CAR_Public/070924.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, September 24, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 188

                            Headlines


AMEREN CORP: Motions to Dismiss Ill. PPA-Related Cases Pending
BRAVO! Recalls Cat, Dog Foods on Risk of Contamination
CANADA: Notices of Residential School Suit Settlement Now Out
CANADA: Hundreds Join Gagetown Agent Orange Suit, Lawyer Says
D'ALESSANDRO & WOODYARD: Real Estate Scam Suit to Continue

DEGUSSA CORP: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Settlement
DICK'S SPORTING: Seeks to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y.
FLORIDA: AFDC Recipient Files Suit Against Social Services Dept.
KEYSTONE MFG: Recalls Ovens for Fire, Electrical Shock Hazards
LORAL SPACE: New Plaintiff Yet to be Named in N.Y. Investor Suit

LORAL SPACE: October 2007 Trial Scheduled for Shareholder Suit
MANNATECH INC: Motion to Junk Tex. Securities Suit Deemed Moot
MEDIA INDUSTRY: Faces Suit by Expanded Basic Cable Subscribers
MOBILE COS: Saskatchewan Court Certifies Suit Over Surcharges
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Brain Cancer Vaccine News

PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
QUANTA CAPITAL: Still Faces Securities Lawsuits in N.Y. Courts
QUONG HOP & CO: Recalls Tofu Due to Possible Health Risk
RADIAN GROUP: Pa. Court Remands “Rubery” Back to State Court
RCN CORP: Settles ERISA Violations Suit Pending in N.J. Court

SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Actor Sues Over Undistributed Funds
UNITED ONLINE: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. NetZero Suit
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Investors Yet to File Amended Complaint
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Sued in N.Y. Over MemberHealth Merger Plan
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Nov. 2 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
ZIPREALTY INC: Still Faces Employee Agents' Lawsuit in Calif.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases
                
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit
NETBANK INC: Schoengold Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ga.
OPTEUM INC: Eric J. O'Bell Files Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
ORBCOMM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.


                            *********


AMEREN CORP: Motions to Dismiss Ill. PPA-Related Cases Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has yet to rule
on a motion to dismiss filed by Ameren Corp. and other defendants in relation
to lawsuits over the Illinois power procurement auction (PPA) of 2006,
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.

Two similar class actions filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
in March 2007 named as defendants:

     * Ameren Corp.,
     * Illinois Power Co. (IP),
     * Commonwealth Edison Co.,
     * Exelon Corp., and
     * 15 electricity suppliers, including Ameren Energy  
       Marketing Co.,

which are selling power to the Illinois utilities pursuant to contracts
entered into as a result of the September 2006 power procurement auction.

The asserted class seeks to represent all customers who purchased electric
service from Commonwealth Edison Co. or the Ameren Illinois Utilities.

Both lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Illinois utilities and the
power suppliers illegally manipulated prices in the September 2006 power
procurement auction.

Relief sought in both cases is actual damages to be determined at trial and
legal costs, including attorneys’ fees.  One of the lawsuits also seeks
punitive damages and recovery of illegal profits and excludes the Ameren
Illinois Utilities from the requests for relief.

In April 2007, the defendants in these lawsuits filed notices removing these
cases to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  
Defendants have pending motions to dismiss.

Ameren Corp. -- http://www.ameren.com-- is a public utility holding  
company.  


BRAVO! Recalls Cat, Dog Foods on Risk of Contamination
------------------------------------------------------
Bravo! voluntarily recalled select tubes of three of its poultry products for
cats and dogs.  The pet food is being recalled because two of the products
have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella and Listeria
monocytogenes, while the other product has the potential to be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes.  

Both Salmonella and Listeria are organisms which can cause serious infections
in dogs and cats, and if there is cross contamination, in people, especially
small children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy people with Salmonella infection may only suffer short-term
symptoms, such as high fever, severe headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal
pain, and diarrhea.  Long term complications can include arthritis and other
more serious ailments.  Healthy people with Listeria infection may only
suffer short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness,
nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea.  Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The company has received no reports of illness in either people or animals
associated with any of the three products.

The recalled products are distributed nationwide to distributors, retail
stores, internet sales and directly to consumers, and they can be identified
by the batch ID code located on the hang tag attached to the bottom of the
plastic film tubes.  The recalled products should not be sold or fed to
pets.  Pet owners should return unopened frozen tubes of food to the store
where purchased for a full refund.  Pet owners should dispose of opened tubes
of product in a safe manner (example, a securely covered trash receptacle)
and return the washed plastic batch ID tag to the store where purchased for a
full refund.

Recalled Pet Food

     Product:  Bravo Original Formula Chicken Blend frozen raw
               food
     Product Numbers: 21-102, 21-105, 21-110
     Sizes:  2 pound, 5 pound and 10 pound tubes
     Batch ID code (on hang tag):  236
     Reason for Recall:  Salmonella, Listeria

     Product:  Bravo Original Formula Turkey Blend frozen raw
               food
     Product Numbers: 31-102, 31-105, 31-110
     Sizes:  2 pound, 5 pound and 10 pound tubes
     Batch ID code (on hang tag):  236
     Reason for Recall:  Listeria

     Product:  Bravo Basic Formula Finely Ground Chicken frozen
               raw food
     Product Number:  21-212
     Size:  2 pound tube
     Batch ID Code (on hang tag):  226
     Reason for Recall:  Salmonella, Listeria

Other Batch IDs for these same products are not involved in the recall.

Bravo! is issuing this action out of an abundance of caution and sincerely
regrets any inconvenience to pet owners as a result of this announcement.  
This voluntary recall has been issued because the FDA detected the bacteria
in samples during a recent review.  

In an effort to prevent the transmission of Salmonella from pets to family
members and care givers, the FDA recommends that everyone follow appropriate
pet food handling guidelines when feeding their pets.  A list of safe pet
food handling tips can be found at:
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/foodbornetips.htm.

People may risk Salmonella infection not only by handling these pet foods,
but also by contact with pets or other surfaces exposed to these foods, so it
is important that they thoroughly wash their hands with hot water and soap.  
Anyone who is experiencing the symptoms of Salmonella or Listeria infection
after having handled the recalled product should seek medical attention.  
Consumers may report any complaints to FDA's local District Complaint
Coordinator’s located on the FDA website:
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/complain.html.

Healthy cats and dogs rarely become sick from Salmonella.  Animals ill with
Salmonella will display symptoms similar to the ones listed above for
humans.  People who have concerns about whether their pet has Salmonella or
not should contact their veterinarian.

For more information on the Bravo recall, please visit
http://www.bravorawdiet.com,or call toll free (866) 922-9222


CANADA: Notices of Residential School Suit Settlement Now Out
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, and
Minister Responsible for Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada, and
Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, announced on
Sept. 19 the Implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement
Agreement.

Applications for the Common Experience Payment are being mailed to all former
students of Indian Residential Schools who have requested one. They will also
be available through all Service Canada Centres and on-line at
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a Common Experience Payment to be paid,
upon application and verification, to eligible former students of Indian
Residential Schools. The Agreement also includes an Independent Assessment
Process for claims of sexual or serious physical abuse, as well as measures
to support Healing, Commemoration, and the establishment of a Truth and
Reconciliation Commission.

Over the next four years, former students of Indian Residential Schools will
be able to submit Common Experience Payment applications to Service Canada.
The deadline for submission of applications by eligible individuals is
September 19, 2011.

Service Canada's responsibilities include: helping former students obtain and
fill out their CEP applications; accepting their completed applications; and
processing payments for applications approved by IRSRC. Service Canada's
staff will assist former students in-person through community outreach and
any of its 328 Service Canada Centres, online at servicecanada.gc.ca and
through its toll-free CEP line (1-866-699-1742 or TTY 1-800-926-9105).

On May 10, 2006, Canada's New Government announced the conclusion of the
final Settlement Agreement. It includes:
    
    -- A Common Experience Payment to be paid to all eligible
       former students who resided at recognized Indian
       Residential Schools;

    -- An Independent Assessment Process for claims of sexual
       and serious physical abuse;

    -- A fund to support events and other activities which
       commemorate the legacy of Indian Residential Schools; and

    -- The establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation
       Commission.

