CAR_Public/071002.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, October 2, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 194

                            Headlines


CACI INT'L: Court Considers Summary Judgment Motion in “Saleh”
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal on TCE Suit Certification Dismissed
CARDTRONICS INC: Fairness Hearing Set for NFB’s ATM Access Suit
CERTAINTEED CORP: Dec. Hearing Set for $37M Antitrust Suit Deal
CINGULAR WIRELESS: Roadside Assistance Fee Lawsuit Remanded

COMMUNITY COUNSELING: Faces Suit Over Alleged CROA Violations
DELAWARE: “Jackson” Trial on Hold; High Court to Review Case
DIAGEO PLC: Continues to Face Suits Over Alcohol Advertising
GENERAL MOTORS: Workers Sue in Mich. Over Health Care Benefits
GLOBAL HORIZONS: Ordered to Pay $317T in Hispanic Workers’ Suit

HOME DEPOT: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ga. Securities Suits
I.E. DUPONT: Closing Arguments Heard in Spelter, W.Va. Suit
IMMUCOR INC: $2.5M Securities Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay
INDEPENDENCE ONE: Oct. 9 Hearing Set for Mortgage Loans Lawsuit
INSURANCE BROKERAGE: Antitrust Suit Against Insurers Dismissed

LAN ENTERPRISES: Recalls Doll Strollers to Repair Metal Clip
MEDQUIST INC: N.J. Court Okays $7.8M Securities Suit Settlement
MEDQUEST INC: N.J. “Myers” Labor Lawsuit Discovery Continues
PETSMART INC: Still Faces Several Suits Over Tainted Animal Food
PETSMART INC: Continues to Face Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.

PHILIPPINES: Reporters' Suit Against First Gentleman on Hold
PMA CAPITAL: Settles Pa. Consolidated Securities Suit for $15M
REFCO INC: Lawsuit Against Thomas H. Lee Partners Dismissed
REMEC INC: Nov. 2 Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
SARA LEE: Ill. Court Considers Appeal on Securities Suit Nixing

STILLWATER MINING: Dec. 17 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
TOBY NYC: Expands Recall of Jewelry with High Lead Content
TXU CORP: Dismissal of Tex. Securities Lawsuit Under Appeal
VICORP RESTAURANTS: Calif. Labor Suit Settlement Widely Accepted

* Conference Board of Canada Hosts Suit Risk Management Forum


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LJ INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
W HOLDING: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in P.R.


                            *********


CACI INT'L: Court Considers Summary Judgment Motion in “Saleh”
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to rule on a
motion by CACI International, Inc. for summary judgment in the matter “Saleh,
et al. v. Titan Corp., et al, Case No. 05 CV 1165 (D.D.C.),” which alleges a
conspiracy to increase demand for interrogation services in Iraq.

Plaintiffs filed the twenty-six count class-action complaint on June 9, 2004,
originally on behalf of seven named Plaintiffs and a class of similarly
situated Plaintiffs, against a number of corporate Defendants and individual
corporate employees.

The complaint, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, named as defendants:

     * CACI International Inc.,
     * CACI, Inc.-Federal, and
     * CACI N.V.
     * Stephen A. Stefanowicz employee of CACI Premier
       Technology, Inc.

Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that Defendants formed a conspiracy to
increase demand for interrogation services in Iraq and violated U.S. domestic
and international law.

They are seeking, inter alia, declaratory relief, a permanent injunction
against contracting with the government, compensatory damages, treble damages
and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint several times and the action
was ultimately transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

In March 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint:

     * adding several new counts;
     * adding CACI Premier Technology, Inc. as a Defendant;
     * dropping CACI, N.V. as a Defendant; and
     * adding two former CACI Premier Technology employees,
       Timothy Dugan and Daniel Johnson, as Defendants.

On June 29, 2006, the Court entered an Order granting the Defendants’ motions
to dismiss with respect to numerous claims, and granting the motions of the
three individual Defendants to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  

The Court then invited the corporate Defendants to file summary judgment
motions.  Finally, the Court consolidated the Saleh with the matter, “Ibrahim,
et al. v. Titan Corp. et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-01248-JR (D.D.C. 2004),” for
discovery purposes only.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the CACI Defendants filed a summary judgment motion.
Plaintiffs thereafter engaged in document and deposition discovery for
purposes of opposing CACI’s summary judgment motion.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a memorandum in opposition to CACI’s summary
judgment motion, and in August 2007, CACI filed a reply memorandum in support
of its summary judgment motion, which is still pending, according to the
company's Aug. 28, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “Al Rawi et al v. Titan Corp. et al., Case No.  1:05-cv-01165-JR,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge
James Robertson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Susan L. Burke, Esq.
         BURKE O'NEIL LLC
         4112 Station Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19127
         Phone: (215) 487-6590
         Fax: (215) 482-0874
         E-mail: sburke@burkepyle.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph William Koegel, Jr., Esq.
         STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P.
         1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: (202) 429-6408
         Fax: (202) 429-3902
         E-mail: wkoegel@steptoe.com

         Ari Shlomo Zymelman, Esq.
         WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
         725 12th Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 434-5000
         Fax: 202-434-5423
         E-mail: azymelman@wc.com

              - and -

         Henry Eric Hockeimer, Jr., Esq.
         Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP
         1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
         Phone: (215) 864-8204
         Fax: (215) 864-9078
         E-mail: hockeimerh@ballardspahr.com


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal on TCE Suit Certification Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld a class certification of a suit filed
against Canadian Pacific Railway by residents of Calgary who are accusing the
company of polluting ground water beneath their homes.

To see the court ruling: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?23df

The Honourable Mr. Justice J.D. Rooker has certified the case as a class
action.  Canadian Pacific appealed an order contending that the judge made
three errors in his interpretation and application of section 5 of the Class
Proceedings Act.

In particular, Canadian Pacific says: (a) the judge erred in finding that
there was a class per sub-section 5(1)(b) Issue l); (b) there was insufficient
evidence for the judge to certify the class (Issue 2); (c) the judge
misinterpreted sub-section 8(a) by extending its protection to causation
(Issue 3(a)); and (d) the judge erred in his application of sub-section
5(2)(a) Issue 3(b)).  

The case was filed by David Windsor and Agnes Windsor.  The respondents
brought an action for dimunition in property values and losses of rental
income allegedly caused by the presence of Trichloroethylene (TCE) in the
groundwater flowing underneath a portion of the community of Ogden in
southeast Calgary, Alberta.   TCE is a known cancer-causing agent.

The appellant owns and operates a locomotive shop knows as the Ogden Shops,
located next to the Ogden community. A decreasing solvent consisting mostly of
TCE was used in the Ogden shops from the mid-1950's to the mid-1980's.

In 1999, the Appellant discovered that TCE had leaked into the groundwater
that flowed underneath the Ogden shops and, as the Appellant acknowledges,
"certainly migrated into the groundwater under potions of the community of
Ogden."

The respondents' class action and Notice of Motion for certification were
filed on Jan. 6, 2005 on behalf of all person or corporations that own or did
own land on or after Jan. 7, 2003, within the affected area of Ogden, in the
City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta. Their Action is based on
negligence, nuisance, trespass and strict liability.

Premised on the contention that the escaped TCE polluted lands owned by the
class members and posed a significant health risk to people, the respondents
claim that the Appellant is liable to them for resulting damage to their
property and corresponding reduction in property values and loss of rental income.

The proposed class consisted of:

“all persons or corporations that own or did own land on or after Jan. 7,
2003, within the affected area of Ogden, in the city of Calgary, in the
Province of Alberta, described as within the boundaries of 72nd Avenue SE (as
the north boundary of the area), to the CPR's property line adjacent to Ogden
Road SE (as the east boundary of the area), to 76 Avenue SE (as the south
boundary), to 20th Street SE going north to the base of what is known as
Lynwood Ridge SE (as the west boundary - 20th Street SE to 74 Avenue SE to 72
Avenue SE)."

The residents are claiming several million dollars for diminution in property
values.

The suit is “Windsor v. Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd., 2007 ABCA 294.”

For more information, contact:

          Docken & Company
          900, 800 - 6th Avenue S.W.
          Calgary, Alberta, T2P 3G3
          Telephone: (403) 269-3612
          Toll Free: (877) 269-3612
          Website: http://www.docken.com


CARDTRONICS INC: Fairness Hearing Set for NFB’s ATM Access Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will hold a fairness
hearing on Dec. 4, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. for a proposed settlement in the matter,
"Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. E*Trade Access, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-11206-MEL."

The hearing will be held before Judge Morris E. Lasker in the U.S. Courthouse,
One Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210.

Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before Oct. 31, 2007.
Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on Jan. 17, 2008.

