CAR_Public/071001.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, October 1, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 193

                            Headlines


ALABAMA: Status Conference in Amanda Bingham Well Suit Set Oct.
ALCOA INC: Tenn. Court Certifies Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Ariz. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BRINKER INT'L: Calif. Court Reviews Certification in Labor Suit
BTHC VII INC: Breach of Fiduciary Suit by Investors Dismissed

CAR MANUFACTURERS: Faces Canadian Suit Over Alleged Price-Fixing
CHOICEPOINT INC: Accused of Routinely Selling Customer Info
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Court Considers Appeal in Securities Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Suit by Bryman College Student
FIRST COMMAND: Cal. Lawsuit by Military Personnel Certified

HARMAN INT'L: Faces D.C. Suit Over KHI Parent Merger Agreement
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Cal. Court Junks Consolidated Securities Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: Oct. 22 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Litigation
JDS UNIPHASE: Nov. Conference Set for “Zelman” Securities Suit

JDS UNIPHASE: No Trial Date Set in SDL Shareholders Litigation
JDS UNIPHASE: Parties Reach MOU to Settle OCLI Shareholder Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: Sept. 12, 2008 Trial Set for Calif. ERISA Lawsuit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Ditropan XL
LOOKSMART LTD: Settles Cal. Suit Over Gambling Advertisements

LOOKSMART LTD: Agrees to Settle Ark. “Click Fraud” Lawsuit
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Litigation
PARKER ITR: Faces Fla. Antitrust Suit Over Marine Oil, Gas Hoses
RAYMOND JAMES: Former Employees File Gender Discrimination Suit
RC2 CORP: Recalls Knights Toys Due to High Lead Content

RHODE ISLAND: Recalls Kids Necklaces Due to High Lead Content
TICKETMASTER: Stay in UPS Delivery Fees Suit Partially Lifted
TOPPS MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef Products on Contamination Risk
WELLMAN INC: Polyester Staple Fibers Suit Settlement Approved


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

TARRAGON CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit


                            *********


ALABAMA: Status Conference in Amanda Bingham Well Suit Set Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 30 case status hearing is set in a civil class action brought over the
continued use of the Amanda Bingham Well, formerly the Grant Street Well,
despite its high tetrachloroethylene content, Chris Norwood of Daily Home
Online reports.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Dixie Bonner, a west end resident.  The
original suit named the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM),
the city of Talladega and the Talladega Water and Sewer Board as co-defendants.

ADEM attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case in March 2003, but
Montgomery County Circuit Judge Charles Price did not issue a ruling on that
motion, according to the Montgomery County Circuit Clerk’s office.  That is
why the suit continues, although as revealed by the judge in a recent status
hearing, “There has been only marginal activity in this case since it was
transferred (to Talladega) from (Montgomery).”  

The suit continues against the city of Talladega and the ADEM.

In the hearing, the city’s attorneys were present, but plaintiff’s attorney
J.L. Chestnut of Selma was not, according to the report.

“The court is unwilling to dismiss the case at this juncture without allowing
counsel for the plaintiffs a second opportunity to appear for a rescheduled
conference and to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for want of
prosecution,” wrote Talladega County Circuit Judge Julian King.  He set a next
status conference on the suit for Oct. 30 at 8:30 a.m. in his courtroom.

Judge King said he will dismiss the suit if a representative for the
plaintiffs is not present on that day.

Tetrachloroethylene, also know as PERC or PCE, is an ingredient in dry
cleaning fluids and metal degreasers.  It has been linked to certain types of
cancer.
  
Representing the plaintiffs is:

          J. L. Chestnut, Esq.
          Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders, Pettaway & Campbell, LLC  
          One Union Street
          P.O. Box 1290
          Selma, AL 36702-1290
          Phone: (334) 875-9264
          Fax: (334) 875-9375


ALCOA INC: Tenn. Court Certifies Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas Phillips of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee granted certification to a lawsuit filed by nearly 5,000 retirees
because of changes to their retirement benefits, Rick Laney of The Daily Times
reports.

The ratified four-year contract over retiree healthcare costs between Alcoa
Inc. and United Steelworkers, which represents about 9,000 Alcoa workers, left
some retirees irate, resulting to the class action (Class Action Reporter,
July 24, 2006).

According to the suit, the contract imposes premium obligations, higher
deductibles and coinsurance on most —- if not all —-previously fully covered
health-care expenses. The benefit changes were effective at the beginning of
this year and apply to retirees who left the company between June 1, 1993, and
June 30, 2006.

The lawsuit charges that the ALCOA violated the retirees’ vested rights under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breached its contract under
the National Labor Relations Act.

Judge Phillips ruled that the case would move forward as a class action suit
rather than the “mass action” certification it was originally filed under. A
mass action certification differs from a class action suit because each
retiree and surviving spouses would have had individual case numbers and would
have been treated as individual plaintiffs.

By certifying the lawsuit as a class action, the number of retirees
represented by the suit could jump significantly — possibly as high as 13,000
retirees.

The suit is "Curtis v. Alcoa Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2006cv00448," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, under the
Honorable Thomas W. Phillips with referral to Magistrate C. Clifford Shirley.

Representing the retirees is:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Coleman & Edwards, P.C.
          4800 Old Kingston Pike
          Suite 120
          Knoxville, Tennessee 37919
          (Knox Co.)
          Phone: 865-247-0080
          Fax: 865-247-0081


AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Ariz. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has granted a
motion by Amkor Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMKR) to dismiss a purported
consolidated class action filed against Amkor and certain of its present and
former officers and directors.

The suit, “Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et al.,” was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 23, 2006.

The suit was filed against the company and certain of its current and former
officers.  Subsequently, other law firms have filed related cases, which will
likely be consolidated with the initial complaint.  

In August 2006 and again in November 2006, the plaintiffs amended the
complaint.  Plaintiffs added additional officer, director and former director
defendants and allege improprieties in certain option grants.

The amended complaint further alleges that defendants improperly recorded and
accounted for the options in violation of generally accepted accounting
principles and made materially false and misleading statements and omissions
in its disclosures in violation of the federal securities laws, during the
period from
July 2001 to July 2006.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23, compensatory damages, costs and expenses,
and such other further relief as the court deems just and proper.

On Dec. 28, 2006, pursuant to motion by defendants, the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred this action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona. Defendants subsequently filed
motions to dismiss the complaint (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 16, 2007).  The
Arizona court has dismissed the complaint, according to Amkor’s Sept. 27 press
release.

