CAR_Public/070927.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, September 27, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 191

                            Headlines


APPLERA CORP: Antitrust Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase Continues
BANK JOS: Md. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Securities Suit
BCI BURKE: Recalls Single Post Swing Sets Due to Fall Hazard
BEBE STORES: Sued in N.J. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
CALIFORNIA: San Bernardino Settles Strip-Search Suit for $25.5M

CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Approves $600M Securities Suit Settlement
CARDINAL HEALTH: Ohio Court Approves $40M ERISA Suit Settlement
CHECKFREE CORP: Ga. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
COMCAST CORP: Suit Over "Pass-Through" Franchise Fees Remanded
DEVRY INC: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Student's Lawsuit

DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Law Violations Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Post-2007 Trial Expected for Ore. Labor Lawsuit
DOLLAR TREE: Cal. Court Mulls Bid to Consolidate Managers’ Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Seeks Dismissal of Former Employees' Litigation
FEDERAL DEPOSIT: Suit Over Demutualization Fund Certified

FLOWSERVE CORP: Seeks Summary Judgment in Tex. Securities Suit
INDIANA: Highland Faces Negligence Suit Over 2006 Flooding
LABELSTOCK ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ruling to Certify Suit Pending
MOM ENTERPRISES: Recalls Baby’s Gripe Water Due to Contamination
MONEY MART: Ontario Residents File Suit Over Check Cashing Fee

PACIFIC BEST: Faces RICO Act Violations Lawsuit in California
PATHMARK STORES: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over A&P Merger
PREMIUM STANDARD: Nuisance Suit by Mo. Residents Transferred
RECORDING INDUSTRY: Faces Ore. Lawsuit Over Anti-Piracy Tactics
URETHANE ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Defendant Settles Suit for $55M

VITAMIN C ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Discovery Ongoing, Law Firm Says
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Continues to Face Alder Antitrust Litigation
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Classes Certified in OSB Antitrust Litigation


                   New Securities Fraud Cases
                      
LJ INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
ORBCOMM INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


APPLERA CORP: Antitrust Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corp. and Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. continue to face a certified class
action filed by Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia over alleged anticompetitive practices.

Molecular Diagnostics filed the complaint against on Sept. 23, 2004.  It
filed an amended complaint on July 5, 2006.  

The amended complaint alleges anticompetitive conduct in connection with the
sale of Taq DNA polymerase.  The anticompetitive conduct is alleged to arise
from the prosecution and enforcement of U.S. Patent No. 4,889,818.   

The patent is assigned to Hoffmann-La Roche, with whom the company has a
commercial relationship covering, among other things, this patent and the
sale of Taq DNA polymerase.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs, expenses, injunctive relief, and
other relief, as the court deems proper.

On July 5, 2006, the court certified the case as a class action.

The company reported no material 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 "Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. et
al, Case No. 1:04-cv-01649-HHK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge Henry H. Kennedy.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Paul Thomas Gallagher, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
         1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005-3934
         Phone: (202) 408-4600
         Fax: (202) 408-4699
         E-mail: pgallagher@cmht.com

              - and -

         Scott E. Gant, Esq.
         Boies, Schiller & Flexner
         5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 800
         Washington, DC 20015
         Phone: (202) 237-2727
         E-mail: sgant@bsfllp.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Joanne M. Guerrera, Esq.
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, L.L.P.
         1501 K Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 682-7153
         Fax: 202-857-0939
         E-mail: david.southard@weil.com

              - and -

         Heather Holden Brooks, Esq.
         Arnold & Porter, LLP, 555 12th Street, NW  
         Washington, DC 20004-1206
         Phone: (202) 942-6309
         Fax: (202) 942-5999
         E-mail: holden_brooks@aporter.com


BANK JOS: Md. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Jos. A.
Bank Clothiers, Inc.

On July 24, 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and Robert N.
Wildrick, the company’s chief executive officer, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland by Roy T. Lefkoe, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-
01892-WMN.

On Aug. 3, 2006, a lawsuit substantially similar to the Class Action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by Tewas Trust
UAD 9/23/86, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-02011-WMN.

The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as those in the
Class Action and purported to assert the same claims and seek the same relief.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the July lawsuit and the Tewas Trust Action were
consolidated under the Class Action case number (1:06-cv-01892-WMN) and the
Tewas Trust Action was administratively closed.

Massachusetts Labor Annuity Fund has been appointed the lead plaintiff in the
Class Action and has filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

R. Neal Black, the company’s president and David E. Ullman, the Company’s
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, have been added as
defendants.

On behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between Dec. 5, 2005 and June
7, 2006, the Class Action purports to make claims under Sections 10(b) and 20
(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the
Company's disclosures during the Class Period.  

The Class Action seeks unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss.  However, the Motion was not
granted, according to the company's Sept. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug.
4, 2007.

The suit is “Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01892-WMN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
under Judge William M. Nickerson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
         Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC
         John Wanamaker Bldg., Ste. 450, Juniper and Market Sts.
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 12155613600
         Fax: 12155613000
         E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 12129377220
         Fax: 12122308888
         E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com


BCI BURKE: Recalls Single Post Swing Sets Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
BCI Burke Company LLC, of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 670 single post
swing sets.

The company said the connection on the top beam of the swing set can break,
causing the swing beam to collapse, posing a fall hazard to the user. A user
or bystander also can be injured by the falling top rail.

The firm has received four reports of the swing set beam breaking and one
report of child with bruises after falling from the swing.

The recall includes the Single Post Swing Set (model 550-0033) and added bay
swings (model 550-0035) with belt or bucket seats. The swings are made with a
2-3/8-inch diameter top beam that is welded to a formed plate on each end to
attach to the upright post.

These recalled swing sets were manufactured in the United States and are
being sold through BCI Burke or BCI Burke Company representatives from
January 2000 through August 2007 for between about $900 to $1500.

Consumers are advised to stop using the product immediately and remove the
existing swings from the top beam immediately. Consumers can re-install the
swings once the repair kit is received and installed with the current beam.
BCI Burke will contact the owners directly by mail and provide a free repair
kit.

For additional information, please contact Burke customer service at (800)
356-2070 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm’s Web site: http://www.bciburke.com(pdf), or e-mail:  
customerservice@bciburke.com.