                        Case Background

In connection with Cardtronics, Inc.'s acquisition of the E*TRADE Access, Inc.
(ETA) ATM portfolio, the company assumed ETA's interests and liability for a
lawsuit instituted by:

     -- the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), the NFB's
        Massachusetts chapter, and

     -- several individual blind persons, as well as

     -- the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

with respect to claims relating to the alleged inaccessibility of ATMs for
those persons who are visually-impaired.  

After the acquisition of the ETA ATM portfolio, the Private Plaintiffs named
Cardtronics as a co-defendant with ETA and ETA's parent, E*Trade Bank, and the
scope of the lawsuit has expanded to include both ETA's ATMs as well as the
company's pre-existing ATM portfolio.

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs have sought to require ETA and Cardtronics to
make all of the ATMs "voice-enabled," or capable of providing audible
instructions to a visually impaired person upon that person inserting a
headset plug into an outlet at the ATM.  

The court has ruled twice, in February 2005 and February 2006 that the NFB is
not entitled to a "voice-enabled" remedy.

Nonetheless, in response to an order to describe the relief they seek, the
Private Plaintiffs have subsequently stated that they demand either:

      -- voice-guidance technology on each ATM;

      -- "Braille" instructions on each ATM that allow
         individuals who are blind to understand every screen
         (which, the company assumes, may imply a dynamic
         Braille pad); or

      -- a telephone on each ATM so the user could speak with a
         remote operator who can either see the screen on the
         ATM or can enter information for the user.

Cardtronics has asserted numerous defenses to the lawsuit.  One defense is
that, for ATMs owned by third parties, the company arguably does not have the
right to make changes to the ATMs without the consent of the third parties.  

Another defense is that the Americans with Disabilities Act arguably do not
require the company to make changes to ATMs if the changes are not feasible or
achievable, or if the costs outweigh the benefits.

The costs of retrofitting or replacing existing ATMs with voice technology,
dynamic Braille keypads, or telephones and interactive data lines would be
significant.  

Additionally, in situations in which third parties own the ATMs and
Cardtronics provides processing services, the costs are extremely
disproportionate to the company's interests in the ATMs.

Cardtronics has also challenged the plaintiffs' standing to file this lawsuit.  

In response to the company's challenge, the plaintiffs have requested the
court's permission to:

      -- amend their complaint to name additional individual
         plaintiffs; and

      -- certify the lawsuit as a class action under the Federal
         Rules of Civil Procedure.

Cardtronics has objected to the motion, on the grounds that the plaintiffs who
initially filed the lawsuit lacked standing and amending the complaint cannot
cure this deficiency.

Hearings on both the standing issue and Cardtronics' motion for summary
judgment are scheduled to occur during the second quarter of 2007.

                       Settlement Terms

Cardtronics has agreed to settle the case by, among other things, ensuring
that most ATMs it wons will offer voice guidance through a standard headphone
jack located on the face of an ATM by no later than Dec. 31, 2007.

The company will also sell or otherwise make available to merchants or other
third parties who won ATMs currently serviced by Cardtronics ATMs that are
voice-guided and provide audible instructions to ATM patrons through a
standard headphone jack located on the face of the ATM.

Finally, the company has committed that by July 1, 2010 at least 90% of all
transactions at ATMs shall occur on ATMs that are voice-guided or otherwise
accessible to blind people.

In addition, Cardtronics has agreed to make a contribution of $100,000 to the
Massachusetts Attorney General's local consumer aid fund of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and subject to court approval, to pay the amount of $900,000
in attorneys' fees to attorneys representing the class.

For more details, contact:

         Patricia Correa
         Attorney General's Office
         One Ashburton Place, Room 2019
         Boston, MA 02108-1698
         Phone: 617-727-2200 ext. 2919
         Fax: 617-727-5762
         E-mail: patty.correa@ago.state.ma.us

         Daniel F. Goldstein, Esq.
         Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP
         120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: (410) 962-1030
         Fax: (410) 385-0869
         E-mail: dfg@browngold.com

              - and -

         Douglas P. Lobel, Esq.
         Cooley Godward Kronish LLP
         One Freedom Square, Reston Town Ctr.
         11951 Freedom Dr. Reston, VA 20190
         Phone: (703) 456-8019
         Fax: (703) 456-8100
         E-mail: dlobel@cooley.com


CERTAINTEED CORP: Dec. Hearing Set for $37M Antitrust Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia will hold a
fairness hearing on Dec. 7, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the combined $37.25 million
settlement by:

     * CertainTeed Corp.,
     * Guardian Fiberglass, Inc.,
     * Guardian Building Products Distribution, Inc.,
     * Johns Manville, and
     * Knauf Insulations GmbH

in the matter, “Columbus Drywall & Insul., Inc. v. Masco Corp., Case No.
1:04-CV-3066.”

The hearing will be held at U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Richard Russell Federal Building and Courthouse, 75 Spring St., S.W.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

Exclusions deadline was Sept. 28, 2007.  Deadline for submission of a claim
form is on Oct. 23, 2007.

                        Case Background

In general, the lawsuit claims that Masco Corp. and certain affiliates and at
least five manufacturers or distributors conspired to violate the federal
antitrust laws by agreeing to impose and maintain a “spread” between the
prices that Masco pays for fiberglass insulation and the prices paid by
residential insulation contractors.  It seeks damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court deems proper.

Recently, defendants CertainTeed Corp., Guardian Fiberglass, Inc., Guardian
Building Products Distribution, Inc., Johns Manville and Knauf Insulation have
agreed to settle the lawsuit, which will now essentially continue against
Masco Corp.

The suit and the proposed settlement covers anyone who were identified from
available records as a residential insulation contractor that purchased
fiberglass insulation directly from
CertainTeed, Guardian Fiberglass, Inc., Guardian Building Products
Distribution, Inc. (including its predecessors and/or affiliates Cameron
Ashley Building Products, Inc., Builder Marts of America, Inc. and Ashley
Aluminum, LLC), Johns Manville, Knauf Insulation GmbH or Owens Corning between
Jan. 1, 1999 and Dec. 31, 2004.

                        Settlement Terms

The combined $37.25 million settlement provides that CertainTeed will pay
$22.5 million, Guardian will pay $4.5 million, Johns Manville will pay $8
million and Knauf will pay $ 2.25 million into an interest bearing account
called the “Settlement Fund.”

The following costs will be paid out of the Settlement Fund:
       
       -- The costs of giving notice of the Settlements to
          Settlement Class Members and to administer a claims
          process.

       -- Any taxes due on interest earned by the Settlement
          Fund, as well as expenses related to tax filings.

       -- Incentive payments to the Settlement Class
          Representatives and attorneys' fees and expenses of
          the lawyers for the Settlement Class in amounts
          approved by the Court.

The remainder of the monies, upon Court approval, will be distributed to
Settlement Class Members that file valid claims.

For more details, contact:

           Columbus Drywall Partial Settlement
           c/o Rust Consulting Inc.
           P.O. Box 1274
           Minneapolis, MN 55440-1274
           Phone: 1-866-478-3381 or 1-866-411-6976
           Web site: http://www.insulationclass.com/

           Craig G. Harley, Esq.
           Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
           2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
           Atlanta, GA 30309
           Phone: (404) 873-3900 or (888) 873-3999
           Fax: (404) 876-4476
           Web site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com

           Frank M. Lowrey IV, Esq.
           Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, LLP
           3900 One Atlantic Ctr., 1201 West Peachtree St., N.W.
           Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
           Phone: (404) 881-4118
           Fax: (404) 881-4111
           Web site: http://www.bmelaw.com

                - and -

           Jeffrey L. Berhold, Esq.
           Jeffrey L. Berhold, P.C.
           Promenade II, Suite 1050, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
           Atlanta, GA 30309
           Phone: 404-872-3800


CINGULAR WIRELESS: Roadside Assistance Fee Lawsuit Remanded
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris of West Virginia Record reports that U.S. District Judge John
Copenhaver remanded a proposed class action over the roadside assistance fee
of AT&T Mobility (formerly Cingular Wireless LLC) to Kanawha Circuit Court on
Sept. 26.

Cingular Wireless faced a purported class action in West Virginia's Kanawha
Circuit Court that was filed by dissatisfied customers over a $2.99-per-month
fee that they say they never agreed to (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 25, 2006).

The suit was filed by James Strawn and James Staton on Sept. 12, 2006.  They
sought to represent a class of all West Virginians who were charged without
enrolling.  The case was assigned to Judge James Stucky.  

According to the suits, the benefits of the disputed fee include a towing
service, battery service, flat tire assistance, fuel delivery service, lockout
assistance and key replacement. However, the suit contends that plaintiffs and
class members were not given an option.  Instead, the roadside assistance was
part of a bundled transaction, whereby the plaintiff and class members had to
catch the roadside assistance charge and opt out of it.   

In failing to do so, according to the suit, the company automatically enrolled
them for the roadside assistance service and imposed a $2.99 monthly charge.
Specifically, the complaint charges the company with violating the West
Virginia Credit and Consumer Protection Act.  