Amkor also announced that the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona has granted Amkor's motion to dismiss the purported shareholder
derivative lawsuit entitled “Scimeca v. Kim, et al. (CV 06-0562-PHX-PVR),”
filed against Amkor, as a nominal defendant, and certain of Amkor's current
and former officers and directors.

The lawsuit included claims for violation of certain provisions of Federal
securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and is
generally based on the same allegations as in the securities class action
lawsuit. The Court dismissed the case citing, among other things, the
plaintiff's failure to make a demand on Amkor's board of directors seeking the
desired relief before filing the lawsuit.

Amkor does not know whether the plaintiffs in either case will appeal the
decision or take further action.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         P.O. Box 30132
         Elkins Park, PA 19027
         Phone: 215-782-8235
         E-mail: jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com

         Evan J. Smith, Esq.
         Brodsky & Smith, LLC
         Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-6200
         E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Patrick Loftus, Esq.
         Duane Morris, LLP
         30 South 17th Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396
         Phone: 215-979-1367
         E-mail: loftus@duanemorris.com

              - and -

         Karen T. Stefano, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-849-3405
         E-mail: kstefano@wsgr.com


BRINKER INT'L: Calif. Court Reviews Certification in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals is reviewing a class certification of a
lawsuit filed against restaurant operator Brinker International, Inc. in San
Diego County Superior Court.

Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed the suit,
alleging violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and rest
breaks.  

The suit seeks penalties and attorney's fees.  Judge Patricia A.Y. Cowett
certified it as a class action in July 2006.  

The class consists of 63,000 current and former employees of the company who
are alleging violations of California law mandating workers' meal and rest
breaks (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2006).

The California Court of Appeals stayed all trial court activity in December
2006 and is currently reviewing the certification of the class.

The company reported no material development in the matter in its Aug. 27,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 27, 2007.

Brinker International, Inc. -- http://www.brinker.com-– is principally
engaged in the ownership, operation, development, and franchising of
restaurant concepts.


BTHC VII INC: Breach of Fiduciary Suit by Investors Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action, state derivative complaints and federal derivative complaints
filed against BTHC VII, Inc. have been dismissed.

The Company and certain of its former officers and directors were party to
class action complaints, state derivative complaints and federal derivative
complaints filed beginning in fiscal year 2004.

The consolidated Class Action,

     * “Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund v.
       Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. Case No. 04 1107,”

alleged that the Company and its officers made false and misleading statements
and falsely accounted for revenue and inventory during the putative class
period. The consolidated class action complaint alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The State Derivative Complaints filled in Illinois,

     * “Richard W. Cusack, et al. v. Sheila C. Patinkin,
       independent executor of the estate of Hugh M. Patinkin,
       deceased, et al. Case No. 04-CH-09705,”

consolidated with 05-CH-06926 and 05-CH-09913, asserted claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate
assets, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and
misappropriation of information, and contribution and indemnification.

The factual allegations of the consolidated State Derivative Complaint were
similar to those made in the Class Action.

The Federal Derivative Complaints,

     “Myra Cuerton v. Richard K. Berkowitz Case No. 05 C1050 and
      Tai Vu v. Richard Berkowitz Case No. 05 C 2197,”

against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers and directors also
asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and the factual allegations of
the complaints were similar to those made in the class action lawsuit and the
consolidated state derivative complaint.

With respect to the class action, consolidated state derivative complaint and
federal derivative complaints described above, the company reports that on
July 24, 2006 a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal was entered in the
consolidated Class Action.

Additionally, on June 26, 2006 both of the federal derivative complaints
previously pending in the Northern District of Illinois were dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. Finally, by an Order
of Dismissal dated December 5, 2006, the consolidated state derivative
complaint previously pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County was dismissed
with prejudice.


CAR MANUFACTURERS: Faces Canadian Suit Over Alleged Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP filed a class action in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the major automobile manufacturers,
currently including, the North American operations of:

          -- Honda,
          -- General Motors,
          -- Chrysler, and
          -- Nissan.

The suit also extends to certain North American dealer organizations, namely,
The Canadian Automobile Dealers Association and The National Automobile
Dealers Association.

According to a Toronto Star report, the CA$2 billion suit claims that the
Defendants conspired to artificially enhance the price of automobiles to the
Canadian consumer through a variety of carefully orchestrated business
practices in violation of a variety of statutes including the Competition Act,
and the various provincial Consumer Protection Acts. Additionally, the suit
alleges the commission of certain common law torts.

The lawsuit alleges collusion between the Canadian and American head offices
of some automakers to allegedly inflate the prices of cars in Canada while
inhibiting cross-border shopping.

It further alleges that each person paid more money to buy a vehicle in Canada
than the price tag would have been in the United States.

It's also alleged that some manufacturers do not honor warranties on
U.S.-bought vehicles, forcing customers who want those warranties to buy in
Canada.

The lawsuit also claims that some dealers were penalized for selling cars that
were later exported to Canada, and vendors that did not comply have been
threatened with termination of their dealerships. Some consumers were made to
sign "no-export" clauses for automobiles purchased, according to the suit.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

The class includes all persons residing in Canada who purchased or leased an
automobile (or intended to do so) from one or more of the Defendants, in
Canada between August 2005 and August 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Henry Juroviesky
          Juroviesky and Ricci LLP
          Tel: (416) 481-0718
          Fax: (416) 481-1792
          Email: info@jrclassactions.com


CHOICEPOINT INC: Accused of Routinely Selling Customer Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Latin American Agents Association (LAAA) have filed a class action against
Choicepoint Inc. alleging, among other things, that the company routinely
sells customer data despite assuring that privacy will be maintained, the
Insurance Journal reports.

Named plaintiffs in the complaint are insurance producers Miguel Rodriguez of
Wizard Insurance in Chatsworth, Calif., and Deane Silke of Fiesta Auto
Insurance in Long Beach, Calif. Both are members of the LAAA's board of directors.

They allege that Choicepoint "made material misrepresentations and/or omitted
to make material disclosures throughout the class period by falsely claiming
that Choicepoint would protect and insure the confidentiality of information
plaintiff and Other class members were required to provide to Choicepoint,
including confidential, proprietary and trade secret information from their
customer lists and other related proprietary information, in order to obtain
information regarding available insurance coverage and insurance policy
premium quotations, as well as actual insurance policies for their customers."

The lawsuit also alleges that "(i)nstead of maintaining the confidentiality of
that information, Choicepoint revealed that information to third parties,
including the competitors of plaintiffs and other class members and sold that
information to third parties for profit."


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Court Considers Appeal in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal
regarding the dismissal of a securities fraud class action filed against
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.

