class members throughout the United States statutory
damages of $100 (minimum) to $1,000 (maximum) for each transaction violation,
attorneys’ fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent injunction.

The suit is “Ramirez v. MGM Mirage, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-00326-PMP-PAL,”
filed in the  U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge
Philip M. Pro with referral to Judge Peggy A. Leen.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Randal D. Shimon, Esq.
          Shimon & Lovaas, APC
          3016 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 210
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Phone: 702-388-1011
          Fax: 702-387-1011
          E-mail: randy@shimon-lovaas.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Patrick G. Byrne, Esq.
          Snell & Wilmer
          3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 1100
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Phone: 702-784-5201
          Fax: 702-784-5252
          E-mail: pbyrne@swlaw.com


NEW CENTURY: Rubio, et al. Allowed to Pursue Overtime Pay Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin J. Carey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware approved a stipulation allowing Daniel J. Rubio, John Hicks, David
Vizcarra -- individually on behalf of themselves, all others similarly
situated, and the general public -- to file a class proof of claim.

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

Rubio et al. commenced a lawsuit against New Century Mortgage Corp.  The
Rubio Action proceeded for approximately two years until the Petition date,
when it was stayed pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In May 2007, Rubio et al. asked the Court to lift the automatic stay, which
the Debtors objected.  Both parties resolved the dispute by agreeing that the
stay would be lifted to attempt to obtain coverage for allegations in the
fifth amended complaint, and for no other purpose.

Rubio et al. obtained certification of a class action on behalf of allegedly
1,600 individuals employed by the Debtor as loan officers in in California.

Their claims are for unpaid overtime wages, compensation for failure to
provide statutorily mandated meal and rest periods, and statutory and common
law violations.

The class proof of claim must be filed by the August 31, 2007 deadline set by
the Court.  The Debtors and other parties-in- interest reserve the right to
object to the class proof of claim on substantive grounds, including:

  (a) failure to meet criteria in Rule 7023 of the Federal Rules
      of Bankruptcy Procedure; and

  (b) validity or amount of claim.

If the Court disallows the class proof of claim, only the claims of the class
members who filed individual proofs of claim will remain, and claims of the
putative class members will be barred.

New Century Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 17 Bankruptcy Creditors' Service Inc.;
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or    
215/945-7000).


PHILIP MORRIS: 1st Circuit Revives Maine Residents’ Light Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The First Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated on Aug. 31, 2007, a class
action brought by Maine residents against Philip Morris by unanimously
rejecting Philip Morris' argument that the claims were preempted by federal
law.  

The case brought by Maine residents challenges the cigarette company's
representations that certain brands of its cigarettes are "light" or
have "lowered tar and nicotine," alleging that Philip Morris, USA, Inc., and
its parent company, Altria Group, Inc., violated Maine Unfair Trade Practices
laws by engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices.  The plaintiffs
allege that the so-called "light" cigarettes are deceptively designed and
marketed to the public, and that a smoker consumes the same quantities of tar
and nicotine from light cigarettes as from full-flavored, or "regular," ones.

In this case, and in other cases around the country, Philip Morris challenged
the claims on the ground that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act and the Federal Trade Commission's actions preempted the state law claims
brought under the Maine consumer protection statutes, essentially arguing
that only branches of federal government could bring actions against the
tobacco companies for deception.  While the Maine district court dismissed
the class action on this basis in May 2006, Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, who
wrote the unanimous opinion, said that Philip Morris' arguments
were "unavailing."

In its 68 page opinion, Judge Howard also noted that despite Philip Morris'
contention that was a coherent federal policy that barred state law, low-tar
claims, this was expressly contradicted by a Supreme Court filing by the
United States Solicitor General in 2006, which stated that the FTC "has never
promulgated definitions of terms such as 'light' and 'low tar' and that its
previous statements purporting to define them "did not reflect an official
regulatory position."

Gerard Mantese, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, commented, "the Court of
Appeals categorically rejected Philip Morris' assertion that cigarette
companies have an immunity for fraud," adding, "we now look forward to
presenting the merits of this case to a Maine jury."

Link to Court Opinion:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1965.01A

Mr. Mantese's firm, Mantese and Rossman, P.C., is also representing
plaintiffs in "lights" class actions currently pending in Arkansas and New
Mexico.