Cingular removed the suit to U.S. district court last November, citing the
Class Action Fairness Act.  The suit was remanded when the plaintiffs could
not provide the data as to how many were enrolled in the assistance program.  

Jeffrey Wakefield of Charleston argued that the class would include up to
62,000 customers with potential claims up to $200 each, making the case worth
a total of $12,400,000, far above the $5,000 threshold required for a removal.
But Judge Copenhaver did not get proof as to how many actually enrolled in
the program.

He wrote, "Cingular admits it has no way of knowing whether the fee was
authorized" and that out of 58,800 West Virginians that Cingular billed, some
actually asked for it.  

He wrote, "Plaintiffs' putative class is obviously much narrower."

For more details, contact:

          Tim J. Yianne, Esq.
          Harry Bell Jr., Esq.
          Bell and Bands
          30 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1723
          Charleston, West Virginia 25326  
          Phone: (304) 345-1700 and (800) 342-1701
          Fax: (304) 345-1715  
          Web site: http://www.belllaw.com  


COMMUNITY COUNSELING: Faces Suit Over Alleged CROA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Community Counseling Credit Corp. is facing a class over allegations it asks
clients to pay exorbitant up-front and monthly fees for debt management plans
that it does not deliver, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a consumer class action brought for Defendant’s violations of the
Credit Repair Organizations Act and the Pennsylvania Credit Services Act.  The
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on Sept. 26.

Named plaintiffs Frank and Carla Russo say the company also falsely claims to
be a nonprofit organization, and makes bogus clams on its advertisements on
the Web site debtfreefast.org and other sites.  It also allegedly takes
“exorbitant” up-front and monthly fees.

As a result of Defendant’s actions and inaction, members of the class are
allegedly worse off financially than they were before dealing with the
Defendant, and many find that the credit ratings they were trying to improve
actually have worsened.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons in the United States of
America who, during the five years prior to the filing of this action, signed
one of Defendants’ contracts.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Defendant violated the CROA by charging or
         receiving payment for services from a consumer before
         fully performing such services;

     (b) whether Defendant’s standard retainer agreement
         violated the disclosure provisions of the CROA;

     (c) whether Defendant’s standard retainer agreement
         violated the disclosure provisions of the Pennsylvania
         CSA.

     (d) whether Defendant made false and misleading statements
         to the credit reporting agencies, Plaintiffs and the
         Class members.

Plaintiffs respectfully pray that relief be granted as follows:

     -- That an order be entered certifying the proposed Class
        under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
        and appointing Plaintiffs and their counsel to represent
        the Class;

     -- That an order be entered declaring that Defendant’s
        actions as described above are in violation of the CROA
        and the CSA and that the contracts shall be treated as
        void and may not be enforced by any court or any other
        person, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1679f(c);

     -- That an order be entered enjoining Defendant from
        continuing to charge and receive amounts for services
        that have not been fully performed and from entering
        into contracts with Plaintiffs and members of the Class
        in violation of the CROA and the CSA;

     -- That judgment be entered against Defendant for actual
        damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1679g(a)(1), 73
        P.S. Section 2191 and 73 P.S. Section 201-9.2(a);

     -- That judgment be entered against Defendant for punitive
        damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1679g(a)(2) and 73
        P.S. Section 2191, and for treble damages, pursuant to
        73 P.S. Section 201-9.2(a);

     -- That the Court award costs and reasonable attorney's
        fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1679g(a)(3), 73 P.S.
        Section 2191 and 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a); and

     -- That the Court grant such other and further relief as
        may be just and proper.

The suit is “Frank a. Caruso et al. V. Community Counseling Credit
Corporation,” filed in United States District Court Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          James A. Francis
          Mark D. Mailman
          John Soumilas
          Michael J. Szymborski
          Francis & Mailman, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Phone: (215) 735-8600

and –

          David A. Searles
          Donovan Searles, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 732-6067


DELAWARE: “Jackson” Trial on Hold; High Court to Review Case
------------------------------------------------------------
A September trial in a suit challenging Delaware's system of capital
punishment has been put on hold pending a U.S. Supreme Court review of the
case, The News Journal reports.

The Supreme Court will consider whether the state’s lethal injection
punishment violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The suit was filed in May 2006, less than two weeks before a scheduled
execution of Robert W. Jackson, who was convicted and sentenced to death for
the 1992 ax murder of 47-year-old Elizabeth Girardi during a burglary of her
Hockessin home.

Mr. Jackson's lawsuit questions the chemicals used in lethal injections --
supposed to be nearly instantaneous -- and the training of people who carry
them out (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006).

Specifically, the suit questions whether lethal injection is truly quick and a
humane way to die.  It alleges that some prisoners actually die a slow,
lingering death by suffocation.

The suit has placed an indefinite and unofficial hold on state's death
penalty, including his May 19 execution.

In February, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted
class-action status to the suit (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006).

In an eight-page opinion, Judge Sue L. Robinson basically included all state
inmates facing the death penalty into a suit, which charges that lethal
injection is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.

The suit is "Jackson v. Taylor et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00300-
SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under
Judge Sue L. Robinson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael Wiseman, Esq.
          Eastern District of Pennsylvania,  
          Capital Habeas Unit, Federal Court Division
          Defender Association of Philadelphia
          Curtis Center, Suite 545 West, 601  
          Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, U.S.
          Phone: (215) 928-0520
          Fax: (215) 928-0825
          E-mail: Michael_Wiseman@fd.org  

Representing the defendants is:

           Loren C. Meyers, Esq.
           Department of Justice, State of Delaware
         820 N. French Street, 8th Floor  
         Carvel Office Building, Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302) 577-8500
         E-mail: loren.meyers@state.de.us


DIAGEO PLC: Continues to Face Suits Over Alcohol Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Diageo plc still faces consumer fraud lawsuits over alcohol advertising that
allegedly targeted people under the legal drinking age, according to the
company's Sept. 17, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2007.

A number of similar putative class actions are pending in state and federal
courts in the U.S. against Diageo plc, Diageo North America, Inc., and other
Diageo entities, along with a large group of other beverage alcohol
manufacturers, brewers and importers.  All have been brought by the same
national counsel.

In each action, the plaintiffs seek to pursue their claims on behalf of
parents and guardians of people under the legal drinking age who illegally
bought alcohol beverages during the period from 1982 to the present.

Plaintiffs allege several causes of action, principally for negligence, unjust
enrichment and violation of state consumer fraud statutes.

Some complaints include additional claims based on conspiracy, nuisance and
other legal theories.

Diageo plc -- http://www.diageo.com/-- is engaged in the drinks business with
a collection of international brands.  Diageo is a participant in the branded
beverage alcohol industry and operates on an international scale.  The Company
produces and distributes a collection of branded premium spirits, beer and wine.  


GENERAL MOTORS: Workers Sue in Mich. Over Health Care Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Sept. 26 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan accusing it of
unilaterally reducing or terminating health care benefits for more than
500,000 beneficiaries, spouses, dependents and retirees, in violation of a
collective-bargaining agreement, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The International Union (of) United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America sued on behalf of members who work or worked for
GM and its affiliates, including Delphi auto parts.

Class representatives bring this action on behalf of a class of all persons
who as of Sept. 14, 2007 were either:

     (a) former GM/UAW hourly employees who retired from GM with
         eligibility to participate on the Original, Current,
         Modified, or Catastrophic Plan (as those terms are used  
         in the Dec. 16, 2005 Settlement Agreement appended
         hereto); or

     (b) retirees from Delphi Corp. who were represented by the
         UAW during their employment and who are entitled to
         retiree medical benefits from GM pursuant to the UAW-
         GM-Delphi restructuring agreement; or

     (c) retirees of any other closed or divested GM business
         unit who were represented by the UAW during their
         employment and who are entitled to receive retiree
         medical benefits from GM by virtue of that retirement;
         or

     (d) spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of the
         retirees described, where those spouses, surviving
         spouses and dependdents are entitled to receive retiree
         medical benefits from GM; or

     (e) surviving spouses who are entitled to receive retiree
         medical benefits from GM as a consequence of the death
         of an employee of GM, Delphi, or a closed or divested
         GM-UAW business unit, who died prior to retirement
         while still an employee with seniority.

Plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- certify this action as a class action, appoint
        plaintiffs Henry, Lauria, Bailey, Genco, Marlow, Miller,
        Soriano and Huber as class representatives, and appoint
        Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC, as counsel for the
        class;

     -- declare that the retiree health care benefits set forth
        in the applicable collective bargaining agreements
        between GM and UAW, and in the employee welfare benefit
        plan may not be unilaterally terminated or modified by
        GM;

     -- permanently enjoin GM from terminating or modifying the
        benefits the company is required to provide to the class
        representatives and the class under the terms of the
        applicable collective bargaining agreements and the
        employee welfare benefit plan;

     -- award the class representatives and class members such
        benefits, pursuant to the terms of the collective
        bargaining agreements and the employee welfare benefit
        plan, and/or monetary damages, as necessary to restore
        them to the position in which they would have been but
        for GM's contractual and statutory violations;

     -- award plaintiffs their reasonable attorney's fees and
        costs incurred in this action; and

     -- grant such further relief as may be deemed necessary and
        proper.