From July 8, 2004 through Aug. 31, 2004, various putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by
certain alleged purchasers of the company's common stock against the company
and certain of its current and former executive officers, David Moore, Dennis
Beal, Paul St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni.

On Nov. 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases have been
consolidated into one action.  A first consolidated amended complaint was
filed in February 2005.  

The consolidated case is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the company's common stock during a specified class period
from Aug. 27, 2003 through July 30,
2004.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in violation of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed
to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the company's
business and prospects during the putative class period, causing the
plaintiffs to purchase the company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Moore, Beal, St. Pierre and
Digiovanni are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.  

They seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as
other relief.

On April 24, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's third consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.  The
plaintiff has appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth
Circuit.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 29, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real with
referral to Judge Carla Woehrle.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Vahn Alexander, Esq.
         Yourman Alexander and Parekh
         3601 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 3000
         Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
         Phone: 310-601-4108
         E-mail: valexander@yaplaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Robert L. Dell Angelo, Esq.
         Munger Tolles & Olson
         355 S. Grand Ave, 35th Fl
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
         Phone: 213-683-9100
         E-mail: dellangelorl@mto.com


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Suit by Bryman College Student
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continue to face a putative class action filed by a
former diagnostic medical sonography student from the company's Bryman College
campus in West Los Angeles.

The plaintiff, Michelle Sanchez, alleges the school violated California’s
education code and of California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 29, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2007.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for-profit,
post-secondary education companies in the U.S. and Canada, with more than
64,500 students enrolled as of June 30, 2006.  It offers a variety of diploma
programs and associate's, bachelor's and master's degrees through five
operating divisions in the U.S. and Canada.


FIRST COMMAND: Cal. Lawsuit by Military Personnel Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Irma Gonzalez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California certified as class action a suit filed against First Command
Financial Planning, the AirForceTimes.com reports.

The judge has allowed the suit to go forward as a class action, a move that
could affect an estimated 100,000 people, mostly former and current service
members, the report said.

The suit -- filed in Jan. 2005 by two soldiers and their spouses, and two
sailors -- accuses First Command of using deceptive practices to lure military
personnel to invest in a 10- to 15-year plan that allegedly reaped billions
for the firm at the expense of military personnel.

They seek a refund of the 50 percent sales load that each paid during the
first year they owned a systematic investment plan through First Command.

According to Judge Gonzalez’s Sept. 19 order, First Command must provide a
complete list of class members to the plaintiffs within 30 days of the order,
so that a personal notice can be sent to each investor.

Those eligible to take part in the suit must meet three criteria:

     * They must have made a systematic investment plan payment
       and paid a 50 percent sales charge on the money placed
       into the plan through First Command during the period
       from Jan. 31, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2004.

     * They must have still owned the systematic investment plan
       on Dec. 15, 2004.

     * They must not have terminated their plans within 45 days
       of purchase in order to receive a full refund of the
       sales charge.

According to court documents, First Command denies it used any devices,
schemes or artifices to defraud, or engage in any acts or practices that
operated as fraud, on the plaintiffs.

First Command also contends that the investors assumed the risk of any loss,
based on advisory documents provided to them.

First Command was fined $12 million for misleading statements concerning the
sale of systematic investment plans (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2007).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone:  (858) 551-1223
          Fax: (858) 551-1232
          Email: bam@bamlawlj.com
          Website: http://www.bamlawca.com


HARMAN INT'L: Faces D.C. Suit Over KHI Parent Merger Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc. faces a purported class action in a D.C.
court over a merger agreement with KHI Parent Inc., according to the company's
Aug. 29, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

On April 26, 2007, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
with KHI Parent, a company formed by investment funds affiliated with
Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. (KKR) and GS Capital Partners VI Fund,
L.P. and its related funds, which are sponsored by Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GSCP).

On May 8, 2007, Helen Rodgers Living Trust filed a putative class action
against Harman and all of its directors in the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia.  

The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all common stockholders of
Harman and alleges that Harman’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Harman stockholders by entering into the merger agreement.  

The original complaint alleged that the consideration to be offered to Harman
stockholders under the merger agreement is “inadequate” and that the merger
agreement “inequitably favors . . . insiders” of Harman.  

The complaint also alleged that the termination fee in the merger agreement
was excessive, that Harman’s directors purportedly would not “fairly and
adequately” evaluate any alternative bids, and that the provision in the
merger agreement that allowed Harman to solicit proposals for alternative
bidders during a 50-day period ending in June 2007 was “illusory.”

Harman International Industries, Inc. -- http://www.harman.com-- is engaged
in the development, manufacture and marketing of high-fidelity audio products
and electronic systems.  The Company has developed, both internally and
through a series of acquisitions, a range of product offerings.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a securities fraud lawsuit filed against IAC/InterActiveCorp in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York intend to file a
motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in the case. The case arose out
of the company's Aug. 4, 2004 announcement of its earnings for the second
quarter of 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 20, 2005, generally alleges
that the value of the company's stock was artificially inflated by
pre-announcement statements about it financial results and forecasts that were
false and misleading due to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose
various problems faced by the company's travel businesses.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders who purchased IAC
common stock between March 21, 2003 and Aug. 3,
2004.  The defendants are IAC and 14 current or former officers or directors
of the company or its former Expedia travel business.  

The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Two related shareholder derivative actions Garber and Butler have been
consolidated with the securities class action for pre- trial purposes.  

The consolidated shareholder derivative complaint, filed on July 5, 2005
against IAC (as a nominal defendant) and 16 current or former officers or
directors of the company or its former Expedia travel business, is based upon
factual allegations similar to those in the securities class action.  

It purports to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, violation
of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and contribution and indemnification.

The complaint seeks an order voiding the election of the company's current
Board of Directors, as well as damages in an unspecified amount, various forms
of equitable relief, restitution, and disgorgement of remuneration received by
the individual defendants from the company.

On Sept. 15, 2005, IAC and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in the securities class action.  On
Nov. 30, 2005, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motions.  

On Jan. 6, 2006, the defendants filed reply papers in further support of the
dismissal motion.  On October 12, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the
motions to dismiss.

On March 22, 2007, the Court issued an opinion and order:

      -- granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the
         complaint in the securities class action, with leave to
         replead, and

      -- granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the
         complaint in the shareholder derivative suits, with
         prejudice.

On April 23, 2007, the plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative suits filed a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
from the District Court’s order of dismissal. On June 14, on consent of the
parties, the appeal was withdrawn from active consideration by the Court of
Appeals, subject to reinstatement by no later than March 31, 2008.