Mantese and Rossman, P.C. on the Net: http://www.manteselaw.com/.


QUANTUM CORP: ADIC Suit Settlement Yet to Get Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington has yet to finally
approve a proposed settlement of a purported class action filed against
Quantum Corp. over its acquisition of Advanced Digital Information Corp.

On May 18, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court, Seattle,
Washington, naming ADIC and its directors as defendants.  

The lawsuit is a purported class action filed by Richard Carrigan on behalf
of an alleged class of ADIC's shareholders. Plaintiff alleged, among other
things, that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the proposed acquisition of ADIC by Quantum that was publicly
announced on May 2, 2006.

The suit sought to enjoin the defendants from consummating the proposed
acquisition and other relief.  

On Aug. 22, 2006, the company completed its acquisition of ADIC.

Though the acquisition has since been consummated, the lawsuit remained
pending and the company has continued discussions with the plaintiff to reach
a resolution.  

In January 2007 the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle the litigation and the parties submitted a settlement agreement to the
Court for approval in May 2007, which was preliminarily approved.

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

Quantum Corp. -- http://www.quantum.com-- offers storage, delivery of  
reliable backup, recovery and archive solutions that meet demanding
requirements for data integrity and availability.


QUEST CHEROKEE: Sued by Cherokee Basin Royalty Interests Owners
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Cherokee, LLC, a unit of Quest Resource Corp., faces a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in relation to
royalty payments.

On Aug. 3, 2007, certain alleged mineral and/or overriding royalty interests
owners in land located in the Kansas portion of the Cherokee Basin filed a
putative class action against Quest Cherokee.

The suit is captioned, “Hugo Spieker, et al. v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, Case No.
07-1225-MLB.”  Named plaintiffs allege that Quest Cherokee has failed to
properly make royalty payments to them and the putative class by, among other
things, paying royalties based on reduced volumes instead of volumes of gas
measured at the wellheads, and by allocating certain expenses to plaintiffs'
interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the amount in controversy exceed five million dollars,
according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

The suit is “Spieker et al. v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, Case No. 6:07-cv-01225-
MLB-KMH,” filed in the  U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under
Judge Monti L. Belot with referral to Judge Karen M. Humphreys.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Charles E. Millsap, Esq.
          Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, L.L.C.
          1900 Epic Center, 301 N. Main, PO Box 997
          Wichita, KS 67201-0997
          Phone: 316-267-7361
          Fax: 316-267-1754
          E-mail: cmillsap@fleeson.com

Representing the defendant is:

          David E. Bengtson, Esq.
          Stinson Morrrison Hecker LLP
          1625 N. Waterfront Pkwy., Suite #300
          Wichita, KS 67206-6602
          Phone: 316-265-8800
          Fax: 316-265-1349
          E-mail: dbengtson@stinson.com


S&M NUTEC: Reaches Settlement in Greenies Dog Chews Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&M NuTec, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Mars, Inc., reached a settlement
in several purported class actions over Greenies dog chews, the Kansas City
Business Journal reports.

According to the report, Alan Sash -- plaintiff's class action attorney for
New York firm McLaughlin & Stern LLP -- said that a federal judge approved a
joint agreement to dismiss the case between 10 pet owners and North Kansas
City-based makers of the Greenies dog treats.

In Oct. 2006, S&M NuTec remained a defendant in several purported class
actions over Greenies dog chews, despite its recent makeover of the product
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006).  Called "new Greenies," the revamped
products were hyped as "next generation of canine dental chews."  S&M NuTec,
the maker of Greenies, says they "begin to break down quickly, making them
easy to swallow and digest."

Though it may seem like another product announcement, according to lawyer Mr.
Sash, the change of formula is one of the things he asked for in a class
action he filed in April.  The suit, for product liability, was filed for 10
pet owners in eight states against the company.

Mr. Sash lamented that it was unfortunate that the creator and former owners
of Greenies, Joe and Judy Roetheli, did not change the product in this manner
immediately after all the horrible stories surfaced.  However, according to
him, they are encouraged that Mars, Inc., intends to do the right thing and
change the product for the better.