The Assembly of First Nations said in a separate statement:

“The settlement agreement is the largest settlement in Canadian history,
which includes payment for survivors to compensate for loss of language and
culture, a more efficient and effective process to deal with serious claims
of abuse, and a national truth and reconciliation commission to bring greater
understanding and awareness of the Indian residential schools history. More
than 150-thousand children attended residential schools. There are about 80-
thousand living survivors who are eligible for compensation.”

                        Case Background

All nine provincial and territorial judges approved on March 8 the revised
Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement that will see at least CA$1.9
billion being distributed to plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, March 23,
2007).

A class action brought by the former students of the Mohawk
Institute Residential School, a native residential school in
Brantford, Ontario, and their families, was settled in November
2005 by way of a national Agreement in Principle between the Government of
Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, legal counsel for Indian Residential
School survivors and various religious entities.

Amongst other things, the Agreement provides for a compensatory Common
Experience Payment, for loss of language and culture, to every former Mohawk
student who attended a residential school in Canada alive as of Oct. 5, 1996,
consisting of a CA$10,000.00 lump sum and CA$3,000.00 extra for each school
year or part thereof after their first year of attendance.

The Mohawk class action covers the years of 1922 to 1969.  During that time,
there were 150 to 180 students at the School each year, ranging in age from 4
to 18 and split roughly equally between boys and girls.  All were native
children, that is, Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act.  In all,
approximately 1,500 native children attended the Mohawk School during those
years.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Mohawk School was run in a way that was
designed to create an atmosphere of fear, intimidation and brutality.  
Physical discipline was frequent and excessive.  Food, housing and clothing
were inadequate.  Staff members were unskilled and improperly supervised.  
Students were cut off from their families.  They were forbidden to speak
their native languages or to practice their native cultures.


CANADA: Hundreds Join Gagetown Agent Orange Suit, Lawyer Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
A suit over Ottawa's compensation package for Agent Orange victims at
Canadian Forces Base Gagetown are building up against the government.

Tony Merchant of the Merchant Law Group said hundreds of people have added
their names to the class action, increasing the number to about 3,000
veterans and civilians, Canadian Press reports.  These people find the
government's offer of a one-time $20,000 payment for those who meet strict
eligibility requirements inadequate.

"It's enough money to buy a used truck in exchange for what for many is daily
pain and suffering,” Mr. Merchant said, according to the report.  He is
seeking court approval for the case to go ahead in Manitoba and Newfoundland
and Labrador.

For people to be eligible for the compensation, they must have worked on or
lived near the huge New Brunswick training base in 1966 and 1967 and must
exhibit one of 12 disorders associated with Agent Orange exposure, including
prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes, Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson
said earlier.  Thompson said the payments are "ex gratia" meaning the
government is not admitting liability. He said people can accept the $20,000
and still join a lawsuit, according to the report.

The U.S. military tested Agent Orange and several other combat defoliants for
use in the Vietnam War in 1966 and 1967.  The lawsuit wanted this period
extended to the 1950s, when the base opened, and to continue until recent
years.


D'ALESSANDRO & WOODYARD: Real Estate Scam Suit to Continue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits against real estate mogul Frank D’Alessandro will continue even
after his death, a Fort Lauderdale class action lawyer said, according to
Naples Daily News.

The body of Mr. D’Alessandro was found in the waters off the coast of New
Jersey about a week after he disappeared from a late night kayaking trip.  
Mr. D’Alessandro faced dozens of lawsuits, primarily stemming from his
involvement with a lease/purchase program that promised real estate investors
a 14 percent return on their money.

Lawyer Gary Poliakoff, who represents more than 100 investors in a class
action filed in federal court, said the discovery of the body would have
little bearing on the litigation, according to the report.

“Mr. D’Alessandro was one of only many parties and the matter will proceed,”
he said.

Mr. D’Alessandro is a defendant in the suit “Sewell et al. v. D'Alessandro &
Woodyard, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00343-JES-SPC,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on May 30.

Also named in the suit are Florida companies:

     * Gates, D'Allesandro & Woodyard LLC,
     * K.Hovnanian First Homes LLC,
     * First Home Builders of Florida,
     * First Home Builders of Florida I, LLC

and individuals,

     * Samir Cabrera,
     * Honora Kreitner

Defendants are accused of running a subprime mortgage scam.  Named plaintiffs
Randolph Sewell and Daphne Sewell sue for, inter alia, federal securities
fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1701 et seq., and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
Florida Statutes, Section 501.201 et. seq., in connection with the offering
and sale of real estate investment opportunities in Lee County, Florida.

According to the complaint, defendants promised 14 percent annual returns
through a “Lease To Own” program, in which would supply lessees with poor
credit to “investors” who bought new homes; the lessees would get options to
buy the homes within three years, at a “promised” annual appreciation of 14
percent.

The D'Alessandro & Woodyard prospectus “explains that investors will realize
their guaranteed 14 percent annual rate of return when the ‘ready-made’
tenant procured by D'Alessandro & Woodyard ‘buys’ the investor out of the
deal.

In the “Exit Strategy,” D'Alessandro & Woodyard explains that this ‘buyout’
is made possible through the tenant’s successful procurement of refinancing
in the ‘sub-prime’ lending market, and that they will be ‘coached’ in this
process by D'Alessandro & Woodyard and its affiliates.”

According to plaintiffs, they “invested” $15,000 in three such homes,
couldn’t get financing, and stand to lose everything.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons who received the "First
Home Lease Purchase Investment Opportunity" prospectus and thereafter
purchased properties from First Home Builders in Cape Coral and Lehigh Acres,
Florida for investment purposes.

Questions raise include:

     (a) whether defendants violated the federal securities
         laws by inducing purported class members to purchase
         investment properties from First Home Builders based
         upon false and misleading representations contained in
         the Prospectus and in oral communications with the
         Plaintiffs and class members;

     (b) whether defendants violated the Interstate Land Sales
         Full Disclosure Act by inducing purported class members
         to purchase investment properties from First Home
         Builders based upon false and misleading             
         representations contained in the Prospectus and in oral
         communications;

     (c) whether defendants' actions also constitute deceptive
         and unfair trade practices, in violation of Sections
         501.201 to 501.213, Florida Statutes;

     (d) whether defendants D&W and First Home Builders breached
         their contractual obligations to purported class
         members failing to obtain tenants for the purchased
         properties.

Plaintiffs demand the following relief:

     -- that the court certify the case as a class action and  
        appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives and
        plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants in the
        amount of their damages incurred with interest thereon,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- that the court order such other relief as it deems just
        and proper, including, but not limited to, rescission of
        the subject purchase agreements and the return of each
        purchaser's down payment or contract deposit (as well as
        any other monies paid to defendants).

The suit is “Sewell et al. v. D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00343-JES-SPC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele with referral to Judge Sheri
Polster Chappell.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Gary C. Rosen, Esq.
          Daniel L. Wallach
          Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
          Emerald Lake Corp Pk
          3111 Stirling Rd.
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312-9057
          Phone: 954/987-7550
          Fax: 954/985-4176
          E-mail: bthomas@becker-poliakoff.com or
                  dwallach@bellsouth.net

          -- and –

Representing Mr. D’Alessandro are:

[REDACTED]

          Philip J. Snyderburn, Esq.
          Snyderburn, Rishoi & Swann
          258 Southhall Lane, Suite 420
          Maitland, Florida 32751
          (Orange Co.)
          Phone: 407-647-2005
          Fax: 407-647-1522


DEGUSSA CORP: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will hold a
fairness hearing on Nov. 16, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for a proposed $21,000,000
settlement by DEGUSSA Corp. and DEGUSSA  GmbH in the matter, "In Re:  
Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-666, MDL Docket No. 1682."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Stewart Dalzell in Courtroom 1-
B, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, at 601
Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of
all persons, who purchased Hydrogen Peroxide (including sodium perborate and
sodium percarbonate) in the U.S. or from a facility located in the U.S.,
directly from any of the defendants listed below.

Defendants:

       -- Akzo Nobel Chemicals International B.V.;

       -- Akzo Nobel Inc.;

       -- Arkema Inc. (f/k/a Atofina Chemicals, Inc. and Elf
          Atochem North America, Inc.);

       -- Arkema France (f/k/a Atofina S.A. and Elf Atochem
          S.A.);

       -- Degussa Gmbh (f/k/a Degussa A.G.);

       -- Degussa Corporation;

       -- EKA Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- FMC Corporation;

       -- Kemira Chemicals, Canada, Inc.;
    
       -- Kemira Oyj;
    
       -- Solvay America;

       -- Solvay Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- Solvay S.A.; and

       -- Total S.A. (f/k/a Totalfinalelf S.A. and Total, S.A.).