The suit is "UAW et al. v. Generala Motors Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-14074,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, under
Judge Arthur J. Tarnow, with referral to Judge Donald A. Scheer.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Julia Penny Clark
          Charlotte Garden
          Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC
          805 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 842-2600
          E-mail: jpclark@bredhoff.com or cgarden@bredhoff.com

          William T. Payne
          Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC
          Pittsburgh North Office 1007 Mt. Royal Boulevard
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 492-8797

          John Stember
          Eward D. Feinstein
          Pamina Ewing
          Stephen M. Pincus
          Stephen Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC
          1705 Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 338-1445

          - and -

          Daniel W. Sherrick
          Michael F. SaAggau
          8000 East Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48214
          Phone: (313) 926-5216


GLOBAL HORIZONS: Ordered to Pay $317T in Hispanic Workers’ Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles-based Global Horizons Inc. was ordered to pay $317,000 in damages
for discriminating against workers and violating federal labor laws, the
Associated Press Alert reports.

The award includes $17,000 in compensatory damages to three farm workers and
$300,000 in punitive damages to hundreds of workers.

The lawsuit was filed in 2005 by three local Hispanic workers who allege they
were denied employment in 2004 at two Lower Valley (Wash.) farms.

Plaintiffs in the suit allege that growers and their farm-labor contractor
intentionally displaced them with foreign workers from Thailand.  Hiring of
foreign farm workers are allowed under the federal H-2A program only if an
employer can prove a shortage of local workers.

The case was originally assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Leavitt who
granted class-action status to the suit.  Judge Leavitt died in June of
complications from lymphoma, and the case went to U.S. District Judge Alan
McDonald, who issued a partial summary judgment for the workers in July. Judge
McDonald died in August after battling a series of health problems.

The case is now before U.S. District Court Judge Robert Whaley.  It has been
divided into two phases with Global facing a jury trial and two growers who
are defendants in the suit being tried before Judge Whaley.  The recent
decision does not involve area growers Green Acre Farms of Harrah and Valley
Fruit Orchard of Wapato.  The growers had used workers supplied by the
contractor. Any liability for them will be determined in a separate hearing.


The class has been estimated at between 200 and 600 workers.  Columbia Legal
Services (http://www.columbialegal.org/)is the lead counsel for the
plaintiffs.  Lori Isley of Columbia Legal Services represented the farm workers.

One of the lawyers for the workers is:

          Richard W. Kuhling, Esq.  
          Paine Hamblen LLP
          717 West Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200
          Spokane, Washington 99201-3505
          (Spokane Co.)
          Phone: 509-455-6000
          Fax: 509-838-0007

Representing Green Acre Farms and Valley Fruit is

          Ryan M. Edgley, Esq.
          Edgley & Beattie, P.S.   
          201 East "D" Street
          Yakima, WA 98901
          Phone: (509) 248-1740
          Fax: (509) 248-1573


HOME DEPOT: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ga. Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in several class actions filed against Home Depot, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia are appealing the
dismissal of the matter.

In the second fiscal quarter of 2006, the company reported that six purported,
but as yet uncertified, class actions were filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta.

The suit alleges certain misrepresentations in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in
connection with the company's return-to-vendor practices.  

On July 18, 2007, the Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss without
leave to amend and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants.  

On Aug. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, according to the
company's Sept. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2007.

The first identified complaint is "John Mizzaro, et al. v. Home Depot, Inc.,
et al. Case No. 06-CV-01151," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge J. Owen Forrester.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:  

         Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
  
         Charles T. Caliendo, Esq.
         Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
         Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
         45 Rockerfeller Center, 15th Floor, 630 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10111
         Phone: 646-722-8500
         E-mail: ccaliendo@gelaw.com
                 jeisenhofer@gelaw.com

              - and -

         Alan R. Perry, Jr., Esq.
         Page Perry, LLC
         Suite 1050, 1040 Crown Pointe Parkway
         Atlanta, GA 30338
         Phone: 770-673-0047
         Fax: aperry@pageperry.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael R. Smith, Esq.
         King & Spalding
         191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
         Phone: 404-572-4600
         E-mail: mrsmith@kslaw.com


I.E. DUPONT: Closing Arguments Heard in Spelter, W.Va. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
An 11-member jury heard closing arguments last week in a class action filed
against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. and New York-based T.L. Diamond and
Co., among others, over pollution at Harrison County, The Associated Press
reports.

In 2004, 10 property owners from the town of Spelter filed a negligence suit
against the companies for dumping arsenic, cadmium and lead on a 112-acre site
of a former zinc-smelting plant.  Dupont bought the property in 1899.  It
reassumed ownership of the zinc smelting plant when it was shut down by
authorities in 2001 due to health concerns.

During opening arguments, DuPont lawyers portrayed the company as a good
corporate neighbor, according to Associated Press.  DuPont and Diamond deny
wrongdoing.  During closing arguments, an attorney for the plaintiffs argued
that DuPont should be required not only to clean up the mess but also to
monitor the health of the people living around it, according to The Associated
Press.

Dupont's attorneys denied the company deliberately created the waste site
saying there is no evidence to support that claim.  They also said Dupont
capped the site so it might someday be redeveloped.  They also insisted that
Dupont kept up its responsibility of cleaning up the site.  DuPont lawyer Dave
Thomas said even now DuPont does quarterly testing of the West Fork River,
where runoff from the waste piles once went.  Defense attorney Jeffrey A. Hall
also argued for the company.

The jury is to decide whether the companies have committed wrongdoing.  If it
found out that they did, it will next determine whether the plaintiffs deserve
medical screenings. A third phase would address property damages.  Finally,
the jury would address whether punitive damages should be awarded.

The lawsuit demands long-term medical monitoring, property damages and
punitive damages.

Defendants are:

     -- Dupont;

     -- T.L. Diamond & Co. in New York and plant manager Joe
        Puashel;

     -- Nuzum Trucking Co. of Shinnston; and
        two defunct companies:
     
        * Matthiesen & Hegeler Zinc Co. Inc. of Illinois, and
        * Meadowbrook Corp. of West Virginia.

DuPont has set aside $15 million to deal with the lawsuit, according to an
Aug. 1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Mike Papantonio, Esq.
          Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner &
          Proctor, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, Florida 32502-5996
          (Escambia Co.)

          P.O. Box 12308, Pensacola, FL, 32591
          Phone: 850-435-7000; 888-435-7001
          Fax: 850-435-7020


IMMUCOR INC: $2.5M Securities Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted
final approval to a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers.

Under the settlement, which was previously reported, the company's insurance
carrier agreed to pay $2.5 million to the plaintiff class in consideration of
an unconditional release of all claims against the company and the individual
defendants. The company's only costs were certain legal defense expenses,
which have been expensed as incurred.

Between Aug. 31 and Oct. 19, 2005, a series of 10 class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the
company and certain of its current and former directors and officers alleging
violations of the securities laws.

The court has consolidated these cases for disposition as, "In re Immucor,
Inc. Securities Litigation, File No. 1:05-CV-2276-WSD," designated lead
plaintiffs, permitted the filing of an amended consolidated complaint, and
established a schedule for briefing the company's motion to dismiss the claims.

The consolidated complaint, brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased the company's stock between Aug. 16, 2004 and Aug.
29, 2005, alleges that company stock prices during that period were inflated
as a result of material misrepresentations or omissions in the company's
financial statements and other public announcements regarding its business.

The suit is "In re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No.
1:05-CV-2276-WSD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Georgia under Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq.
          Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476
          E-mail: mdc@classlaw.com

          Michael Ira Fistel, Jr.Esq.
          Holzer & Holzer, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 770-392-0090
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com

          - and -

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Landskroner Grieco
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-522-9000
          E-mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Emmet J. Bondurant, II, Esq.
          Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Esq.
          Bondurant Mixson & Elmore
          1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
          3900 One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
          Phone: 404-881-4126 and 404-881-4100
          E-mail: bondurant@bmelaw.com and bramlett@bmelaw.com


INDEPENDENCE ONE: Oct. 9 Hearing Set for Mortgage Loans Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois will hold a
fairness hearing on Oct. 9, 2007 at 10:15 a.m. for the proposed settlement in
the matter, “Fournigault v. Independence One Mortgage Corp. (IOMC), a/k/a
Bradford, et al. v. Independence One Mortgage Corp., Case No. 1:94-cv-01742.”

The hearing will be held before James B. Zagel in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Dirksen Federal Building, 219 South
Dearborn St., Courtroom No. 2503, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Exclusions deadline was set Sept. 28, 2007.  Deadline for the submission of a
claim form is on Oct. 23, 2007.