Mr. Sash's class action is in addition to several suits filed against the
company.  One suit was filed by a woman in Los Angeles Superior Court, whose
dog was forced to undergo surgery to remove a piece of Greenie stuck on the
pet's esophagus.  A New York couple, represented by Mr. Sash, also filed a
suit against the company after the death of their dog (Class Action  
Reporter, April 13, 2006).

Generally, the suits allege that the consumption of Greenies by dogs has not
only been responsible for severe esophageal and/or intestinal problems, it
has also led to the death of numerous dogs.  

They also allege that the company was well aware of the types of problems
caused by Greenies, but that it did not take any affirmative action to warn
consumers of the potential for these types of problems (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 28, 2006).

The New York class action has been transferred to a federal court in Kansas
City for several reasons, including the convenience of some witnesses,
parties in the suit, and documents.

According to lawyer Mr. Sash said the settlement terms were private.

"All issues between the plaintiff and the maker of Greenies have been
resolved," he said.

For more details, contact:

          Alan E. Sash
          McLaughlin & Stern, LLP
          260 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: 212-448-1100
          Fax: 212-448-0066
          Web site: http://www.mclaughlinstern.com/


TEXAS: Law Firm Plans to File Lawsuit Over “Illegal” Tip Pooling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of attorney Bob Debes intends to file a class action to stop
illegal tip pooling in Texas.  He is advertising in Austin, San Antonio,
Houston and Dallas soliciting potential clients, according to Kendra Mendez
of News 8 Austin reports.

Tip pooling is a common practice in the restaurant industry.  It is legal if
the tips are pooled and divided among waiters, and service staff.  But the
management or the kitchen staff is not allowed to share in it.  Many
restaurants illegally do it and Mr. Debes intends to stop the practice
through a suit.


TYSON FOODS: Lawsuits Filed by Employees Consolidated in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judicial panel ruled that pre-trial proceedings in 18 labor
lawsuits against Tyson Foods will be heard in the same federal court in
Georgia, The Associated Press reports.

In August, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted
Tyson's request to consolidate the lawsuits claiming workers weren't paid for
the time they spent changing into or out of protective clothing or walking to
their work stations.

The company and other U.S. meat processors are facing 18 lawsuits filed in 10
federal district courts across the U.S.  The suits allege the meat companies
violated federal labor law on overtime pay, minimum wage and record-keeping.  
The suits were triggered when in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court said Tyson-
owned IBP Inc. in South Dakota must compensate workers for changing clothes
and walking to work stations.

The suits were filed in district courts in Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas.

U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land will hear pretrial proceedings in the cases.

Robert Camp of The Cochran Firm in Birmingham, Ala. represents more than
1,000 clients.

For more information, contact:

          Robert Camp, Esq.
          The Cochran Firm
          505 North 20th Street
          Suite 825
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 244-1115
          Fax: (205) 244-1171


UNITED STATES: Workers Sue to Stop Mass Arrests, Detentions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Five Swift & Co. employees from Panhandle (Tex.) are among plaintiffs in a
class action that alleges human rights violations during immigration raids
last year, Amarillo Globe-News (Tex.) reports.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) sought
court intervention to protect the 4th Amendment rights of all Americans and
enjoin the government from illegally arresting and detaining workers
including U.S. citizens and legal residents while at their workplace,
according to a statement by the UFCW (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 17, 2007).

                        The UFCW Lawsuit

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

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

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

According to the Amarillo Globe-News, aside from the union, plaintiffs in the
suit include Rosalva Rodriguez of Sunray, Delfina Arias of Cactus and Dumas
residents Rosa Arellano, Candace Michelle Svenningsen and Sonia Mendoza.  
Except for Ms. Rodriguez, they rest are American citizens.  Ms. Rodriguez is
a Mexican citizen, but also has a permanent-resident status, according to the
report.

Other plaintiffs are Michael Ray Graves of Waterloo, Iowa, Alicia Rodriguez
of Marshalltown, Iowa, and Sergio Rodriguez of Evans, Colo.

Defendants further include the Department of Homeland Security secretary
Michael Chertoff and assistant secretary Julie L. Myers.

For more information, contact:

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


VIRGIN ATLANTIC: Cohen Milstein Launches Price-Fixing Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll is launching a major class action against
airline carrier Virgin Atlantic after the company admitted its involvement in
an alleged price-fixing scandal over fuel surcharges, Claire Ruckin of the
Legal Week, reports.