On May 15, 2007, the plaintiffs in the securities class action filed a second
amended complaint. The new pleading continues to allege that the defendants
failed to disclose material information concerning problems at the Company’s
then-travel businesses and to assert the same legal claims as its predecessor.
Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The suit is "In re IAC/InteractiveCorp Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-cv-07447-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Richard J.
Holwell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
         Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz L.L.P.
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016;

              - and -

         Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
         Schatz & Nobel
         One Corporate Center, 20 Church Street, Suite 1700
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6292

Representing the defendants is
        
         Stephen R. DiPrima, Esq.
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 403-1382
         Fax: (212) 403-2000
         E-mail: srdiprima@wlrk.com


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Cal. Court Junks Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Impac Mortgage
Holding, Inc.

From Jan. 10, 2006 through Feb. 28, 2006, six purported class action
complaints were filed against the company and its senior officers and all but
one of its directors.   

The plaintiffs in the suits are:  

     -- Earl Schriver, Jr. (filed Jan. 10, 2006),  
     -- Jeff Dayton (filed Jan. 13, 2006),  
     -- Joseph Mathieu (filed Jan. 18, 2006),  
     -- Fred Safir and Wilma Libar (filed Jan. 26, 2006),  
     -- Ronald Kelner (filed Feb. 1, 2006), and  
     -- Miroslav Bardos (filed Feb. 9, 2006).  

The complaints were brought on behalf of persons who acquired the company's
common stock during the period of May 13, 2005 through Aug. 9, 2005.   

The plaintiffs allege claims against all defendants for violations under
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
They also claim against the individual defendants of violations of Section 20
(a) of the  Exchange Act.  

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants caused the company's common stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices through false and misleading statements
related to the company's financial condition and future prospects and that the
individual defendants improperly sold holdings.  

The complaints seek compensatory damages for all damages sustained as a result
of the defendants' actions, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses,
and other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On May 1, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
approved the consolidation of the federal securities class actions and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  A consolidated complaint was filed
in this action on  
July 24, 2006.

In April 2007, the Company entered into a preliminary agreement to settle the
matter (Class Action Reporter, June 26, 2007).

On September 19, the U.S District Court, Central District of California,
granted a motion to dismiss the consolidated federal alleged class actions
originally filed beginning in January 2006 against Impac Mortgage Holding,
Inc. and its senior officers and all but one of its directors.

The plaintiffs have 20 days to amend the complaint.  The Company intends to
continue to defend vigorously an amended complaint, if filed.

The suit is "In Re Impac Mortgage Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
no. 8:06-cv-00031-CJC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge Cormac J. Carney with referral to Judge
Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiffs are:
  
         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

         David Goldberger, Esq.
         Scott and Scott
         600 B. Street, Suite 1500
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-233-4565
         
              - and -  

         Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharo and Rudoff
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0857

Representing the defendants is:

         Peter W. Devereaux, Esq.
         Latham & Watkins
         633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
         Phone: 213-485-1234
         E-mail: peter.devereaux@lw.com


JDS UNIPHASE: Oct. 22 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 22, 2007 trial is scheduled for a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against JDS Uniphase Corp., and certain of its former and current
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of
California.

On July 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California consolidated all the securities actions then filed in or
transferred to that court as, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. C-02-1486 CW," and appointed the Connecticut Retirement Plans
and Trust Funds as lead plaintiff.  

The complaint in "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation" purports to
be brought on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the company's
securities from
Oct. 28, 1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of subclasses
consisting of those who acquired the company's common stock pursuant to its
acquisitions of The Optical Coating
Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI), E-TEK Dynamics, Inc., and SDL Ltd.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made material misstatements and omissions
concerning demand for the company's products, improperly recognized revenue,
overstated the value of inventory, and failed to timely write down goodwill.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various violations of the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

In January 2005, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims against the
company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and Charles Abbe, and granted in
part and denied in part the motion to dismiss claims against Kevin Kalkhoven.  

Defendants subsequently filed answers denying liability for the claims
asserted against them.  On Dec. 21, 2005, the court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

Fact discovery in the case is substantially complete.  Each party has noticed
and taken depositions of both party and non- party witnesses.  

On Aug. 24, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’
motions for summary judgment and deferred ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for
partial summary judgment.

Trial is set to begin on Oct. 22, 2007.

The suit is "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, C-02-1486," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Claudia Wilken with referral to Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
         Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         Phone:  415-288-4545 and 619-231-1058
         Fax: 415-288-4534 and 619-231-7423
         E-mail: reedk@lerachlaw.com
                 e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         John Frith Stewart, Esq.
         Segal, Stewart, Cutler, Lindsay, Janes & Ber
         1400-B Waterfront Street, 325 West Main Street
         Louisville, KY 40202-4251
         Phone: 502-568-5600

Representing the defendants are:

         Philip T. Besirof, Esq.
         Jordan David Eth, Esq.
         Morrison & Foerster, LLP
         425 Market St.
         San Francisco, CA
         Phone: 94105-2482
         Fax: (415) 268-7000 and 415-268-7522
         E-mail: PBesirof@mofo.com
                 jeth@mofo.com


JDS UNIPHASE: Nov. Conference Set for “Zelman” Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California set a Nov. 13,
2007 case management conference for the purported securities fraud class
action, "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., Case No. 02-4656."

The suit was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of debt
securities that were allegedly linked to the price of the company's common stock.

The Zelman complaint states that an investment bank issued the debt securities
during the period from March 6, 2001 through July 26, 2001.  

It names the company and several of its former officers and directors as
defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, specifically
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5, and seeks unspecified damages.  

On Aug. 26, 2005, defendants answered the complaint.  On Nov. 16, 2005, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which defendants had
not opposed.

Fact discovery in the Zelman action is substantially complete.  A case
management conference is scheduled for Nov. 13, 2007, according to the
company's Aug. 29, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.
  
The suit is "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-04656,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Claudia Wilken.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Susan G. Kupfer, Esq.
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         455 Market Street, Suite 1810
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-972-8160
         Fax: 415-972-8166
         E-mail: skupfer@glancylaw.com

              - and -

         Ira M. Press, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-371-6600
         Fax: 212-751-2540
         E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Holly H. Tambling, Esq.
         Morrison & Foerster, LLP
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
         Phone: 415 268-7000
         Fax: 415-268-7522
         E-mail: Htambling@mofo.com


JDS UNIPHASE: No Trial Date Set in SDL Shareholders Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sonoma Superior Court in California has yet to set a trial date for a
class action filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent the former
shareholders of SDL Ltd.

The suit is asserting that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the events alleged in the securities litigation against JDS
Uniphase Corp.