                        Case Background

In general, the lawsuit claims that when servicing mortgage loans, IOMC
required its mortgagors to pay into escrow accounts for real estate taxes,
insurance and other items, in excess of the amounts allowed by the terms of
the mortgage contracts.  It claims that this violated the law.

The suit and eventual settlement covers anyone:

       -- who had a mortgage serviced or subserviced by IOMC,
          and

       -- who had a mortgage escrow account for payment of
          property taxes and insurance at any time between Aug.
          19, 1978 through Sept. 30, 1994.

                        Settlement Terms

Under the settlement, a class member who submits a properly completed claim
form shall be entitled to a cash payment of $30 from IOMC.  Only class members
who submit a claim form shall be entitled to receive the $30 payment from IOMC.

For more details, contact:

          IOMC Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 1901
          Faribault, MN 55021-7156
          Phone: 1-888-568-7650
          Web site: http://iomcsettlement.com

          Dennis Tighe Trainor, Esq.
          Barrett & Associates
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 269-0600
          E-mail: barrettecf@aol.com

               - and -

          Barry G. Reed, Esq.
          Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
          14646 North Kierland Boulevard, Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Phone: (480) 348-3640
          E-mail: bgr@zimmreed.com


INSURANCE BROKERAGE: Antitrust Suit Against Insurers Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Garrett Brown granted a motion to dismiss the remaining
claims in a class action over alleged Racketeering Influence and Corrupt
Organizations Act violations filed against several dozen insurers and brokers,
including Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., reports say.

The decision resolves the major claims in the consolidated litigation brought
on behalf of commercial property/casualty insurance policyholders and employee
benefit plan sponsors after   then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
launched his investigations into alleged collusion by insurers to fix the
price of coverage and steer business to favored carriers.   Marsh & McLennan
in 2005 settled with Mr. Spitzer, agreeing to pay $850 million to customers.

Plaintiffs in the class action include Sunburst Hospitality Corp., the Silver
Spring, Maryland-based hotel operator, and Comcar Industries Inc., the
Auburndale, Florida-based trucking company.  They alleged a conspiracy in
which defendants allocated clients, fixed prices and restrained trade in
violation of RICO and the Sherman Antitrust Act.  They asked for unspecified
money damages.

Earlier rulings, rejected antitrust and RICO allegations against the insurers
and brokers.  In August, Judge Brown ruled that the suit lacked factual
support for claims of a widespread antitrust conspiracy.  On Sept. 28, Judge
Brown said the suit also lacked factual evidence of a RICO enterprise.

The New Jersey court’s dismissal of the claims follows a ruling dismissing
antitrust complaints against other brokers and insurers.  According to Zachary
R. Mider of Bloomberg News, Zurich Financial Services AG, the largest Swiss
insurer, and Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., the world's fourth-largest broker,
have already settled the customer lawsuit. Zurich in Switzerland agreed to pay
$121.8 million to clients and $30 million in attorneys' fees.  Gallagher,
based in Itasca, Illinois, agreed to pay $28 million to clients and $8.9
million in legal fees.

The suit is “In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, MDL Docket No. 1663, Civ. No.
04-5184.”

The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers led by Edith Kallas of Birmingham,
Alabama-based Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC, and Bryan Clobes of Chicago-based
Cafferty Faucher LLP.

Mitchell J. Auslander represents Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. and a partner at
New York law firm of Willkie, Farr & Gallagher.


LAN ENTERPRISES: Recalls Doll Strollers to Repair Metal Clip
------------------------------------------------------------
Lan Enterprises, of Beaverton, Oregon, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 21,000 Mini Zooper doll strollers.

A child’s finger can become caught in the rectangular metal clip or the black
plastic side hinge, and this can sever a child’s finger tip. Also, the
strollers pose an entrapment hazard.

Pottery Barn Kids has received three reports of serious lacerations, including
one partial finger severing on a 2 year old boy.

The Mini Zooper Doll Stroller has a silver metal frame with a bright pink
cotton canvas seat cover. “Pottery Barn Kids” is printed on a label on the
canvas seat cover.

These recalled doll strollers were manufactured in China and are being sold
exclusively at Pottery Barn Kids retail stores nationwide, catalog and Web
site from October 2005 through June 2007 for about $50.

Picture of recalled doll strollers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07317.html

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled doll strollers away
from children and contact Pottery Barn Kids for instructions on receiving a
repair kit.

For additional information, call Pottery Barn Kids at (888) 367-0144 between 7
a.m. and 12 a.m. ET daily or visit the firm’s Web site:
http://www.potterybarnkids.com

Firm’s Media Contact: Leigh Oshirak, at (415) 438-8106


MEDQUIST INC: N.J. Court Okays $7.8M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted final approval
to a proposed settlement of the putative shareholder class action, "William
Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05487-JBS."

The original complaint filed on Nov. 8, 2004 asserted claims under Sections 10
(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  

Lead Plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Pension Fund subsequently, on Nov. 15,
2005, filed the operative second amended complaint, which asserts these same
causes of action for violation of the federal securities laws, and alleges
that such violations occurred from April 23, 2002, through Nov. 2, 2004.  The
second amended complaint names MedQuist and several former officers of the
company as defendants.  

On March 23, 2007, MedQuist entered into a memorandum of understanding with
lead plaintiff in which it agreed to pay $7.75 million to settle all claims,
throughout the class period, against all defendants in the action.

On May 16, 2007, the Court issued an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement
and Providing for Notice.  The Court scheduled a final approval hearing for
Aug. 15, 2007.  

In that hearing, the Court granted final approval to the matter, according to
the company's Aug. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-05487-JBS-JBR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Jerome B. Simandle with referral to Judge Joel B. Rosen.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendant is:

         James S. Richter, Esq.
         Winston & Strawn, LLP
         The Legal Center, One Riverfront Plaza, 7th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Phone: (973) 621-2230
         E-mail: jrichter@winston.com


MEDQUEST INC: N.J. “Myers” Labor Lawsuit Discovery Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated labor lawsuit “Myers et al. v.
MedQuist, Inc., et al. Case No. 1:05-cv-04608-JBS-AMD,“ which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

                 Hoffmann Putative Class Action

A putative class action was filed against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The action, entitled, “Brigitte Hoffmann, et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:04-CV-3452,” was filed with the Court on Nov. 29, 2004 against the
company and certain current and former officials, purportedly on behalf of an
alleged class of current and former employees and statutory workers, who are
or were compensated on a “per line” basis for medical transcription services
from Jan. 1, 1998 to the time of the filing of the complaint.

The complaint specifically alleged that defendants systematically and
wrongfully underpaid the Class Members during the Class Period.

The complaint asserted the following causes of action: fraud, breach of
contract, demand for accounting, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment,
conversion, negligence, negligent supervision, and RICO violations.

Plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages,
disgorgement and restitution.  

On Dec. 1, 2005, the Hoffmann matter was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  On Jan. 12, 2006, the Court ordered
this case consolidated with the Myers Putative Class Action discussed below.

                   Force Putative Class Action

A putative class action entitled, “Force v. MedQuist Inc. and MedQuist
Transcriptions, Ltd., Case No. 05-cv-2608-WSD,” was filed against the company
on Oct. 11, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of current and former
employees who claim they are or were compensated on a “per line” basis for
medical transcription services but were allegedly underpaid due to the actions
of defendants.

The named plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit,
unjust enrichment, and for an accounting.

Upon stipulation and consent of the parties, on Feb. 17, 2006, the Force
matter was ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

Subsequently, on April 4, 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation and
consent order whereby the Force matter was consolidated with the Myers
Putative Class Action discussed below, and the consolidated amended complaint
filed in the Myers action on Jan. 31, 2006 was deemed to supersede the
original complaint filed in the Force matter.

                   Myers Putative Class Action

A putative class action entitled, “Myers, et al. v. MedQuist Inc. and MedQuist
Transcriptions, Ltd., Case No. 05-cv-4608 (JBS),” was filed against the
company on Sept. 22, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of the company's employee
and independent contractor transcriptionists who claim that they contracted
with the company to be paid on a 65 character line, but were allegedly
underpaid due to intentional miscounting of the number of characters and lines
transcribed.  

The named plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and request an accounting.

The allegations contained in the Myers case are substantially similar to those
contained in the Hoffmann and Force putative class actions and, as detailed
above, the three actions have now been consolidated.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Jan. 31, 2006.  In the
consolidated amended complaint, the named plaintiffs assert claims for breach
of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment and demand an accounting.

On March 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the
consolidated amended complaint.  The motion was fully briefed and argued on
Aug. 7, 2006.  The Court denied the motion on Dec. 21, 2006.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the company filed an answer denying the mutual allegations
pleaded in the consolidated amended complaint.  The parties are now proceeding
with discovery.  The deadline to complete pretrial fact discovery is Oct. 30,
2007.  

