CAR_Public/070926.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, September 26, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 190

                            Headlines


AMERICAN BUSINESS: Motion in Pa. Noteholders Suit Partly Granted
APEX OIL: Ordered Back to Mediation Table in Hartford, Ill. Suit
AWP LITIGATION: First DataBank, Medi-Span Settle Mass. Suits
AXIOM WORLDWIDE: Sued Over “Bogus” Spinal Decompression Machine
CABLE TV: Cable Providers Face Antitrust Lawsuit in California

CAMBREX CORP: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J. Court
CARDINAL HEALTH: Dismissal of Cal. ERISA Suit Still Under Appeal
CREE INC: Dismissal of N.C. Securities Suit Becomes Final
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Accused of Defrauding Aged People in Cal. Suit
ECOLAB INC: Paying $27.6M to Settle Calif. Labor Lawsuits

GUIDANT CORP: Appellate Court Keeps Defibrillator Suit in Ind.
HSBC BANK: SEC Files Lawsuit in Fla. Over Investment Scam
HSBC FINANCE: Illinois Lawsuit Alleges Violation of Credit Laws
INTERMIX MEDIA: Court Considers Request for Deadline Extension
MEDICAL CLINICS: Judge Dismisses Suit by Ill. Attorney General

SAKS INC: Still Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Ala.
SEMTECH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
SIMPLICITY INC: Sued in Minn. Over Dangers of Recalled Cribs
SKECHERS USA: No Hearing Date Yet on Cal. Securities Suit Appeal
STATE FARM: Appellate Court Allows Suit Over Claims Computation

SYNCOR INT'L: Challenges Revival of Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Scott Kamber Moves for Info Leak Disclosure
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Consolidated Fla. Securities Suit Continues
TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Va. Court Denies Class Certification Motion
WCI COMMUNITIES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Sale of Condominium Units

XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Suit


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CARE INVESTMENT: Abraham Fruchter Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
MCGRAW-HILL COS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Colorado
ORBCOMM INC: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Lawsuit in N.J.
THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit


                            *********


AMERICAN BUSINESS: Motion in Pa. Noteholders Suit Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion in a suit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all purchasers of subordinated notes of American Business Financial
Services, Inc. (ABFS) was granted in part and denied in part.  Specifically,
defendants' motion was granted as to Plaintiffs' Securities Act of 1933
Section 12 solicitation claims.

Several securities fraud lawsuits, including that of Shepherd Finkelman
Miller & Shah, were filed against ABFS.  The lawsuit seeks to recover on
behalf of investors who bought the Companys subordinated notes pursuant to
materially false and misleading prospectuses and registration statements,
which violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, at the end of 2004, the Company
stopped paying principal and interest on maturity and stopped honoring checks
written on ABFS money market accounts.  On December 23, 2004, the Company
issued a press release stating that it was unable to make any payments on the
Companys notes as they became due and on January 21, 2005, the Company
announced that it had filed for bankruptcy protection.

On March 30, 2005, the various cases against ABFS were consolidated and lead
plaintiff and counsel were appointed in this action.  Following further
investigation by lead counsel, an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
November 16, 2005.

On February 16, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action and on
April 3, 2006, Plaintiffs submitted their opposition.  On January 9, 2007,
the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants motion to dismiss.  

The following is a brief summary of the Courts decision:

     -- Defendants motion to dismiss was granted with respect
        to Plaintiffs claims based on delinquency rates, as
        barred by the statute of limitations;

     -- Defendants motion was granted with respect to
        Plaintiffs claim based on ABFSs strong credit
        culture. The Court found that ABFSs use of this phrase
        did not result in a substantial likelihood that
        investors would allow it to unduly affect their opinion
        of the stock;

     -- The Court denied Defendants motion to dismiss
        Plaintiffs claims based on the abilities of ABFS to
        repay the Notes, finding that the Plaintiffs had
        adequately pled this allegation;

     -- The Court denied Defendants motion to dismiss
        Plaintiffs claim, which alleges that ABFS lacked
        adequate internal controls. The Court found that
        Plaintiffs properly pled allegations concerning internal
        Controls;

     -- The Court denied Defendants motion with respect to
        Plaintiffs Section 12 claims, stating that Plaintiffs
        properly pled these claims;

     -- The Court upheld Plaintiffs claims for recission of a
        contract against Defendants Santilli and Mandia. The
        plain language of Section 20 provides that control
        persons can be found liable for the Securities Act
        violations of the companies they control; and

     -- The Court found that Plaintiffs control person claim
        states a viable securities fraud claim and refused to
        dismiss Plaintiffs control person claim for failure to
        allege culpable participation in their complaint.

On March 19, 2006, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint.  
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was filed on April 16, 2007.  On
June 5, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for
purposes of seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims based on ABFS's ability
to repay notes and internal controls (Counts I and II), Count III regarding
claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Count VI regarding
claims under Section 15a and 29 of the Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs responded on July 2, 2007.  Shepherd Finkelman said at its Web
site that defendants' Motion was granted in part and denied in part on July
26, 2007. Specifically, Defendants' Motion was granted as to Plaintiffs'
Section 12 solicitation claims. The Court has allowed Plaintiffs to amend
their claims to conform to the “Bell Atlantic Co. V. Twombly 127 S. Ct 1955
(2007)” Standard.  Defendants' motion was denied as to all other claims.

The suit is In Re: American Business Financial Services, Inc. Noteholders
Litigation, Docket Number: 05-CV-00232 filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Berger & Montague PC
          1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103
          Phone: 800.424.6690
          Fax: 215.875.4604
          E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net

          Klafter & Olsen LLP
          2121 K St., NW Suite 800, Washington, DC, 20037
          Phone: 202.261.3553
          Fax: 202.261.3533
          E-mail: info@klafterolsen.com

          Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross
          1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102
          Phone: 215-561-3600
          Fax: 215-561-3000
          E-mail: bmgross@bernardmgross.com

          Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
          World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite           
          2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202
          Phone: 410.332.0030
          Fax: pivenlaw@erols.com

          Squitieri & Fearon LLP
          420 5th Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY, 10018
          Phone: 212.575.2092
          Fax: 212.575.2184
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com  


APEX OIL: Ordered Back to Mediation Table in Hartford, Ill. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack ordered Apex Oil Co. Inc. back into
a mediation process to resolve a suit over pollution from petroleum
refineries in the village of Hartford, Steve Koris of St. Clair Record
reports.

Judge Stack ordered that Apex Oil be included in the talks at a Sept. 7
hearing on a motion by other defendants to have the mediation closed to
plaintiffs in order to protect scientific secrets.

Sinclair Oil attorney Joseph Nassif of Clayton, Mo. made the secrecy request
for “the allocation group,” which consists of defendants Premcor Refining
Group and subsidiaries of BP and Shell.  He wrote that they had nearly
reached an allocation agreement and needed a protective order to close the
deal.

On Sept. 6, nine attorneys pursuing claims in three separate suits opposed
Mr. Nassif's motion in a joint brief on behalf of
"consolidated plaintiffs," calling it premature.

Last year, plaintiff attorney Mark Goldenberg of Edwardsville, presented a
tentative agreement before Judge Stack that would solve the matter through a
new class action.  Judge Stack approved the settlement tentatively, but the
agreement broke down in February and Judge Stack resorted to mediation.  

On the Sept. 7 hearing, Judge Stack discovered that Apex Oil has been
excluded from the mediation on failure to meet certain “conditions” by the
other defendants.  

Mr. Nassif said in the hearing, "There became an issue that I'm not
thoroughly familiar with about Apex's willingness to sort of commit enough
money to continue in the game, sort of like a poker game, how much money they
were willing to throw in."

He said, "They were given some information and asked to get back to us."