BEBE STORES: Sued in N.J. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Mager & Goldstein LLP and Console Law Offices LLC announce
that on behalf of their clients Tracy Kronick and Jen Kaczmarski, they have
filed a class and collective action against bebe stores, inc., in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint alleges that bebe stores violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey Wage Payment Laws by willfully failing to pay store
managers, store co-managers and sales leaders for all time worked, including
overtime compensation. The complaint includes allegations that store managers
were required to "shave" (i.e., delete) all hours recorded in excess of forty
(40) hours in a work week.

It also alleges that Store Managers and Sales Leaders were required to
work "off the clock" during meal breaks, to recruit for employees for bebe
stores, to solicit for attendance at store function such as "trunk shows", to
stay late to prepare the store for corporate visits and to close the stores,
all in addition to their 40-hour work week and without compensation.

For more information, contact:

          Mager & Goldstein LLP
          Phone: 866-284-3280
          E-mail: info@magergoldstein.com


CALIFORNIA: San Bernardino Settles Strip-Search Suit for $25.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Stephen G. Larson signed an agreement in which San
Bernardino County in California will pay $25.5 million to settle a class
action alleging illegal strip searches in county jails, the UPI Top Stories
reports.

Judge Larson will decide whether to formally approve the agreement on Feb. 4.

The seven plaintiffs in the lawsuit stated that the searches were conducted
from May 2003 to December 2006 at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho
Cucamonga and the Central Detention Center in San Bernardino, according to
The Associated Press.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys said as many as 160,000 prisoners were subjected to
illegal strip searches.  Each could get several hundred dollars of the
settlement money if the case is successful, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Deputies strip-searched a large number of prisoners at the county's two
central jails between May 2003 and December 2006, even in cases where there
was no reason to suspect them of smuggling contraband, plaintiffs’ attorneys
alleged.

David Wert, a spokesman for the county, said San Bernardino still denies any
wrongdoing and disputes many of the allegations in the lawsuit.

Barry Litt is lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

For more information, contact:

          Litt, Barry - Litt & Associates
          3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1912
          Phone: (213) 386-3114


CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Approves $600M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio gave preliminary
approval to the $600 million settlement of a consolidated securities class
action filed against Cardinal Health, Inc.

Since July 2, 2004, purported purchasers of the company's securities have
filed 10 purported class action complaints. They named the company and
certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.   

The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be brought on
behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities during various periods
beginning as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and ending as late as July 26, 2004.   

The suits allege, among others, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act
by issuing a series of false and/or misleading statements concerning the
company's financial results, prospects and condition.   

Certain of the complaints also allege violations of Section 11 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming material misstatements or
omissions in prospectuses issued by the company in connection with its
acquisition of Bindley Western Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in 2003.   

The alleged misstatements relate to the company's accounting for recoveries
relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin manufacturers, and to
classification of revenue in the company's Pharmaceutical Distribution
business as either operating revenue or revenue from bulk deliveries to
customer warehouses, and other accounting and business model transition
issues, including reserve accounting.   

The alleged misstatements are claimed to have caused an artificial inflation
in the company's stock price during the proposed class period.   

The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable relief against
the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.   

On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions were
consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Federal
Securities Litigation."  

On Jan. 26, 2005, the court appointed the Pension Fund Group as lead
plaintiff in this consolidated action.   

On Apr. 22, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
naming the company, certain current and former officers and employees and the
company's external auditors as defendants.  

The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and other unspecified relief
against the defendants.   

On Mar. 27, 2006, the court granted a motion to dismiss with respect to the
company's external auditors and a former officer and denied the motion to
dismiss with respect to the company and the other individual defendants.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the parties stipulated that the case could proceed as a
class action with a class comprised of all persons other than Company
officers or directors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock
during the class period.

On April 23, 2007, the Company announced that it had determined that it was
necessary to record a reserve of $600 million for the quarter ended March 31,
2007 in respect of the Cardinal Health federal securities actions.

Since that announcement, the Company has negotiated a proposed memorandum of
understanding with counsel for the plaintiffs to settle these actions,
including an agreement by the Company to pay $600 million.   

On May 2, 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the proposed
memorandum of understanding; however, the proposed memorandum of
understanding remains subject to approval by the class representatives for
the plaintiffs.

Under the MOU, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions will be
terminated for a payment of $600 million, an amount reserved by the Company
in the third quarter of fiscal 2007.  The Company transferred the $600
million into an escrow account on May 25, 2007.

The Company has entered into a stipulation of settlement with counsel for the
plaintiffs, which was filed with the Court on July 27, 2007.  

On July 31, 2007, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the
settlement.

The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-
CV-575," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

        Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
        10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
        New York, NY, 10016
        Phone: 800-217-1522
        E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
  
        Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP
        600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza,   
        San Diego, CA, 92101
        Phone: 800.449.4900
        E-mail: support@milberg.com

             - and -

        John R. Climaco, Esq.
        Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli LPA
        1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900
        Cleveland, OH 44115-1891
        Phone: 216-621-8484
        Fax: 216-771-1632
        E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com

Representing the company are:

        John M. Newman, Jr., Esq.
        Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq.
        Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue
        North Point, 901 Lakeside Ave.
        Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
        Phone: 216-586-3939
        E-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com
                gjritts@jonesday.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Ohio Court Approves $40M ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio gave preliminary
approval to a $40 million settlement of the matter, “In re Cardinal Health,
Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK."

Beginning July 2, 2004, several purported class-action complaints have been
filed by purported participants in the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing,
Retirement and Savings Plan, collectively referred to as the Cardinal Health
ERISA actions.  

The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought on behalf of
participants in the 401(k) Plan and the Syncor Employees' Savings and Stock
Ownership Plan, and also on behalf of the Plans themselves.   

The complaints allege that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties
owed under ERISA, generally asserting that the defendants failed to make full
disclosure of the risks to the
Plans' participants of investing in the company's stock, to the detriment of
the Plans' participants and beneficiaries, and that company stock should not
have been made available as an investment alternative for the Plans'
participants.   

The misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actions significantly
overlap with the misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health federal
securities actions.   

The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable relief against
the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.   

On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were consolidated into
one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation."   

On Jan. 14, 2005, the court appointed lead counsel and liaison counsel for
the consolidated Cardinal Health ERISA action.   

On April 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended ERISA
complaint naming the company, certain current and former directors, officers
and employees, the company's Employee Benefits Policy Committee and Putnam
Fiduciary Trust Co. as defendants.  

The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and other unspecified relief
against the defendants.   

On Dec. 1, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.   