No date has been set for a class certification hearing or trial, according to
the company's Aug. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Myers et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al. Case No.
1:05-cv-04608-JBS-AMD,“ filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Jerome B. Simandle with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laura A. Feldman, Esq.
          Feldman & Pinto
          1604 Locust Street, 2R
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 546-2604
          Fax: (215) 546-9904
          E-mail: lfeldman@feldmanpinto.com

               - and -

          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC
          8 Kings Highway West
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 795-9002
          E-mail: donna@trrlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Marc J. Gross
          Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, LLP
          75 Livingston Avenue, Suite 301
          Roseland, NJ 07068-3701
          Phone: (973) 535-1600
          Fax: (973) 577-1785
          E-mail: mgross@greenbaumlaw.com


PETSMART INC: Still Faces Several Suits Over Tainted Animal Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart, Inc. continues to face several purported class actions, especially
in New Jersey, over tainted animal food, according to the company's Aug. 31,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2007.

On of these suits is “Rozman v. Menu Foods Midwest Corp., et al.,” which is
now pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The suit is seeking the court’s approval of a class action and an award of
damages on behalf of pet owners as a result of injuries to and/or deaths of
pets arising from the alleged consumption of animal food tainted with melamine.

                 Other Similar Litigation

The Company has also been named as a co-defendant in several other similar
lawsuits brought by plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of putative classes
of individuals, in jurisdictions across North America seeking damages arising
from the defendants’ manufacture, distribution and sale of animal food.

Several of these cases have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel in
Multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty provider of
products, services and solutions for pets in North America.  The Company has
identified a group of pet owners that the Company calls pet parents, who are
committed to their pets and consider their pets family members.


PETSMART INC: Continues to Face Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart, Inc. still faces two labor-related class actions in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.

In October 2006, two lawsuits were filed against the company in California
State Court, on behalf of putative classes of current and former California
employees.

The first suit, “Sorenson v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 3, 2006,” and the
plaintiff, a former dog groomer, alleges claims against us ostensibly on
behalf of other non-exempt hourly workers as to whether she and other
employees received their required meal and rest breaks.  

The second suit, “Enabnit v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 12, 2006,” and the
plaintiff seeks principally to represent employees providing pet grooming
services, for alleged meal and rest period violations, and to represent a
class of employees whose paychecks were allegedly not compliant with the
California Labor Code.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, penalties under the California Labor
Code, restitution, attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.

In November 2006, the company removed both actions to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California, where they are currently in the early
stages of litigation.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 31, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 29, 2007.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty provider of
products, services and solutions for pets in North America.  The Company has
identified a group of pet owners that the Company calls pet parents, who are
committed to their pets and consider their pets family members.  


PHILIPPINES: Reporters' Suit Against First Gentleman on Hold
------------------------------------------------------------
The Philippine Court of Appeals granted a request by the county’s First
Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo to temporarily suspend hearing of affirmative
defenses in a suit filed against him by Filipino journalists, IFEX reports.

"(P)etitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction is granted .
. . enjoining respondents, their agents and anybody acting in their behalf
from continuing with the preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses based
on the amended complaint," the decision, signed by Court of Appeals Justice
Fernanda Lampas Peralta stated.

The decision also said it would be injurious to Mr. Arroyo if the hearing on
the affirmative defenses were to be continued.

"Based on the pleadings submitted, the possibility of irreparable injury to
petitioner (Mr. Arroyo) has been shown, at least tentatively or provisionally,
to justify the restraint on the subject hearing on the affirmative defenses
based on the amended complaint. Said preliminary hearing or its continuance
will unduly expose petitioner to the rigors of trial in the case below even
before the jurisdictional issues raised in the present petition are resolved,"
the decision stated.

On Dec. 28, 2006, dozens of Filipino journalists who are facing libel suits
filed by Mr. Arroyo filed a counter civil class action against the
presidential spouse at the Makati Regional Trial Court (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 29, 2006).

Plaintiffs most of whom are charged by Mr. Arroyo with libel are backed by
other journalists, media, and journalists' organizations.  Such groups include
the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and Center for Media
Freedom and Responsibility.

They are contesting the First Gentleman's claim that he has been maligned as a
private citizen, for which he is seeking at least $2,872,275.41 (PHP141
million) in damages.  The libel cases were in connection with reports of
alleged election fraud and corruption involving Mr. Arroyo.  The journalists
are accusing Mr. Arroyo of trying to stifle freedom of the press (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 21, 2006).

Retaliating against the charges filed against them, the journalists are in
turn suing Mr. Arroyo for abuse of power and for seeking to undermine civil
liberties.  The suit is asking for about $305,561.21 (PHP15 million) in
damages for the anxiety, loss of income, and other inconveniences Mr. Arroyo's
libel suits have allegedly caused.

In January, Mr. Arroyo filed a counterclaim against dozens of Filipino
journalists who filed the suit (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2007).  

Harry Roque, the lawyer for the journalists in the case, expressed
befuddlement over the decision since it was actually Mr. Arroyo who asked
presiding judge Zenaida Laguilles of the Makati Regional Trial Court for a
hearing on the affirmative defenses.  He said he is considering whether to
simply comply with the Court of Appeals decision or file a motion for
clarification.

Mr. Arroyo's lead counsel is:

          Ruy Alberto Rondain, Esq.
          Rondain Mendiola & Pio De Roda Law Office
          405 OMM-CITRA Bldg., 39 San Miguel Ave., Pasig City
          Phone: 633-2421 to 22

Plaintiffs' lawyer is:

          Harry Roque, Esq.
          1904 Antel Corporate Center
          121 Valero Street Salcedo Village
          Makati City Philippines 1227
          Phone:  +632 8873894
          Fax: +632 8873893


PMA CAPITAL: Settles Pa. Consolidated Securities Suit for $15M
--------------------------------------------------------------
PMA Capital Corp. reached an agreement to settle for $15 million the
securities class action, “In re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 03-6121,” which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired PMA
Capital Corp. Class A common stock, 4.25% convertible senior debentures due
2022, or 8.5% monthly income senior notes due 2018 between May 5, 1999 and
November 6, 2003, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby, including
all persons who purchased in connection with PMA's public offerings of PMA
Class A common stock in December 2001, of PMA 4.25% convertible senior
debentures due 2022 in October 2002, and of PMA 8.5% monthly income senior
notes due 2018 in June 2003.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of purported purchasers of the
company's Class A Common Stock, 4.25% Senior  
Convertible Debt due 2022 (4.25% Convertible Debt) and 8.50% Monthly Income
Senior Notes.   

The complaint names as defendants the company, former chairman, Frederick W.
Anton, and former chief executive officer, John W. Smithson, and two other
individuals who were top officers at the company during the class period.

On June 28, 2004, the court issued an order consolidating the cases under "In
Re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation,   
Civil Action No. 03-6121," and appointing Sheet Metal Workers   
Local 9 Pension Trust, Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund and
Communications Workers of America for Employees' Pension and    Death Benefits
as lead plaintiff.   

On Sept. 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint
on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the company's securities
between May 5, 1999 and   
Feb. 11, 2004.   

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making
materially false and misleading public statements and material omissions
during the class period regarding the company's underwriting performance, loss
reserves and related internal controls.    

It also alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a) (2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act by making materially false and misleading statements in registration
statements and prospectuses about the company's financial results,
underwriting performance, loss reserves and related internal controls.    

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, the right to rescind the
purchases of securities in the public offerings, interest, and plaintiffs'
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees.   

By order dated July 27, 2005, the court partially granted the company's
previously filed motion to dismiss the amended complaint, dismissing all
allegations with respect to The PMA Insurance Group, and otherwise denying the
motion to dismiss.  
By virtue of the order, the alleged class period was reduced to
Nov. 6, 2003.  

On Aug. 31, 2005 defendants filed their answers to lead plaintiffs' amended
complaint.  On Nov. 14, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.  On Nov.
30, 2005, defendant's motion for partial dismissal was denied.  

On April 28, 2006, defendants filed their oppositions to the motion for class
certification.  Oral arguments for the motion were heard on Dec. 1, 2006.

In June 2007, PMA Capital Corp. reached agreement to settle the securities
class action (Class Action Reporter, June 11, 2007). The settlement is subject
to documentation and Court approval.  The settlement agreement makes no
admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or its officers and directors.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on November 20, 2007. Deadline
to file claims is on January 10, 2008.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will hold a
hearing before the Honorable Petrese B. Tucker at 9:15 a.m., on December 11, 2007.