Apex Oil attorney Bill Knapp of Edwardsville said he was present at the first
mediation.

He said, "The defendants attempted to place conditions. Not the plaintiffs,
the codefendants attempted to place conditions on Apex's ability to
participate in negotiations."

He said, "Since we have not apparently met their conditions, they have now
excluded us from subsequent mediation."

"They can't exclude you," Judge Stack told Mr. Knapp.  He instructed Mr.
Nassif to draft an order that would get Apex Oil back into the talks.

Representing Apex Oil is:

          William J. Knapp, Esq.
          Knapp, Ohl & Green
          6100 Center Grove Road, P.O. Box 446
          Edwardsville, Illinois 62025
          (Madison Co.)

Representing Sinclair Oil:

          Joseph G. Nassif, Esq.
          Husch & Eppenberger, LLC
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, Missouri 63105-3441
          (Independent City)
          Phone: 314-480-1500
          Fax: 314-480-1505


AWP LITIGATION: First DataBank, Medi-Span Settle Mass. Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
granted preliminary approval to two Proposed Settlements on behalf of a class
of people and entities that purchased certain prescription drugs.

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuits,

     * “New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First
        DataBank, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-11148-PBS,” and

     * “D.C. 37 Health & Security Plan v. Medi-Span, No. 07-cv-
        10988-PBS,”

concerning how the published price of drugs are determined, what consumers
pay for the drugs and what third party payors reimburse for them.

First DataBank, Inc. (FDB) and Medi-Span publish data related to the prices
of prescription drugs in their printed and electronic databases. The data
includes the Average Wholesale Price of each drug. Pharmaceutical
manufacturers report certain prices to FDB and Medi-Span. FDB then marked-up
these prices to get the AWP reported in their publications and databases.

From December 2001 into April 2004, Medi-Span published Average Wholesale
Prices that it obtained from FDB. Subsequently, Medi-Span independently
published certain AWP information in its publications and databases. Third-
party payors and pharmacies may use the AWP as a benchmark in determining the
amount of reimbursement for drugs or the cost of drugs to certain consumers.

One of the lawsuits alleges that FDB and McKesson Corporation wrongfully
inflated the mark-up used to determine the AWP. The other lawsuit claims that
Medi-Span negligently published inflated prescription drug prices. As a
result, the two lawsuits claim that insurers, Third-Party Payors and some
consumers paid more for certain drugs than they should have.

"Although the Proposed Settlements do not provide money to consumers right
now, they will likely allow certain consumers to save millions of dollars in
future prescription drug costs," said Jeffrey Kodroff of Spector Roseman &
Kodroff P.C. and Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Counsel
for the Plaintiffs in this case. "This is a first step in making all
prescription drugs more affordable for consumers."

The Proposed Settlements provide "injunctive relief." This means that instead
of paying money damages, the companies agree to change what they are doing to
benefit the Class. In these lawsuits, a substantial benefit is provided to
the Class because FDB and Medi-Span will:

     -- Reduce the mark-up factor for thousands of drugs in
        their respective data publications.  Class Counsel
        estimate that this reduction may save well over a
        billion dollars in future drug costs for consumers,
        insurers and TPPs in a single 12-month period.

     -- Cease to publish an AWP within two (FDB) or three (Medi-
        Span) years of the Proposed Settlements final approval.

     -- Provide information on drug price publishing in
        connection with this and other lawsuits.  Class counsel
        believe this will likely provide additional benefits,
        including monetary benefits, to Class Members in drug
        pricing lawsuits against other parties.

"First DataBank denies that it has any liability as a publisher of
information that relies on data provided by others. First DataBank is
dedicated to reporting relevant and reliable drug information, which we
believe this settlement promotes," said Eve Burton, legal counsel for FDB.

"Medi-Span denies wrongdoing and will continue to serve as a reputable
publisher of drug price information provided to Medi-Span by third parties,"
said Eric Cardinal, Director Drug File Products for Medi-Span.

The Class consists of all individual persons or entities that made purchases
and/or paid, whether directly, indirectly, or by reimbursement, for all or
part of the purchase price of certain prescription pharmaceuticals based on
the AWP data reported by FDB or Medi-Span. Consumers who pay a fixed co-pay
for prescription drugs are not affected by this settlement.

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on January 22, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.
to consider whether the Proposed Settlements are fair, reasonable, and
adequate and the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses.

For more information regarding the Class Action visit
http://www.FDBMediSpanSettlement.com.


AXIOM WORLDWIDE: Sued Over “Bogus” Spinal Decompression Machine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axiom Worldwide, its chief executive James Gibson and co-founder Nick Exharos
are facing a class-action complaint filed Sept. 21 in the Superior Court of
the State of California, in the County of Alameda, claiming its spinal
decompression machine is a fraud, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit alleges defendants defrauded hundreds of chiropractors, osteopaths
and medical doctors by selling them defective “spinal decompression
machines,” falsely claiming it has obtained regulatory approval.

Defendants sell the machines for $95,000 to $125,000 and push them through
numerous false claims, including that it can target specific spinal discs for
treatment, and make kids grow, the suit states.

Named plaintiffs Tony L. Hoang and Charles C. Strong seek:

     -- for restitution of all monies paid to defendants and/or
        the companies from which they financed the purchase of
        Axiom machines;

     -- in the alternative, for compensatory damages in an
        amount to be determined at trial;

     -- punitive or exemplary damages in an amount to be
        determined at trial;

     -- interest and penalties;

     -- attorney's fees and costs; and

     -- for such further and other relief as the court may deem
        appropriate.

The suit is "Tony L. Hoang and Charles C. Strong et al. v. Axiom Worldwide,
LLC et al., Case No. 07347405," filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, in the County o Alameda.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Kevin J. McInerney, Esq.
          Kelly McInerney, Esq.
          Charles A. Jones, Esq.
          McInerney & Jones
          18124 Wedge Parkway #503
          Reno, NV 89511
          Phone: (775) 849-3811
          Fax: (775) 849-3866


CABLE TV: Cable Providers Face Antitrust Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Satellite and cable TV giants are facing a class-action antitrust complaint
filed Sept. 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint names as defendants:

          -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
          -- Viacom Inc.,
          -- The Walt Disney Company,
          -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
          -- Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
          -- Comcast Corporation,
          -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
          -- Cox Communications, Inc.,
          -- The DirecTV Group, Inc.,
          -- Echostar Satellite LLC,
          -- Charter Communications, Inc.,
          -- Cablevision Systems Corp.

The complaint accuses the companies of conspiring to restrict competition
between content providers and distributors by offering only prepackaged,
bundled programs and refusing to offer cable programs a la carte.

The bundling conspiracy restrains trade, suppresses and eliminates
competition, fixes and elevates prices and forces consumers to pay hundreds
of millions of dollars for channels they do not want, the suit states.

This lawsuit challenges the collective conduct of defendants which was
eliminated, in material part, competition among and between the content
providers and/or programmers for cable/satellite television distribution and
the cable and satellite providers by the practice of offering only
prepackaged tiers of bundled programs and refusing to offer cable programming
to consumers on an "a la carte" basis.

The class action sees to terminate the practice of offering consumers only
bundled or prepackaged bundled tiers and to require programmers and cable
providers to offer channels on an "a la carte" or individual choice basis.

Plaintiffs bring this action under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26, for treble damages, injunctive relief, costs of
suit and a reasonable attorneys' fee, against defendants for the injuries
sustained by plaintiffs and class members by reason of defendants' violations
of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2.

They bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23 on behalf of all persons residing in the United States who
subscribe to "expanded basic cable" provided by one of the cable television
or direct broadcast satellite television provider defendants within four
years of the date of the filing of the complaint.