On March 31, 2006, the Court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the
consolidated complaint with respect to Putnam Fiduciary Trust Co. (the former
trustee of the Plan) and with respect to plaintiffs’ claim for equitable
relief.

The Court denied the remainder of the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Company
and certain defendants.

On Sept. 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification,
seeking certification of a class of Plan participants who bought or held
Company shares in their Plan accounts between Oct. 24, 2000 and July 2, 2004.

In May 2007, the Company reached an understanding with the counsel for the
plaintiffs regarding a proposed settlement of the Cardinal Health ERISA
litigation under which the litigation would be terminated for a payment by
the Company of $40 million.

On June 21, 2007, the Company entered into a class action settlement
agreement with counsel for the plaintiffs.  The settlement agreement provides
that the Cardinal Health ERISA litigation will be terminated for a payment by
the Company to the Plan of $40 million, with the net proceeds of the
settlement to be apportioned to the Plan accounts of participants who bought
or held Company shares in their Plan accounts between Oct. 24, 2000 and July
2, 2004.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 28, 2007 and
the Company transferred the $40.0 million into an escrow account on June 29,
2007, according to the company'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 suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case
No. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

        James Edward Arnold, Esq.
        Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
        471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
        Columbus, OH 43215,   
        Phone: 614-469-1400
        E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com

             - and -

        George E. Barrett, Esq.
        Barrett Johnston & Parsley
        217 Second Avenue N.
        Nashville, TN 37201
        Phone: 615-244-2202
        E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com

Representing the company are:

        J. Kevin Cogan, Esq.
        Jones Day
        325 John H. McConnell Blvd., P.O. Box 165017
        Columbus, OH 43216-5017
        Phone: 614-469-3939
        Fax: 614-461-4198
        E-mail: jcogan@jonesday.com;

             - and -

        Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq.
        Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter
        65 E. State Street, Suite 1800
        Columbus, OH 43215-4294
        Phone: 614-462-5400
        Fax: 614-462-5422
        E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com


CHECKFREE CORP: Ga. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has consolidated
two purported class actions filed against CheckFree Corp.

On or about April 10, 2007, the first of two related shareholder securities
putative class actions was filed against CheckFree Corp. and Messrs. Peter J.
Kight and David E. Mangum in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

The suits are:

       -- “Skubella v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civil
          Action No. 1:07-CV-0796-TWT,” and

       -- “Gattelaro v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civil
          Action No. 1:07-CV-0945-TWT.”

The actions were filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of
CheckFree common stock between April 4, 2006 and Aug. 1, 2006 and allege
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder against CheckFree and the individual defendants,
as well as of Section 20(a) against the individual defendants, related to
CheckFree’s disclosures concerning its Electronic Commerce and Payment
Services business. Plaintiffs seek undisclosed damages.

On June 29, 2007, the Court entered an order that, among other things,
consolidated these two actions and appointed Southwest Carpenters Pension
Trust as the Lead Plaintiff.

The suit is “Rudolf Skubella, et al. v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Case
No. 07-CV-00796,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia under Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          2300 Promenade II; 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.,        
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (888) 873-3999
          Fax: (404) 876-4476
          E-mail: attorney@chitwoodlaw.com

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA, 94598
          Phone: 925.945.0200
          Fax: 925.945.8792
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com

               - and -

          Scott & Scott LLC
          P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: 860.537.5537
          Fax: 860.537.4432
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


COMCAST CORP: Suit Over "Pass-Through" Franchise Fees Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit remanded to the district court
a case filed by Comcast Corp. subscribers against the cable TV provider after
finding that the firm’s arbitration agreements are unenforceable.

Georgia residents who are subscribers of television provider Comcast filed
the suit alleging violations of state law based on the Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984 47 U.S.C. 521.  The Cable Act authorizes local governments
to charge cable operators a franchise fee for the use of public rights-of-
way, provided the fee does not exceed five percent of the cable operator's
gross revenue.  The Act permits cable operators, in turn, to pass the
franchise fees through to their subscribers.  The Act also requires cable
operators to "pass through..." the amount of any decrease in a franchise fee.

The subscribers allege Comcast calculate its "pass-through" franchise fees by
using estimates of future revenue from advertising sales and home-shopping
channel commissions.  The subscribers contend that by using these estimates,
Comcast charges its customers more than it actually pays in franchise fees
based on actual revenues.  They claim Comcast retains the excess franchise
fees even though they never consented to Comcast's estimated calculation of
the "pass through" fees or to its retention of the excess fees.

The suit was filed on Dec. 12, 2005 by Gene Dale, Marrell Waring et al. in
state court asserting claims of "unjust enrichment" and "money had and
received."  The class seeks an accounting of funds wrongfully withheld,
repayment of excess franchise fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief.  

Comcast removed the action to the U.S District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia and filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss,
arguing the subscribers' individual claims were governed by written
arbitration agreements.  

The district court dismissed the action and compelled arbitration, finding
the subscribers had entered into binding arbitration agreements with Comcast.
The subscribers timely appealed.  They presented the issue of whether the
Arbitration Provision's class action waiver is unconscionable under Georgia
law and thus unenforceable as a matter of law.

After oral argument and a careful review of the record, the 11th Circuit
ruled on Sept. 4 that the arbitration agreements were uneforceable and so
reverse and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.  
The court stated:

Without the benefit of a class action mechanism, the subscribers would
effectively be precluded from suing Comcast for a violation of 47 USC 542.  
The cost of vindicating an individual subscriber's claim, when compared to
his or her potential recovery, is too great.  

Additionally, because the Cable Act does not provide for the recovery of
attorneys' fees or related costs for the violations alleged by the
subscribers, and because state law allows fees and costs to be awarded only
where bad faith is shown, it will be difficult for a single subscriber to
obtain representation.  This will allow Comcast to engage in unchecked market
behavior that may be unlawful.  Corporations should not be permitted to use
class action waivers as a means to exculpate themselves from liability for
small-value claims

The case is No. 06-15516, D. C. Docket No. 05-03315-CV-WCO-1 on appeal from
the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.


DEVRY INC: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Student's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California certified a
class under the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business &
Professions Code in a suit filed against DeVry, Inc. and DeVry Universtiy,
Inc.

Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University campus,
filed a lawsuit over defendants' alleged violations of state education laws.  
Originally, Ms. Daghlian brought the putative class action in the California
state district court for the County of Los Angeles.   

Plaintiff alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to students did not
comply with California state statutes including a California Education Code
requirement to provide a specified statement to prospective students
concerning the transferability of credits.   

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  A motion to dismiss was filed, but it was later denied.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court denied
without prejudice, and the plaintiff has filed a new motion for class
certification.

On June 11, 2007, the District Court issued an Order certifying a class under
the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions
Code, section 17200 (UCL), comprised of students who enrolled and paid
tuition at a California DeVry school in the four years prior to the date when
the suit was filed.  

Defendants have now filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of
all claims due to the unconstitutionality of the California Education Code (a
statute that has since sunset, is currently "inoperative," and will be
repealed as of January 2008) because it discriminates against out of state
regionally accredited universities and it compels speech in violation of the
First Amendment.  

Defendants also seek judgment for the separate and independent reason that
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proving a viable theory of
restitution or entitlement to injunctive relief under their UCL claim.

The suit is "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-00994-MMM-PJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California under Judge Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Patrick
J. Walsh.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael D. Braun, Esq.
         Braun Law Group
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone:  310-442-7755
         E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

              - and -

         Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
         Janet L. Spielberg Law Offices
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone: 310-392-8801
         E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Van T. Lam, Esq.
         Reed Smith
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
         Phone: 213-457-8000


DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Law Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. still faces a purported class action filed in
California state court alleging wage and hourly violations.

In 2003, the company was were served with the lawsuit, which was filed by a
former employee who alleged that employees did not properly receive
sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods, along with other alleged wage
and hourly violations.

The suit requested that the California state court certify the case as a
class action.  

The parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement which will be
presented to the Court for acceptance and certification of a class.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 12, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com-- operates discount  
variety stores, offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.  As of
Feb. 3, 2007, the company operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Post-2007 Trial Expected for Ore. Labor Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is expecting a post-2007 trial for a purported class
action filed by its former employees in Oregon, alleging that they did not
properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods.

In 2005, the company was served with the lawsuit, which also alleges other
wage and hour violations.  

Plaintiffs requested the court to certify classes for their various claims
and the presiding judge did so with respect to two classes, one alleging that
the company's Oregon employees, in violation of that state's labor laws, were
not paid for rest breaks and the other that upon termination of employment,
employees were not tendered their final pay in a timely manner.

Other claims of the plaintiffs were dismissed by an earlier order of the
court and are being appealed by the plaintiffs.

Discovery will ensue on the certified class issues; no trial is anticipated
before the end of 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 12, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com-- operates discount  
variety stores, offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.  As of
Feb. 3, 2007, the company operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Cal. Court Mulls Bid to Consolidate Managers’ Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California federal court has yet to rule on a motion seeking to consolidate
two purported class actions filed against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. by either
a present or a former store manager.

                       Federal Action

The suit was served on the company on 2007.  In it, plaintiffs claim that
they should have been classified as non-exempt employees under both the
California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act.  

They filed the case as a class action on behalf of California based store
managers.  

The company responded with a motion to dismiss, which has not yet been heard
by the court.

                      State Court Action

The Company was thereafter served with a second suit in a California state
court which alleges essentially the same claims as those contained in the
federal action and which likewise seeks class certification of all California
store managers.  

The Company has removed the case to the same federal court as the first
suits, answered it and asked the Court to consolidate the two actions,
according to the company's Sept. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4,
2007.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com-- operates discount  
variety stores, offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.  As of
Feb. 3, 2007, the company operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Seeks Dismissal of Former Employees' Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported class
action that was filed by two former employees in a California federal court.

In 2007, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in federal court in
California by two former employees who allege they were not paid all wages
due and owing for time worked, that they were not paid in a timely manner
upon termination of their employment and that they did not receive accurate
itemized wage statements.

They filed the suit as a class action and seek to include in the class all
former company employees in the state of California.

The Company responded with a motion to dismiss which has not yet been argued,
according to the company's Sept. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4,
2007.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com-- operates discount  
variety stores, offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.  As of
Feb. 3, 2007, the company operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores.


FEDERAL DEPOSIT: Suit Over Demutualization Fund Certified
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Rhode Island certified a class
action filed by employees of bankrupt company Eastland Financial Corp.
against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the receiver who oversaw the
dissolution of the company, Paul Grimaldi of Providence Journal reports.  The
bank’s trustee is Cranston lawyer Jason D. Monzack.

Five former employees of Eastland Financial filed the suit on behalf of 300
other former Eastland workers to recoup some unexpected proceeds tied to the
bank's pension plan.

The employees listed in the lawsuit -- represented by attorney Brian J.
Lamoureux -- are:

      -- Nicholas E. Oliveri, of North Smithfield;
      -- Donat A. Fournier, of Beverly, Mass.;
      -- Arthur R. Gauthier, of South Kingstown;
      -- Ellen D. Miller, of Pawtucket; and,
      -- Sheila A. Tenney, of Attleboro.

After its bankruptcy, Eastland was sold to Fleet Financial Group, which
itself was sold to Bank of America in 2004.  In 1996, a bankruptcy court
judge approved a settlement that terminated Eastland Financial's pension
plan.  Money in the plan was invested in a group annuity contract held by the
Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co., of Des Moines, Iowa.

Principal Mutual demutualized in 2001, becoming Principal Financial Inc. and
resulting to an undetermined amount of money being assigned to the Eastland
pension annuity.  The employees claim the money belongs to them.

The institution had about $555 million in assets when it was dissolved, and
$2.77 million in debt to various creditors.

The case is before U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Arthur N. Votolato.


FLOWSERVE CORP: Seeks Summary Judgment in Tex. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corp. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in a purported securities
fraud class action filed against it in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.

Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC filed a class action against Flowserve
Corp. and certain of its officers and directors in August 2003 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Flowserve securities
between Oct. 23, 2001 and Sept. 27, 2002.  The Complaint specifically alleges
that Defendants, among other things:

     (a) misrepresented that the Company's aftermarket sales
         (the Company's "quick turnaround" business) were
         steady, stable and consistent streams of revenue;

     (b) misrepresented that the Company's growth made it less
         dependent upon the chemical and industrial segments,
         which had historically been very sensitive to economic
         downturn;

     (c) failed to disclose that the Company had instructed one
         or more of its plants to stop building inventory as a
         result of the projected (albeit undisclosed) continuing
         decline in sales; and

     (d) without any reasonable basis, projected full year 2002
         earnings at ranges that were unattainable due to the
         declines the Company was experiencing in critical
         business segments.  

On September 27, 2002, the Company warned of a 21% earnings shortfall for the
quarter ending September 30, 2002, and cut its full year 2002 earnings
guidance by over 60%, to $1.45 per share, from the $2.30 per share earnings
guidance shared with investors during road show presentations promoting
Flowserve's public offerings less than six months earlier.

Market reaction to the Company's announcement was swift and severe. Flowserve
shares fell over 38% to close at $8.70 on September 27, 2002, a decline of
more than 75% from the Class Period high of $34.90 reached on May 2, 2002.
During the Class Period, Flowserve completed two public offerings of its
common stock, raising more than $430 million, and Flowserve insiders sold
their Flowserve common stock for substantial profit.

      Alaska Electrical Pension Fund Named Lead Plaintiff

On October 29, 2003 the Court appointed lead plaintiff, The Alaska Electrical
Pension Fund and lead counsel. Due to further investigation by Plaintiff’s
counsel, an amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 5, 2004.
Plaintiffs then filed a second consolidated amended complaint in May 2004.
The Class Period was modified to March 29, 2001 through Sept. 27, 2002. In
July 2004, the case was reassigned from Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn to Judge
Jane J. Boyle.

Also, in July 2004, a third consolidated amended complaint was filed.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint
in August 2004. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to
dismiss. The Court denied all defendants’ motions to dismiss. Initial
discovery disclosures were exchanged on February 6, 2006.

          Class Certification, Summary Judgment Motion

A hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for class certification on September
7, 2006. The court has allowed plaintiffs to file written rebuttal to
defendants' confidential witnesses' testimony contained in defendants'
opposition to class certification. On October 20, 2006, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion to modify the scheduling order, which extended fact
discovery through June 22, 2007. The parties are continuing to engage in
discovery in this matter.

On March 26, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification without prejudice. The Court requested further briefing
concerning Plaintiffs' Motion and will resume consideration of Plaintiffs'
motion after it has received the requested briefing.

On June 28, 2007, the Court permitted limited, additional briefing on class
certification. On July 9, 2007, Flowserve filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff opposed Defendant's Motion and a decision will be
rendered on the merits.

The first identified complaint is "Ryan et al. Flowserve Corp. et al., Case
No. 03-cv-0179," with the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.

For more information, contact:

          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
          35 East State Street, Media, PA, 19063
          Phone: 877.891.9880
          Fax: jshah@classactioncounsel.com


INDIANA: Highland Faces Negligence Suit Over 2006 Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------
The city of Highland and its sanitary district face a class action in
relation to flooding that destroyed nearly 2,000 homes in northwest Indiana
in September last year, ABC7Chicago.com reports.

The Merrillville law firm of Marshall P. Whalley and Associates filed the
suit on behalf of the residents.  More than 130 households have retained the
law firms.  One of them is Tammy Wagoner.  

The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of failing to anticipate the impact the
rainfall would have on the sewer system; that the entities failed to sandbag
areas likely to be damaged by flooding; and that sewer water accumulated in
homes was a result of a failure to reasonably design, engineer, maintain,
repair and/or operate the sewage system.

The lawsuit seeks compensation for residents whose homes were damaged and
asks that the town clean and fix its sewer system, Mr. Whalley said.  


LABELSTOCK ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ruling to Certify Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has yet to
decide whether to certify the Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust
Litigation.

Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a class action against:

     * Avery Dennison Corp.,
     * Bemis Company, Inc.,
     * Morgan Adhesives Company,
     * Raflatac, Inc., and
     * UPM Kymmene Corp.

in May 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The complaint was brought on behalf of direct purchasers of pressure-
sensitive labelstock alleging violations of the antitrust laws.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all related cases
transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. Class discovery is complete and Plaintiffs
filed the Second Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint in January
2006.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is fully briefed and argued, and
awaiting decision. In addition, in August 2007, plaintiffs requested that the
Court allow limited discovery pending the decision on class certification.
Defendants opposed this request, which is fully briefed.

The suit is "In Re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litigation, case
no. 3:03-mdl-01556-TIV," filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie.  

Among those representing plaintiffs is:

          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
          35 East State Street, Media, PA, 19063
          Phone: 877.891.9880
          Fax: jshah@classactioncounsel.com


MOM ENTERPRISES: Recalls Baby’s Gripe Water Due to Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Consumer Protection has removed a product from three stores
where it was sold following a voluntary recall by the manufacturer and a U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning consumers not to drink or serve
the beverage.

The product is Baby's Bliss Gripe Water, apple flavor, with a code of 26952V
and expiration date of October 2008 (shown as "10/08" on the label),
distributed by MOM Enterprises, Inc., of San Rafael, Calif. The FDA confirmed
through laboratory analysis the presence of cryptosporidium after
investigating the illness of a 6-week-old infant in Minnesota who consumed
the product. Cryptosporidium is a parasite that can cause intestinal
infections.

"We have identified three stores in the state that have sold this beverage,
and we have made sure that the product has been removed from sale," Consumer
Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell, Jr. said. "Consumers who have this
item at home should be sure it is not coded and dated as described in the FDA
warning. If it is, please do not use the beverage, but discard it
immediately."

The three stores known to have carried Baby's Bliss Gripe Water are:

          -- Over the Moon, Avon
          -- Bissell Pharmacy, Ridgefield
          -- Starlight Baby, Southbury

All of the above stores have been contacted by Consumer Protection and are
aware of the recall.

The most common symptom of infection is watery diarrhea. Other symptoms can
include dehydration, weight loss, stomach cramps or pain, fever, nausea and
vomiting. Symptoms generally begin two to ten days after becoming infected
with the parasite and generally last one to two weeks. While most people with
healthy immune systems will recover without treatment, the infection could be
serious or life-threatening for certain individuals. Infants, children and
pregnant women are susceptible to dehydration resulting from diarrhea, which
can be life-threatening. Individuals with weakened immune systems are also at
risk for a more serious and life-threatening form of illness.

Parents of children who have recently consumed apple flavored Baby's Bliss
Gripe Water and have these symptoms should seek immediate medical attention.
Parents and caregivers who have given this product to their infants and
children should be alert for diarrhea and other signs of Cryptosporidium
infection.

The product was sold in a four-ounce plastic bottle packaged inside of a
cardboard carton, labeled with the following: Baby's Bliss. Pediatrician
Recommended Gripe Water. Apple Flavor.

MOM Enterprises, Inc. is fully cooperating with FDA's investigation into the
cause of the contamination and is recalling all potentially contaminated
products. FDA continues to investigate and will provide updates as more
information becomes available. Consumers can call the FDA at 1-888-723-3366.


MONEY MART: Ontario Residents File Suit Over Check Cashing Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Windsor (Canada) law firm lodged a civil class action against Money Mart on
behalf of 200,000 Ontario residents who received a fast cash advance between
August 19, 1997 and September 9, Renee Berube of CD98.9, reports.

According to the report, the major issue in the suit centers around a check
cashing fee. The government guidelines allow for the maximum interest charge
to be no more than 60%, but with these hidden fees added in -- the interest
is really between 300-100%.

The trial is expected to begin before the end of the year.

Money Mart -- http://www.moneymart.com-- is a financial services company  
owned by the Dollar Financial Group. It operates the largest network in our
category of retail financial services stores in both Canada and the U.K. and
the second largest network of their kind in the U.S.A.


PACIFIC BEST: Faces RICO Act Violations Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Best Group, South China Investment, Wei-Man Raymond Tse and others
are facing a class-action complaint filed Sept. 24 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California over alleged illegal foreign currency
trades, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The Bay Area Affordable Housing LLC and other investors claim the defendant,
including Christ Investment Service, run their unregistered scam in defiance
of injunctions from the California Department of Corporations and the U.S.
Commodity Futures Commission.

This is an action, both in law and in equity, brought by victims of
commodities fraud under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act and
the Commodity Exchange Act.

Defendants also include:

          -- Run Pin Zhou aka Flora Zhou,
          -- Theresa Wong,
          -- James Yu,
          -- Bill Shu Wai Ma,
          -- Molly Lau,
          -- Victor So,
          -- Jian Xiao, and
          -- CIS Service Inc.

Plaintiffs demand punitive damages and more injunctions.

The suit is "Mei-FAng Lisa Zhang et al. v. Wei-Man Raymond Tse et al., Case
No. C 07 4946," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Christopher Cooke
          Stephen S. Wu
          Cooke Kobrick & Wu LLP
          177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
          San Mateo, CA 94402
          Phone: (650) 638-2370
          Fax: (650) 341-1395
          E-mail: ccooke@ckwlaw.com or swu@ckwlaw.com


PATHMARK STORES: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over A&P Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in a suit against
Pathmark Stores, Inc. over a definitive merger agreement in which The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. (A&P) will acquire the company.

It was recently announced that The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc.,
and Pathmark Stores, Inc., have reached a definitive merger agreement in
which A&P will acquire Pathmark Stores, Inc., for $1.3 billion in cash, stock
and debt assumption or retirement, creating a 550-store, $11 billion
supermarket chain operating in the New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia
metro areas, as well as in Baltimore/Washington DC, Michigan, and Louisiana.

On March 6, 2007, Chris Larson, a stockholder in the company, filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, a purported
class action complaint against the company and its directors.

The complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of the company's
stockholders' claims against the defendants for alleged self-dealing and
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the merger.

It seeks:

      -- an injunction of the merger unless and until the
         company adopts and implements certain procedures to
         obtain the highest possible price for its stockholders;

      -- imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of
         plaintiffs, upon any benefits received by defendants as
         a result of their alleged wrongful conduct; and

      -- recovery of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

Defendants have not filed answers, or otherwise responded, to the complaint.

On March 12, 2007, Sarah Kleinmann, a stockholder in the Company, also filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County a
purported class action complaint against the Defendants, as defined in the
above paragraph, and A&P.

The Kleinmann Complaint asserts similar claims and seeks the same relief as
the Larson Complaint.

The Court entered a Consolidation Order after those actions were transferred
to the Chancery Division.

On July 16, 2007, Chris Larson and Sarah Kleinmann filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint against the Defendants.

The Amended Complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of Company
stockholders claims against the Individual Defendants for alleged self-
dealing and breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, as well
as claims against the Company and A&P for aiding and abetting the Individual
Defendants.

The Amended Complaint seeks:

       -- an injunction of the Merger unless and until the
          Company implements certain procedures to obtain the
          highest possible price for its stockholders;
    
      -- imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of the
         Plaintiffs and the Class, upon any benefits improperly
         received by the Defendants as a result of their alleged       
         wrongful conduct; and

      -- recovery of attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements.
         
The Defendants have not filed an answer, or otherwise responded, to the
Amended Complaint as of the date of the company's Sept. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

Pathmark Stores, Inc. -- http://www.pathmark.com/-- is a supermarket chain  
in New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia metropolitan areas, operating as a
single segment.


PREMIUM STANDARD: Nuisance Suit by Mo. Residents Transferred
------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri granted a motion to transfer
venue in a suit filed by Danniel Herrold et al. against ContiGroup Companies,
Inc., Premium Standard Farms, Inc. (PSF), and PSF Group Holdings, Inc.

This action originally sought to create a class of plaintiffs living within
ten miles of PSF’s farms in northern Missouri, including contract grower
farms, who were alleged to have suffered interference with their right to use
and enjoy their respective properties.

On January 22, 2007, plaintiffs in the Herrold case filed a Second Amended
Petition in which they abandoned all class action allegations and efforts to
certify the action as a class action and added an additional 193 named
plaintiffs to join the seven prior class representatives to pursue a one
count claim to recover monetary damages, both actual and punitive, for
temporary nuisance.

PSF filed motions arguing that the Second Amended Petition, which abandons
the putative class action and adds 193 new plaintiffs, is void procedurally
and that the case should either be dismissed or the plaintiffs’ claims
severed and removed under Missouri’s venue statute to the northern Missouri
counties in which the alleged injuries occurred.

On June 28, 2007, the court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss
but granting defendants’ motion to transfer venue. The court subsequently
denied plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider that decision. As a result of those
rulings, all but seven of the plaintiffs will be transferred to venues other
than Jackson County. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will file writ
papers with the Court of Appeals in Missouri seeking to overturn the lower
court’s order granting transfer.

Premium Standard is an acquisition of Smithfield Foods Inc.


RECORDING INDUSTRY: Faces Ore. Lawsuit Over Anti-Piracy Tactics
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is facing a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon over its
tactics to fight piracy.

The case was filed by Tanya Andersen, a disabled single mother, who had been
defending herself against copyright infringement allegations by RIAA for
almost two years, until RIAA finally dropped its case against her “with
prejudice.”  

The suit is for malicious prosecution.  In it, Mrs. Andersen alleges that
RIAA used illegal and flawed methods when investigating people for
downloading or swapping copyrighted songs without paying.

Furthermore, Mrs. Andersen claims that RIAA knew of the faulty methods but
continued to pursue its lawsuits, even against innocent people such as
herself.

Aside from RIAA, other defendants in the suit include:

       -- MediaSentry and its owner, SafeNet;

       -- Settlement Support Center LLC, a Washington company
          operating as the debt collection arm for the
          defendants’ “coordinated enterprise to pursue a scheme
          of threatening and intimidating litigation;”

       -- Atlantic Recording Corp;

       -- Priority Records;
       
       -- Capitol Records;
      
       -- UMG Recordings; and

       -- BMG Music.

In her request for class action status, the complaint goes on to state that:

“RIAA is composed of 4 major multinational member companies each having many
subsidiary member companies” and that it “publicly claims to exercise an
actual monopoly and control over 90% of the sound recordings sold in the
U.S.”  

“MediaSentry is in the business of conducting personally invasive private
investigations of private citizens in many states in the U.S. for the RIAA
and its controlled member companies.  It advertises that its services
include 'investigation' and 'litigation support.'”

“Pursuant to a secret agreement, RIAA, its controlled member companies and
MediaSentry conspired to develop a massive threat and litigation enterprise
targeting private citizens across the U.S.”

“The RIAA and its controlled member companies have for years aggressively
acted to prevent disclosure of the secret agreement and their conspiratorial
enterprise.”

“MediaSentry and RIAA know that their investigations are illegal and flawed.
MediaSentry is not licensed or registered to conduct private investigation of
private U.S. citizens.”

“Moreover, in a March 2004 sworn deposition MediaSentry’s then president
admitted to various serious flaws in the investigative scheme which all
Defendants know result in misidentification of individuals.

“Despite this knowledge, Defendants have falsely represented to many tens of
thousands of people that they have been definitively and personally
identified as copyright infringers.”

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

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?23a9

The suit is “Tanya Andersen v. Atlantic Recording, Case No. 07-934BVR,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Lory R. Lybeck, P.S.
          Lybeck Murphy, LLP
          500 Island Corporate Ctr., 7525 Southeast 24th St.
          Mercer Island, Washington 98040
          Phone: 206-230-4255
          Fax: 206-230-7791
          Web site: http://www.lybeckmurphy.com


URETHANE ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Defendant Settles Suit for $55M
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has approved a $55 million
settlement entered by a defendant in the Urethane Antitrust Litigation,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC stated at its Web site.

Shepherd, Finkelman filed a class action against Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation,
Bayer MaterialScience LLC, BASF AG, BASF Corporation, Dow Chemical Company,
Huntsman International LLC Lyondell Chemical Company in the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas.

The complaint alleges claims on behalf of direct purchasers of polyether
polyol products (used in the manufacture of rigid and flexible foams) in the
United States from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2004, and alleges
violations of the antitrust laws.

On April 14, 2006, the Court entered an order denying defendants’ motion to
dismiss and granting Plaintiffs leave to file the First Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint. Discovery is ongoing and the Plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification was filed in the summer of 2007. Defendants’ responses
are due in late 2007.

The Court has also approved a settlement with one of the defendants in the
amount of $55 million.


VITAMIN C ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Discovery Ongoing, Law Firm Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation filed as a class
action, by among others, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC against:

     * Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.,
     * Jiangsu Jiangshan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.,
     * Northeast Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd.,
     * Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical (USA) Inc., and
     * China Pharmaceutical Group, Ltd.

The suit was filed in December 2005 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

This action is commenced on behalf of indirect purchasers of defendants’
Vitamin C products in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of
Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin, and alleges
violations of the antitrust laws.

In February 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all
related cases transferred to the Eastern District of New York for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On May 4, 2006, the Court entered Pretrial Order No. 1. Defendants’ motion to
dismiss the complaint based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act was
argued on June 5, 2007, and discovery is ongoing.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Continues to Face Alder Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser Co. continues to face lawsuits claiming it had monopoly power or
attempted to gain monopoly power in the Pacific Northwest market for alder
logs and finished alder lumber.

                       Initial Alder Case

In December 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the company in U.S. District
Court in Oregon alleging from 1996 to 2001 the company had monopoly power or
attempted to gain monopoly power in the Pacific Northwest market for alder
logs and finished alder lumber.

A jury verdict of trebled damages of $79 million was appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the decision was upheld. In
February 2007, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
decision in the Initial Alder Case and remanded the matter to the Ninth
Circuit for further action. The Supreme Court held that because the plaintiff
had conceded it had not satisfied the test established by the Supreme Court,
the claim on which the damage award was based could not be supported.

Based on the Supreme Court ruling, the $79 million reserve that had
previously been established for this matter was reversed in the fourth
quarter of 2006, because the requirements for establishing a reserve under
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5, Accounting for
Contingencies, were no longer met. In April 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued an
order vacating the judgment of the District Court and remanding the matter to
the District Court for further proceedings.

In January 2005, the company received a copy of a “complaint in equity” filed
in U.S. District Court in Oregon to set aside the judgment in the Initial
Alder Case on behalf of a plaintiff who did not prevail in the trial. It
alleged a fraud was committed on the court and requested judgment against the
plaintiff be vacated and a new trial set on plaintiff’s claim of
monopolization of the alder sawlog market.

Trebled damages of $20 million were alleged. The U.S. District Court stayed
this matter pending final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court of the
Initial Alder Case. The company denied the allegations in the complaint and
filed motions opposing a retrial.

In August 2007, the company reached a settlement of the Initial Alder Case
and the “complaint in equity” matter. The company recognized an after-tax
charge in the amount of $11 million in the second quarter of 2007.

                        Washington Alder

In June 2003, Washington Alder filed an antitrust lawsuit against the company
in U.S. District Court in Oregon alleging monopolization of the alder log and
lumber markets and seeking trebled damages of $36 million and divestiture of
the company’s Northwest Hardwoods Division and alder sawmills in Oregon,
Washington and British Columbia.

A jury verdict of trebled damages of $16 million was appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The matter was stayed pending final
disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court of the Initial Alder Case.

Based on the February 2007 Supreme Court ruling in the Initial Alder Case,
the $16 million reserve that had previously been established for this matter
was reversed in the fourth quarter of 2006. In May 2007, the Ninth Circuit
issued an order vacating the judgment and remanding to the District Court.

In the previous litigation, the company prevailed in proving it did not
attempt to nor did it gain monopoly power from 2002 to the present and that
matter cannot be retried. The court previously applied issue preclusion
between June 1999 and 2001 and is evaluating whether that time period should
be subject to further retrial.

                          Class Action

In April 2004, a civil class action antitrust lawsuit was filed against the
company in U.S. District Court in Oregon claiming that as a result of the
company’s alleged monopolization of the alder sawlog market in the Pacific
Northwest as determined in the Initial Alder Case, the company monopolized
the market for finished alder and charged monopoly prices for finished alder
lumber.

In December 2004, the judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as a
class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder lumber between
April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for purposes of awarding monetary
damages. The claimed value of this matter, with trebling, is $59 million.

In February 2005, class counsel notified the court that approximately 5
percent of the class members opted out of the class action lawsuit. The
company has no litigation pending with any entity that has opted out of the
class, but it is possible that entities who have opted out may file lawsuits
against the company in the future.

In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended
complaint, extended the claims period to December 31, 2006, and scheduled
trial on the matter for April 2008. New notices to the class members will be
issued. In July 2007, the court denied the company’s motion to decertify the
class.

The Washington Alder and the civil class action litigation are still pending.
The company is unable to estimate at this time the amount of charges, if any,
that may be required for the remaining alder antitrust litigation in the
future.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Classes Certified in OSB Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified
classes of persons and entities who purchased oriented strand board (OSB)
from certain companies, including Weyerhaeuser Co.

A consolidated lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania in
2006 seeking class-action status for persons and entities who purchased OSB,
between June 2002 through the present, from:

     * Weyerhaeuser,
     * Louisiana-Pacific,
     * Georgia-Pacific,
     * Potlatch, Ainsworth Lumber, Norbord,
     * Tolko Industries,
     * Grant Forest Products, and
     * J.M. Huber Corp.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants conspired to fix and raise OSB prices in
the United States during the class period and as a result, class members paid
artificially inflated prices for OSB during that period. Additional lawsuits
have also been filed and have been consolidated in the same court for
discovery purposes on behalf of “indirect purchasers” of OSB in different
states that have laws permitting such actions on behalf of indirect
purchasers.

Plaintiffs’ experts in the direct and indirect cases have estimated total
damages with trebling at $8.7 billion. The company has not established a
reserve for this matter and is unable to estimate at this time the amount of
charges, if any, that may be required in the future.

In the third quarter 2006, the court dismissed with prejudice the claims
filed by Pennsylvania indirect purchasers.

In August 2007, the court certified a class of direct purchasers consisting
of persons and entities who purchased OSB structural panel products directly
from defendants from June 1, 2002 through the present.

The court also certified as a class nationwide indirect purchasers end users
who indirectly purchased for their own use and not for resale, new OSB
manufactured or sold by one or more of the defendants between June 1, 2002,
and the present.

The class excludes persons who purchased OSB already incorporated into a
house or other structure. The court also certified a multistate class of
indirect purchasers from eight states, but declined to certify such a class
for indirect purchasers from an additional 13 states.

Money damages for indirect multistate claims can be recovered only as
permitted by state law and plaintiffs are limited to injunctive relief in the
nationwide indirect class.  In May 2007, Huber reached a settlement with the
direct purchasers which has been approved by the court.

The suit is "Sawbell Lumber Co. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond.   

Representing the defendants are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600
         E-mail: wbutterfield@cmht.com

              - and –

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300
         E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com

Representing the company are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq.
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq.
         James H. Schink, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144 and 312-861-2350
         E-mail: bechols@kirkland.com
                 jmutchnik@kirkland.com

              - and -   

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq.
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475
         E-mail: sswirsky@schnader.com


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

LJ INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of securities of LJ International Inc.
from February 15, 2007 through September 6, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges LJ International 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 had understated its 2005 and 2006 tax
         liability;

     (2) that the Company had overstated its 2005 and 2006
         revenues and earnings;

     (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading;

     (4) that revenues from the Company's core wholesale
         business were declining;

     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (6) that the Company's statements about its financial well-
         being and future business prospects were lacking in a
         reasonable basis when made.

On July 16, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it was
delaying the filing of its 2006 Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2006. The Company assured investors that the delay was "principally the
result of the need for additional time by the Company's new independent
registered accounting firm to complete its audit of the Company's 2006
financial statements."

On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.84 per share, or 14.9 percent, to
close on July 19, 2007 at $10.51 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The Company's shares continued to decline following this
announcement, and closed at $6.01 on August 7, 2007, a cumulative decline of
over 51.3 percent.

Then on September 6, 2007, the Company stated that its previously issued net
income guidance of $3.0 million for the fourth quarter 2006 "will likely be
adversely impacted primarily due to a potential tax provision."

Additionally, the Company disclosed that it "expected to revise its earlier
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006 due to potential tax provisions that
could have a material adverse impact on both its 2005 and 2006 revenues and
earnings." On this news, the Company's shares declined an additional $1.46
per share, or over 18.3 percent, to close on September 6, 2007 at $6.49 per
share, on unusually heavy volume. The Company's shares continued to decline
following this announcement, and closed at $4.13 on September 21, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

LJ International designs, manufactures, markets and sells precious and semi-
precious gemstones, as well as diamond jewelry.

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


ORBCOMM INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all purchasers of common stock of ORBCOMM Inc. pursuant or traceable to
the Company's November 3, 2006 Initial Public Offering through August 14,
2007 inclusive.

The Complaint charges ORBCOMM 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 demand for the Company's products was softening;

     (2) that certain end-users were delaying purchases;

     (3) that international sales were being negatively impacted
         due to delays in developing and modifying regional
         applications; and

     (4) that the Company's definition of billable subscriber
         communicators would have to be revised to reflect a
         more accurate gauge of when communicators were
         activated and billing.

On November 3, 2006, the Company conducted its IPO. In connection with its
IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively
referred to herein as the "Registration Statement") with the SEC. The IPO was
a financial success for the Company, as it sold 9.23 million shares of stock
to investors at a price of $11.00 per share, for gross proceeds of $101.5
million.

On August 14, 2007, ORBCOMM shocked investors when it announced its second
quarter 2007 financial results. The Company reported a net loss $1.3 million
for the quarter, and revealed that it was experiencing weakening demand for
its products and services.

The Company also revised its full-year 2007 guidance for new billable
subscribers. On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $3.32 per
share, or 29.7 percent, to close on August 14, 2007 at $7.86 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

ORBCOMM is a satellite-based data communication company that operates a two-
way wireless data messaging system for worldwide data communication.

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  * * *