The suit is "In Re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation,   
Civil Action No. 03-6121," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Petrese B. Tucker.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

         Robert A. Kauffman, Esq.
         Arthur Stock, Esq.
         Sherri Savett, Esq.
         Berger and Montague
         1622 Locust Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-875-3000
         Fax: 215-875-4636
         E-mail: astock@bm.net

              - and -

         Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212-594-5300

Representing the company are:

         David M. Howard, Esq.
         Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
         Joseph A. Tate, Esq.
         Dechert, LLP
         4000 Bell Atlantic Tower, 1717 Arch Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2973
         Phone: 215-994-2218
         E-mail: michael.kichline@dechert.com
                 david.howard@dechert.com
                 joseph.tate@dechert.com


REFCO INC: Lawsuit Against Thomas H. Lee Partners Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has dismissed
the securities class action commenced by brokerage customers of Refco Capital
Markets, Ltd., against Thomas H. Lee Partners, controlling owner of Refco,
Inc., and Grant Thornton LLP, auditor of RCM.

"The complaint must be dismissed because it fails sufficiently to allege
deceptive conduct," District Judge Gerard E. Lynch said in his 27-page
opinion, entered Sept. 13, 2007.

Judge Lynch said that the RCM Customers Plaintiffs failed to explain how T.H.
Lee and the other defendants "created a false impression" about the handling
of customer assets.  The judge found that the suit needed more details about
the agreements between RCM and its brokerage clients.

Judge Lynch did not rule on the merits of the case, saying that the RCM
Customers Plaintiffs did not allege enough facts to go forward.

The Opinion addresses certain motions to dismiss filed by defendants Tone N.
Grant, Joseph J. Murphy, William M. Sexton, Gerald M. Sherer, Philip
Silverman, Robert C. Trosten, Phillip R. Bennett, Grant Thornton and the THL
Defendants.

Judge Lynch has granted leave to replead as to all defendants, except Messrs.
Silverman, Sexton, Murphy and Sherer.  The clerk of the District Court will
mark the case closed as to those defendants.

As previously reported, the RCM Customers Plaintiffs, as represented by Kirby,
McInerney & Squire, LLP, entrusted, at any time from October 17, 2000, to
October 17, 2005, securities to RCM and/or Refco Securities, LLC, directly or
indirectly, as custodian and broker for safe-keeping, and continued to hold
positions with RCM on the Petition Date or thereafter.

The Complaint charges Refco, 14 of Refco's senior officers and directors,
Refco's controlling shareholders, Refco's auditor, and 19 financial
institutions that underwrote the company's common stock and bond offerings
with violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In the lawsuit against Thomas H. Lee, and Grant Thornton, the RCM Customers
Plaintiffs asserted that the "brokerage secretly sold their securities and
'diverted' the proceeds to other Refco entities," according to Bloomberg News.

The RCM Customers Plaintiffs will advise the District Court by Oct. 8, 2007,
as to whether they intend to file an amended complaint.  If so, the parties
are directed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing of an
amended complaint and subsequent motions to dismiss, and to submit a
stipulated schedule, or competing proposed schedules, to the District Court by
Oct. 22.

Counsel to the RCM Customers Plaintiffs told Bloomberg News that it is
"likely" that a new complaint will be filed.

                        About Refco Inc.

Based in New York, Refco Inc. -- http://www.refco.com/-- is a diversified
financial services organization with operations in 14 countries and an
extensive global institutional and retail client base.  The Company and 23 of
its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Oct. 17, 2005.

The Court confirmed the Modified Joint Chapter 11 Plan of
Refco Inc. and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries, including
Refco Capital Markets Ltd. and Refco F/X Associates LLC, on Dec. 15, 2006.
That Plan became effective on Dec. 26, 2006.  Refco Commodity's exclusive
period to file a chapter 11 plan expired on Feb. 13, 2007.  

(Refco Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 69; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


REMEC INC: Nov. 2 Hearing Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 2, 2007 hearing is set for a class certification motion in a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against REMEC, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the company and
certain former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California alleging violations of federal securities laws between Sept. 8,
2003 and Sept. 8, 2004.   

On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, was
appointed lead counsel and its client was appointed lead plaintiff.  

After several consolidated and amended complaints were filed, challenged by
the company and dismissed by the court with leave to amend, the court denied
REMEC's motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint on Sept. 25, 2006.

REMEC filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on Nov. 6, 2006,
denying all liability and asserting certain affirmative defenses.

Discovery has commenced and is ongoing.  The Plaintiffs have moved the Court
for class certification, which motion has been opposed by REMEC.  A hearing on
the class certification motion is set for Nov. 2, 2007, according to the
company's Sept. 17, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 3, 2007.

The suit is "In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
04-CV-1948," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California under Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: (213) 617-1200
         Fax: (213) 617-1975

         David W. Mitchell, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, California 92101-4297
         Phone: 619-231-1058 and 800-449-4900
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com

              - and -   

         Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
         Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP
         550 West C. Street, Suite 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 338-1133
         Fax: (619) 338-1139

Representing the defendants is:
        
         Robert W. Brownlie
         DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, US, LLP,
         401 "B" Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, California 92101
         Phone: (619) 699-2700 and 858-638-6886
         Fax: 858-677-1401
         Web site: http://www.dlapiper.com


SARA LEE: Ill. Court Considers Appeal on Securities Suit Nixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has yet to rule
on a plaintiff's motion appealing the dismissal of a consolidated securities
class action filed against Sara Lee Corp.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to allege economic loss causation
because the plaintiffs did not plead how the alleged fraud caused their
economic loss.  The court noted that the allegation that stock prices were
inflated alone was insufficient.

On May 13, 2003, John Gallo, a purported company stockholder, filed a putative
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of purchasers of the company common stock between and including Aug.
1, 2002 and April 24, 2003.   

The complaint named the company, C. Steven McMillan, former chairman,
president and chief executive officer of the company, and Lambertus M. de
Kool, executive vice president and chief financial and administrative officer
of the company, as defendants.  

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action certification, compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees.   

Seven other putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, and named the company, Mr. McMillan, and
Mr. de Kool as defendants.    

The allegations in each of those complaints are substantially similar to the
allegations of the lawsuit described in the immediately preceding paragraph.   

Each of the foregoing actions was later consolidated in a single proceeding,
"In re Sara Lee Corp. Securities Litigation."  On Jan. 20, 2004, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint.   

The consolidated amended complaint contains similar allegations that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly misstating or
omitting material adverse facts regarding the company's business, operations,
management and financial statements, and the value of the company common
stock, which allegedly enabled the company to complete  securities offerings,
enabled the individual defendants to increase their bonus compensation and
caused the purported class to purchase the company common stock at
artificially inflated prices.   

The consolidated amended complaint, however, omitted the previous allegations
that the individual defendants or other insiders sold their personally held
company stock to the public at artificially inflated prices.   

On March 5, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.  The motion was denied on Dec. 21, 2004, and the company's
motion to take an immediate appeal from that ruling was denied on May 26,
2005.  On June 30, 2005, the company filed its answer to the complaint,
denying all allegations of wrongdoing.   

On Oct. 19, 2005, the company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
based on plaintiffs' failure to adequately plead loss causation.  The motion
was fully briefed at the end of November 2005.   

On July 10, 2006, the motion was granted and the case has been dismissed.  The
Court found that plaintiffs failed to allege and prove that defendants’
misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct proximately caused plaintiffs’
economic losses.

On July 24, 2006, plaintiffs moved for relief from final judgment and for
leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint under Federal Rules 15(a),
59(e), and 60(b).

Briefing on plaintiffs’ motion was completed on Oct. 13, 2006, and the Company
is awaiting the Court’s ruling, 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.  

The suit is "In Re: Sara Lee Corp. Securities Litigation, Case  
No. 03-CV-3202," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Hon. Charles R.  
Norgle, Sr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY, 10119
         Phone: 212.594.5300
         Fax: 212.868.1229
         E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com
   
         Miller, Faucher & Cafferty, LLP
         30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
         Chicago , IL 60602
         Phone: 312.782.4880
         E-mail: mmiller@millerfauchner.com
   
         Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C.
         200 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 2100
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312.346.3100

              - and -
   
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         3 Bala Plaza E
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610.667.7706
         Fax: 610.667.7056
         E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


STILLWATER MINING: Dec. 17 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana will hold a fairness
hearing on Dec. 17, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. for a proposed $2,550,000 settlement in
the matter, "In re Stillwater Mining Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-00093-RFC."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana, Billings Division, James F. Battin Courthouse, 316 North 26th Street,
Billings, Montana 59101.

Any objections or exclusions to or from the settlement must be made on or
before Nov. 26, 2007.  Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on Jan.
17, 2008.

                        Case Background

In 2002, nine lawsuits were filed against the company and certain senior
officers in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
purportedly on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock of the company from April 20, 2001 through and including
April 1, 2002.

They assert claims against the company and certain of its officers under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of certain public disclosures made by the
company regarding its financial performance and, in particular, it's
accounting for probable ore reserves.

In July 2002, the court consolidated these actions, and in May 2003, the case
was transferred to federal district court in Montana.