In general, the suit asserts that, as a result of the alleged conduct of the
defendants, the prices paid to the defendant manufacturers for hydrogen
peroxide, sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate were higher than they
otherwise would have been.

Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs from defendants.  However, no application for attorneys' fees or
reimbursement of expenses is being made as the moment.

For more details, contact:

          Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation
          Settlement Administrator
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          P.O. Box 58309
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-8309
          Phone: 215-665-8870
          http://www.hydrogenperoxideantitrustlitigation.com/

          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
          Web site: http://www.cmht.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          805 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or 212-687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
          Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com


DICK'S SPORTING: Seeks to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is working to settle two purported class actions
that accuse it of failing to pay overtime wages as required by as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The cases were filed in May and November of 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York.  They are captioned:

       -- “Tamara Barrus v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. and
          Galyan’s Trading Company, Inc.,” and

       -- “Daniel Parks v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.”

Because until September 2006 none of these cases were certified as class
actions, the company deemed them to be claims that were incidental to its
business.  

In September and October 2006, respectively, a magistrate judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York conditionally certified
classes for notice purposes under the FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases,
which the U.S. District Judge upheld.

In the Barrus case, the parties and the Court agreed to stay the litigation
pending an attempt to resolve all claims through mediation.

A mediation session was held in April 2007 resulting in the parties agreeing
to hold a second mediation session in August 2007.

The parties to the Parks case will meet in August or September 2007 to
negotiate a schedule for the remainder of the case.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting goods retailer  
that offers an assortment of brand name sporting goods equipment, apparel and
footwear in a specialty store environment.


FLORIDA: AFDC Recipient Files Suit Against Social Services Dept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Department of Children and Families is accused of abusively and
unconstitutionally demanding money from people who received overpayments
under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Juan Carlos do Campo claims the state is threatening to
recoup $3,842 in overpayments from his tax refund if he doesn’t pay the
amount.  Mr. do Camp denies knowledge of the transaction entered by his
deceased mother when he was yet a minor.  

He brings this action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all individuals who have been or will be made subject
to claims of recovery by the Department for alleged overpayment of benefits,
when the individual was neither the applicant for nor the direct recipient of
the AFDC benefits, but was a minor member of a household, and there is no
indication that such individual has said benefits in his or her possession.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether federal law provides for actions to collect
         against former minor children alleged aid overpayments
         to their parents made when the target of the recovery
         was a minor, and if not, whether Florida law or
         Department Manual which purports to provide for such
         contravenes federal law and is thus invalid;

     (b) whether the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution
         invalidates any law or action to collect against former
         minor children alleged overpayments to their parents
         made when the target of the recovery was a minor when
         there are no direct claims against the former minor
         child in contract, tort or equity;

     (c) whether the Equal Protection Clause or any other clause
         of the U.S. Constitution invalidates any law or action
         to collect against former minor children alleged
         overpayments to their parents made when the target of
         the recovery was a minor despite the fact that there is
         no direct claim against the former child in contract,
         tort or equity;

     (d) whether principles of equity prevent such actions;

     (e) whether such actions violate any statute or regulation;

     (f) whether, upon ones 18th birthday, a child is liable for
         claims against his or her parents;

     (g) whether there is a right to each one's majority without
         being burdened by actions to collect debts allegedly
         owed by one's parents;

     (h) whether damages alleged by the class members were
         approximately caused by the conduct of the defendant;

     (i) whether the defendant is liable to the class members
         for damages;

     (j) the proper method of calculating damages for members of
         the class; and

     (k) whether declaratory and injunctive relief is available
         to the class.

Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant as follows:

     -- for compensatory damages;

     -- for costs of suit, attorneys' fees and such other
        declaratory and injunctive relief as the court deems
        just and proper.

The suit is "Juan Carlos do Ocampo et al. v. Florida Department of Children
and Families, Case No. 07-22465," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Magistrate Judge Brown.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          John Andres Thornton
          John Andres Thornton, PL
          Bank of America Tower
          100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 532-6851
          Fax: (305) 538-1070
          E-mail: johnandresthornton@hotmail.com


KEYSTONE MFG: Recalls Ovens for Fire, Electrical Shock Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keystone Manufacturing Co. Inc., of Buffalo, N.Y. and QVC of West Chester,
Pa., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, are
recalling about 32,000 Cook’s Essentials Convection Ovens with Pull-Out
Rotisserie and Deni Convection Ovens with Rotisserie.

The companies said wires behind the control panel can overheat, posing fire
and electric shock hazards.

QVC has received 49 reports of incidents, including five minor burns, five
electrical shocks and 11 incidents of minor property damage to kitchen
cabinets and countertops.

This recall involves the Cook’s Essentials Multi-Function Convection Oven
with Pull-Out Rotisserie (model number 910500), which was also sold as the
Deni Convection Oven with Rotisserie (model number 10500). The model number
can be found on the bottom of the oven. These are countertop ovens and the
brand name “Cook’s Essentials” or “Deni” is found on the front right panel.

These recalled convection ovens were manufactured in China and are being sold
through the Cook’s Essentials brand was sold exclusively through QVC and the
Deni brand was sold through various on-line retailers from October 2006
through May 2007 for about $125.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the oven and contact QVC or
Keystone to receive a replacement oven or a refund. QVC and Keystone have
notified consumers by telephone and by mail to stop using the oven.

Picture of recalled convection ovens:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07577.jpg

Consumers who bought a Cook’s Essentials oven through a QVC broadcast or at
QVC.com, and who have not been contacted by QVC, should call QVC at (800) 367-
9444 between 7 a.m. and 1 a.m. ET seven days a week.

Consumers who bought a Cook’s Essentials oven at a QVC outlet or retail store
should return the oven to the store at which it was purchased for a refund.
Consumers who bought a Deni brand oven and who have not been contacted by
Keystone should call Keystone at (800) 336-4822 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday. Consumers can also visit QVC’s Web site at www.qvc.com
or Deni’s Web site: http://www.deni.com


LORAL SPACE: New Plaintiff Yet to be Named in N.Y. Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York state court is yet to confirm the substitution of the plaintiff in
a shareholder suit filed against Loral Space & Communications Inc.  A new
plaintiff in the suit is to be named after the original plaintiff’s death in
2006.

On or about Nov. 3, 2006, plaintiff Maxine Babus, derivatively on behalf of
Loral Space & Communications Inc., filed a shareholder derivative complaint
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against
all the members of the Loral board of directors and against Loral as a
nominal defendant.

On or about April 4, 2007, as contemplated by the Memorandum of
Understanding, the plaintiff filed an amended shareholder class and
derivative complaint against all members of the Loral board of directors, MHR
Fund Management LLC (MHR) and certain funds (MHR Funds) and other entities
affiliated with MHR (collectively, MHR, the MHR Funds and such other
entities, the MHR Entities) and Loral as a nominal defendant.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that, in connection with
the Company’s Securities Purchase Agreement dated Oct. 17, 2006, as amended
and restated on Feb. 27, 2007, pursuant to which the Company sold to the MHR
Funds $300 million in new convertible preferred stock, the directors and the
MHR Entities breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, including the
fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, and that the MHR Entities and Dr. Mark
H. Rachesky have aided and abetted the directors’ breach of fiduciary duty.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, both as to the derivative
claims and the class action claims, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined,
rescission of the Securities Purchase Agreement and plaintiff’s costs and
disbursements, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses.

On March 21, 2007, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into providing
for the settlement of the Babus litigation.  

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the MHR Funds will pay to Loral $4 million
in cash after entry of a court order approving the terms of the MOU that is
finally approved on appeal or no longer subject to appeal.

In addition, the MHR Funds may be obligated to pay to Loral between $9.5
million and $26.5 million depending on the amount of net cash or cash
equivalent proceeds actually received from the sale by the MHR Funds of:

       -- the preferred stock,
       -- shares issued in respect of and pursuant to the terms
          of the preferred stock or
       -- securities issued or delivered in exchange for the
          preferred stock or the shares referred to in the
          clause above.

The parties to the Babus lawsuit have agreed to use their best efforts to
agree upon and execute a stipulation of settlement and such other
documentation as may be required to obtain court approval of the settlement
and dismissal of the lawsuit (Settlement Documents).