Cohen Milstein name partner Michael Hausfeld and antitrust partner Charles
Tompkins are leading the team for claimants involved in the class action,
which will seek to retrieve damages from Virgin, the report said.

Mr. Hausfeld commented, “We hope to accelerate the proceedings against Virgin
and British Airways by using this admission as a basis upon what price
prevailed in the market as a result of the illegal agreements.”

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Michael D. Hausfeld
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.  
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone:  (202) 408-4600
          Fax:  (202) 408-4699

Representing defendant is:

          David E. Vann Jr.
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP  
          Citypoint, One Ropemaker St.
          London EC2Y 9HU, England
          Phone:  44-20-7275-6550
          Fax:  011-44-20-7275-6502


WILD EDIBLES: Employees File Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Sixteen employees of Wild Edibles Inc. are suing the seafood company alleging
they were not paid overtime wages, Lisa Fickenscher of Crain's New York
Business reports.

The group also alleges that Wild Edibles owner Richard Martin fired four
workers who joined Industrial Workers of the World union and tried to
convince their colleagues to do the same.

The suit was organized by worker advocacy group Brandworkers International.  
Brandworkers co-founder Daniel Gross told the Crain's New York Business that
Wild Edibles employees work 10- and 12-hour shifts without receiving overtime
wages.  He said most of the Wild Edibles employees are immigrants.

Headquartered in Long Island City, N.Y., Wild Edibles Inc. --
http://www.wildedibles.com– has three retail stores, one at 535 Third Ave.  
between 35th and 36th Streets, one at Forager's in Brooklyn, and one in Grand
Central Market.  It also has one wholesale facility in Queens.


W.R. GRACE: Anderson Memorial Moves for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anderson Memorial Hospital asks a judge to recognize the Anderson Memorial
state class action and certify the non-South Carolina putative class in a
suit filed against W.R. Grace & Co. and a number of other former
manufacturers of asbestos-containing surfacing materials.

Anderson Memorial filed a class action against W.R. Grace & Co. and a number
of other former manufacturers of asbestos-containing surfacing materials on
behalf of certain building owners on December 23, 1992.  The Class Action, as
originally filed, did not have geographical boundaries, Christopher D.
Loizides, Esq., at Loizides, P.A., in Wilmington,
Delaware, tells the Court.

In 1994, the South Carolina Circuit Court issued an order striking out-of-
state class members from the Anderson Complaint based on the state's "Door
Closing Statute."  In 1995, the South Carolina Circuit Court denied
reconsideration of that order.   Because the Order did not conclude the case,
it was not immediately appealable under South Carolina law, Mr. Loizides
points out.  Anderson Memorial could only reserve its position for appeal at
the conclusion of the case before the South Carolina Circuit Court.

In 2001, the South Carolina Circuit Court finally entered an order certifying
a state-wide class action against W.R. Grace.

Meanwhile, W.R. Grace and its debtor-affiliates (Debtors) filed for chapter
11 protection on April 2, 2001.  The Debtors' filed their Chapter 11 Plan and
Disclosure Statement on Nov. 13, 2004.  On Jan. 13, 2005, they filed an
Amended Plan and Disclosure Statement.  The hearing to consider the adequacy
of the Debtors' Disclosure Statement began on Jan. 21, 2005.  The Debtors'
exclusive period to file a chapter 11 plan expired on July 23, 2007.

As class representative, Anderson Memorial and the class counsel, Speights &
Runyan, filed proofs of claim for each claimant or class member they could
identify through the Debtors' sales records.  Anderson Memorial also sought
to preserve the claims by filing a Class Proof of Claim.

The Debtors objected to the Claims.  Mr. Loizides contends that the filing of
the Debtors' objections created a "contested matter" and implicated Rule 9014
of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure, which permits bankruptcy courts to apply
Rule 7023 and certify class actions in bankruptcy.

Thus, on October 21, 2005, Anderson Memorial filed a class certification
motion under Bankruptcy Rules 9014 and 7023, seeking to certify an asbestos
property damage class that included all the claimants and class members for
which it had filed proofs of claim.