The suit is "In re Stillwater Mining Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-00093-RFC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana under Judge Richard F. Cebull.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Susan M. Greenwood, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-594-5300
         Fax: 212-868-1229

              - and -

         Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4600

Representing the defendants are:

         Harriet S. Posner, Esq.
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
         300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-687-5600

              - and -

         Stephen H. Foster, Esq.
         Holland & Hart
         P.O. Box 639
         Billings, MT 59103-0639
         Phone: 406-252-2166
         Fax: 406-252-1669

TOBY NYC: Expands Recall of Jewelry with High Lead Content
----------------------------------------------------------
TOBY N.Y.C., of New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 23,500 TOBY & ME jewelry sets.  It has already
recalled about 14,000 jewelry sets on August 22, 2007.

The recalled metal jewelry sets 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 jewelry sets sold in different styles: a pink and clear
crystal bead necklace and bracelet set with a painted metallic crown pendant;
a pink and white pearl necklace and bracelet set with a painted metallic
poodle pendant; and a pink pearl necklace, earrings and ring set.

This recall is expanded to include two additional styles: a pink crystal and
wood bead necklace and bracelet set with a monkey pendant; and a pink and
clear crystal bead necklace and bracelet set with a heart pendant. All sets
are sold in a pink gift box with “TOBY & ME” printed on the front and “TOBY &
ME” hangtags attached to the packaging.

These recalled jewelry sets were manufactured in China and are being sold at
T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, A.J. Wright, Cracker Barrel, and Shopko stores
nationwide from August 2006 through August 2007 for between $8 and $15.

Pictures of recalled jewelry sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07280a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07280b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07280c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07314d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07314e.jpg

Consumers should immediately take the recalled jewelry away from children and
contact TOBY N.Y.C. for information on receiving a full refund or replacement
item.

For additional information, contact TOBY N.Y.C. toll-free at (866) 235-0588
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or email: info@tobynyc.com


TXU CORP: Dismissal of Tex. Securities Lawsuit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported securities fraud class action filed against TXU
Corp. is appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit an order
dismissing the case.

On Sept. 6, 2005 a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against the company and C. John Wilder.  

It asserts claims on behalf of the plaintiffs and a putative class of owners
of certain TXU Corp. securities who tendered such securities in connection
with a tender offer conducted by TXU Corp. in 2004.  

The complaint alleged violations of the provisions of Sections 14(e), 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and purported to assert a claim for alleged
breach of fiduciary duty.  

An amended complaint dropped the claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  The
allegations relate to a tender offer conducted in September and October 2004
for certain equity-linked securities in which it was expressly disclosed that
TXU Corp. management was evaluating whether it should recommend to the TXU
Corp. board of directors that the board reevaluate TXU Corp.'s dividend policy.  

After the tender offer was closed, and consistent with the disclosure, TXU
Corp. management did make a recommendation to the board to reevaluate TXU
Corp. dividend policy and the board elected to increase the quarterly dividend.   

Plaintiffs in the litigation contend that such disclosure in connection with
the tender offer was inadequate.   

A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, and the District Court entered an
order granting the Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this litigation with
prejudice on Aug. 30, 2006.  

The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal, and the matter is now before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with briefing of the appeal
completed, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2007.

The suit is "Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Fund Incorporated, et al. v.
TXU Corp., et al., Case No. 05-CV-01784," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael C. Dodge, Esq.
         Dodge & Associates
         3710 Rawlins, Suite 1600
         Dallas, TX 75219
         Phone: 214-273-3280
         Fax: 214-273-3281
         E-mail: miked@texasatty.com

         Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint
         2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com

              - and -

         Rosemary J. Shockman, Esq.
         Shockman Law Offices
         8170 N 86th Place, Suite 102
         Scottsdale, AZ 85258-4308
         Phone: 480-596-1986
         E-mail: rshock@aol.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Richard S. Krumholz, Esq.
         Fulbright & Jaworski
         Texas Commerce Bank Tower, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 2800
         Dallas, TX 75201-2784
         Phone: 214-855-8000
         Fax: 214-855-8200
         E-mail: rkrumholz@fulbright.com


VICORP RESTAURANTS: Calif. Labor Suit Settlement Widely Accepted
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICORP Restaurants, Inc. reports that no objections were made against a
settlement of a labor-related class action pending against the company in a
California court.

The purported class action was brought in April 2006 by a former employee and
alleges the company violated California laws with regard to failure to pay
vested vacation pay and unfair business practices.  

The class alleged is any person who has been employed by the company in
California at any time from four years prior to the filing of the class action
to date of trial.  

The Company entered into a settlement of this class action litigation which
was preliminarily approved by the court on April 24, 2007 for approximately
$600,000 previously accrued, including the settlement amount and
representative’s, attorney and administrative fees.  

On May 31, 2007, the Settlement Administrator sent notice of the proposed
settlement to 3,347 identifiable class members pursuant to the Court’s Order
of May 22, 2007.   The notice gave the class until July 11, 2007, to opt out
or object.  

No member expressed objection or an intent to appear at the final approval
hearing, but three members did elect to opt out, according to the company's
Aug. 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 12, 2007.

VICORP Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.vicorpinc.com/-- operates and
franchises more than 400 family-style, medium-priced restaurants in about 25
states.


* Conference Board of Canada Hosts Suit Risk Management Forum
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two senior provincial court judges and some of North America's top lawyers
discuss managing the risks of class action litigation at the Class Action
Forum: Pre-Emptive Business and Legal Strategies, hosted by The Conference
Board of Canada, October 2 and 3 at the InterContinental Toronto Centre, 225
Front St. W.

          -- Alan J. Lenczner, Lenczner Slaught
          -- Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Partner, Lieff Cabraser   
             Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and
          -- Allan Rock, Sutts, Strosberg LLP

will participate in the panel discussion, The Corporate Class Action
Nightmare: The Plaintiffs' View, at 8:15 a.m., Tuesday.

          -- Silvana Conte, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP,
          -- Donald McCarty, Vice-President and General Counsel,
             Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, and
          -- The Hon. Justice Andre Prevost, Judge, Superior
             Court of Quebec

will discuss the current class action situation in Quebec, at 3:15 p.m., Tuesday.

The Hon. Donald I. Brenner, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of British Columbia,
will deliver the keynote presentation, Do Class Actions Help More Than They
Hurt?, at 12:15 p.m., Wednesday.

The forum is sponsored by:

          -- Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP,
          -- Navigant Consulting,
          -- Torys LLP,
          -- Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP,
          -- Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP,
          -- Borden Ladner Gervais LLP,
          -- Commonwealth Legal,
          -- Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP,
          -- McCarthy Tetrault LLP, Stikeman Elliott LLP and
          -- the Canadian Society of Corporate Secretaries.

For more information, contact:

          Yvonne Squires
          Marketing and Communications Coordinator
          Phone: (613) 526-3090, ext. 221.                     
          E-mail: corpcomm@conferenceboard.ca


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


LJ INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of LJ
International, Inc. common stock during the period from February 15, 2007
through September 6, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges LJI and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly issuing false
and misleading statements about its business prospects, financial condition,
and its statements of revenues and net income.

In particular, the Complaint asserts that throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued false and misleading reports overstating the Company's fiscal
2005 and 2006 financial results.

On July 16, 2007, LJI announced that it was delaying the release of its fourth
quarter 2006 through second quarter 2007 financial results because the
Company's new auditors were unable to sign off on the Company's financial
statements. On September 6, 2007, LJI revealed that it had failed to achieve
the projected fourth quarter and fiscal 2006 financial results LJI had
previously issued on January 8, 2007 -- and later upgraded on February 15,
2007 -- due to a potential tax provision, and that its fiscal 2006 earnings
report of $3 million would "likely be adversely impacted." As a result of
these and other adverse disclosures, the Company's stock price fell
dramatically and caused investors losses.

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

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Tel: (212) 686-1060       
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653       
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


W HOLDING: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in P.R.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf
of all purchasers of securities of W Holding Company, Inc. from April 24, 2006
through June 26, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges W Holding 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 failed to write-down certain
         impaired loans;

     (2) that the Company would take a charge of at least $80
         million due to collateral deficiencies;

     (3) that, as a result of the above, the Company's reported
         income, book value per share, and asset quality was  
         overstated;

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

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

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

On June 26, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it disclosed that one of
its larger asset-based loans was impaired, and that there was a "significant"
collateral deficiency with respect to the impaired loan. The Company indicated
that it believed the collateral deficiency to be at least $80 million.

Further, the Company stated that an independent firm was retained to review
the impaired loan, the Company's entire asset-based lending portfolio, and the
asset-based lending division's systems of internal controls. On this news, the
Company's shares fell $1.87 per share, or over 37.3 percent, to close on June
26, 2007 at $3.14 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

W Holding operates as the holding company for Westernbank Puerto Rico, which
offers business and consumer financial services in Puerto Rico and over the
Internet.

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
          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  * * *