The consummation of the settlement is subject to:

       -- the drafting and execution of the Settlement
          Documents;

       -- the completion by the plaintiff of confirmatory
          discovery in the lawsuit reasonably satisfactory to
          plaintiff’s counsel; and

       -- a court order approving the settlement in accordance
          with the terms of the Settlement Documents and that
          such order is finally affirmed on appeal or is no
          longer subject to appeal and dismissal of the lawsuit
          in its entirety with prejudice and without awarding
          costs to any party (except for attorneys’ fees, costs
          and expenses to be awarded to plaintiff’s counsel
          subject to approval by the court as provided in the
          MOU).

To date, the parties have not engaged in negotiating the Settlement
Documents, plaintiff’s counsel has not engaged in confirmatory discovery, and
court approval of the settlement has not been sought.

On April 27, 2007, plaintiffs in a similar shareholder litigation in Delaware
served a motion to intervene in the Babus lawsuit.  

In their intervention motion, the Delaware plaintiffs claimed that an
automatic stay of the Babus lawsuit went into effect on Nov. 12, 2006, by
virtue of the death on that day of the New York plaintiff, Maxine Babus.

Among other things, the prospective intervenors claimed that all developments
in the Babus lawsuit subsequent to Nov. 12, 2006, including the execution of
the MOU, the filing of the amended complaint and the pursuit of confirmatory
discovery, are null and void.

At a hearing in June 2007, the plaintiffs in the Delaware shareholder
litigation withdrew their motion to intervene in the Babus lawsuit, and
counsel for Maxine Babus produced a stipulation substituting Mrs. Babus’ son
as plaintiff in place of his deceased mother.

The court ruled that it would so order the substitution contingent upon Mr.
Babus filing ancillary proceedings in New York, which he has not done to
date, 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.

Loral Space & Communications Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/-- together with  
its subsidiaries is a satellite communications company with activities in
satellite manufacturing and satellite-based communications services.
  

LORAL SPACE: October 2007 Trial Scheduled for Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative October 2007 trial is slated for the matter, “In re: Loral Space
and Communications Inc. Consolidated Litigation,” which was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

On or about May 14, 2007, the Delaware court entered an order consolidating
two civil actions previously commenced by certain stockholders of the Company
against the Company, the MHR Entities (MHR Fund Management LLC (MHR) and
certain funds (MHR Funds) and other entities affiliated with MHR are
collectively, know as the MHR Entities) and the individual members of the
Company’s board of directors under the caption, “In re: Loral Space and
Communications Inc. Consolidated Litigation.”

Plaintiffs in this action are certain stockholders of the Company who allege
that they hold over 18% of the outstanding common stock of the Company
(Blackrock Plaintiffs) and Highland Crusader Offshore Partners, L.P.
(Highland, and, together with the Blackrock Plaintiffs, the Delaware
Plaintiffs), the purported owner of approximately 5% of Loral’s outstanding
common stock.

The Blackrock Plaintiffs have brought the case derivatively on behalf of the
Company and directly on behalf of the Blackrock Plaintiffs individually.

The case has also been brought by Highland as a class action on behalf of a
class of Loral stockholders consisting of all security holders of the Company
(except the defendants and persons or entities related to or affiliated with
the defendants) who, as alleged in the amended and consolidated
complaint, “are or will be threatened with injury arising from Defendants’
actions” as described in the amended and consolidated complaint.

In the amended and consolidated complaint, the Blackrock Plaintiffs have
brought derivative claims alleging, among other things, that, in connection
with the Securities Purchase Agreement, the directors and the MHR Entities
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, including the fiduciary
duties of care and loyalty, the MHR Entities have aided and abetted the
directors’ breach of fiduciary duty, and the directors have engaged in
conduct, or intentionally or recklessly approved conduct, that has caused the
Company to waste valuable corporate assets.

In addition, the Blackrock Plaintiffs have brought a direct claim against the
MHR Entities and Dr. Rachesky alleging breach of their fiduciary duties to
the Blackrock Plaintiffs, and a claim alleging that, by approving, engaging
in and closing the transactions contemplated by the Securities Purchase
Agreement, defendants violated the restriction on transactions between
companies and their interested stockholders contained in Section 203 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.

The Blackrock Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, rescission of the
Securities Purchase Agreement, a judgment declaring that the Securities
Purchase Agreement, and the process by which it was negotiated, approved and
completed, violated Delaware law and constituted a breach of defendants’
fiduciary duties and awarding plaintiffs their expenses and costs, including
reasonable legal fees.

In the amended and consolidated complaint, Highland has brought class claims
alleging, among other things, that:

     -- in connection with the Securities Purchase Agreement
        pursuant to which the Company sold $300 million of
        preferred stock to the MHR Funds, MHR and the individual
        defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
        negotiating and approving the Securities Purchase
        Agreement;

     -- MHR and the individual defendants breached their
        fiduciary duties by failing to terminate and re-
        negotiate the Securities Purchase Agreement after it was
        announced;

     -- the individual defendants committed an ultra vires
        abdication of their statutory authority;

     -- MHR and the individual defendants breached their
        fiduciary duty of disclosure by stating publicly that
        they would seek to renegotiate the Securities Purchase
        Agreement after it was announced or to obtain an
        alternative and instead proceeding with the Securities
        Purchase Agreement; and

     -- MHR aided and abetted the individual defendants in their
        breach of fiduciary duty.

Highland is seeking, among other things:

     -- rescission of the preferred stock transaction;

     -- imposition of a constructive trust on any profits MHR
        earned through the transaction,

        * to compel MHR to distribute a portion of the preferred
          stock or resulting shares into which the preferred
          stock converts to the class,

        * to invalidate a portion of the preferred stock or
          resulting shares into which the preferred stock
          converts;

     -- imposition of a permanent injunction on MHR’s right to
        convert the preferred stock or to exercise the voting
        power conferred by the preferred stock or the shares
        into which it converts;

     -- an award of damages to the class in an amount to be
        determined at trial;

     -- an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and
        an award of costs and disbursements, including
        reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees.

Discovery in the consolidated action has commenced, and a trial has been set
for October 2007, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2007.

Loral Space & Communications Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/-- together with  
its subsidiaries is a satellite communications company with activities in
satellite manufacturing and satellite-based communications services.


MANNATECH INC: Motion to Junk Tex. Securities Suit Deemed Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has rendered as
moot a motion to dismiss filed by defendants in a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against Mannatech, Inc.

The Second Amended Complaint rendered moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss and
the Court denied the motion as moot and set a briefing schedule such that
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was due Aug. 27,
2007.

Initially, the company was named in three separates securities class
actions.  

The first suit was filed on Aug. 1, 2005 by Mr. Jonathan Crowell against the
Company and Mr. Samuel L. Caster, its Chief Executive Officer.  

Plaintiff brought the putative class action, on behalf of himself and all
others who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between
August 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

The second lawsuit was filed on Aug. 30, 2005 by Mr. Richard McMurry against
the Company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Terry L. Persinger, its President and Chief
Operating Officer, and Mr. Stephen D. Fenstermacher, its Chief Financial
Officer.

The third case was filed on Sept. 5, 2005 by Mr. Michael Bruce Zeller against
the Company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Persinger, and Mr. Fenstermacher.

These three lawsuits were initially filed and consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico. On Jan. 29, 2007, the
consolidated action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.  On March 29, 2007, upon joint motion of the
parties, was transferred to the docket of Judge Ed Kinkeade.

The Mannatech Group, consisting of Mr. Austin Chang, Ms. Naomi S. Miller, Mr.
John Ogden, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, has been
appointed as lead plaintiffs, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP has been appointed as lead counsel, and Provost Umphrey LLP has been
appointed local counsel for the putative class.


On May 21, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint.  However, on July 12, 2007, Lead Plaintiff for the
putative class filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

This Second Amended Complaint is substantively similar to the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on March 22, 2007, but it expands
the class period to July 5, 2007.

The Second Amended Complaint rendered moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss and
the Court denied the motion as moot and set a briefing schedule such that
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was due Aug. 27,
2007.