Mr. Loizides notes that a number of courts have certified class actions and
allowed them to proceed through the bankruptcy process.  Among the factors to
be considered for class certification are:

  (1) prepetition status of litigation;

  (2) whether the grant or denial of certification would inflict
      any prejudice to the Debtors' other creditors; and

  (3) the competing prejudice considerations between the Debtors
      and other creditors.   

Mr. Loizides points out that the Anderson Memorial putative class was filed
almost nine years before the Petition Date, and that although the South
Carolina Circuit Court struck the non-South Carolina class members, the issue
was preserved for appeal as of the Petition Date.   

There is no danger, Mr. Loizides maintains, that a certification of the
Anderson Memorial putative class would delay resolution of a plan of
reorganization or slow down the Debtors' bankruptcy because the only
reorganization plan filed is confirmable and the Debtors' exclusivity periods
have recently terminated.

Mr. Loizides also notes that by definition, there is no competition between
creditors when the Debtors have asserted that there will be a 100% recovery
under a reorganization plan.

Accordingly, Anderson Memorial asks Judge Fitzgerald to recognize the
Anderson Memorial state class action and certify the non-South Carolina
putative class.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 136; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or    
215/945-7000).


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHINA SUNERGY: Eric Bell Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Eric J. O'Bell, LLC filed a class action against China
Sunergy Co., Ltd. (Nasdaq:CSUN) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of China Sunergy in connection with the Company's IPO on or about May
17, 2007, or who purchased shares thereafter in the open market.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is November 9, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
          Law Offices of Eric J. O'Bell, LLC
          3500 North Hullen Street
          Metairie, Louisiana 70002
          Phone: 504-456-8677
          Fax: 504-456-8624
          E-mail: ejo@obelllawfirm.com
          

HEELYS INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Heelys, Inc., pursuant or
traceable to the Company's December 7, 2006 Initial Public Offering.

The Complaint charges Heelys and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Heelys is engaged in the design,
marketing, and distribution of action sports-inspired products for children.
The Company's primary product is a dual-purpose footwear product that
incorporates a removable wheel in the heel. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that a significant number of severe injuries had been
         reported to the Consumer Product Safety Commission
         ("CPSC") concerning injuries sustained by children
         using the Company's wheeled footwear;

     (2) that children needed to use proper protective safety
         equipment to avoid suffering potentially serious
         injuries while using the Company's wheeled footwear;

     (3) that sales of the Company's wheeled footwear would
         dramatically decline as safety concerns and injury
         reports were revealed to consumers; and

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

On December 7, 2006, the Company conducted its IPO. In connection with the
IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus with the SEC.
The IPO was a financial success for the Company and selling stockholders, as
they were able to sell 6.425 million shares of the Company's stock to
investors at a price of $21.00 per share, for gross proceeds of $134.9
million. Then in June 2007, a series of reports and articles highlighted the
unsafe nature of the Company's wheeled footwear when used without protective
safety equipment. The June edition of Pediatrics reported on the risk and
severity of injuries sustained by children who used the Company's wheeled
footwear without such protection, and showed a high number of injuries
requiring hospital visits due to their severity.

Shortly thereafter, the CPSC reported that accidents from wheeled footwear
contributed to roughly 1,600 emergency room visits in 2006. These reports and
others revealed that a high percentage of these injuries were sustained by
children falling backwards while using the wheeled footwear, and resulted in
injuries such as cracked skulls and concussions, broken bones and
dislocations, and at least one death.

On August 7, 2007, the Company reported its second quarter 2007 financial
results. The Company significantly lowered its full-year outlook,
citing "challenges at retail related primarily to an over-inventoried
position of product at many of the Company's domestic accounts." The
Company's Chief Financial Officer also reported that retailers were reluctant
to place significant fourth-quarter orders until current inventories were
reduced.

Additionally, the Company was forced to significantly reduce its revenue and
earnings guidance for the remainder of 2007. On this news, shares of the
Company's stock declined $10.57 per share, or 48 percent, to close on August
8, 2007 at $11.42 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

For more information, contact:

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


LCA-VISION INC: Alfred Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. commenced a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of
purchasers of LCA-Vision Inc. (NASDAQ:LCAV - News) common stock during the
period between February 12, 2007 and July 30, 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 12, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, Pittsburgh
          Phone: Toll free 800-391-5164 or 412-391-5164
          Fax: 412-471-1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.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  * * *