Plaintiffs in the SDL action, "Cook v. Scifres, Master File No.
CV814824," purport to represent a class of former shareholders of SDL who
exchanged their SDL shares for JDS Uniphase shares when the company acquired
SDL.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Nov. 20, 2006.

The complaint names the former directors of SDL as Defendants, asserts causes
of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the duty of disclosure,
and seeks unspecified damages.

On March 6, 2007, the Court overruled Defendants’ demurrer to that complaint.
A case management conference is scheduled for Sept. 21, 2007.  

Limited discovery in the SDL action has occurred.  No trial date has been set
in the SDL action, according to JDS Uniphase Corp.'s Aug. 29, 2007 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2007.

JDS Uniphase Corp. (JDSU) -- http://www.jdsuniphase.com-- is a provider of
broadband and optical products and solutions.  Its products are used in
communications, commercial and consumer applications, including broadband and
optical networks, brand protection, biotechnology, semiconductor, aerospace
and defense.


JDS UNIPHASE: Parties Reach MOU to Settle OCLI Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent the
former shareholders of The Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI) signed a
memorandum of understanding regarding a settlement for the matter, which is
pending in the Sonoma Superior Court in California.

The suit is asserting that former directors of the company breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the events alleged in the securities
litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp.

Plaintiffs in the OCLI action, "Pang v. Dwight, No. 02-231989," purport to
represent a class of former shareholders of OCLI who exchanged their OCLI
shares for JDS Uniphase shares when JDS Uniphase acquired OCLI.  

The complaint names the former directors of OCLI as Defendants, asserts causes
of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the duty of candor, and
seeks unspecified damages.

On March 4, 2007, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding regarding a
settlement of the OCLI action.

JDS Uniphase Corp.'s reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 29,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

JDS Uniphase Corp. (JDSU) -- http://www.jdsuniphase.com-- is a provider of
broadband and optical products and solutions.  Its products are used in
communications, commercial and consumer applications, including broadband and
optical networks, brand protection, biotechnology, semiconductor, aerospace
and defense.

  
JDS UNIPHASE: Sept. 12, 2008 Trial Set for Calif. ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 12, 2008 trial is set for a consolidated class action filed against
JDS Uniphase Corp., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The consolidated action, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No.
C-03-4743 WWS (MEJ)," is pending in the
District Court for the Northern District of California against the company,
certain of its former and current officers and directors, and certain other
current and former company employees on behalf of a purported class of
participants in the
401(k) Plans of the company and Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. and the Plans.

On Oct. 31, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint alleges that defendants violated the ERISA by breaching their
fiduciary duties to the Plans and the Plans' participants.

The amended complaint alleges a purported class period from Feb.
4, 2000, to the present and seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
restitution, a constructive trust, and other equitable remedies.  

Certain individual defendants' motion to dismiss portions of the amended
complaint was granted with prejudice on June 15, 2006.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 30, 2006. Defendants
answered the complaint on July 6, 2006, and the company asserted counterclaims
for breach of contract.  The Court dismissed those counterclaims on Sept. 11,
2006.

On Dec. 15, 2006, defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the
named plaintiffs lacked standing.  On the same day, plaintiffs moved for class
certification.

On April 24, 2007, the Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment as
to plaintiff Douglas Pettit, deferred ruling on the motion for summary
judgment as to plaintiff Eric Carey, and deferred ruling on plaintiffs’ motion
for class certification.

Both sides have taken discovery.  Trial is set to begin on Sept. 12, 2008,
according to the company's Aug. 29, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Pettit v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
3:03-cv-04743-WWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California under Judge William W. Schwarzer.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
         Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birhaeuser, LLP
         2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
         Walnut Creek, CA 94598
         Phone: 925-945-0200
         Fax: (925) 945-8792
         E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com

              - and -

         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:
         
         Paul Flum, Esq.
         Terri Garland, Esq.
         Morrison & Foerster
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415/268-7000
         Fax: 415-268-7522
         E-mail: paulflum@mofo.com
                 tgarland@mofo.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Ditropan XL
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Alza Corp. are facing seven antitrust
class actions filed by purchasers of its bladder drug Ditropan XL.

The suits allege that Johnson & Johnson and ALZA violated federal and state
antitrust laws by knowingly pursuing baseless patent litigation, and thereby
delaying entry into the market by Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Impax
Laboratories Inc.

Oxybutynin has been used to help individuals treat bladder control problems
since the 1970's. Alza patented an extend version of Oxybutunin called
Ditropan XL. The product was marketed throughout the United States by Alza.

Alza obtained a patent for the drug and controlled an overwhelming majority of
the market with yearly sales that exceeded $440 million. In January of 2003,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals requested approval from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to manufacture and market a generic version.

In attempt to prevent competition, Alza sued Mylan claiming that Mylan's
generic drug violated their patent. However, the lawsuit revealed that Alza
had failed to disclose specific and important facts in order to obtain their
patent. The court ruled in favor of Mylan, finding that their generic drug did
not violate Alza's patent.

In the weeks following the adverse ruling in September 2005, Johnson & Johnson
and ALZA received seven antitrust class action complaints filed by purchasers
of the product.

Zimmerman Reed filed a lawsuit on November 18, 2005.  The case is "Jabo's
Pharmacy inc. v. Johnson & Johnson et al."  In 2006, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Tennessee case to California's
Northern District at the request of Alza.  This is the fourth case against
Alza to be consolidated.

Among the plaintiffs in the suit are the City of Fargo Trust Fund and Local 28
Sheet metal Workers.

The consolidated case is “In re Ditropan XL antitrust litigation, Case No.
06-01761” filed in the U.S. district Court for the Northern District of
California.

Representing the City of Fargo Trust Fund and Local 28 Sheet metal Workers
against Alza is:

          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P.
          651 Nicollet Mall
          Suite 501
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
          (Hennepin Co.)

  
          Phone: 612-341-0400
          Toll Free: 800-755-0098
          Fax: 612-341-0844
  
Representing other plaintiffs are Hagens Berman LLP and The Wekler Firm LLP.

Alza is represented by:

          Monique M. Drake
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          Denver Office
          1801 California Street
          Suite 4200
          Denver, CO 80202-2641
          USA
          Phone: (303) 298-5957
          Fax: (303) 313-2815

          Joshua Lipton, Esq.
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          Washington, D.C. Office
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          USA
          Phone: (202) 955-8226
          Fax: (202) 530-9536


LOOKSMART LTD: Settles Cal. Suit Over Gambling Advertisements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Looksmart Ltd. agreed to settle “Cisneros v. Yahoo! Inc.,” a lawsuit alleging
the company engaged in unlawful business practice in relation to its
acceptance of ads from gambling Web sites.