The suit is "Crowell v. Mannatech Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
00238," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
under Judge Ed Kinkeade.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David J. George, Esq.
         Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         120 E Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561/750-3000
         Fax: 561/750-3364
         E-mail: dgeorge@lerachlaw.com
                 rrobbins@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Edward S. Koppman, Esq.
         Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
         1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 4100
         Dallas, TX 75201-4618
         Phone: 214/969-2846
         Fax: 214/969-4343
         E-mail: ekoppman@akingump.com


MEDIA INDUSTRY: Faces Suit by Expanded Basic Cable Subscribers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers filed on Sept. 20 an antitrust suit against major media companies
and major cable and satellite providers in the U.S.  The suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The lawsuit challenges industry-wide agreements and practices that
effectively mandate that consumers must purchase prepackaged tiers of bundled
cable channels and cannot purchase channels or programming on an "a la carte"
basis. It alleges that the agreements and practices are unlawful restraints
of trade in violation of the federal antitrust laws.

The suit is brought as a class action on behalf of all consumers in the
United States who, during the last 4 years, have paid for "expanded basic
cable" subscriptions from the following cable or satellite companies:

          -- Time Warner Cable Inc.,
          -- Comcast Corporation,
          -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
          -- Cox Communications, Inc.,
          -- The DirecTV Group, Inc.,
          -- Echostar Satellite L.L.C., and
          -- Cablevision Systems Corporation

The suit also names the following media entities due to restrictive bundling
agreements and practices that are passed on to consumers:

          -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
          -- Viacom Inc.,
          -- The Walt Disney Co.,
          -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
          -- Time Warner, Inc.

The lawsuit specifically alleges that each of the programmer defendants (NBC,
Viacom, Disney, Fox, and Time Warner), with knowledge that the other
programmer defendants operate in the same manner, will only sell or license
the bulk of its programming or channels to the cable/satellite defendants as
a package.

This "block booking" or "tying" requires the cable/satellite defendants to
acquire channels which, if unbundled, they would not acquire at all, or would
separately negotiate channel by channel based upon consumer demand.  The
cable/satellite defendants, in turn, repackage and distribute the channels to
the consuming public in bundled tiers of channels.

The cable/satellite defendants do not offer "expanded basic" channels to
consumers on an "a la carte" basis. This deprives consumers of choice and,
because many consumers have no interest in the vast majority of channels they
are forced to purchase on expanded basic cable, consumers pay a significant
overcharge.

According to a recent Federal Communications Commission study, consumers are
charged approximately $100,000,000 per year for channels which, if offered "a
la carte," they would not purchase.

The named plaintiffs and class representatives are:

          -- Rob Brantley,
          -- Darryn Cooke,
          -- William and Beverly Costley,
          -- Christiana Hills,
          -- Michael B. Kovac,
          -- Michelle Navarrette,
          -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and
          -- Joseph Vranich.

The lawsuit seeks damages for the plaintiffs and all class members, and an
injunction to eliminate the "tying" arrangements in the industry and allow
consumers to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Maxwell M. Blecher
          David W. Kesselman
          Blecher & Collins, P.C.
          Phone: (213) 622-4222


MOBILE COS: Saskatchewan Court Certifies Suit Over Surcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Queen's Bench in Regina certified a lawsuit filed against
Canada's cellphone providers over “system access” fees, reports say.

The suit was filed by Tony Merchant, Q.C. of Merchant Law Group LLP in 2004.  
The law firm says it intends to pursue recovery of system access fees and
licensing charges on behalf of all Canadian cellular phone users, including
current and former customers of Bell Mobility, Telus, Rogers Wireless Inc. &
Fido (Microcell), SaskTel, MTS, and Aliant.  Other smaller, regional players
are also named in the suit.

The suit alleges the companies continue to collect the "system access"
or "licensing" fees long after it was no longer allowed.  The fees are
charged when the cellphone industry was still building itself up.  It is no
longer required, but cellphone service providers have allegedly convinced
customers the fees are required under federal regulations.

The fees have allegedly enriched the companies by allowing them to advertise
lower prices, then boost the cost of cellphone plans through hidden fees,
according to Mr. Merchant.  Collection of such fees would generate millions
of dollars for the industry, about $1.3 to $1.5 billion, according to him.

The suit seeks a return of some $12 billion plus interest.  It is described
as the largest class-action in Canadian history, potentially affecting every
cellphone user in the country.  Currently, there are 7,500 complainants who
had signed onto the suit.

Mr. Merchant had filed nine similar lawsuits and this is the first one to be
certified.  The suits are before the Superior Courts of B.C., Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland.

Merchant Law Group on the Net: http://www.merchantlaw.com


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Brain Cancer Vaccine News
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a shareholder class action against
Northwest Biotherapeutics Inc. questioning the company's motives in making
its July 9, 2007 announcement.

When investors saw news that Seattle-based biotechnology company Northwest
Biotherapeutics was poised to distribute the "world's first therapeutic
vaccine for brain cancer" to patients in Switzerland, investors thought the
release of information was good news, but some of those investors have filed
a lawsuit against the company.

According to the lawsuit the announcement was so misleading, it led to a run-
up of the stock price, and then a steep drop once it became clear that some
of the claims were untrue.  The company issued a news release
entitled "World's First Therapeutic Vaccine for Brain Cancer Commercially
Available to Patients in Switzerland," and touted the "first commercially
available therapeutic vaccine" for brain cancers, claiming that Northwest
Biotherapeutics intended on "making the product available to patients in Q3
2007," the suit states.

But on July 16, 2007, Northwest Biotherapeutics issued a second news release
stating that the only authorization the company had received was for
conditional import and export purposes and the Swiss government had yet to
even review the vaccine for safety and efficacy, the complaint states.

"We believe that Northwest Biotherapeutics knowingly made false and
misleading statements that ultimately caused the company's stock to be traded
at artificially inflated prices," said lead attorney Reed Kathrein of HBSS.

The complaint claims that after the second news release was issued, the
company's stock began to downward spiral to less than $3 per share.

According to the complaint, Northwest Biotherapeutics acted recklessly in its
disregard for disseminating factual information, which violates the Exchange
Act as laid out by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit seeks to represent all purchasers of Northwest Biotherapeutics
securities between July 9, 2007 and July 16, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Reed Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: Reed@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com

          - and -

          Mark Firmani
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: (206) 443-9357
          E-mail: mark@firmani.com


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has yet to rule on
a second motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action filed
against Paincare Holdings, Inc.

On March 21, 2006, Roy Thomas Mould filed a complaint under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the company, as
well as the company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer.  

The complaint is "Mould v. PainCare Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-
00362-JA-DAB."  Mr. Mould alleges material misrepresentations and omissions
in connection with the company's financial statements, which appear to relate
principally to the Paincare Holdings' previously announced intention to
restate certain past financial statements.

Ten additional complaints were filed shortly afterward before the same court,
which recite similar allegations.  

Lead counsel was selected, a consolidated complaint was filed, the company
moved to dismiss, and oral argument on the motion was held on Jan. 17, 2007
before the Magistrate Judge.

In the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
and purports to represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's
common stock from March 24, 2003 and March 15, 2006.

On March 26, 2007, the Federal Magistrate recommended that the District Court
dismiss all outstanding claims with leave to amend.

On April 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order adopting the
Magistrate’s report and dismissed the Securities Litigation, with leave to
amend.

An amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 23, 2007.  By
motion filed June 7, 2007, the Company again moved to dismiss the action.

The Magistrate held a hearing regarding the Company’s dismissal motion.  At
the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken under submission by the
Magistrate on Aug. 15, 2007, according to the company’s Aug. 28, 2007 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Mould v. Paincare Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-00362-
JA-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
under Judge John Antoon II with referral to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale, LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561/392-4750, ext. 107
          Fax: 561/392-4775
          E-mail: e-file@vianalelaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Bruce J. Berman, Esq.
          McDermott, Will & Emery
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33131-4336
          Phone: 305/358-3500
          Fax: 305/347-6500
          E-mail: bberman@mwe.com


QUANTA CAPITAL: Still Faces Securities Lawsuits in N.Y. Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. continues to face purported securities fraud
lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
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.

                         First Litigation

On Feb. 5, 2007 a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, James J. Ritchie, the
Company’s Executive Chairman, Jonathan J. R. Dodd, the Company’s Chief
Financial Officer, Robert Lippincott III, a director and formerly the
Company’s Interim Chief Executive Officer and President, Michael J. Murphy,
Nigel W. Morris, W. Russell Ramsey and Wallace L. Timmeny, all former
directors, Friedman Billings Ramsey & Co., Ltd and BB&T Capital Markets.

