CAR_Public/070925.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 25, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 189

                            Headlines


ALS ENTERPRISES: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over "Scent-Lok"
ANALOG DEVICES: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Suit in Massachusetts
CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles, Orange County Towing Firms Face Suit
ESTEE LAUDER: No Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Securities Suit
FINANCE AMERICA: Settles Suit Over Alleged FCRA Violation

GINN RESORTS: Sued in Mich. for Failing to Register Sales
GUAM: Fairness Hearing on $90M EITC Lawsuit Settlement Held
HUNTSMAN CORP: Reaches MOU to Settle Lawsuits Over $10.6B Buyout
IMERGENT INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Utah
INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCTS: Recalls Ice Cream with Undeclared Milk

IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Ind. ERISA Suit
LEVEL 3: Still Faces Rights of Way Litigation in Ill., Idaho
MISSOURI: Ruling in Suit Over Blind Pension Fund Expected Soon
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Litigation in N.Y.
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Securities Suit Plaintiffs Amend Claims

NUMISMATIC GUARANTY: Settles Fla. Suit Over "First Strike" Coins
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Canieva Hood Allowed to Go Ahead with Suit
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit Over Unlawful SMS Charges
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Col. Royalties Suit Now in Federal Court
PINNACLE GROUP: Class Status Sought for Suit Over Evictions

PREMIERE GLOBAL: Calif. Suit Over Junk Faxes Partly Dismissed
PRESSTEK INC: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.H. Moves Forward
SANDERSON FARMS: Reaches Settlement for La. Employee's Lawsuit
SIMPLICITY INC: Recalls Cribs with Drop-Side that can Detach
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Fla. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Lawsuit

TJX COMPANIES: Settles Privacy Breach Suit Filed by Customers
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: No Hearing Set for Securities Suit Appeal

* Cohen Milstein Mulls Suit Over U.K. Dairy Goods Price Fixing
* Melvyn Weiss to Face Trial in Plaintiff Kickback Lawsuit

             
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NETBANK, INC: Schoengold Sporn Files Ga. Securities Lawsuit
THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********

ALS ENTERPRISES: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over "Scent-Lok"
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALS Enterprises, Inc. and several other outdoor goods retailers
are accused of fraudulently selling a hunting clothing "Scent-
Lok," that is supposed to mask human scent, The Associated Press
reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota on Sept. 13, 2007 by four Minnesota hunters:

       -- Mike Buetow of Shakopee,
       -- Theodore Carlson of Edina,
       -- Gary Richardson Jr. of St. Paul, and
       -- Joe Rohrbach of Shakopee.

In the complaint, the four are alleging claiming that clothing
they bought to mask the human scent doesn't work, and that
hunters have been defrauded for years.

Besides ALS Enterprises, a handful of outdoors retailers, were
also named as the defendants in the suit.  They are:

       -- Gander Mountain Co.,
       -- Cabela's Inc.,
       -- Bass Pro Shops Inc., and
       -- Browning Arms Co.

The complaint states that ALS Enterprises, a Muskegon, Michigan-
based clothing manufacturer, produces and licenses "Scent-Lok"
clothing sold under that name and others.  It also states that
the company is the largest maker of such clothing and licenses
it to at least 22 others, including Gander Mountain, Cabela's,
Bass Pro, and Browning Arms.

Generally, the lawsuit claims that the five businesses conspired
to deceive consumers and suppressed and concealed the truth.  It
further claims, "consumers have been duped into spending
significant amounts of money on a product that does not work as
represented."

Plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking class-action status, saying
"tens of thousands" of Minnesota hunters have been deceived into
buying millions of dollars of odor-eliminating clothing.

The suit is "Carlson et al. v. A L S Enterprises Inc et al.,
Case No. 0:07-cv-03970-RHK-JSM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Richard H. Kyle
with referral to Judge Janie S. Mayeron.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          Heins Mills & Olson, PLC
          80 S. 8th St., Ste. 3550
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-338-4605
          Fax: 612-338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Ernest W. Grumbles, III
          Merchant & Gould PC
          80 S 8th St., Ste. 3200
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 332-5300
          Fax: (612) 332-9081
          E-mail: egrumbles@merchantgould.com


ANALOG DEVICES: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Analog Devices, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

On Oct. 13, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed
on behalf of participants in the company's Investment
Partnership Plan from Oct. 5, 2000 to the present.

The complaint named as defendants the company, certain officers
and directors, and the company's Investment Partnership Plan
Administration Committee.

The complaint alleges purported violations of federal law in
connection with the company's option granting practices during
the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, including breaches of
fiduciary duties owed to participants and beneficiaries of the
company's Investment Partnership Plan under ERISA.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, as well as
equitable and injunctive relief.  

On Nov. 22, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the complaint.  On Jan. 8, 2007, the
Plaintiff filed memoranda in opposition.   

On Jan. 22, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
filed further memoranda in support of the motions to dismiss.

The company provided no development in the case at its Aug. 21,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

The suit is "Bendaoud v. Hodgson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11873-
NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
         Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134
         E-mail: ted@shulaw.com
                 tshapiro@shulaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles, Orange County Towing Firms Face Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bisnar Chase LLP filed a class action in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against seven Los Angeles and Orange County
businesses, alleging they engaged in the predatory towing of
cars, according to the Daily Pilot.

The suit was filed by Alejandro Stephens, who said his car was
legally parked in the lot of a restaurant where he was eating,
when it was towed.  His suit accuses towing companies of
ignoring the state-mandated one-hour grace period before towing,
and of charging exorbitant fees to release a towed car.  It
seeks an order barring the companies from the alleged predatory
practices.

Bisnar Chase expects that as many as 500 people are eligible to
join the suit, according to the report.

Bisnar Chase LLP on the Net: http://www.bisnarchase.com.


ESTEE LAUDER: No Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against the Estee Lauder Cos. Inc. were unable to file an
amended complaint at a court-determined June deadline.

The Court dismissed the Complaint on grounds that the
allegations did not sufficiently show that the Lead Plaintiff
suffered economic losses from his purchases of Estee Lauder
common stock during the Class Period.

On March 30, 2006, a purported securities class action
complaint, "Thomas S. Shin, et al. v. The Estee Lauder Cos.
Inc., et al.," was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of The Estee
Lauder Companies, Inc. between April 28, 2005 and Oct. 25, 2005,
inclusive.

The complaint alleged that the defendants made statements during
the period April 28, 2005 to Oct. 25, 2005 in press releases,
the company's public filings and during conference calls with
analysts that were materially false and misleading and that
artificially inflated the price of the company's stock.  It also
alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Additionally, the complaint asserted that during the class
period, certain executive officers and the trust for the benefit
of a director sold shares of our Class A Common Stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Three additional purported securities class action complaints
were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York containing similar allegations.

On July 10, 2006, the court consolidated these actions as "In Re
Estee Lauder Companies Securities Litigation," appointed lead
plaintiff, and approved the selection of lead counsel.

A consolidated amended complaint addressing the same issues as
the original complaint was filed on Sept. 8, 2006.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Nov. 7, 2006 and the plaintiff responded to the motion on Jan.
5, 2007.  Defendants replied to plaintiff's response on Feb. 5,
2007 (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2007).

In it's May 22, 2007 order dismissing the complaint, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted
Plaintiff permission to file an Amended Complaint on or before
June 4, 2007.

The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the deadline,
according to the company's Aug. 28, 2007 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re: Estee Lauder Cos. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-02505-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:
   
         James Henry Glavin, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 687-7230
         Fax: (212) 490-2022
         E-mail: jhglavin@ssbny.com

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


FINANCE AMERICA: Settles Suit Over Alleged FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Connie Thompson of KOMOTV.com reports that a settlement notice
of a suit about solicitations from a mortgage company called
Finance America is going out to millions of consumers across the
country.

Ms. Thompson found out that the settlement is for a lawsuit that
claimed Finance America violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
by sending unsolicited ads to consumers.  Finance America
allegedly did not use pre-screened information it supposedly
obtained through credit bureaus to offer actual mortgage loans.  

Finance America denied the allegation, but settled nonetheless.

In what she describes as "one of the most baffling deals," she
has come across, Ms. Thompson learned from the California firm
that filed the class action that consumers won't get back cash
from the settlement.  

"The settlement is a non-cash settlement. Instead, you have the
opportunity to apply to receive a mortgage loan from Finance
America on favorable terms," according the law firm's recorded
message.

She said, "To sum it up, the company got sued and settled, but
then they get the benefit of people in the settlement class to
come and do business with them..."

Attorney Edwared Zusman of Markun, Zusman and Compton told her
consumers who apply and qualify for a loan will get what amounts
to a wholesale rate without the normal brokers' markup,
resulting to several thousand dollars in savings.  Whereas, if
the settlement was in cash, consumers wouldn't be rewarded more
than $1,000 under the Fair Credit Reporting statutes.

The class consists of people who received the solicitation
between March 2, 2003 and December 18, 2006.  Claims filing
deadline is Oct. 22.  

Markun, Zusman and Compton will get up to $3.5 million in legal
fees once the settlement is approved.


GINN RESORTS: Sued in Mich. for Failing to Register Sales
---------------------------------------------------------
Ginn Resorts is facing a purported class action that accuses the
company of violating federal law by selling individual
properties at four of its Florida resorts multiple times for
investment purposes without registering investment contracts
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Steve Lynn of
The Vail Daily News reports.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed back in May in a
Michigan federal court, Ginn real estate agents told the
plaintiffs that "as soon as the property was purchased, the
agents could immediately sell the properties at a substantial
profit."

Ginn Resorts -- http://www.ginncompany.com-- specializes in  
land acquisition, real estate development and management,
architectural design and engineering, resort development and
operation and golf course construction and management.


GUAM: Fairness Hearing on $90M EITC Lawsuit Settlement Held
------------------------------------------------------------
Guam's district court has concluded a final fairness hearing on
a $90 million settlement of a suit filed over the state's Earned
Income Tax Credit, Stephanie Godlewski of the Pacific Daily News
reports.

The settlement arose out of class actions filed against the
government by Julie Babauta Santos, and Charmaine Torres in 2004
claiming the state owes tax refunds to taxpayers under the EITC.  
The earned income credit was intended as an incentive to keep
the working poor on the job instead of on welfare.

In June 2006, Gov. Felix Camacho signed a $90 million agreement
to settle the suit.  In January, District Court Chief Judge
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.  A final approval would trigger the payments of
about $5 million that has been set aside for claims.  So far,
the government has paid out $10.5 million in claims for 1997 and
1998, according to the report.  The remainder will be paid out
annually, as the settlement specifically states that 15% of all
funds used to pay tax returns every year will be used to pay
EITC arrears.

Attorneys representing Christina Naputi and Marygrace Simpao
have objected to the settlement on various grounds, including
that the government has no enough money to pay off the
settlement and its current deficit, the notice to possible
claimants was insufficient, there were too many disparities in
the payouts to certify the class, and that 72 percent of
potential claims were not filed.  The challengers also noted
that the number of claims filed so far this year only totaled
$71.5 million.

Another hearing is scheduled for Oct. 22 to address the issue of
attorney's fees.

According to the report, Judge Tydingco-Gatewood indicated that
she might rule on the case by Thanksgiving.

The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers Peter Perez, Mike
Philips, and James Canto.  Claimants Christina Naputi and
Marygrace Simpao are represented by attorneys Nancy Pacharzina
and Thomas Fisher.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Reaches MOU to Settle Lawsuits Over $10.6B Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corp. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle lawsuits that seek to stop a vote on its pending $10.6
billion acquisition by private-equity company Apollo Management
LP, The Associated Press reports.

On July 12, 2007 Hunstman agreed to be acquired by private-
equity firm Apollo Management for $28 a share, or $10.6 billion,
including debt.  Huntsman will be combined with Apollo's Hexion
Specialty Chemicals Inc.

From July 5 to July 13, 2007, four shareholder class-action
complaints were filed against the Company and its directors
alleging breaches of fiduciary duty over the deal (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 18, 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

Generally, the suits are alleging that the company and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an
unfair sales process, approving an unfair price for the buyout
and making inadequate disclosures to stockholders.

Under the proposed settlement, the company agrees to make
additional disclosures in its definitive proxy statement, which
it sent to shareholders last week.  The company was quick to
point out that the settlement won't affect the timing of the
buyout.

Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- manufactures  
chemical products and formulations that are marketed in more
than 100 countries to a group of consumer and industrial
customers.


IMERGENT INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
iMergent, Inc. settled a consolidated securities fraud class
action that alleged it had concealed information about its sales
practices as the company's share price soared and company
officers sold stock,.

According to a report by Tom Harvey of The Salt Lake Tribune,
the company disclosed that an insurance policy for directors and
officers would pay $2.8 million to settle the lawsuit filed in
March 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

                       Case Background

On March 8, 2005, Elliott Firestone filed a lawsuit, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, against the
company, certain current and former officers, and current and
former directors (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2007).

This suit was followed by several other similar complaints.  The
court ordered that the cases be consolidated, and on Nov. 23,
2005, allowed a "consolidated amended complaint for violation of
the federal securities laws" against the company, certain
current and former officers, and current and former directors,
together with the former independent registered public
accounting firm for the company, Grant Thornton LLP, as
defendants.  

The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of
securities laws claiming that the defendants either made or were
responsible for the making of material misleading statements and
omissions, providing inaccurate financial information, and
failing to make proper disclosures, which required the company
to restate its financial results.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages, including attorneys' fees and costs.

Although this action was determined by the court to be the
"consolidated action," Hillel Hyman filed a complaint in October
2005 on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
against the company, certain current and former officers,
current and former directors, and Grant Thornton LLP.  

The group in subsequent filings refers to itself as the
"accounting restatement group" and alleges that it should be
determined by the court to be the consolidated plaintiff as it
properly alleges a class period consistent with timing necessary
to raise a claim based upon the restatement of financial results
announced by the company.  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws by the company and Grant Thornton LLP.

On Feb. 28, 2006, at a "Status Conference," the court determined
that the complaint filed by the accounting restatement group
should be substituted as the new consolidated amended complaint.

On April 3, 2006, the court entered a consent order substituting
Mr. Hyman as the lead plaintiff.

On Sept. 21, Imerget announced a settlement.  The MOU is subject
to certain contingencies which require court approval. The
parties have not filed a formal stipulation seeking approval but
expect to do so within the next month. The court has not yet
scheduled a hearing on this matter.

The suit is "Hyman v. Imergent, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00861-
DAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
under Judge Dale A. Kimball.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         C. Richard Henriksen, Jr., Esq.
         Henriksen & Henriksen
         320 S. 500 E.
         Salt Lake City, UT 84102
         Phone: (801) 521-4145
         E-mail: hhlaw@sisna.com

              - and -

         Ira M. Press, Esq.
         Kirby Mcinerney & Squire
         830 Third Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 317-6600
         E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Jacqueline Benson, Esq.
         Gary F. Bendinger, Esq.
         Howrey, LLP
         Phone: (713) 654-7693 and (801) 533-8383
         E-mail: bendingerg@howrey.com


INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCTS: Recalls Ice Cream with Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inter-American Products, Inc., a division of The Kroger Co., is
recalling all codes of Private Selection Classic Churned Light
Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Ice Cream in 1.75-quart containers.

The ice cream is being recalled because it may contain eggs,
which are not listed in the ingredient statement. People who
have an allergy to eggs run the risk of serious or life-
threatening reaction if they consume this product.

The ice cream was distributed only to Ralphs Food Stores in
California and Food 4 Less stores in Southern California. No
other Private Selection Ice Cream products are affected by this
recall.

Customers are encouraged to return the product to a Ralphs or
Food 4 Less store for a full refund.

No illnesses have been reported. For most consumers, there is no
safety issue with the ice cream. Consumers with questions or
concerns may call Inter-American Products, Inc. at 1-800-697-
2448.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Ind. ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., which agreed to be acquired by AES
Corp., reports that plaintiffs in a purported class action
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act are appealing the dismissal of the case.

In March 2002, IPALCO Enterprises, the pension committee for the
Indianapolis Power & Light Co.'s 401(k) Thrift Plan, and certain
former officers and directors of IPALCO were named as defendants
in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana.

In May 2002, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit.  The
amended complaint asserts that IPALCO and former members of the
Pension Committee breached their fiduciary duties to the
plaintiffs under ERISA by investing assets of the thrift plan in
the common stock of IPALCO prior to the acquisition of IPALCO by
the Company.  

In September 2003 the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  A trial addressing only the allegations of
breach of fiduciary duty was held in February 2006.  

In March 2007, the Court issued a decision in favor of
defendants and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.  

In April 2007, plaintiffs appealed the Court's decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as to the former
officers and directors of IPALCO, but not as to IPALCO or the
Pension Committee.

On March 28, 2007 the court issued its judgment, finding for the
defendants.  An appeal is pending, 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 "Nelson, et al. v. IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge David
Frank Hamilton.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Nicholas Styant-Browne, Esq.
         Andrew M. Volk, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: (206) 623-7292
         Fax: (206) 623-0594
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 nick@hagens-berman.com
                 andrew@hbsslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Dane Hal Butswinkas, Esq.
         Williams & Connolly, LLP
         725 Twelfth Street NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 434-5110
         Fax: (202) 434-5029
         E-mail: dbutswinkas@wc.com
         Web site: http://www.wc.com

              - and -

         James H. Ham, III, Esq.
         Baker & Daniels
         300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Phone: (317) 237-1256
         Fax: (317) 237-1000
         E-mail: jhham@bakerd.com
         Web site: http://www.bakerd.com


LEVEL 3: Still Faces Rights of Way Litigation in Ill., Idaho
------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc. continues to face several purported
right of way class actions in Illinois and Idaho.

In April 2002, Level 3 Communications, Inc., and two of its
subsidiaries were named as a defendant in "Bauer, et al. v.
Level 3 Communications, LLC, et al.," a purported class action
covering 22 states, filed in state court in Madison County,
Illinois.

In July 2001, Level 3 was named as a defendant in "Koyle, et al.
v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al.," a purported two-state
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho.  In November of 2005, the court granted class
certification only for the state of Idaho, which decision is on
appeal.

In September 2002, Level 3 Communications, LLC and Williams
Communications, LLC were named as defendants in "Smith et al. v.
Sprint Communications Co., L.P., et al.," a purported nationwide
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  In April 2005, the Smith plaintiffs filed
a Fourth Amended Complaint, which did not include Level 3 or
Williams Communications, Inc. as a party, thus ending both
companies' involvement in the Smith case.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Level 3 Communications, LLC and Williams
Communications, LLC were named as defendants in "McDaniel, et
al., v. Qwest Communications Corp., et al.," a purported class
action covering 10 states filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

These actions involve the companies' right to install its fiber
optic cable network in easements and right-of-ways crossing the
plaintiffs' land.

In general, the companies obtained the rights to construct their
networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and have
installed their networks along the rights-of-way so granted.

Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that they are
the owners of lands over which the companies' fiber optic cable
networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities, and others who
granted the companies the right to construct and maintain their
networks did not have the legal authority to do so.

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust
enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as
punitive damages.

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

Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/--  
through its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the
communications business.  The company is a facilities-based
provider of a range of integrated communications services.


MISSOURI: Ruling in Suit Over Blind Pension Fund Expected Soon
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Cole Country District Court is expected to rule in the coming
weeks on a suit that will determine whether the state must pay
about $20 million in back benefits from its Blind Pension Fund,
T.J. Greaney of the Columbia Tribune reports.

The suit was filed in 2004.  It alleges that since 1992 the
state has wrongly used some of those funds to pay for blindness-
related rehabilitation and prevention services and miscalculated
annual increases to the pension.  The fund holds nearly $13
million in 2006, according to the report.  

The pension pays beneficiaries $541 a month.  The actual monthly
pension for individuals has not kept the same pace, according to
the report.  Pensioners now want to know how the state computes
the payments.  One of the seven plaintiffs in the suit is Linda
Gerken of Sedalia.

According to the report, not all of Missouri's 3,600 recipients
of the blind pension fund support the suit.  

The suit is before Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Litigation in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Worldwide, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

In October 2006, a former company employee filed a putative
class action against the company and a number of its current and
former officers and directors.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all participants
in the company's 401(k) plan.  It alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary obligations to plan participants under
Sections 404, 405, 409 and 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104
et seq., by allowing plan participants to purchase and to hold
and maintain company stock in their plan accounts without
disclosing to those plan participants the historical stock
option practices.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, equitable restitution,
attorney's fees and an order, enjoining defendants from
violations of ERISA.

The Company and the individual defendants have moved to dismiss
the amended complaint, 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 "Taylor v. McKelvey et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08322-
AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
         Gainey & McKenna, LLP
         295 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 983-1300
         Fax: (212) 983-0383
         E-mail: tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Evan T. Barr, Esq.
         Steptoe & Johnson
         750 Seventh Avenue, Ste. 1900
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212)-506-3918
         Fax: (212)-506-3961
         E-mail: ebarr@steptoe.com

         Geoffrey Shannon Stewart, Esq.
         Jones Day
         222 East 41st Street
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212)-326-3939
         Fax: (212)-755-7306
         E-mail: gstewart@jonesday.com


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Securities Suit Plaintiffs Amend Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities class action filed against Monster
Worldwide, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York have filed an amended complaint.

On or about March 15, 2007, a putative securities shareholder
class action was filed by Middlesex County Retirement System
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York designated
as "In re Monster Worldwide Securities Litigation, 07 Civ. 2237
(S.D.N.Y.) (JSR)."

The suit seeks an indeterminate amount of damages on behalf of
all persons or entities, other than defendants, who purchased or
acquired the securities of the Company from May 6, 2005 until
June 9, 2006.

On July 9, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
securities class action asserting claims against the Company,
Andrew McKelvey and Myron Olesnyckyj based on an alleged
violation of Section 10(b) the Exchange Act and against the
individual defendants based on an alleged violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

The suit is "In Re: Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-02237," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Jed S.
Rakoff.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY, 10017
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          E-mail: info@labaton.com

               - and -

          Goldman, Scarlato & Karon. P.C.
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 360
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 484.342.0700 or 888.668.4130
          Fax: 484.342.0701
          E-mail: info@gsk-law.com


NUMISMATIC GUARANTY: Settles Fla. Suit Over "First Strike" Coins
----------------------------------------------------------------
Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC) reached a proposed settlement in
a class action brought against it in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida by a coin collector who accuses
the company of violating the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The suit, "Thomas Francisco v. Numismatic Guaranty Corporation
of America d/b/a NGC," claims that NGC took U.S. Mint bullion
coins and designated them "First Strikes" and "improperly
informed the coin buying public that the designation of these
coins were among the first coins struck by the U.S. Mint."

That led to the inference that they "were worth more money than
identical coins that did not carry NGC's 'First Strikes'
designation."

"First strikes" coins are billed as among the first of the
year's batch "struck" by the U.S. Mint from a certain die set,
and are thought to have far higher quality than those created
later when the die is allegedly worn (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 22, 2006).

Coin collectors are often willing to pay an additional price for
them, $30 more for a silver American Eagle and $2,200 more for a
gold American Buffalo, according to attorney Charles Lipcon, who
filed the lawsuits on behalf of collector Thomas Francisco and
others.

But Mr. Lipcon said the label is misleading because it's
impossible to know which coin is the "first strike."  The U.S.
Mint states at its Web site it does not keep track of the date
individual coins were created.  

The suit purports to include anyone in the U.S. who bought a
"first strike" coin in 2005 and 2006.  Since Jan. 1, 2005, about
150,000 coins have been reportedly sold to collectors and
investors in all 50 states.  Damage payout is estimated to come
at more than $10 million.

The court ruled early on that the litigation could be maintained
on behalf of all persons who purchased and or otherwise paid for
NGC-designated "First Strikes" U.S. bullion coins.

Recently, a tentative settlement was reached by the company in
the matter.  A Dec. 13, 2007 public fairness hearing will be
held before Judge Jose E. Martinez in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Ave., Miami,
FL 33128 with regards to the settlement.  Details on the deal
are available at: http://www.FirstStrikesSettlement.com.

The suit is "Francisco v. Numismatic Guaranty Corp. of America
d/b/a NGC, Case No. 0:06-cv-61677-JEM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge
Jose E. Martinez.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Charles R. Lipcon, Esq.
          Lipcon Margulies & Alsina
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard, 2480 One Biscayne Tower          
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-373-3016
          Fax: 373-6204
          E-mail: sealaw@aol.com

          T. Tucker Ronzetti
          Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 372-1800
          Fax: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: TR@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          David H. Pollack, Esq.
          Law Office of David H. Pollack, LLC
          540 Brickell Key Drive, Suite C-1
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-372-5900
          Fax: 305-372-5904
          E-mail: david@davidpollacklaw.com
          Web site: http://www.davidpollacklaw.com/


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Canieva Hood Allowed to Go Ahead with Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp continues to face a purported class
action filed by Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors
against:

     * Santa Barbara Bank & Trust,
     * Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., and
     * Jackson-Hewitt, Inc."

The suit was brought on behalf of persons who entered into a
refund anticipation loan application (RAL) and agreement with
the company from whose tax refund the company deducted a debt
owed by the applicant to another RAL lender.

The lawsuit was filed on March 18, 2003 in the Superior Court in
San Francisco, California as "Canieva Hood and Congress of
California Seniors v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific
Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-Hewitt, Inc."

The company is a party to a separate cross-collection agreement
with each of the other RAL lenders by which it agrees to collect
sums due to those other lenders on delinquent RALs by deducting
those sums from tax refunds due to its RAL customers and
remitting those funds to the RAL lender to whom the debt is
owed.

This cross-collection procedure is disclosed in the RAL
Agreement with the RAL customer and is specifically authorized
and agreed to by the customer.  

Plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but
contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests
damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the
company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

Venue for this suit was changed to Santa Barbara.  The company
filed an answer to the complaint and a cross complaint for
indemnification against the other RAL lenders.  

On May 4, 2005, a superior court judge in Santa Barbara granted
a motion filed by the Company and the other RAL lenders, which
resulted in the entry of a judgment in favor of the Company
dismissing the suit.

Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.  A hearing before the Court of
Appeal was held on June 14, 2006, and the matter was taken under
submission.

On Sept. 29, 2006 the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, issued
an opinion, which held that the claims in the Complaint that the
Company had violated certain California consumer protection laws
were not preempted by Federal law and regulations.

The Company and the Cross-Defendants have filed a Petition for
Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to
reverse the Court of Appeal's opinion.

The petition was denied and the case returned to trial court.
The Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint in the trial court.

Pacific Capital Bancorp -- http://www.pcbancorp.com/-- is a  
bank holding company and has one subsidiary Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A. (PCBNA).


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit Over Unlawful SMS Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd., a leading Israeli mobile
communications operator, announced that it was served on
Thursday, September 20, 2007, with a lawsuit requesting
certification as a class action.

The suit was filed against Partner and against two other
cellular operators in Israel in the District Court of Jerusalem
by plaintiffs claiming to be subscribers of the Defendants.

The claim alleges that the Defendants charged consumers
unlawfully, for SMS messages sent to handsets which cannot
receive such messages. Furthermore, the claim alleges that the
Defendants misled consumers who sent such messages, as those
consumers received an alert notifying that those messages were
sent.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed from the Defendants is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately $45.07 million (for all Defendants together).

Partner said it will contest this lawsuit vigorously. At this
preliminary stage, Partner is considering the merits of the
claim and is unable to assess the extent of the validity of the
claim against it.

For more information contact:

          Mr. Emanuel Avner - Chief Financial Officer
          Mr. Oded Degany - Carrier, Investor and International
                            Relations
          Partner Communications Company Ltd.
          Tel: +972-54-7814951 or +972-54-7814151
          Fax: +972-54-7815961 or +972-54 -7814161
          E-mail: emanuel.avner@orange.co.il or
                  oded.degany@orange.co.il
          Website: http://www.orange.co.il/investor_site/


PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Col. Royalties Suit Now in Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Development Corp. moved a purported class action over
royalty payments that was originally filed against the company
in the District Court, Weld County, Colorado, to the Federal
Court.

The suit is alleging that the Company underpaid royalties on gas
produced from wells operated by the Company in the State of
Colorado.

Glen Droegemueller filed the suit on May 29, 2007.  He seeks
declaratory relief and to recover an unspecified amount of
compensation for underpayment of royalties made by the Company
to the plaintiff pursuant to leases.

The Company moved the case to Federal Court on June 28, 2007,
and on July 10, 2007, the Company filed its answer and
affirmative defenses, 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 "Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development Corp., Case
Number:  1:2007cv01362," filed in Colorado District Court before
Judge John L. Kane.  
   
Petroleum Development Corp. -- http://www.petd.com/-- is an  
independent energy company engaged primarily in the development,
production and marketing of natural gas and oil.  


PINNACLE GROUP: Class Status Sought for Suit Over Evictions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers who filed a civil-racketeering lawsuit against Pinnacle
Group and its chief officer Joel Wiener have filed a motion to
certify the suit as a class action, reports say.

The original suit was filed by a group of Harlem residents in
July accusing the company of "corporate slumlording" by turning
out more than 5,000 eviction notices in two years and breaking
rent-stabilization laws.  A certification of the suit as a class
action would add some 21,000 people living in 420 Pinnacle-owned
buildings, according to the New York Post.

The original suit accuses the company of harassment, fraud, rent
overcharges and illegal evictions.  The evictions are allegedly
concentrated in Harlem, Washington Heights and the Bronx.  The
suit was filed in federal court in Manhattan by several
individual Pinnacle tenants and tenants' group, Buyers and
Renters United to Save Harlem.  

According to the New York Times, Pinnacle has acknowledged
sending out some 5,000 letters, called dispossess notices, to
tenants in about a quarter of its 21,000 units during a 29-month
period from 2004 through 2006, citing nonpayment of rent,
invalid line of succession for occupancy and other violations;
however, it said only a few hundred people had actually been
evicted.

Plaintiffs are Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem, Majorie
Charron, Theodore Charron, Anthony Casasnovas, Karen Flannagan,
Andres Mares-Muro, Tracey Moore, Raymond Andrew Stahl-David,
Russell Taylor and Diane Trummer

The suit is "Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem et al. v.
Pinnacle Group Corp. et al., Case No. 1:2007cv06316," filed in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Colleen McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Richard F. Levy, Esq.
          Jenner & Block
          Chicago Office
          Phone: (312) 923-2648
          Fax: (312) 923-2748
          E-mail: rlevy@jenner.com

Pinnacle's lawyer is:

          Kenneth K. Fisher, Esq.
          250 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10177
          Phone: (212) 883-4962
          Fax: (212) 672-1162
          E-mail: kfisher@wolfblock.com


PREMIERE GLOBAL: Calif. Suit Over Junk Faxes Partly Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed some defendants in the suit "Gibson & Co. Ins.
Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The Quizno's Corp., et al.," which
names as defendants Premiere Global Services, Inc. and its
subsidiary Xpedite Systems, LLC.

On May 18, 2007, Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers served an amended
complaint upon Premiere Global and its subsidiary, Xpedite, in a
purported class action entitled, "Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers,
Inc., et al. v. The Quizno's Corp., et al."

The underlying complaint alleges that Quizno's sent unsolicited
facsimile advertisements on or about Nov. 1, 2005 in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended, and seeks damages of $1,500 per facsimile for alleged
willful conduct in sending of the faxes.

The court has also granted Quiznos' motion to file a third party
complaint to add Premiere Global and Xpedite as defendants.  

On June 26, 2007, Premiere Global answered the plaintiff's
amended complaint, including asserting cross-claims against the
Quizno's defendants.

On June 29, 2007, the Quizno's defendants filed their answer and
asserted cross-claims against the company and Xpedite.  

On July 31, 2007, the court entered an order in which it granted
certain Quizno's defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the
motion with respect to other Quizno's entities.

The case was in discovery as of the company's Aug. 9, 2007
regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The suit is "Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The
Quizno's Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05849-PSG-PLA,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Philip S. Gutierrez with referral to
Judge Paul L. Abrams.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          C. Darryl Cordero, Esq.
          Payne and Fears
          660 South Figueroa, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-439-9911
          E-mail: cdc@paynefears.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Nancy M. Barnes, Esq.
          Thompson Hine, LLP
          3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-566-5578


PRESSTEK INC: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.H. Moves Forward
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph DiClerico of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire rejected a motion to dismiss a
purported securities class action charging Presstek Inc.
officials of inflating the company's stock value with misleading
public statements last year, Andrew Wolfe of the Nashua
Telegraph reports.

The company was served with the complaint on Oct. 26, 2006.  The
suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of Presstek's common
stock during the period from July 27, 2006 through Sept. 29,
2006.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
company and the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

James Sloman of Belmont, Mass., and his lawyers charge the
company's executives violated securities law by repeatedly
stating they predicted 10 percent revenue growth in 2006, when
they had reasons to believe sales would slow, the report said.

According to the report, Mr. Sloman and his charge that company
officials knowingly misled investors to artificially inflate the
stock price.  Presstek countered that the federal Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 shield them from
liability, because they had cautioned their statements were only
predictions, the report states.  The company also argued Mr.
Sloman and other investors could not prove their losses were a
result of misleading statements.

But Judge DiClerico wrote, "It makes no difference that the
alleged misrepresentation in this case was an omission rather
than an affirmative statement...When a corporation does make
disclosure -- whether it be voluntary or required -- there is a
duty to make it complete and accurate."

"Even if the defendants did not consciously intend to defraud,
the allegation that they were aware of material issues that
would likely affect Presstek's revenues for the third quarter is
sufficient to establish that they 'acted with a high degree of
recklessness,'" he wrote.

The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire under Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St., Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617 439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134
          E-mail: ted@shulaw.com or tshapiro@shulaw.com; and

          Mark L. Mallory, Esq.
          Mallory & Friedman PLLC
          8 Green St., Concord, NH 03301
          Phone: 228-2277
          E-mail: mark@malloryandfriedman.com

Representing defendants is:

          Robert E. McDaniel
          McDaniel Law Offices
          755 North Main St.
          Laconia, NH 03246
          Phone: 603 527-0520
          Fax: 603 279-0540
          E-mail: remcdanielesq@aol.com


SANDERSON FARMS: Reaches Settlement for La. Employee's Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A processing division subsidiary of Sanderson Farms, Inc.
reached a tentative settlement for a purported class action
filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

The suit was filed by a former hourly employee who is claiming
back wages for time spent on donning protective and sanitary
uniform.

On June 6, 2006, Annie Collins, a former employee of the
processing division subsidiary, on behalf of herself and as
representative of "a class of individuals who are similarly
situated and who have suffered the same or similar damages"
filed a complaint against the Company's processing and
production subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company's subsidiaries violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay plaintiffs and other
hourly employees for the time spent donning and doffing
protective and sanitary clothing and performing other alleged
compensable activities, and that "Sanderson automatically
deducted thirty minutes from each worker's workday for a meal
break regardless of the actual time spent on break."

Plaintiffs also allege that they were not paid overtime wages at
the legal rate. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, liquidated damages
and injunctive relief.

On July 31, 2006, following various procedural motions, the
Company filed its Answer to the plaintiffs' Complaint.  

On July 20, 2006, ten current and former employees of the
processing division subsidiary filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana nearly
identical to the one described above.

Approximately 3,700 individuals purportedly have given their
consent to be a party plaintiff to this and the aforementioned
actions.

Since the filing of these two complaints, six other
substantially similar lawsuits were filed in U.S. District
Courts for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Unlike the two previous suits referenced above filed in
Louisiana (which suits were consolidated into one action), these
complaints are specific to individual processing locations of
the subsidiary Corporation.

On March 26, 2007, the parties to the Louisiana action filed a
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Collection Action
Settlement and Appointment of Plaintiff's Counsel as Class
Counsel.

Although not a party to the Louisiana matter, the plaintiffs in
the Mississippi suits agreed to be bound by the settlement
reached in the Louisiana suit, and the Mississippi suits have
been stayed pending approval of the settlement motion before the
Louisiana Court.

On April 11, 2007, the Court denied the joint motion on two
grounds:

       -- The motion was premature because no motion to certify
          a collective action had been filed in the case, and

       -- certain contingencies contained in the settlement
          agreement gave rise to concerns about whether the
          settlement agreement was in accordance with the Fair
          Labor Standards Act.

The parties filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration of this
order of the Court, which was granted in part and denied in part
by order dated May 3, 2007.

In the order, the Court stated it would permit notice to the
class to proceed.  The Court also stated that if certain
contingencies agreed to by the parties in the settlement
agreement concerning class participation are met, it will
consider the reasonableness of the proposed settlement at a
fairness hearing.

An August 1, 2007 hearing was set.  the Court has authorized the
distribution of notice to the class.

Sanderson Farms, Inc. -- http://www.sandersonfarms.com-- is a  
fully integrated poultry processing company engaged in the
production, processing, marketing and distribution of fresh and
frozen chicken products.  


SIMPLICITY INC: Recalls Cribs with Drop-Side that can Detach
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is announcing a
voluntary recall with Simplicity Inc., of Reading, Pa., of about
1 million cribs. The drop-side can detach from the crib, which
can create a dangerous gap and lead to the entrapment and
suffocation of infants.

CPSC is aware of two deaths in Simplicity manufactured cribs
with older style hardware, including a 9-month-old child and a
6-month-old child, where the drop-side was installed upside
down. CPSC is also aware of seven infant entrapments and 55
incidents in these cribs.

CPSC is also investigating the death of a 1-year-old child in a
Simplicity crib with newer style hardware, in which the drop-
side was installed upside down. CPSC is warning parents and
caregivers to check all Simplicity cribs to make sure the drop-
side is installed right side up.

The drop-side failures result from both the hardware and crib
design, which allow consumers to unintentionally install the
drop-side upside down. This, in turn, can weaken the hardware
and cause the drop-side to detach from the crib. When the drop-
side detaches, it creates a gap in which infants can become
entrapped.

CPSC is also aware of two incidents that occurred when the drop-
side was correctly installed with older style hardware, though
the upside down installation greatly increases the risk of
failure.

The recalled Simplicity crib models include: Aspen 3 in 1, Aspen
4 in 1, Nursery-in-a-Box, Crib N Changer Combo, Chelsea and Pooh
4 in 1. The recall also involves the following Simplicity cribs
that used the Graco logo: Aspen 3 in 1, Ultra 3 in 1, Ultra 4
in1, Ultra 5 in 1, Whitney and the Trio.

The recalled cribs have one of the following model numbers,
which can be found on the envelope attached to the mattress
support and on the label attached to the headboard: 4600, 4605,
4705, 5000, 8000, 8324, 8800, 8740, 8910, 8994, 8050, 8750,
8760, and 8996.

The cribs, which were made in China, were sold in department
stores, children's stores and mass merchandisers nationwide from
January 1998 through May 2007 for between $100 and $300.

As an immediate precaution, consumers should check to see if the
drop-side is installed right side up. To do this, check to see
that the slightly rounded rail with the decorative groove is
installed at the top and the plain rail is on the bottom. Next,
consumers should make sure the drop-side is securely attached to
the tracks in all four corners.
    
If the drop-side is installed upside down or not securely
attached, consumers should stop using the crib immediately.
Incorrect installation can cause permanent damage to the
hardware and re-installing the drop-side using the same hardware
is unsafe.

Consumers should check to see if their crib contains the
recalled hardware. Recalled hardware has a flexible tab at the
bottom of the lower tracks and the top of the lower tracks are
open. Newer hardware, which is not subject to the recall, has
the flexible tab located at the top of the lower track, and a
permanent stop at the bottom.

Consumers who have a crib with older style hardware can receive
a free repair by immediately contacting Simplicity toll-free at
(888) 593-9274 between 8:30 a.m. and 10 p.m. ET Monday through
Thursday, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET on Friday, and between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET on Saturday, or by visiting
http://www.simplicityforchildren.com

Consumers who have a crib with newer style hardware and have
installed the drop-side upside down or have broken hardware,
should also contact Simplicity immediately.

Picture of the parts of the crib:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07307a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07307b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07307c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07307d.jpg


STARBUCKS COFFEE: Fla. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
ruled that plaintiffs in an overtime lawsuit against Starbucks
Coffee Co. were "similarly situated" and, thus the matter could
continue as a class action.

The suit, "Pendlebury, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee, et al., Case
No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," which was filed on June 3, 2004 is part
of a national debate over whether many managers are improperly
classified as exempt from overtime laws.  

It was filed on behalf of 900 Starbucks store managers who
claimed they are glorified "baristas" and should be eligible for
overtime.  They argue that their daily duties are virtually the
same as the hourly workers they supervise.

In general, plaintiffs in the matter seek unpaid overtime wages,
damages and attorney's fees that could total tens of millions of
dollars.  

The suit is "Pendlebury, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee, et al.,
Case No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Kenneth A.
Marra with referral to Judge Linnea R. Johnson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robin Ilene Cohen, Esq.
          Shapiro Blasi Wasserman & Gora PA
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Phone: 561-477-7800
          fax: 561-477-7722
          E-mail: ricohen@sbwlawfirm.com

Representing the defendant are:

          Susan Nadler Eisenberg, Esq.
          Akerman Senterfitt
          Suntrust International Ctr., 1 SE 3rd Ave., 28th Flr.
          Miami, FL 33131-1714
          Phone: 305-374-5600
          Fax: 305-374-5095
          E-mail: susan.eisenberg@akerman.com

               - and -

          Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-552-6435
          Fax: 310-552-6746


TJX COMPANIES: Settles Privacy Breach Suit Filed by Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The TJX Companies, Inc. (NYSE: TJX) entered into a Settlement
Agreement with respect to the customer class actions in the
United States, Canada and Puerto Rico relating to customer
claims arising from the criminal intrusion(s) into TJX's
computer system.

The settlement is subject to court approval and other
conditions. The estimated costs for this settlement were
reflected as part of the Company's previously reported fiscal
2008 second quarter charge and estimated fiscal 2009 non-cash
costs.

Carol Meyrowitz, President and Chief Executive Officer of The
TJX Companies, stated, "From the inception of our Company, our
customers have always come first. We deeply regret any
inconvenience our customers may have experienced as a result of
the criminal attack on our computer system. Importantly, we
truly appreciate our customers' continued patronage.

"TJX has been working diligently to reach a settlement that
offers a good resolution for our customers. This Settlement
Agreement addresses the different ways customers have told us
they have been impacted by the intrusion(s). TJX remains
committed to providing a secure shopping experience for our
customers along with the exciting fashions, brands and great
values for which we are famous. We believe that the terms of
this settlement are beneficial to our customers."

TJX has established a helpline in the U.S. (866) 484-6978 and
Canada (866) 903-1408 and is providing information on its
website, http://www.tjx.com,to respond to customer questions  
regarding the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement, which is subject to court approval and
other conditions, includes the following provisions:

     -- Those customers who returned merchandise without a
        receipt to our stores and to whom TJX sent letters
        reporting that their drivers' license or other
        identification information may have been compromised in
        the intrusion(s), will be offered three years of credit
        monitoring along with identity theft insurance coverage
        (two years for those who previously accepted TJX's
        credit monitoring/identity theft insurance offer), paid
        for by TJX;

     -- TJX will also reimburse these customers for the
        documented cost of certain drivers' license replacements
        and, if their drivers' license or other ID numbers were   
        the same as their social security number, for certain
        losses from identity theft;

     --  For any customers who show they shopped at TJX stores
         located in the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico (excluding
         Bob's Stores) during the relevant periods and incurred
         certain costs as a result of the intrusion, TJX will
         offer vouchers for use in these TJX stores in the
         country in which they reside.

TJX will hold a future, one-time, three-day Customer
Appreciation special event in which prices at all T.J. Maxx,
Marshalls, HomeGoods and A.J. Wright stores in the U.S. and
Puerto Rico and all Winners and HomeSense stores in Canada will
be reduced by 15%. The timing of this future special event will
be advertised, open to all customers and is expected to occur
sometime in 2008, at the earliest.

The settlement is contingent on completion of an evaluation by
plaintiffs' independent security expert on the computer security
enhancements made and planned by TJX and acceptance by the
plaintiffs' counsel of these enhancements.

Estimated costs to TJX related to this settlement were reflected
as part of the $107 million (after tax) reserve for estimated
potential losses from the intrusion(s) recorded in the Company's
fiscal 2008 second quarter and previously reported estimated
future non-cash charges of $21 million (after tax) anticipated
to be taken in fiscal 2009.

This settlement covers all customer class actions in the United
States, Puerto Rico and Canada with respect to the intrusion(s)
and is subject to satisfaction of various conditions and final
court approval after notice to the plaintiff class and
expiration of the time for appeal from any order of the court
approving the settlement. While TJX denies the claims and
allegations underlying the putative class actions, TJX has
concluded that further legal activity would be time consuming
and expensive, making it desirable that the actions be settled.

The settlement agreement is available at http://www.tjx.com.  

The TJX Companies, Inc. is the leading off-price retailer of
apparel and home fashions in the U.S. and worldwide. The Company
operates 841 T.J. Maxx, 767 Marshalls, 278 HomeGoods, and 128
A.J. Wright stores, as well as 34 Bob's Stores, in the United
States. In Canada, the Company operates 186 Winners and 70
HomeSense stores, and in Europe, 214 T.K. Maxx stores.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: No Hearing Set for Securities Suit Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit has yet to schedule a
hearing date for oral arguments on Washington Mutual, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  

In July 2004, the company and a number of its officers were
named as defendants in a series of cases alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule
10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

By stipulation, those cases were consolidated into a single case
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington styled, "South Ferry L.P. #2 v.
Killinger, et al., No. CV04-1599C (W.D. Wa. Filed Jul. 19,
2004)."

In brief, the plaintiffs in the securities action allege, on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Washington Mutual,
Inc., securities from April 15, 2003, through June 28, 2004,
that in various public statements the defendants purportedly
made misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts
concerning, among other things, alleged internal systems
problems and hedging issues.

The defendants moved to dismiss the securities action on May 17,
2005.  After briefing, but without oral argument, the court on
Nov. 17, 2005, denied the motion in principal part, however, the
Court dismissed the claims against certain of the individual
defendants, dismissed claims pleaded on behalf of sellers of put
options on Washington Mutual stock, and concluded that the
plaintiffs could not rely on supposed violations of accounting
standards to support their claims.

The remaining defendants subsequently moved for reconsideration
or, in the alternative, certification of the opinion for
interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit.  The District Court denied the motion for
reconsideration, but on March 6, 2006, granted the motion for
certification.

On June 9, 2006, the Ninth Circuit granted the defendants'
motion indicating that the Court will hear the merits of the
defendants' appeal.  The defendants filed their initial brief on
Sept. 25, 2006.  

Pursuant to an updated, stipulated briefing schedule, the
plaintiffs filed their responsive brief on Jan. 10, 2007, and
the defendants filed their reply on March 12, 2007.

Oral argument has not yet been scheduled, 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 "South Ferry L.P. #2 v. Killinger, et al., No. CV04-
1599C," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge John C. Coughenour.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Clifford A. Cantor, Esq.
         627 208TH Ave., SE
         Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
         Phone: 425-868-7813
         Fax: 425-868-7870
         E-mail: cacantor@comcast.net

              - and -

         Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
         Salvatore J Graziano, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: 212-594-5300
         E-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com
                 sgraziano@milbergweiss.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Fred B. Burnside, Esq.
         Davis Wright Tremaine
         1501 4th Ave., STE. 2600
         Seattle, WA 98101-1688
         Phone: 206-622-3150
         Fax: 206-903-3791
         E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com

              - and -

         Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom   
         Four Times Square, STE. 45-100
         New York, NY 10036-6522
         Phone: 212-735-2628
         E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com


* Cohen Milstein Mulls Suit Over U.K. Dairy Goods Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action law firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll is
considering starting a collective action over alleged price
fixing by U.K. supermarkets and dairies, The Lawyer reports.

The idea came after the Office of Fair Trading said that
collusion by supermarkets and dairy processors to fix the price
of dairy products during 2002 and 2003 may have caused customers
to spend some GBP270 million more than they should.

"This is a classic case where consumers collectively suffer
massive harm, but individually will not be able to recover
compensation because the cost of claiming is too great," Cohen
Milstein London office head Rob Murray said, according to the
report.


* Melvyn Weiss to Face Trial in Plaintiff Kickback Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss co-founder Melvyn I. Weiss was indicted by a Los
Angeles grand jury on charges he paid people to act as injured
shareholders in class actions against companies, reports say.

Milberg Weiss was first indicted for illegal payments to
plaintiffs in May 2006.  The recent indictment expanded the
original allegations against the firm to include, obstruction of
justice, and of making false statements related to the case.  If
convicted, he faces a maximum of 40 years in prison.

The charges against Mr. Weiss contend that he knew about and
participated in the plaintiff kickback scheme since it started
in the late 1970s, and that he continued to participate in it
even after federal prosecutors began their investigation.  The
scheme has allegedly brought some $250 million in legal fees.  
The firm has denied the charges.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors secured a plea deal with Steven
Schulman, a former named partner at Milberg Weiss.  He agreed to
plead guilty to a conspiracy charge in connection with the
plaintiff kickback and agred to disgorge $1.85 million in
profits, pay a $250,000 fine and accept a prison sentence that
is likely to be 27 to 33 months, according to court papers.  Mr.
Schulman will also have to cooperate with prosecutors.

Mr. Weiss' former partner in the alleged kickback scheme,
William Lerach had agreed earlier to plead guilty of conniving
to conceal the secret payments.  In his plea agreement with the
U.S. Attorney's Office, he admitted that he and other Milberg
Weiss partners made the claimed payments.  

Mr. Lerach will forfeit $7.8 million, pay a $250,000 fine and
accept a one- to two-year prison sentence.  He will not be
required to cooperate with the investigation, though.  He has
retired from the class action firm he founded.  


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


NETBANK, INC: Schoengold Sporn Files Ga. Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. 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.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is November 19, 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, 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
          Phone: (212) 964-0046
          Fax: (212) 267-8137
          Toll Free: (866) 348-7700
          Website: http://www.spornlaw.com


THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, LLP filed a class action against Thornburg
Mortgage, Inc. (Nasdaq:TMA) and certain officers and directors
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on September 19, 2007.

The action is on behalf of Thornburg Mortgage common stock
purchasers during the period April 19, 2007 and through August
14, 2007, inclusive, for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants made false
and misleading statements and material omissions regarding the
Company's business and operations and that, as a result, the
price of the Company's securities was inflated during the Class
Period, thereby harming investors.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is October 22, 2007.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, it is
alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements and
omissions to the investment community, which served to
artificially inflate the price of Company securities. In spite
of the Company's repeated claims of "a unique approach to loan
originations," affluent lender clientele and lending channels,
defendants knew and concealed the flawed, defective and
materially overstated nature of the Company's financial results.

Defendants knew and concealed that:

     (i) the Company's financial position had deteriorated, to
         the point where it faced increasing margin calls;

    (ii) leveraging capacity and capabilities at the Company
         were adversely impacted; and

   (iii) the financial situation had deteriorated to the point
         where the Company would be forced to sell certain
         assets.

On August 14, 2007, Thornburg Mortgage issued a shocking press
release, announcing that its Board of Directors has rescheduled
the payment date of the company's second quarter common dividend
of $0.68 per share to September 17, 2007, signaling the
Company's inability to continue its mortgage securitization and
mortgage lending operations. Following the shocking news, on
August 14, 2007, shares of Thornburg Mortgage stock tumbled
$6.67 or 46.7%, closing at $7.61 on volume of 27.2 million
shares, for a loss of $805 million in market capitalization.

On August 20, 2007, the true dimensions of Company's liquidity
and financing needs materialized, as the Company announced
capital losses of as much as $930 million, resulting in part
from the Company's liquidation of $20.5 billion of its "AAA-
rated" mortgage backed securities.

The plaintiff is represented by Scott+Scott.  

For more information, contact:

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