On August 3, 2004, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight filed a private attorney
general lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class in Superior Court in San
Francisco County, California. The complaint names thirteen search engines or
Web publishers as defendants, including the Company, and alleges unfair
business practices, unlawful business practices, and other causes of action in
connection with the display of advertisements from Internet gambling companies.

The complaint seeks restitution, unspecified compensatory damages, declaratory
and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for
preliminary injunction on August 3, 2004.

On January 3, 2005, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint, which was
overruled on January 27, 2005. On January 3, 2005, the Company also filed a
motion to strike certain allegations regarding claims for restitution, which
was denied in part and granted in part on May 9, 2005.

The Company filed an answer to the complaint on February 28, 2005, consisting
of a general denial of all allegations. On October 11, 2005, the court
conducted a trial on two of the Company’s affirmative defenses. The court held
that California public policy bars the plaintiffs from receiving a portion of
their requested damages.

On December 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a preliminary
injunction. Defendants responded on or around February 27, 2006. The Court has
allowed certain discovery to proceed with respect to plaintiffs’ renewed
motion. On or about May 23, 2006, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their
complaint to name additional plaintiffs.

On or about September 8, 2006, plaintiffs served an amended complaint naming
additional plaintiffs. The Company has since filed a general denial to the
amended complaint.

On April 13, 2007 the Court heard argument on defendants’ motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiffs’ motion to allow
non-restitutionary disgorgement. Both motions were denied.

Plaintiffs’ counsel has indicated verbal agreement to a settlement whereby:

     (i) the Company would make a payment of $15,000 to a
         designated charitable organization and continue its  
         current policies banning acceptance of ads from
         gambling websites, and

    (ii) all plaintiffs would dismiss their claims against the
         Company with prejudice.

This potential settlement has not yet been finalized between the parties and
would also be subject to final court approval.


LOOKSMART LTD: Agrees to Settle Ark. “Click Fraud” Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Looksmart Ltd. agreed to settle complaints it faces in the suit, “Lane’s Gifts
and Collectibles, L.L.C., v. Yahoo! Inc.,” which relates to contracts it
allegedly entered into with plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-click advertising
or "Click Fraud.”

On March 14, 2005 the Company was served with the second amended complaint in
a class action in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas. The complaint
names eleven search engines and web publishers as defendants, including the
Company, and alleges breach of contract, restitution/unjust enrichment/money
had and received, and civil conspiracy claims in connection with contracts
allegedly entered into with plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-click advertising.

The named plaintiffs on the second amended complaint are:

     * Lane’s Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C.,
     * U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc.,
     * Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and
     * Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations

On March 30, 2005 the case was removed to United States District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas. On April 4, 2005 plaintiffs U.S. Citizens for
Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc. and Savings 4 Merchants, Inc. filed a motion of
voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The motion was granted on April 7, 2005.

Plaintiffs Lane’s Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C. and Max Caulfield d/b/a
Caulfield Investigations filed a motion to remand the case to state court on
April 13, 2005, which was granted in June 2005. In July 2005, defendants,
including the Company, petitioned the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for an
appeal of the remand order, and moved to stay the proceedings while the appeal
is pending. The petition was denied on September 8, 2005 and the case was
remanded to the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas.

The Company was served with discovery requests on October 7, 2005. The Company
has filed and/or joined motions to dismiss on the basis of failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, lack of personal jurisdiction, and
improper venue.

Pursuant to the court’s initial scheduling order, plaintiffs had until January
27, 2006 to respond to the motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and improper venue; and until June 9, 2006 to respond to the
motion to dismiss on the basis of failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. However the court entered an order staying all proceedings for
a period of 60 days on January 9, 2006.

                       Google Settlement

On March 8, 2006, the Court entered an order extending the stay until March
31, 2006. On April 1, 2006, the Court further extended the stay until April
20, 2006. On April 20, 2006 the Court preliminarily approved a class
settlement among plaintiffs, defendant Google, Inc., and certain defendants
who display Google advertisements on their networks.

The Google Settlement purports to release Google of all claims and also
purports to release certain defendants, including the Company, for any claims
associated with the display of Google advertisements on their networks. On
July 24 and 25, 2006, the Court had a final settlement hearing on the Google
Settlement, and on July 26, 2006, the Court approved the settlement.

                          Mediation

On April 21, 2006, the Court ordered the remaining defendants, including the
Company, to mediation and further stayed the proceedings to June 21, 2006. The
Court further extended the stay as to LookSmart until August 16, 2006. The
parties thereafter stipulated that the stay would remain in effect while the
parties continue to comply with the Court’s order regarding mediation.

On January 10, 2007, the Court further extended the stay until May 1, 2007.
Plaintiffs’ counsel has stipulated to extend the stay as to LookSmart. In
April 2007, the Plaintiffs and the Company came to an agreement in principle
to settle the matter in its entirety.

The precise terms of the agreement, including the amount and form of any
payments to the Class, have not yet been agreed to. Any eventual settlement
with plaintiffs will be subject to court approval.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Openwave Systems, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class action class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Between Feb. 21, and March 27, 2007, four substantially similar securities
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Openwave and four current and former officers of
the Company.

The complaints purport to be filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Openwave stock from Sept. 30, 2002 through Oct. 26, 2006, and allege
that during the Class Period, the defendants engaged in improper stock options
backdating and issued materially false and misleading statements in the
Company’s public filings and press releases regarding the manner in which
Openwave granted and accounted for the options.

Based on these allegations, the complaints assert two causes of action—one
against all defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and a second against the individual
defendants for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On April 25, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants filed a joint
motion to transfer the actions to the Northern District of California where
the related shareholder derivative class actions are pending.

On May 18, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating the four securities
class actions into a single action captioned, “In re: Openwave Systems
Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309 (DLC)),” and appointing lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.  

On June 14, 2007, the court entered an order denying the motion to transfer.

On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action
complaint. The consolidated and amended complaint adds 17 additional
defendants, including:

     * several current and former Openwave officers and
       directors,
     * KPMG LLP, and
     * Merrill Lynch,
     * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
     * Lehman Brothers Inc.,
     * J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and
     * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

The consolidated and amended complaint alleges claims for violation of
Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as
claims for violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 arising out of the Company’s 2005 public offering. The complaint seeks
money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company is
required under contracts with the individual defendants to indemnify them
under certain circumstances for attorneys’ fees and expenses.