It was brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of investors who
purchased the coampny's publicly traded Series A preferred securities and
common shares between Dec.
14, 2005 and March 2, 2006.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company made false,
misleading and incomplete statements and that the prospectuses it issued in
connection with the sale of Series A preferred shares and common shares in
December 2005, at the time they became effective, were inaccurate or
misleading, contained untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to
state material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not
misleading, in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

The class action litigation seeks an unspecified amount of damages, as well
as other forms of relief.  

                        Second Litigation

On Feb. 26, 2007, a second class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company, Tobey J. Russ, the
former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, John Brittain, the former Chief
Financial Officer, Jonathan Dodd, James J. Ritchie and Robert Lippincott
III.  

This class action was filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of
investors who purchased our publicly traded common shares between May 14,
2004 and March 2, 2006.  

The complaint alleges that the company’s disclosures about its reserves and
other matters were inadequate in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under.  

This class action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, as well as other
forms of relief.  

                   Lead Plaintiff Appointments

Both of these cases are now pending before U.S. District Judge Robert P.
Patterson, Jr. On May 7, 2007, Judge Patterson appointed Zirkin-Cutler
Investments, Inc. as lead plaintiff for a putative class of investors who
purchased the company's preferred shares, and appointed Washington State
Plumbing and Pipefitting Pension Trust as lead plaintiff for a putative class
of investors who purchased our common shares.

Judge Patterson directed Zirkin and Washington to filed amended pleadings
that would supersede the complaints previously filed by Mr. Zirkin and Mr.
Coronel.

On July 16, 2007, Zirkin filed an Amended Complaint.  The complaint purports
to sue on behalf of itself and a class of investors who purchased preferred
shares of the Company between Dec. 14, 2005 and March 2, 2006.  

                         Zirkin Complaint

The Zirkin Complaint alleges that the Company made false statements
concerning reserves for hurricane-related losses in a registration statement
and prospectus that were circulated to investors in connection with a
securities offering the Company completed in December 2005.  The Complaint
alleges that the Company is liable under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The company has named as defendants, in addition to the Company, two firms
that served as underwriters for this offering (Friedman, Billings, Ramsey &
Co., Inc. and BB&T Capital Markets), and six individuals who served as
officers or directors of the company at the time of the offering (James
Ritchie, Jonathan Dodd, Robert Lippincott III, Michael Murphy, Nigel Morris,
and W. Russell Ramsey).

                      Washington Complaint

Washington filed a separate Amended Complaint on July 16, 2007. It purports
to sue on behalf of itself and a class of investors who purchased the
company's common shares between Oct. 4, 2005 and April 3, 2006.

The Washington Complaint alleges that during that period, the Company made
false and misleading statements, and omitted to state material information,
in various disclosures.

The disclosures and alleged omissions at issue in the case relate to reserves
for hurricane-related losses, reserves related to an oil pipeline leak, and
the quality of the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.

The Washington Complaint alleges claims against the Company under Sections 11
and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, based on statements made in
connection a securities offering; and under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on statements made
at various times in various contexts.

The Company; Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co., Inc.; BB&T Capital Markets;
and the six individuals named as individual defendants in the Zirkin
Complaint (Messrs. Ritchie, Dodd, Lippincott, Murphy, Morris, and Ramsey) are
all named as defendants in the Washington Complaint as well.

In addition, the Washington Complaint also names as a defendant Tobey Russ
(former Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors and former Chief
Executive Officer).

The Court has not yet made any rulings addressing the merits of these cases,
nor has the Court decided whether it will certify any case against the
Company to proceed as a class action.

Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.quantaholdings.com/-- has been  
formed to provide specialty lines insurance, reinsurance, risk assessment and
risk technical services on a global basis through its affiliated companies.  


QUONG HOP & CO: Recalls Tofu Due to Possible Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Quong Hop & Co. of South San Francisco, California is recalling all SOY DELI
brand tofu with code date DEC 17 2007 and certain varieties of SOY DELI and
QUONG HOP brand tofu with code date SEP 23 2007.

The recall includes the following products in the following sizes and code
dates:

All varieties and sizes of SOY DELI TOFU coded DEC 17 2007
30 OZ SOY DELI NIGARI TOFU coded SEP 23 2007
12 OZ SOY DELI WATER PACK TOFU coded SEP 23 2007
16 OZ QUONG HOP WATER PACK TOFU coded SEP 23 2007

These products are being recalled because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer
only short term symptoms such as high fever, sever headache, stiffness,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection in severe cases can cause
miscarriages and still births among pregnant women. Consumers experiencing
any of these symptoms should seek immediate medical attention.

The recalled “SOY DELI” and “QUONG HOP” brand products are distributed in the
Midwest and West coast throughout supermarkets and natural food stores.

The date code can be found on the front panel of all the aforementioned
products printed in blue ink.

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

The potential for contamination was noted after a routine test by Washington
State Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Program revealed the presence
of Listeria monocytogenes in a 12 OZ vacuum pack package of “SOY DELI FIRM
ORGANIC NIGARI TOFU”. The company is voluntarily recalling all products
produced during the same time period as the sampled product to ensure
customer safety.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 650-553-9900.


RADIAN GROUP: Pa. Court Remands “Rubery” Back to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remanded
back to a state court the purported class action against Radian Group, Inc.,
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.

On Feb. 8, 2007, a purported stockholder class action related to the
company’s pending merger with MGIC Investment Corp. was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Trial Division in the State of
Pennsylvania by Catherine Rubery against Radian and its directors.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the merger consideration to be
received by Radian stockholders was inadequate and that the individual
defendants, among other things, breached their duties of care, loyalty, good
faith and independence to the stockholders in connection with the merger.

The complaint seeks class action status as well as injunctive, declaratory
and other equitable relief.

On March 19, 2007, defendants removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and on March 26, 2007, defendants moved
to dismiss the suit, or, in the alternative, for a briefing schedule in
connection with any potential motion by the plaintiff to remand the suit to
the Court of Common Pleas.

On April 18, 2007, plaintiff moved to remand the suit to the Court of Common
Pleas, which motion defendants opposed.  On May 31, 2007, the motion to
remand was granted, and the case is now back in the Court of Common Pleas,
where the parties are preparing initial pleadings.

The suit is “Rubery v. Radian Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01068-PD,”
originally pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
         The Weiser Law Firm
         121 N. Wayne Avenue
         Wayne, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-225-0273
         Fax: 610-225-2678
         E-mail: dsg@weiserlawfirm.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joel Mchugh, Esq.
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
         1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286
         Phone: 215-751-2437
         Fax: 215-751-2205
         E-mail: jmchugh@schnader.com


RCN CORP: Settles ERISA Violations Suit Pending in N.J. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
RCN Corp. has settled a consolidated class action filed against it in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

In September 2004, as part of the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings, certain participants and beneficiaries of the former RCN Savings
and Stock Ownership Plan (Savings Plan) asserted claims against the company
and its current and former directors, officers, employee administrators, and
managers for alleged violations of ERISA.  

Plaintiffs generally alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to properly manage and monitor the Savings Plan in light of
the drop in the trading price of the company's then-outstanding common stock,
which comprised a portion of the aggregate contributions made to the Savings
Plan.

In April 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York permitted the filing of a consolidated class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against RCN Corp. and its
current and former directors, officers, employee administrators, and
managers, subject to the limitation that the plaintiffs would not be
permitted to enforce a judgment against the company in excess of any
applicable RCN insurance coverage.  The class action complaint was filed on
May 16, 2005.  

In March 2006, the class action complaint was dismissed as to all defendants,
except for  

      -- the company and certain former directors of RCN with  
         respect to an alleged "failure to monitor" the Savings  
         Plan, and  

      -- certain individuals who comprised the former  
         administrative committee of the Savings Plan with  
         respect to an alleged failure to prudently invest  
         Savings Plan assets, in each case during late 2003 and  
         early 2004 when the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty  
         occurred.  

Discovery with respect to these remaining defendants commenced in September
2006.

On March 14, 2007, the company reached a tentative settlement for the
matter.  The settlement agreement was executed on July 19, 2007, and is
subject to judicial and other related approvals, 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 "In re: RCN Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 04-CV-5068
(SRC)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under
Judge Stanley R. Chesler.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP
          8 Kings Highway West
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 795-9002
          E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Edward Cerasia, II, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose, LLP
          One Newark Center, 18th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5211
          Phone: (973) 274-3200
          E-mail: ecerasia@proskauer.com


SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Actor Sues Over Undistributed Funds
---------------------------------------------------------
The Screen Actors Guild is facing a class action accusing it of failing to
distribute to members part of $8 million in funds collected from foreign
royalties, reports say.

The suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by actor Ken Osmond.  
The actor accuses the Guild of unjust enrichment and violations of the
state's business code.  His suit seeks class-action status on behalf of at
least 30,000 actors and others.

The royalties, which has been collected since at least 1996, was allegedly
collected on behalf of himself and other actions without their permission and
knowledge.  The Guild has allegedly paid out only about $250,000 of the $8
million collected from States in the form of levies for video rentals,
private copying, cable transmissions and other uses of the productions.
According to the suit, The Guild said that paying out the monies
was 'complex,' and that it did not have a system in place to pay out such
monies.


UNITED ONLINE: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. NetZero Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A new class representative is being proposed in a consolidated consumer fraud
class action filed against NetZero, a brand name of United Online, Inc.

On March 6, 2006, plaintiff Anthony Piercy filed a purported consumer class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, against NetZero claiming that NetZero continues to charge consumers
fees after they cancel their Internet access account.

On July 27, 2006, plaintiff Donald E. Ewart filed a purported consumer class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, against NetZero containing substantially similar allegations to the
Piercy case.

Plaintiffs in both cases are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and
damages.

NetZero filed a response to both lawsuits denying the material allegations of
the complaints.

Both Mr. Piercy and Mr. Ewart subsequently withdrew from the actions as class
representatives.

On March 16, 2007, Barbara Rasnake, Robert Du Verger and Peter Chrisler were
substituted as purported class representatives.  

On May 25, 2007 the court consolidated the actions under the
caption, “Rasnake v. NetZero, Inc., Case No. BC348461.”

On July 13, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint, at which time Peter Chrisler was also substituted as a purported
class representative.

Discovery is continuing and a trial date has not yet been set, according to
United Online, Inc.'s Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.net/-- is a provider of  
consumer Internet and media services through a number of brands, including
NetZero, Juno, Classmates and
MyPoints.


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Investors Yet to File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action, “In re Universal American
Financial Corp. Buyout Offer Shareholder Litigation,” have yet to file an
amended complaint in the matter, 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.

Between Oct. 25, 2006 and Nov. 6, 2006, six purported class actions were
filed in New York state courts against the Company and other defendants
concerning the acquisition proposal received by the Company on Oct. 24, 2006,
from members of management led by Richard A. Barasch, the Company’s Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, and private equity firms Capital Z Partners,
Ltd., Lee Equity Partners, LLC, Perry Capital, LLC and Welsh, Carson,
Anderson & Stowe X, L.P. to acquire all of the Company’s publicly held common
stock for $18.15 per share in cash (Offer).

Three of these actions were filed in the Supreme Court for New York County
as:

       -- “Stellato v. Universal American Financial Corp., et
          al. (06-116006),”
    
       -- “Green Meadows Partners LLP v. Barasch, et al.
          (603724-06),” and

       -- “Sorrentino v. Barasch et al. (06-603853).”

The Stellato action alleged that the offer was made at an “unfair price,
under unfair terms and through improper means” and sought an injunction
preventing the Offer from being consummated, or in the alternative, monetary
damages.

The Green Meadows action alleged that Mr. Barasch and directors Bradley
Cooper, Eric Leathers and Robert Spass dominate the board of directors of the
Company, and have breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
making a buyout proposal that “fails to take into account the value of UHCO,
its improving financial results and its value in comparison to other similar
companies.”  

The action sought, among other things, an injunction preventing defendants
from carrying out an unfair transaction, and monetary damages. The Sorrentino
action also alleged board domination by Messers. Barasch, Cooper, Leathers,
and Spass, and asserted that the Offer price is “unconscionable, unfair and
grossly inadequate and constitutes unfair dealing.”  

The action sought an injunction preventing the Offer from being consummated
or rescinding the Offer, or, in the alternative, monetary damages.

Three other actions pertaining to the Offer were filed in the Supreme Court
for Westchester County as:

       -- “Conolly v. Universal American Financial Corp, et al.
          (06-21712),”

       -- “McCormack v. Averill et al. (06-21365),” and

       -- “Zhang v. Barasch et al. (21672-06).”

The Conolly action alleged that the shareholder agreement to which Mr.
Barasch and Capital Z are parties “deter[s] potential bids for the Company at
a premium to the presently offered price,” and that the sponsors of the offer
(excluding Mr. Barasch) are members of a “club” of elite private equity funds
under investigation for violations of the anti-trust laws that have resulted
in “driv[ing] down the prices of potential acquisition targets.”  

The Conolly action further asserted that the director defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value by, among other
things, failing immediately to reject the Offer.  It sought an injunction
prohibiting consummation of the Offer, or in the alternative, monetary
damages.  

The McCormack action also asserted that the buyout offer is “the product of
unfair dealing” by the management of the Company and its largest shareholder,
Capital Z, and sought an injunction ordering the directors to fulfill their
fiduciary duties, and/or enjoining any transaction based upon the Offer, as
well as monetary damages.

The Zhang action asserted that the Offer price was unfair and failed to take
into account the value of the Company; it sought injunctive relief and/or
damages.

On January 11, 2007, the New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, signed
an order consolidating each of the six actions in the Commercial Division of
Westchester Court under the caption, “In re Universal American Financial
Corp. Buyout Offer Shareholder Litigation.”

The defendants named in the consolidation order included the Company, Mr.
Barasch and the other sponsors of the offer, including Capital Z, as well as
eight other members of the Company’s board of directors.

The court’s order provided that the plaintiff would file a consolidated
amended complaint, and the defendants’ time to respond would extend to 40
days thereafter.  The consolidated amended complaint has not yet been filed.

On May 25, 2007, the Court in the Consolidated Actions held a status
conference with counsel for all parties.  At the May 25 conference, the Court
granted the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Actions approximately two weeks to
file an amended consolidated complaint.

However, as of July 13, 2007, when the next status conference with the Court
was conducted, plaintiffs had not filed an amended consolidated complaint.

Universal American Financial Corp. -- http://www.uafc.com-- is a specialty  
health and life insurance holding company, with an emphasis on providing an
array of health insurance and managed care products and services.


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Sued in N.Y. Over MemberHealth Merger Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Universal American Financial Corp. is a defendant in a purported class action
filed in the Supreme Court for New York State, Westchester County over a
merger agreement with MemberHealth, Inc.

On July 25, 2007, a purported class action filed by Elizabeth A. Conolly,
Thomas McCormack, Shelly Z. Zhang, Green Meadows Partners, James Stellato and
Rocco Sorrentino against:

     * Universal American Financial Corp.,
     * Richard A. Barasch,
     * Lee Equity Partners LLC,
     * Perry Capital LLC,
     * Union Square Partners Management LLC,
     * Welsh, Carson,
     * Anderson & Stowe,
     * Barry Averill,
     * Bradley E. Cooper,
     * Mark M. Harmeling,
     * Bertram Harnett,
     * Linda H. Lamel,
     * Eric W. Leathers,
     * Patrick J. McLaughlin,
     * Robert A. Spass, and
     * Robert F. Wright,”

was filed in the Supreme Court for New York State, Westchester County.

The complaint alleges that the defendants who are directors of the Company
allegedly breached fiduciary duties they owed to the Company’s shareholders
in connection with the Company entering into its previously announced merger
agreement to acquire MemberHealth, Inc. and concurrent agreements with
certain equity investors for such equity investors to acquire securities in
the Company, and the defendants who are equity investors purportedly aided
and abetted that breach.

Also, the defendants who are directors of the Company allegedly breached
their duty of candor to the Company’s shareholders by failing to disclose
material information concerning those transactions.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the transactions and damages in an amount to be determined.

Universal American Financial Corp. -- http://www.uafc.com-- is a specialty  
health and life insurance holding company, with an emphasis on providing an
array of health insurance and managed care products and services.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Nov. 2 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a
fairness hearing on Nov. 2, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for a  proposed $5,500,000
settlement in the matter, "In Re: Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-md-01695-CM."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Colleen McMahon, U.S. District
Judge, at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Courtroom 21B, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New
York, NY 10007.

Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on Dec. 3, 2007.

                        Case Background

The suit arises out of the restatement in March 2005 of Veeco's financial
statements for the quarterly periods and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2004 as
a result of the company's discovery of certain improper accounting
transactions at its TurboDisc business unit.  