The want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants have engaged in collaborative
         activity to preclude cable/satellite subscribers from
         securing "a la carte" programming apart from "basic"
         cable service;

     (b) whether, as a result of the antitrust violation as set
         forth in the complaint, plaintiffs and the class are
         entitled to damages, equitable relief or other relief,
         and the amount and nature of such relief;

     (c) whether defendants acted on grounds generally
         applicable to the class, making injunctive relief
         appropriate;

     (d) whether a class can be certified pursuant to
         Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3); and

     (e) whether, alternatively, a class can be certified
         pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).

Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, pray:

     -- that this matter be certified as a class action with the
        class defined set forth in the complaint under
        Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), or in the alternative
        Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), and that the named plaintiffs be
        appointed class representatives and their attorneys be
        appointed class counsel;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants, and each of
        them jointly and severally, for the treble damages as a
        result of defendants' violations of Section 1 and 2 of
        the Sherman Act, and that plaintiffs be awarded a
        reasonable attorneys' fee and the costs of suit as
        required by Section 4 of the Clayton Act;

     -- that the court enter an order requiring defendants, and
        each of them, to immediately cease the wrongful conduct
        as set forth in the complaint and specifically enjoining
        defendants from unlawfully bundling expanded basic cable
        channels and ordering defendant cable providers and
        direct broadcast satellite providers to notify their
        subscribers that they each can purchase "a la carte"
        (separately) except for "basic cable"; and

     -- for such other and further relief as to the court may
        seem just and proper.

The named plaintiffs are:

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

The suit is "Rob Brantley et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al, Case No. CV07-
06101," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Maxwell M. Blecher
          David W. Kesselman
          Blecher & Collins, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, California 90071-3334
          Phone: (213) 622-4222
          Fax: (213) 622-1656
          E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com or
                  dkesselman@blechercollins.com


CAMBREX CORP: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah filed a securities class action against
Cambrex Corp. in October, 2003 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Cambrex securities
between Oct. 21, 1998 and July 25, 2003.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued numerous statements
concerning Cambrex's profits, business operations and prospects without
disclosing that it had overstated its net income by $5 million due to
improper accounting from 1997 to 2001 and that it would be forced to restate
its financial results for this five year period.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants also failed to disclose that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission had commenced an informal investigation
into the Company's improper accounting practices. In addition, the Complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants issued false and misleading
statements that failed to disclose the loss of a major contract between
Cambrex and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. to manufacture the drug Replagal to
treat Fabry disease, and the effect of the loss on the Company's financial
prospects.

The Complaint alleges that, as early as October of 2002, Defendants knew that
it was more likely than not that the Company would lose the TKT contract as a
result of U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s concerns with TKT's Replagal
application, and that Cambrex would not be able to adequately and efficiently
replace the business resulting from this likely loss.

Despite additional and compelling notice that the TKT contract was likely to
be lost, it was not until April 3, 2003, nearly three months later, that
Defendants revised Cambrex's earnings and revenues guidance downward to
account for the loss of the TKT contract. Once this news was disclosed, the
market reacted swiftly and Cambrex's stock experienced a 37% drop in price.

Defendants also never timely disclosed the TKT contract and the effect of its
cancellation on its financial prospects. In fact, the existence of this
contract only became a matter of public knowledge on April 28, 2003 when it
was disclosed in a trade publication. On July 25, 2003, the last day of the
Class Period, Defendants finally conceded that they knew about the loss of
the TKT contract when they issued their profit warnings. The market again
reacted swiftly and dramatically to this news, causing the price of Cambrex
common stock to drop $5.09 or 20% from its previous day's close.

                     Consolidation of Cases

In January 2004, the various cases against Cambrex were consolidated and Lead
Plaintiff and counsel were appointed in this action. Due to further
investigation by Plaintiff’s counsel, an amended consolidated complaint was
filed on March 29, 2004.

In September 2004, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action and
Plaintiff submitted its opposition. The Court granted in part and denied in
part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims
against the Individual Defendants on October 27, 2005, but allowed the case
to proceed against the Corporation.

Following this Order, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration and
Plaintiff opposed this motion. The Court denied Defendants’ motion for
reconsideration in January 2006.

                         Certification

On November 30, 2005, Plaintiff moved to certify the class. On April 10,
2006, the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund filed a motion to
intervene in this matter, and the Court granted the motion. The Court lifted
the stay in this case and the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund
has filed its motion for class certification. In July, Defendants filed their
opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

In August 2006, Judge Ronald J. Hedges stayed all pending motions, briefing
and discovery action until the status conference. On November 6, 2006, a
status conference was held and the stay was lifted.

On February 23, 2007, the Court granted class certification to the class
defined as all purchasers of Cambrex Corporation Securities between October
21, 1998 and July 25, 2003. Excluded from the class are Defendants, the
officers and directors of Cambrex during the Class Period, members of their
immediate families, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns and any entity in which any of the defendants have or had a
controlling interest. Class counsel was also appointed in this matter.  

Defendants sought an order to file an appeal with the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals with respect to the portion of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss that was
denied by the Court. The District Court denied Defendants' request for appeal
of that decision.

A mediation session took place in mid-April and a status conference was held
before the Court on May 14, 2007.

In July, 2007, the Court approved the proposed Sub-Classes and directed that
notice be given to the Sub-Classes. Class notice of the settlement will be
distributed.

For more information contact:

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
          Phone: 1-866-540-5505


CARDINAL HEALTH: Dismissal of Cal. ERISA Suit Still Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on a motion
appealing a dismissal of a purported class action filed against Cardinal
Health, Inc., Syncor International Corp. and certain officers and employees
of the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Initially several class actions were filed against the company, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The suits are:

       -- "Pilkington v. Cardinal Health, et al.," which was
          filed on April 8, 2003, against the company, Syncor
          and certain officers and employees of the company by a
          purported participant in the Syncor Employees' Savings
          and Stock Ownership Plan.  

       -- "Donna Brown, et al. v. Syncor International Corp., et
          al.," which was filed on Sept. 11, 2003, against the
          company, Syncor and certain individual defendants.  

       -- "Thompson v. Syncor International Corp., et al.,"
          which was filed on Jan. 14, 2004, against the company,
          Syncor and certain individual defendants.   

Each of these actions was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  

Later, a consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 24, 2004 against Syncor and
certain former Syncor officers, directors and/or employees alleging that the
defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under ERISA based on the
same underlying allegations of improper and unlawful conduct alleged in the
federal securities litigation.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages and other
unspecified relief against the defendants.  On April 26,
2004, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On
Aug. 24, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motions to Dismiss.

The court dismissed, without prejudice, all claims against defendants Ed
Burgos and Sheila Coop, all claims alleging co- fiduciary liability against
all defendants, and all claims alleging that the individual defendants had
conflicts of interest precluding them from properly exercising their
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  

A claim for breach of the duty to prudently manage plan assets was upheld
against Syncor, and a claim for breach of the alleged duty to "monitor" the
performance of Syncor's Plan Administrative Committee was upheld against
defendants Monty Fu and Robert Funari.  

On Jan. 10, 2006, the court entered summary judgment in favor of all
defendants on all remaining claims.  Consistent with that ruling, on Jan. 11,
2006, the court entered a final order dismissing this case.  

The lead plaintiff has appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 24, 2007 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Carol Pilkington v. Cardinal Health Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-02446-RGK-RC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge R. Gary
Klausner.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Christopher Kim, Esq.
         Lisa J. Yang, Esq.
         Lim Ruger & Kim
         1055 W 7th St, Ste 2800
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-955-9500
         Email: christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com
                lisa.yang@lrklawyers.com

              - and -  

         Edward Chang, Esq.
         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Schiffrin and Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         E-mail: echang@sbclasslaw.com
                 jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com
  
Representing the defendants is:

         Ted Allan Gehring, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000


CREE INC: Dismissal of N.C. Securities Suit Becomes Final
---------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a consolidated securities class action against Cree, Inc.
has become final after plaintiffs did not seek further appellate review of
the decision and the time for doing so expired.

Between June 16 and Aug. 18, 2003, certain alleged purchasers of the
company's stock filed 19 purported class actions in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina.  The lawsuits name the company,
certain of its officers and current and former directors as defendants.  

The court subsequently entered an order consolidating these actions and
appointing a lead plaintiff for the consolidated cases.   

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which the court
later dismissed although it allowed the plaintiff to file a further amended
complaint.  

As finally amended in October 2004, the consolidated complaint asserted,
among other claims, violations of federal securities laws, including
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5, and violations of Section 20(a) and Section 18 of
the U.S. Exchange Act against the individual defendants and also asserted
claims against certain of the company's officers under Section 304 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  

The complaint alleged that the company made false and misleading statements
concerning its investments in certain public and privately held companies,
its acquisition of the UltraRF division of Spectrian Corp., its supply
agreement with Spectrian, and its agreements with Charles & Colvard and that
its financial statements did not comply with the requirements of the
securities laws during the class period.  

The complaint requested certification of a plaintiff class consisting of
purchasers of the company's stock between Aug. 12, 1998 and June 13, 2003 and
sought, among other relief, unspecified damages and disgorgement of profits
by the individual defendants, plus costs and expenses, including attorneys',
accountants' and experts' fees.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that it
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and did not satisfy
the pleading requirements under applicable law.  

The district court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint in its
entirety with prejudice in August 2005.  

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.  The Court of Appeals in February 2007 affirmed the dismissal
and in April 2007 denied a petition from the plaintiffs seeking to have the
appeal reheard by the entire appellate court.

The plaintiffs have not sought further appellate review, the time for doing
so has expired and the dismissal of these cases has therefore become final,
according to the company's Aug. 22, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 24, 2007.

The suit is "In re Cree, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-CV-549,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
under Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
         Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP
         200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 406
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100

              - and -

         Reginald F. Combs, Esq.
         Blanco Tackabery Combs & Matamoros, P.A.
         POD 25008
         Winston-Salem, NC 27114-5008
         Phone: 336-293-9000
         Fax: 336-293-9030
         E-mail: rfc@btcmlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Carl N. Patterson, Jr., Esq.
         Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan
         POB 2611
         Raleigh, NC 27602-2611
         Phone: 919-821-6647
         Fax: 919-821-6800
         E-mail: cpatterson@smithlaw.com

              - and -

         Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
         Two Fountain Sq., Reston Town Ctr., 11921 Freedom Dr.,            
         Reston, VA 20190-5634
         Phone: 703-734-3107
         Fax: 703-734-3199
         E-mail: nporritt@wsgr.com


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Accused of Defrauding Aged People in Cal. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. and We the People Forms and Services Centers USA (WTP-
USA) are facing a class-action complaint filed Sept. 19 in the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda accusing it of
financial elder abuse, fraud and unauthorized practice of law.

Named plaintiff Jacqueline Fitzgibbons brings this action on behalf of all
persons over the age of 65 at the time of purchase, who paid for and received
any document preparation service involving living trusts, wills, probate
maters, quitclaim deeds and advance health care directives and/or powers of
attorney from a franchise office of WTP-USA.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the WTP defendants were engaged in the
         unauthorized and illegal practice of law without a
         license within the state of California;

     (b) whether the WTP defendants fraudulently induced
         plaintiffs to pay money to an illegal and wrongful
         business that was in violation of state law;

     (c) whether the WTP defendants were engaged in an illegal
         running and capping business for the attorney
         defendants, prohibited by Business and Professions Code
         Sections 11651 and 1652;

     (d) whether the attorney defendants, were in violation of
         Rule of Professional Conduct 1-300 stating that a
         member shall not aid any person or entity in the
         unauthorized practice of law, which constitutes an
         unfair and wrongful Business Practice under Civil Code
         Sections 17200 and 17500;

     (e) whether the attorney defendants, were in violation of
         Rule of Professional Conduct 1-310 prohibiting the
         forming of a partnership with a person who is not a
         lawyer when the activities of the partnership consist
         of the practice of law, which constitutes an unfair and
         wrongful business practice under Civil Code Sections
         17200 and 17500;

     (f) whether the attorney defendants were in violation of
         Rule of Professional Conduct 1-320 stating that
         "neither a member nor a law firm shall directly or
         indirectly share legal fees with a person who is not a
         lawyer", which constitutes an unfair and wrongful
         business practice under Civil Code sections 172500 and
         17500; and

     (g) whether the WTP defendants and the attorney deefndants
         were in a conspiracy to commit the illegal and wrongful
         acts alleged by creating a franchise system based on
         the unauthorized and illegal practice of law, and/or
         partnerships with attorneys.

This action is brought as a representative action under California Business &
Professions Code Sections 17200, et. seq. and California Business &
Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq. and a class action pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 382.

This action seeks to redress the defendants' unlawful and deceptive business
practices in the preparation of living trust documents and provision of other
services related to the preparation of these documents. Specifically, this
action seeks to redress defendants' pattern and practice of practicing law
without a license and assisting the unauthorized practice of the law. This
action seeks recovery of the remedies permitted by California law under the
causes of action alleged.

Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them:

     -- for a court order certifying that the action may be
        maintained as a class action;

     -- for a court order requiring that defendants immediately
        cease acts that constitute unlawful, unfair or
        fraudulent business practices as alleged, and to enjoin
        defendants from continuing to engage in any such acts or
        practices in the future;

     -- disgorge and restitute any and all monies, including any
        profits obtained as a result of deceptive, unlawful and
        misleading acts and practices, including their
        misrepresentations, misleading statements and acts of
        concealment;

     -- compensate plaintiffs individually, and the general
        public, for any actual damages, with interest, incurred
        as a result of said unlawful, fraudulent, deceptive and
        unfair business practices;

     -- for general damages according to law and proof;

     -- for special damages according to law and proof;

     -- for costs of suit;

     -- for attorneys' fees pursuant to California Welfare
        Institutions Code Section 15657.5;

     -- for attorneys fees pursuant to California Code of Civil
        Procedure section 1029.8;

     -- for defendants to return to plaintiffs all funds
        acquired by means of any act or practice declared by the
        court to be unlawful or fraudulent, or to constitute
        unfair business practices;

     -- for statutory damages;

     -- for treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code
        Section 3345;

     -- for treble damages pursuant to California Code Civil
        Procedure Section 1029.8;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- for pre-judgment interest according to law; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        proper.

The suit is "Jacqueline Fitzgibbons et al. v. Dollar Financial Corp., et al.,
Case No. RG07347097," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
in and for the County of Alameda.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Robert S. Arns
          Morgan C. Smith
          Jonathat E. Davis
          The Arns Law Firm
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 495-7800
          Fax: (415) 495-7888

          - and -

          Kathryn A. Stebner
          Stebner and Associates
          870 market Street, Suite 1212
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: (415) 362-9800


ECOLAB INC: Paying $27.6M to Settle Calif. Labor Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Cleaning products maker Ecolab Inc. said that an arbitration award was
rendered Sept. 24, which, if upheld, would result in a payment by Ecolab of
approximately $27.6 million plus post-award interest.

Ecolab considers the award to be flawed and is evaluating alternatives. The
decision concerns two California class actions involving wage/hour claims
affecting former and current employees of Ecolab’s Pest Elimination Division.

If the arbitration award stands, the amount is expected to be fully offset by
other one-time benefits for the full year 2007. These one-time benefits
include:

     * the previously announced $0.02 per share discrete tax
       benefit in the second quarter;

     * an expected third quarter discrete tax benefit totaling
       $0.03 per share due primarily to the impact on deferred
       taxes of legislated corporate tax rate reductions in the
       United Kingdom and Germany; and

     * a fourth quarter $0.02 per share gain on the expected
       sale of Peter Cox Limited, a leading United Kingdom
       provider of damp proofing, to Mavinwood PLC (LSE:MVW.L),
       the sale of which is scheduled to close shortly.

Ecolab believes that net of the known discrete tax benefits, the sale of
Peter Cox Limited and the arbitration award, results from full year earnings
are expected to be $1.64 - $1.66 per share, the same as earnings without
these one-time items.

Third quarter 2007 EPS was previously expected to be in a range of $0.48-
$0.49 compared with EPS of $0.43 in last year’s third quarter. Ecolab
continues to expect third quarter EPS, excluding the award and third quarter
discrete tax benefit, to be in the $0.48-$0.49 range; however, the impact of
the award, partially offset by the third quarter discrete tax benefit, will
likely result in reported EPS of $0.44-$0.45.


GUIDANT CORP: Appellate Court Keeps Defibrillator Suit in Ind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Court of Appeals has allowed a class action to go ahead against
Guidant Corp. in Marion County, Michael W. Hoskins of Indianapolis Business
Journal reports.

The suit was filed by Linda Mason and Ryan Terry.  They seek to recover
damages on behalf of a class of "several thousand" Hoosiers who received
defective defibrillators made by the company.

Minnesota-based Cardiac Pacemakers Inc., a subsidiary of Guidant, asked to
intervene in the case to transfer it to Minnesota federal court, where many
similar cases have been moved for pre-trial proceedings.  Cardiac Pacemakers
argued that the plaintiffs were trying to sidestep the federal litigation by
keeping their case in state court, according to the report.  

Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly refused Cardiac Pacemakers’ request to
intervene and ordered the case to remain in Indiana.  "The desire to resolve
disputes between citizens of Indiana in our local courts outweighs the
benefit of federal jurisdiction in this lawsuit as this time," Judge Moberly
wrote in her Jan. 2 order.

The appellate judge upheld that ruling.

The federal court cases were settled collectively this year, but the
settlement process was put on hold while individual plaintiffs determine
whether to accept that settlement.

The case before the appellate judges is “Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. Ryan
Terry and Linda Mason, No. 49A04-0704-CV-240.”


HSBC BANK: SEC Files Lawsuit in Fla. Over Investment Scam
---------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is facing a class-action complaint filed Sept. 19 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida accusing it of
defrauding consumers, CourtHouse News Service reports.

HSBC Bank defrauded more than 3,400 investors, who invested more than $127
million into its “Pension Fund,” “Liberty Plan” and among others, by failing
to disclose “that during the first year of the investment up to 95% of their
funds were used to pay exorbitant commissions to sales agents, administrative
fees, and other costs,” U.S. the Securities and Exchange Commission claims in
the complaint.  The company also allegedly charged investors in its ‘Capital
Plan’ undisclosed, average fees of 30% on their investments.

The scam allegedly targeted Central Americans and South Americans and spanned
the years 1999 and 2005.

The commission requests that the court:

     -- enter a final judgment ordering HSBC to pay
        disgorgement, including prejudgment interest, resulting
        from the acts or courses of conduct alleged in the
        complaint;

     -- enter a final judgment ordering HSBC to pay a civil
        penalty pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act,
        15 U.S.C. Section 77t(d); and

     -- grant such other and further relief as may be necessary
        and appropriate.

The suit is "Securities and Exchange Commission et al. v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., Case No. 07-22469-CIV," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Roger Cruz
          Teresa J. Verges
          Yolanda Gonzalez
          Securities and Exchange Commission
          801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800
          Miami, Florida 33131
          Phone: (305) 982-6300
          Fax: (305) 536-4154
          E-mail: cruzr@sec.gov or vergest@sec.gov


HSBC FINANCE: Illinois Lawsuit Alleges Violation of Credit Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficial Wisconsin, d.b.a. Beneficial Finance and HSBC Finance Corp., is
facing a class-action complaint filed Sept. 21 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois over alleged credit violations, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Sandy Nelson claims the defendants sent mass mailings via
U.S. mail, stating: “This ‘prescreened’ offer of credit is based on
information in your credit report.”

She claims the defendants paid data brokers to get people’s credit
information illegally, subjecting them to identity theft and improper
disclosures.

Plaintiff brings this action to secure redress for a course of conduct that
included the accessing of a consumer report on plaintiff without her consent
or any lawful reason, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1681, et. seq.

This action is brought on behalf of all persons to whom defendants sent or
caused to be sent material on or after a date prior to the filing of this
action and before 20 days after the filing of the action.  

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on whether obtaining a consumer report for
the purpose of transmission of material violates the FCRA.

Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgments as follows:

     -- appropriate statutory damages;

     -- injunctive relief against further violations;

     -- attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit;
        and

     -- such other further relief as the court deems
        appropriate.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Brian C. Witter, Esq.
          DiTommaso-Lubin, PC
          17W 220 22nd Steet, Suite 200
          Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois 60181
          Phone: (630) 333-0000

          - and -

          Jason G. Shanfield, Esq.
          Shanfield Law Firm, Ltd.
          833 North Hoyne Ave.,
          Chicago, Illinois 60622
          Phone: (312) 638-0819


INTERMIX MEDIA: Court Considers Request for Deadline Extension
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has yet to rule on a plaintiffs' request to extend until
Oct. 23 the opening brief deadline in a purported class action against
Intermix Media, Inc., an acquisition of News Corp.

The dismissal of a consolidated class action that named -- as one of the
defendants has been appealed.

On Aug. 26, 2005 and Aug. 30, 2005, these purported class actions were filed
in the California Superior Court, County of  
Los Angeles:

      -- "Ron Sheppard v. Richard Rosenblatt, et al.," and  

      -- "John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et al."  

Both lawsuits named as defendants all of the then incumbent members of the
Intermix Media Board, including Mr. Rosenblatt,  
Intermix' former chief executive officer, and certain entities affiliated
with VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former major  
Intermix stockholder.  

The complaints alleged that, in pursuing the transaction whereby  
Intermix Media was to be acquired by Fox Interactive and approving the
related merger agreement, the director defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Intermix stockholders by, among other things, engaging in self-
dealing and failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available for
Intermix and its stockholders.  

The complaints further alleged that the merger agreement resulted from a
flawed process and that the defendants tailored the terms of the merger to
advance their own interests.  The Fox Interactive Media Transaction was
consummated on Sept. 30, 2005.  

The Friedmann and Sheppard lawsuits were subsequently consolidated and, on
Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, known as "Intermix
Media Shareholder Litigation."   

Plaintiffs in the consolidated action are seeking various forms of
declaratory relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and costs.  

The defendants have filed demurrers seeking dismissal of all claims in the
Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation, which were heard by the court on July
6, 2006.   

On Oct. 6, 2006, the court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend.  
On Dec. 13, 2006, the court dismissed the complaints and entered judgment for
the defendants.

On Feb. 6, 2007, the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.  A briefing schedule for the appeal has not been set.

On February 6, 2007, the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.

Although their opening brief was due on Aug. 24, 2007, plaintiffs have
requested that the Court of Appeal grant them an extension of this due date
to Oct. 23, 2007.  The Court of Appeal has not yet ruled on this request.

News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified entertainment  
company with operations in eight industry segments, including Filmed
Entertainment; Television; Cable Network Programming; Direct Broadcast
Satellite Television; Magazines and Inserts; Newspapers; Book Publishing, and
Other.


MEDICAL CLINICS: Judge Dismisses Suit by Ill. Attorney General
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Circuit Judge Peter Flynn dismissed a lawsuit pursued by Illinois
Attorney General against a group of medical clinics accused of paying illegal
kickbacks to doctors, Rob Luke of Legal News Line reports.

Private plaintiffs originally filed the suit in January.  Later, Attorney
General Lisa Madigan took over the case.  Her complaint alleges that 11
companies that run MRI-scan clinics in the Chicago region paid
doctors "illegal kickbacks" for patient referrals for MRI scans through "sham
lease agreements." The result was "numerous false claims [submitted to]
private insurers and patients in Illinois," it alleged.

On Sept. 12, Judge Flynn ruled that the plaintiff failed to adequately supply
detail on specific allegations against each defendant.  Ms. Madigan said the
dismissal is "not a ruling on the merits" of her suit, and that she intends
to refile the complaint within one month.  According to her, the judge wants
only that each of the allegations against each of the defendant be separated,
and more specific detail about the false claims be provided.

The defendants claimed that the partnerships between their clinics and
referring doctors are legal.

The suit’s largest defendant is Open Advanced MRI with 13 clinics in the
Chicago area.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Steven A. Miller, Esq.
          Reed Smith Sachnoff & Weaver
          10 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, Illinois 60606-7507
          (Cook Co.)

          P.O. Box 2009, PA, 15230-2009
          Phone: 312-207-1000
          Telecopier: 312-207-6400


SAKS INC: Still Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Ala.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saks, Inc. continues to face a purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama over allegations of
breach of contract.

Adamson Apparel, Inc. filed the suit on Dec. 8, 2005.  The plaintiff alleges
that the company improperly assessed chargebacks, timely payment discounts,
and deductions for merchandise returns against members of the plaintiff
class.  

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and incidental damages and restitution.

The company reported no material development in the matter in its Sept. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

The suit is "Adamson Apparel, Inc. v. Saks Inc., Case No. 2:05 cv-02514-SLB,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under
Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn.   

Representing the plaintiff are:

         Richard T. Dorman, Esq.
         Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder & Brown
         P.O. Box 66705
         Mobile, AL 36660
         Phone: 1-251-471-6191
         E-mail: rtd@cbycb.com

         Rachel J. Geman, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-355-9500
         Fax: 212-355-9592
         E-mail: rgeman@ichb.com

              - and -

         David J. Guin, Esq.
         Tammy McClendon Stokes, Esq.
         Donaldson & Guin, LLC
         The Financial Ctr., 505 20th Street, North Suite 1000
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-503-4505
         Fax: 205-226-2357
         E-mail: davidg@dglawfirm.com
                 tstokes@dglawfirm.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Andrew J. Sinor, Jr., Esq.
         Hand Arendall, LLC
         1200 Park Place Tower, 2001 Park Place North
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-324-4400
         Fax: 205-397-1310
         E-mail: dsinor@handarendall.com
SEMTECH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Semtech Corp. faces a purported securities fraud class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In August 2007, a purported class action was filed against the Company and
certain current and former officers on behalf of persons who purchased or
acquired Semtech securities from September 11, 2002 until July 19, 2006.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the
Company’s past stock option practices.

Plaintiffs demand a jury trial but make no specific monetary demand.

The suit is “Middlesex County Retirement System, et al. v. Semtech
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-CV-07183,” filed in the  U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Denny Chin

Representing the plaintiff is:

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


SIMPLICITY INC: Sued in Minn. Over Dangers of Recalled Cribs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Simplicity Inc. is facing a class action in Minneapolis in relation to the
largest recall of full-sized cribs ever in the U.S., the Chicago Tribune
reports.

The lawsuit was filed by Charles Kelly, a San Francisco product liability
attorney, on behalf of Amber Spitzer of Hanover Park, Ill., who bought a crib
for her 1-year-old daughter.

Ms. Spitzer also sued Target Corp., the company from whom she bought the
Aspen 4 in 1 crib for her daughter in April 2006. Also named as a defendant
is Graco Children's Products Inc., the company that licensed its name to
Simplicity for some of the cribs that were recalled.

The lawsuit alleges that Simplicity should have warned consumers about the
dangers of the cribs or stopped the selling them after learning of injuries
related to the cribs and particularly after the death in April 2005 of a 9-
month-old in Citrus Heights, Calif.

But the company allegedly did nothing.  Mr. Kelly also represented the family
of the baby boy who died.

Earlier, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall of 1
million Simplicity cribs, including the Aspen 4 in 1, that were sold from
1998 until May of this year.  The crib has a design flaw and hardware failure
involving the separation of the cribs' drop rail from their frame.  Three
children died, seven were trapped and there were 55 other incidents related
to the defect.  The recall advises consumers to contact Simplicity for a
repair kit.

"The recall is grossly inadequate and irresponsible," Mr. Kelly
said. "Simplicity should be required to tell consumers to dismantle their
crib, and return it for a full refund.

For more information, contact:

          Charles C. Kelly, II,
          Hersh & Hersh
          601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2080
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: 800-441-5545
          E-mail: general@hershlaw.com


SKECHERS USA: No Hearing Date Yet on Cal. Securities Suit Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
Skechers USA, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors are awaiting a
new date for oral arguments on an appeal in the matter.

Initially several purported class actions were filed against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Each of these class action complaints alleged violations of the federal
securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased publicly traded securities
of the company between April 3, 2002 and Dec. 9, 2002.  

In July 2003, the court in these federal securities class actions, all
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
ordered the cases consolidated and a consolidated complaint to be filed and
served.

On Sept. 25, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint entitled "In
re Skechers USA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-2094-PA."

The complaint names as defendants the company and certain officers and
directors and alleges violations of the federal securities laws and breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of persons who purchased publicly traded securities
of the company between April 3, 2002 and Dec. 9, 2002.  

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
injunctive and equitable relief.

The company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety.  On
May 10, 2004, the court granted the motion to dismiss with leave for
plaintiffs to amend the complaint.   

On Aug. 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint for
violations of the federal securities laws.  The allegations and relief sought
were virtually identical to the original consolidated complaint.  

The company has moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint and
the motion was set for hearing on Dec. 6, 2004.   

On March 21, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss the first amended
consolidated complaint with leave for plaintiffs to amend one final time.

On April 7, 2005, plaintiffs elected to stand on the first amended
consolidated complaint and requested entry of judgment so that an appeal from
the court's ruling could be taken.

On April 26, 2005, the court entered judgment in favor of the Company and the
individual defendants, and on May 3, 2005, plaintiffs filed an appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As of the filing date of the Company’s quarterly report for the first quarter
of 2007, all briefing by the parties had been completed, and a hearing date
was set for April 18, 2007.

However, the court took it off calendar pending a decision from the U.S.
Supreme Court in another matter on the grounds that the decision from the
Supreme Court could affect the outcome of the appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in that matter on June 20,
2007.  The parties prepared briefs based on that decision and are awaiting a
new date for oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit, 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: Skechers USA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-CV-
2094," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Percy Anderson.

Plaintiff firms named in complaint are:

         Glancy and Binkow
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         401 B Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA, 92101
         Phone: 206-749-5544
         Fax: 206-749-9978
         E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

         Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
         355 S Grand Ave - Ste 4170
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3172
         Phone: 213-617-9007

              - and -

         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         3 Bala Plaza E
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


STATE FARM: Appellate Court Allows Suit Over Claims Computation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Court of Appeals handed State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company a defeat by reversing a trial court ruling supporting the insurance
giant's use of a computer database to determine reimbursements of medical
costs.

The ruling, issued September 20, opens the door for a class action to move
forward that would represent physicians and patients who had payments from
State Farm unilaterally reduced after the insurance company processed the
charges through Sloans Lake Auto Injury Management, a medical database that
ostensibly compares physician charges against "same or like services" in a
geographic region."

In October of 2001, Pauline Reyher was injured in an auto accident and was
treated by La Junta, Col. physician Wallace Brucker, the area's only
orthopedic surgeon. Under Reyher's State Farm no-fault insurance policy,
State Farm was obligated to pay "all reasonable and necessary expenses for
medical" care.

According to the original complaint filed February 10, 2003, Dr. Brucker
treated Ms. Reyher and submitted the charges to State Farm. State Farm, in
turn, processed the bills and reduced the payments by various amounts,
claiming the database showed other physicians in the geographic area charged
less for the similar services.

According to attorney Rob Carey of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, there was a
problem with State Farm's conclusion: Dr. Brucker is the only doctor in his
area who performs the type of medical services Reyher required.

"We argued in that State Farm's review did not consider the specific
circumstances that made his charges reasonable," Mr. Carey noted.

In a 3-0 decision, Judge Hawthorne remanded the case to the trial court that
originally dismissed Ms. Reyher and Dr. Brucker's case and granted summary
judgment to State Farm.

The Court's decisions found that Dr. Brucker's arguments that the computer
database used to determine "reasonable" reimbursement of medical costs was
flawed and could not accurately assess the reasonableness of his charges.

The recent ruling also calls into question whether State Farm further
violated Colorado's No-Fault Act by relying exclusively on the database to
determine whether medical expenses are reasonable.

The appellate court's ruling reverses the summary judgment against Ms. Reyher
and Dr. Brucker and remands the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.

The ruling against State Farm follows closely on another ruling in a similar
case against American Family Mutual Insurance Company issued earlier this
month. In that case, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
decision denying class certification for certain claims and sent the case
back to the trial court for further proceedings.

That case involved the claims of Tania LaBerenz, who was injured in an
accident in October of 2001, and her doctor J. Bradley Gibson.

According to the complaint filed in April of 2003, American Family paid only
a portion of the physician's charges, claiming the reductions were
recommended by the MDR National Fee Database of charges for similar
procedures.

Ms. LaBerenz and Gibson sought to represent a class of insureds and medical
providers whose bills had been reduced based on the review by the database,
claiming that the database was flawed and did not accurately assess the
reasonableness of the doctor's bills. The trial court denied class
certification.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding that
certain requirements for class certification were met and sent it back to the
trial court with instructions to reconsider class certification of the
provider's claims.

For more information, contact:

          Rob Carey
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (602) 840-5900
          E-mail: Rob@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com

          - and -

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


SYNCOR INT'L: Challenges Revival of Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Syncor International Corp. filed a Petition for Rehearing with regards to a
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that reversed a
dismissal of a third amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against the company.

Several purported class actions were filed against the company and certain of
its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal securities
laws.  All of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  

The Syncor federal securities actions purport to be brought on behalf of all
purchasers of Syncor shares during various periods, beginning as early as
March 30, 2000 and ending as late as Nov. 5, 2002.

The actions allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by issuing a series of press releases
and public filings disclosing significant sales growth in Syncor's
international business, but omitting mention of certain allegedly improper
payments to Syncor's foreign customers, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Syncor shares.

The lead plaintiff filed a third amended consolidated complaint on Dec. 29,
2004.  Syncor filed a motion to dismiss the third amended consolidated
complaint on Jan. 31, 2005.  

On April 15, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.  
The lead plaintiff has appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

On June 12, 2007, the Ninth Circuit entered an order reversing, in part, the
District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and remanding the case
to the District Court.

The order reversed the dismissal of the claims against Syncor and certain
individual defendants, including its former Chairman and CEO, and affirmed
the dismissal of all other defendants.

The company filed a Petition for Rehearing on June 26, 2007, which is
pending, according to the Cardinal Health, Inc.'s Aug. 24, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2007.

The first identified complaint is "Richard Bowe, et al. v. Syncor Int'l
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-08560-LGB-RC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Lourdes G. Baird
with referral to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
         Provost Umphrey Law Firm
         3232 McKinney Ave, Ste. 700
         Dallas, TX 75204
         Phone: 214-744-3000

             - and -

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
         Shapiro Grace Haber & Urmy
         75 State St.
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-439-3939
     
Representing the defendants are:

         Daniel S. Floyd, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         E-mail: dfloyd@gibsondunn.com

              - and -

         Robert F. LeMoine, Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
         300 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 3400
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
         Phone: 213-687-5000
         E-mail: lacefax@skadden.com


TD AMERITRADE: Scott Kamber Moves for Info Leak Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm that filed a suit against TD Ameritrade over customer
information leak recently filed a preliminary injunction asking a court to
compel the company to disclose the data breach to current and prospective
customers, according to Sharon Gaudin InformationWeek.

Scott Kamber of Kamber & Associates in New York told InformationWeek that the
lawsuit initially claimed that Ameritrade knew that a hacker broke into one
of its databases and stole personally identifying information for some of its
6.3 million customers last November. However, Mr. Kamber says he now has
information that the company knew about the ongoing breach a full year ago,
according to Mr. Gaudin.

"Ameritrade knew of a compromise to customer information and they chose not
to disclose it until they found out how it happened," Mr. Kamber said.

Mr. Kamber filed the suit in May.  Recently, he filed an injunction to force
the company to disclose the data breach.  The company was given a two-week
adjournment and made the public announcement during that recess.  It sent e-
mail messages to account holders and put a public advisory on its Web site
regarding the personal information theft.  

TD Ameritrade on the Net: http://www.amtd.com/.


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Consolidated Fla. Securities Suit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Olympic USA, Inc. (TOUSA) continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

Beginning in December 2006, various stockholder plaintiffs brought lawsuits
seeking class-action status.  The actions allege that Technical Olympic and
certain of its current and former officers violated the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose:

      -- certain guaranties entered into by Technical Olympic in
         connection with the Transeastern JV's acquisition of
         Transeastern Properties, Inc. and related potential
         liability;

      -- declining conditions in the housing market in Florida;
         and

      -- that, as a consequence of market declines, Technical
         Olympic could lose value in its investment in the joint
         venture.

One of the complaints also alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by omitting material facts about the financing of the
Transeastern Properties acquisition from the offering materials related to
Technical Olympic's September 2005 offering of common stock.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions seek compensatory damages, plus fees and
costs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class of purchasers of
Technical Olympic common stock and purchasers and sellers of options on
Technical Olympic common stock.

Motions are pending to consolidate each of the actions into the first-filed
case, "Durgin v. Technical Olympic USA, Inc., et al."

At a hearing held March 29, 2007, the court granted consolidation of the
actions and heard arguments on the appointment of the lead plaintiff and
counsel.

The company reported no material 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 "George Durgin, et al. v. Technical Olympic USA, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-CV-61844," 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 plaintiff is:

         Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 561-750-3364
         E-mail: sdavidson@lerachlaw.com

Representing the company is:

         David Paul Ackerman, Esq.
         Ackerman Link & Sartory
         222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1250
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401
         Phone: 561-838-4100
         Fax: 561-838-5305
         E-mail: dackerman@alslaw.com


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Va. Court Denies Class Certification Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a motion
seeking class-action status for a securities fraud suit pending against Tier
Technologies, Inc.

On Nov. 10, 2006, a law firm issued a press release stating that a class
action had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Tier Technologies, Inc.'s common stock
from Nov. 29, 2001 to Oct. 25, 2006.

According to the press release, the suit alleges that Tier and certain of its
former and/or current officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act, but did not identify the level of damages being
sought.  

On Jan. 26, 2007, the court appointed The Rosen Law Firm as Lead Counsel.

On Feb. 23, 2007, lead counsel filed a First Amended Complaint and a motion
to certify this lawsuit as a class action.

On March 16, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint and opposed
the class certification motion, which the Rosen Law Firm opposed to on April
6, 2007.

On July 24, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virgnia
entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification for
the purported class action.

The suit is "Shiring v. Tier Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01276-TSE-BRP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia under Judge T. S. Ellis, III with referral to Judge Barry R. Poretz.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Phone: (212) 686-1060, (917) 797-4425 or 1866-767-3653            
          Fax: (212) 202-3827

Representing the defendants is:
  
          Nicholas Ian Porritt, Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC
          1700 K. St. NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20006-3817
          Phone: (703) 734-3100
          Fax: 703-973-8899


WCI COMMUNITIES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Sale of Condominium Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
WCI Communities, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida over the sale of condominium units
at its “Florencia at the Colony” community.

On Aug. 13, 2007, a purported class action, “David A. Berry and John
Schrenkel, et al. v. WCI Communities, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
2:07-CV-512-FTM-MMH-DNF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida against the Company.

The complaint includes statutory claims, claims for unjust enrichment,
constructive trust and an equitable lien in connection with the Company’s
sale of condominium units in its community known as “Florencia at the
Colony.”

The Plaintiff’s purport to bring the claim on behalf of all other contract
purchasers who allegedly wish to rescind their contracts to purchase
Florencia condominium units and obtain a refund of their deposits.

The complaint seeks rescission of the Plaintiff’s contracts, return of the
Plaintiff’s deposits, interest on those deposits, attorney fees and costs.

The suit is “David A. Berry and John Schrenkel, et al. v. WCI Communities,
Inc., Case No. 2:07-CV-512-FTM-MMH-DNF,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida under Judge Marcia Morales Howard with
referral to Judge Douglas N. Frazier.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert H. Cooper, Esq.
          Robert H. Cooper, PA
          2999 NE 191st St. #704
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: 305/792-4343
          Fax: 305/792-0200 (fax)
          E-mail: robert@rcooperpa.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas John Roehn, Esq.
          Carlton Fields, P.A.
          4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Tampa, FL 33607-5736
          Phone: 813/223-7000, ext 4310
          Fax: 813/229-4133
          E-mail: troehn@carltonfields.com


XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported securities fraud class action filed
against Xerium Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.

On June 7, 2006, Parkside Capital Ltd. filed a purported class action
complaint on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated against the
company, the company's chief executive officer and the company's chief
financial officer.  The company was served with the complaint on June 8,
2006.  

The complaint concerns the company's initial public offering of common stock
and alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) and liability under
Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.  

Plaintiff seeks rescission rights, attorneys' fees and other costs and
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's common stock "pursuant and/or traceable to the company's IPO on or
about May 16, 2005 through Nov, 15, 2005."

The litigation is presently in discovery, according to the company's Aug. 22,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Parkside Capital Ltd. v. Xerium Technologies Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-10991-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Rya W. Zobel.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

         Seth C. Harrington, Esq.
         Ropes & Gray, LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7226
         Fax: 617-951-7050
         E-mail: seth.harrington@ropesgray.com


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CARE INVESTMENT: Abraham Fruchter Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP has filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased the common
stock of Care Investment Trust Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering on or about June 22, 2007, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint charges Care Investment and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act.

According to the complaint, on or about June 22, 2007, the Prospectus with
respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became
effective and more than 15 million shares of Care Investment's common stock
were sold to the public at $15.00 per share, thereby raising more than $225
million. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus contained inaccurate
statements of material fact because they failed to disclose that certain of
the assets in the portfolio of healthcare-related mortgage assets, which was
created upon the consummation of the IPO were materially impaired and
therefore overvalued and that the Company was experiencing increasing
difficulty in securing its warehouse financing lines.

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

Care Investment is a real estate investment and finance company formed
principally to invest in healthcare-related commercial mortgage debt and real
estate.

For more information, contact:

          Jack Fruchter, Esq.
          Ximena Skovron, Esq.
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that a claim has been filed on August 28, 2007, in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:07-cv-
01530, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of The McGraw-
Hill Companies, Inc. between July 25, 2006 and August 15, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Robert J. Bahash with violations of federal securities
laws.  

Plaintiff claims that defendant's misleading statements or omissions
concerning McGraw-Hill's business and operations caused the Company's stock
price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges the defendant misrepresented or failed to
fully disclose that McGraw-Hill's subsidiary Standard & Poor's assigned
excessively high ratings to bonds backed by risky subprime mortgages --
including bonds packaged as collateralized debt obligations -- which was
materially misleading to investors concerning the quality and relative risk
of these investments.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of McGraw-Hill shareholders and
is represented by several law firms, including O'Rourke Katten & Moody.

For more information, contact:

          Joel L. Lipman, Esq.
          O'Rourke Katten & Moody
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 2230
          Chicago, Illinois 60601
          Phone: (312) 849-2020


ORBCOMM INC: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Lawsuit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP has filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New Jersey on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased the common
stock of ORBCOMM, Inc. 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,
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. The complaint 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.

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

For more information, contact:

          Jack Fruchter, Esq.
          Larry Levit, Esq.
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
all purchasers of securities of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. from October 6, 2005
through August 17, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Thornburg and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

     (1) that the Company was facing an increasing level of
         margin calls;

     (2) that the Company was experiencing increasing
         difficulties in funding its operations and selling its
         securities;

     (3) that the Company was in a precarious liquidity position
         due to reduced financing options;

     (4) that the Company's financial situation had
         significantly deteriorated causing the Company to sell
         over $20 billion in securities at a steep discount;

     (5) that the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading; and

     (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls.

Beginning on August 7, 2007, investors were shocked when numerous financial
analyst firms and ratings agencies downgraded the Company's securities due to
liquidity concerns. On this news, the Company's shares declined $1.89 per
share, or 7.9 percent, to close on August 7, 2007 at $21.95 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

On August 10, 2007, Standard & Poor's ("S&P") cut the Company's credit rating
from "B" to "BB" stating that Thornburg's access to repo funding was
restricted, that the Company was facing increasing margin calls, and that the
Company's reliance on short-term funding was further restricting its access
to liquidity. On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $3.17 per
share, or 14.9 percent, to close on August 10, 2007 at $18.06 per share,
again on heavy trading volume.

Then on August 13, 2007, The Associated Press reported that as a result of
the S&P downgrade, the Company would "likely have to pay higher interest or
provide more collateral to borrow money in the future." On this news, the
Company's shares declined an additional $3.78 per share, or over 20.9
percent, to close on August 13, 2007 at $14.28 per share, on heavy trading
volume.

On August 14, 2007, the Company's securities were downgraded by additional
financial analyst firms and Moody's cut the Company's credit ratings two
levels to B2, its fifth-highest speculative-grade ranking. On this news, the
Company's shares declined an additional $6.67 per share, or 46.7 percent, to
close on August 14, 2007 at $7.61 per share, on heavy trading volume. Later
on August 14, 2007, the Company confirmed that it was suffering from a
liquidity crunch and that it was facing increased margin calls, and disclosed
that it was postponing its quarterly dividend.

Then on August 20, 2007, the Company sold $20.5 billion of securities at a
steep discount to pay down debt. As a result, the Company stated that it
would record a $930 million loss in the third quarter on the sale, "resulting
in a probable net loss for the year." On this news, the Company's shares
declined an additional $1.54, or 10.2 percent, to close on August 20, 2007 at
$13.50 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 22, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

Thornburg Mortgage operates as a single-family residential mortgage lending
company that originates, acquires, and retains investments in adjustable and
variable rate mortgage assets.

For more information, contact:

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


                            *********


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  * * *