On Aug. 10, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated and
amended class action complaint, according to the company's Aug. 29, 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: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File
07-1309 (DLC)),” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Denise L. Cote.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq.
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655
          E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com

               - and -

          Salvatore Jo Graziano, Esq.
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC)
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: (212) 554-1400
          Fax: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: SGraziano@blbglaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Garrett Jay Waltzer, Esq.
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
          525 University Avenue, Suite 1100
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Phone: (650) 470-4500
          Fax: (650) 470-4570
          E-mail: gwaltzer@skadden.com


PARKER ITR: Faces Fla. Antitrust Suit Over Marine Oil, Gas Hoses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker ITR, a subsidiary of Parker-Hannifin Corp. (Company), is a defendant in
one of several purported antitrust class actions in Florida and New York in
relation to its marine oil and gas hose business, according to the
Parker-Hannifin's Aug. 29, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

There are currently four class actions pending in the Southern District of
Florida and one in the Southern District of New York alleging that the
Company, Parker ITR and a number of other defendants engaged in violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The class action complaints allege that Parker ITR and the other defendants,
for a period of at least eight years, conspired with competitors in
unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain or
stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate markets and customers for marine oil
and gas hose in the United States.

In three cases, a summons has been issued for Parker ITR, but service has not
yet been effected.  The Company, which is only named in one case in the
Southern District of Florida, was served on July 13, 2007 and had filed its
answer denying the allegations.

Parker-Hannifin Corp. -- http://www.parker.com-- is a worldwide full-line
diversified manufacturer of motion control products, including fluid power
systems, electromechanical controls and related components.


RAYMOND JAMES: Former Employees File Gender Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three former employees of Raymond James Financial of St. Petersburg, Florida
filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
claiming the brokerage is “biased against women," particularly those older
than 40, the Times Wires reports.

The suit accuses the firm of denying the women promotions they earned, based
on their age, gender and, in one case, race.  The suit seeks class-action
status to represent other current and former female employees.

A Raymond James spokeswoman declined to comment because the company had not
seen the suit, the report said.

Raymond James -- http://www.raymondjames.com-- is a diversified financial
services holding company with subsidiaries engaged primarily in investment and
financial planning, in addition to investment banking and asset management.

Plaintiffs’ attorney:

          Linda Friedman Ramirez
          Linda Friedman Ramirez, Atty At Law  
          150 Second Avenue North Ste. 900
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Phone:  (727) 551-0751


RC2 CORP: Recalls Knights Toys Due to High Lead Content
-------------------------------------------------------
RC2 Corp., of Oak Brook, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 800 Britain’s “Knights of the
Sword” series toys.

The company said the surface paints on the toy knights contain excessive
levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have
been reported.

The three recalled silver knight toys are mounted on red horses sold
individually in see-through blister cards. “Britains” and “Knights of the
Sword” are printed on the top of the card in the packaging. The recalled toys
include a mounted silver knight on a red horse with an axe; a mounted silver
knight on a red horse with two hands on a raised weapon; and a mounted silver
knight on a red horse with a lance.

These recalled knights were manufactured in China and are being sold at
specialty toy stores nationwide from April 2004 through March 2006 for about $8.

Pictures of the recalled knights:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07310a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07310b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07310c.jpg

Consumers should take these recalled toys away from young children immediately
and contact RC2 to receive a full refund.

For additional information, contact RC2 toll-free at (866) 725-4407 between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm’s Web site:
http://recalls.rc2.com


RHODE ISLAND: Recalls Kids Necklaces Due to High Lead Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island Novelty, of Cumberland, Rhode Island, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 850 children’s
spinning wheel-metal necklaces.

The company said the clasp on the necklaces contain high levels of lead. Lead
is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves 30”-inch-long link necklaces with a spinning wheel
pendant. The wheel pendant, designed to resemble car’s spinning tire rim, has
rhinestones attached to the front, a silver base and measures 2 ¾-inches in
diameter. The item has a clear plastic hang tag with a UPC code of 0 97138
68502 5.

These recalled necklaces were manufactured in China and are being sold at
family entertainment centers, redemption centers, and small discount stores
nationwide and at www.rinovelty.com from November 2006 through May 2007 for
about $2.

Pictures of recalled necklaces:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07313a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07313b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled jewelry away from
children and return it to the store where purchased or to Rhode Island Novelty
for a free replacement jewelry item.

For additional information, contact Rhode Island Novelty at (800) 528-5599
between 8:30 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web
site: http://www.rinovelty.com


TICKETMASTER: Stay in UPS Delivery Fees Suit Partially Lifted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court, Los Angeles County allowed plaintiffs in a suit
challenging the company's charges to customers for UPS ticket delivery to file
a motion to certify the suit as a class action.

These two purported class actions, one pending in Illinois and the other in
California, are filed against the company:

     -- “Mitchell B. Zaveduk, et al. v. Ticketmaster, No. 02-CH-
        21148,” filed in Circuit Court, Cook County;

     -- “Curt Schlessinger et al. v. Ticketmaster, No.
        BC304565,” filed in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Both lawsuits allege in essence that Ticketmaster deceptively suggests on its
website that the fee it charges to customers wishing to have their tickets
delivered by UPS does not contain a profit component.

The California lawsuit also alleges that Ticketmaster’s website disclosures in
respect of its ticket order-processing fees constitute false advertising in
violation of California law.

In the Illinois case, on May 8, 2007, the court certified for interlocutory
appeal its order denying the plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

In the California case, on July 11, 2007, the court lifted its stay of the
action for the limited purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to go forward with
their motion for class certification.


TOPPS MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef Products on Contamination Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Topps Meat Company, LLC, an Elizabeth, N.J., establishment, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 331,582 pounds of frozen ground beef products because
they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody
diarrhea and dehydration. The very young, seniors and persons with compromised
immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

The products subject to recall include:

     -- 10-pound boxes of “BUTCHER’S BEST 100% ALL BEEF PATTIES
        75/25, 6 OZ. FLAT, 27 PIECES.” Each box bears a sell-by
        date of “JUL 23 08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “BUTCHER’S BEST 100% ALL BEEF PATTIES
        75/25, 4 OZ. (4-1), 40 PIECES.” Each box bears a sell-by
        date of “JUL 23 08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “KOHLER FOODS 4 OZ. FLAT HAMBURGER,
        CODE: 60100, 40 PCS.” Each box bears a sell-by date of
        “JUL 23 08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “KOHLER FOODS 6 OZ. FLAT HAMBURGER,
        CODE: 60200, 27 PCS.” Each box bears a sell-by date of
        “JUL 23 08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “KOHLER FOODS 8 OZ. FLAT HAMBURGER,
        CODE: 60300, 20 PCS.” Each box bears a sell-by date of
        “JUL 23 08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “SAND CASTLE FINE MEAT, 100% PREMIUM
        BEEF HAMBURGERS 80/20, 8 OZ. FLAT, 20 COUNT.” Each box
        bears a packed-on date of “JUN 22 07.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “SAND CASTLE FINE MEAT, 100% PREMIUM
        BEEF HAMBURGERS 85/15, 6 OZ. FLAT, 27 COUNT.” Each box
        bears a packed-on date of “JUN 22 07.”

     -- 2-pound boxes of “Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef
        Hamburgers, 8 Quarter Pounders.” Each box bears a sell-
        by date of “JUL 12 08.”

     -- 2-pound boxes of “Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef
        Hamburgers, 3 OZ., 10 COUNT.” Each box bears a sell-by
        date of “JUL 12 08.”

     -- 3-pound boxes of “Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef
        Hamburgers, 6 OZ. PUB Burgers.” Each box bears a sell-by
        date of “JUN 22 08.”

     -- 3-pound boxes of “Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef
        Hamburgers, 12 Quarter Pounders.” Each box bears a sell-
        by date of “JUN 22 08,” “JUL 12 08” or “JUL 23 08.”

     -- 3-pound boxes of “Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef
        Hamburgers, 16 Hamburgers.” Each box bears a sell-by
        date of “JUL 23 08.”

     -- 5-pound boxes of “Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef
        Hamburgers, 20 Quarter Pounders.” Each box bears a sell-
        by date of “JUN 22 08,” “JUL 12 08” or “JUL 23 08.”

     -- 8-pound boxes of “Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef
        Hamburgers, 32 Quarter Pounders.” Each box bears a sell-
        by date of “JUN 22 08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “Topps 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGERS 5 OZ.
        (1/2”).” Each box bears a sell-by date of “JUN 22 08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “Topps HAMBURGERS, 3.2 OZ, 50 COUNT.”
        Each box bears a sell-by date of “JUL 12 08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “Topps 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGERS, 8 OZ.
        (Pub Burger).” Each box bears a sell-by date of “JUL 23
        08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “Topps 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGERS, 4 OZ.
        (4-1) Homestyle.” Each box bears a sell-by date of “JUL
        23 08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “WESTSIDE, 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGER, 8
        OZ FLAT, 20 COUNT.” Each box bears a sell-by date of
        “JUN 22 08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “WESTSIDE, 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGER, 6
        OZ FLAT, 27 COUNT.” Each box bears a sell-by date of
        “JUN 22 08.”

     -- 10-pound boxes of “WESTSIDE, 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGER, 5
        OZ FLAT, 32 COUNT.” Each box bears a sell-by date of
        “JUN 22 08.”

Each package also bears the establishment number “Est. 9748” inside the USDA
mark of inspection.

The frozen ground beef products were produced on June 22, July 12 or July 23
and were distributed to food service institutions in the New York metropolitan
area and to retail establishments nationwide.

An investigation into a cluster of illnesses in the Northeast region carried
out by the New York State Department of Health in coordination with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention led to a positive product sample
collected by the New York Department of Health.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact company
Vice President of Finance and Administration Jeffrey Rohach at (908) 351-0500
ext. 50.


WELLMAN INC: Polyester Staple Fibers Suit Settlement Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
A court in California approved a settlement of a class action filed against
Wellman, Inc. by indirect purchasers of polyester staple fiber, according to
the company’s Aug. 9 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Indirect purchasers of polyester staple fiber products filed 41 purported
class actions alleging violations of federal antitrust laws, state antirust or
unfair competition laws and certain state consumer protection acts in one
federal court and various state courts.

Each lawsuit alleged a conspiracy to fix prices of polyester staple fiber
products. In addition, certain of the actions claim restitution, injunction
against alleged illegal conduct and other equitable relief. These cases were
filed in Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina South Dakota, Tennessee,
West Virginia and Wisconsin and sought damages of unspecified amounts,
attorneys’ fees and costs and other, unspecified relief.

All of these cases have been settled, and the respective courts have approved
the settlements. Except for the California settlement, these settlements are
now final and the Company has been dismissed from all but two of the settled
cases.

Of the final two, one is expected to be dismissed on the Company’s motion for
summary judgment while the other is awaiting execution by the court of a
stipulated dismissal order.

In California, the court has approved the settlement agreement. The company
expects that the court will enter the final approval order after it receives
further documentation regarding an issue that has no impact on the Company.

Wellman, Inc. -- http://www.wellmaninc.com/-- operates through two segments,
a chemical-based segment and a recycled-based segment. The Company’s
chemical-based segment is principally engaged in the manufacturing and
marketing of PermaClear polyethylene terephthalate (PET) packaging resin and
Fortrel polyester staple fiber.  Wellman manufactures these products at two
major production facilities in the U.S.  Its recycled-based segment is
principally engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of recycled-based
polyester staple fiber in Europe and Wellamid, and Wellamid Ecolon
recycled-based nylon engineering resin in the U.S. for use in the injection
molding industry.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


TARRAGON CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of Tarragon Corporation (Nasdaq: TARR)
from January 5, 2005 through August 9, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Tarragon and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tarragon is a homebuilder
and real estate developer with multiple business lines. 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 failed to consolidate a limited
         partnership into its consolidated financial statements;

     (2) that the Company had failed to properly report its
         consolidated statement of cash flows by misclassifying
         items among its operating, investing and financing
         activities;

     (3) that the Company had failed to timely take property
         impairment charges and other write-downs on certain
         properties;

     (4) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (5) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         statements were materially false and misleading at all
         relevant times;

     (6) that the Company was experiencing liquidity issues due
         to its inability to obtain loan modifications and
         financing;

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

     (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects for 2007 were lacking in a
         reasonable basis when made.

On August 9, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it reported that it was
unable to timely file its Quarterly Report because it needed additional time
"to finalize its evaluation of property impairment charges and other
write-downs necessitated by the recent decision to sell certain properties."

The Company also disclosed that it was unable to obtain loan modifications and
other financing, which had materially affected the Company's liquidity, and
raised doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Additionally,
the Company's Board of Directors had formed a special committee "to evaluate
strategic and financial alternatives that may be available to Tarragon and its
stakeholders," including "all available forms and sources of financing,
property sales and other strategic transactions." Finally, the Company stated
that it was postponing the spin-off off its homebuilding business, and that it
expected to record impairment charges in excess of $125 million. On this news,
the Company's shares declined $1.88, or over 66.6 percent, to close on August
9, 2007 at $0.91 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 13, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

          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  * * *