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek unspecified damages and assert claims
against all defendants for violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and claims against the individual defendants for
violations of Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act.   

In March 2006, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit at
the pleading stage, and certified a plaintiff class for the lawsuit
consisting of all persons who acquired the company's securities from Apr. 26,
2004 through Feb. 10, 2005.  

The suit is "In Re: Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
7:05-md-01695-CM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge  Colleen McMahon.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Phyllis Maza, Esq.
         Parker of Berger & Montague, PC
         1622 Locust St., Philadelphia
         PA 19103-6365, U.S.
         Phone: (215) 875-4647
         Fax: (215) 875-4674
         E-mail: pparker@bm.net

         Eric James Belfi, Esq.
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892
         E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com

              - and -

         Sherrie Raiken, Esq.
         Savett of Berg & Androphy
         3704 Travis Street
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: (215) 875-3071
         Fax: (215)-875-5715

Representing the company is:

         Robert F. Serio, Esq.
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
         200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-351-3917
         Fax: 212-351-5246
         E-mail: rserio@gibsondunn.com


ZIPREALTY INC: Still Faces Employee Agents' Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZipRealty, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California that was filed four
former employee agents.

The suit, “Lubocki, et al. v. ZipRealty, Case No. CV 07 2959,” was filed on
May 4, 2007.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company’s
policies for expense allowances, expense reimbursements and commission
payments to agents for transactions that do not close during the period of
employment violate federal and California state laws.

The complaint seeks monetary damages and declaratory and equitable relief but
does not specify the amount of damages sought.

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 for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “Lubocki, et al v. ZipRealty, Case No. CV 07 2959,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge S.
James Otero with referral to Judge Jacqueline Chooljian.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Sandeep Baweja, Esq.
         Sandeep Baweja Law Offices
         445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-426-2112
         E-mail: sbaweja@walialaw.com

              - and -

         Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., Esq.
         Ernest J. Franceschi Jr. Law Offices
         445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-612-7723

Representing the defendant is:

         Holly A. Hogan
         Kerr and Wagstaffe
         100 Spear Street, Suite 1800
         San Francisco, CA 94105-1528
         Phone: 415-371-8500
         E-mail: hogan@kerrwagstaffe.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of
all persons who purchased the Capital V preferred stock of Countrywide
Financial Corp. from the date of the Company's public offering on November 1,
2006, and all purchasers traceable thereto against the Company, certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Offering, alleging
violations under under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15
U.S.C. ss. 77k and 77l.

The Complaint asserts that Countrywide's Prospectus contained both material
misstatements and omissions, which plaintiff and the Class relied upon to
their detriment. The representations made in the Company's Prospectus were
materially false and misleading because at the time of the Offering,
Countrywide was already suffering from several adverse factors that were not
revealed and/or adequately addressed in the document.

These factors include, but are not limited to, failure to disclose
Countrywide's exposure to the down market in light of its subprime lending
practices and its provision of loans to applicants without proof of income,
employment, or assets. There factors already were causing a material adverse
affect on Countrywide's business and according to the Company's recent
statements, will continue to affect its business going forward.

The Director Defendants (as defined in the complaint) and Countrywide's
underwriters could have - and should have - discovered the material
misstatements and omissions in the Company's Prospectus prior to its filing
with the SEC and distribution to the investing public. Instead, they failed
to do so as a result of a negligent and grossly inadequate due diligence
investigation.

Certain of the adverse factors affecting Countrywide's business were first
revealed on July 24, 2007, in a Company issued press release announcing
results for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.

The July 24, 2007, announcements forecasted a weak second half of 2007 due to
adverse market conditions, which caused the price of Countrywide's Capital V
preferred stock to decline from its closing price of $24.46 on July 23, 2007
to a value of $20.85 just a week later on July 31, 2007 on unusually large
trading volume. As the Company continued to issue negative reports, including
statements in its August 9, 2007 10-Q that the Company was
facing "unprecedented market conditions," which significantly diminished its
liquidity, the stock price continued its fall to just $13.85 on August 16,
2007.

Plaintiff and the Class have suffered serious financial damage as a result of
Defendants' material misstatements and omissions in the Company's Prospectus.
Had plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would
not have purchased said preferred stock, or would not have purchased them at
the inflated prices that were paid.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 19, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Rachel S. Poplock, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Website: http://www.whafh.com


NETBANK INC: Schoengold Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. has filed a class action against
NetBank, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: NTBK) and certain key current and former officers
and/or directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

This action has been brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired NetBank securities during the period between May 1, 2006 and
September 17, 2007.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements
to artificially inflate the value of NetBank stock.

Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants repeatedly represented,
beginning in May 2006, that NetBank was restructuring its operations to rid
its strong core banking business from high risk non-conforming loan
origination operations and other business segments which detracted from the
performance of its core business.

Defendants claimed its restructuring was largely complete by February 2007
and that investors could rely on the book value of the Company as reflecting
its true value. However, defendants shocked investors by disclosing that as
of May 21, 2007, NetBank's core banking business was so deficient in meeting
regulatory capital requirements that bank regulators compelled NetBank to
consummate a $2.5 billion asset sale at a significant $60-70 million loss in
order to cover NetBank depositors as required by law. The Company's common
stock price fell 66% -- from $1.75 per share on May 18, 2007 to $0.59 per
share on May 21, 2007 on massive volume of 11,190,400 shares -- over forty-
five times the previous day's volume.

Further, on August 6, 2007, NetBank announced that its wholly owned retail
mortgage business, Market Street Mortgage Corporation ("Market Street"), was
completely valueless. NetBank also announced that the NASDAQ securities
exchange was delisting the Company's common stock from trading. On August 7,
2007, NetBank's stock price dropped to $0.14 per share from its previous
day's close of $0.20 per share, a 30% drop in one day on massive volume of
5,190,600 shares. Finally, on September 17, 2007, the purported buyer of
NetBank's assets announced that it had terminated its purchase of the NetBank
assets, announced on May 21, 2007, because it had become "clear" that NetBank
would not be able to meet its regulatory requirements. NetBank's stock price
then closed at $0.08 per share on September 17, 2007.

For more information, contact:

Jay P. Saltzman, Esq.
          Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, New York 10038
          Tel: (212) 964-0046
          Fax: (212) 267-8137
          Toll Free: (866) 348-7700
          Website: http://www.spornlaw.com


OPTEUM INC: Eric J. O'Bell Files Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Eric J. O'Bell, LLC announced that a class action has been
filed against Opteum Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock of the Company in connection with, or traceable to, its
September 2004 Initial Public Offering and/or the December 2004 Secondary
Offering, and including shareholders who purchased shares in the open market
between November 3, 2005 and May 10, 2007, inclusive.

The Company and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters are
charged with including false and misleading statements in the registration
statements and proxy-prospectuses issued in connection with the Offerings in
direct violation of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

Additionally, the Company and certain of its officers and directors are
charged with making a series of materially false and misleading statements
related to the Company's business and operations in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 19, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Eric J. O'Bell
          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


ORBCOMM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who purchased the common stock of ORBCOMM, Inc. ")(NASDAQ:ORBC - News)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or
about November 3, 2006 through August 14, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint charges ORBCOMM and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act. ORBCOMM is a satellite-based data
communication company that operates a two-way wireless data messaging system
optimized for narrowband data communication worldwide.

According to the complaint, on or about October 30, 2006, ORBCOMM filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission a Form S-1/A Registration Statement
(the "Registration Statement"), for the IPO. On or about November 3, 2006,
the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration
Statement, became effective and, including the exercise of the over-
allotment, more than 9.2 million shares of ORBCOMM's common stock were sold
to the public, thereby raising more than $101 million.

It alleges that the Prospectus contained inaccurate statements of material
fact because it failed to disclose that demand for the Company's products was
weakening as certain end-users were delaying purchases and international
sales were being negatively impacted by delays in modifying regional
applications.

Then, on August 14, 2007, ORBCOMM issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the second quarter of 2007, the period ending June 30,
2007. In the press release and thereafter, the Company revealed that it was
experiencing weakening demand for its products and services and was not
adding subscribers at the rates it had anticipated. In response to this
announcement, the price of ORBCOMM common stock declined from $11.18 per
share to $7.86 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased the common stock of ORBCOMM
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO on or about November 3, 2006
through August 14, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com


                            *********


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

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


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *