CAR_Public/071003.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, October 3, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 195

                            Headlines


ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations
ACCREDITED HOME: Faces “Taylor” ECOA, FHA Violations Lawsuit
ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Alleging WARN Act Violations
ACCREDITED HOME: Faces “National” FHA, ECOA, CRA Violations Suit
ACCREDITED HOME: Settles Calif. Litigation Over Lone Star Merger

ACCREDITED HOME: New Defendants Named in Cal. Securities Lawsuit
ACCREDITED MORTGAGE: Faces Racial Discrimination Suit in D.C.
ACCREDITED HOME: Cal. Court Okays “Yturralde” Labor Suit Deal
AIRLINES: Accused of Charging Illegal “Tourist Tax” on Mexicans
APPLE INC: Cal. Lawyer Seeks Plaintiffs for iPhone Locking Suit

BIOENVISION INC: Faces Lawsuits in Del., N.Y. Over Genzyme Deal
CAREER EDUCATION: Students Allege Systematic Recruitment Fraud
CYBERONICS INC: Continues to Seek Tex. Securities Suit Dismissal
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Seeks Consolidation of Labor Lawsuits in Calif.
DEUTSCHE BANK: Employees Commence Labor Code Violations Lawsuit

ESTES-COX: Recalls Model Rockets with Parts that can Separate
FEDEX CORP: Faces Fuel Surcharge Rates Antitrust Lawsuits
FEDEX GROUND: Discovery Now Complete in Owner-Operators Lawsuit
KEY ENERGY: Continues to Face Labor-Related Litigation in Calif.
KEY ENERGY: Oct. Hearing Set for Tex. Securities Suit Settlement

MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Employees Sue Over Alleged Discrimination
MOODY’S CORP: Pension Fund Files N.Y. Suit Over Subprime Ratings
REDDY ICE: Hearing on Motion for TRO on GSO Merger Set Today
SEITEL INC: Continues to Face Merger-Related Litigation in Tex.
SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Del. Court Approves Merger Suit Settlement

STAR GAS: Discovery Stayed in Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
STATION CASINOS: Lawsuit Over Fertitta Merger in Discovery
TOBACCO LITIGATION: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Review "Engle"
TRIBUNE CO: Dismissal of Securities, ERISA Suits Under Appeal
TXU CORP: Finalizing Documents of $7.25M ERISA Suit Settlement

UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Package Overcharges
UNITED PARCEL: Law Firm Seeks Consolidation of Franchisees’ Suit
VICORP RESTAURANTS: Continues to Face Suit by Former Managers

                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LCA-VISION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Ohio Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. (AHL) faces a purported class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging
violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

In September 2007, AHL was named in a class action complaint, “Hayes v.
Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. and Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.”
brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The complaint alleges that AHL violated the WARN Act by failing to provide 60
days’ notice to plaintiffs who were terminated through no fault of their own
as part of or as the reasonable consequence of a mass layoff and/or plant
closing effectuated by AHL on or about Aug. 22, 2007.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated former employees, the alleged wages for the work days in the 60
calendar days prior to their respective terminations along with benefits,
interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

AHL has not been served with the action, a motion to certify a class has not
been filed, and there has been no ruling on the merits of either the
plaintiffs’ individual claims or the claims of the putative class.

The suit is “Hayes v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-01799-LAB-BLM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge Larry Alan Burns with referral to Judge
Barbara Lynn Major.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter Alan Davidson, Esq.
          Moldo Davidson Fraioli Seror & Sestanovich
          2029 Century Park East, 21st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 551-3100
          Fax: (310) 551-0238
          E-mail: pdavidson@mdfslaw.com


ACCREDITED HOME: Faces “Taylor” ECOA, FHA Violations Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. (AHLHC) and Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.
(AHL) face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, alleging violations of the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA).

In August 2007, AHLHC and AHL were served with a class action complaint,
“Taylor v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. and Accredited Home Lenders,
Inc.” brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The complaint alleges AHLHC and AHL violated ECOA and FHA by charging, through
the use of a discretionary pricing policy, a higher Annual Percentage Rate
(APR) to African-American borrowers than the APR charged to similarly situated
Caucasian borrowers.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated African-American borrowers, compensatory and punitive damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs
of suit.

Neither AHLHC nor AHL have been served with the action, a motion to certify a
class has not been filed, and there has been no ruling on the merits of either
the plaintiffs’ individual claims or the claims of the putative class.

The suit is “Taylor v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-01732-JAH-JMA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge John A. Houston with referral to Judge Jan
M. Adler.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori Erin Andrus, Esq.
          Andrus Liberty and Anderson
          1438 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: (415) 956-1000
          Fax: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: lori@libertylaw.com


ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Alleging WARN Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. (AHL) faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging violations of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.

In August 2007, AHL was served with a class action complaint, “Viera et al. v.
Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Inc.[sic],” brought in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas.

The complaint alleges that AHL violated the WARN Act by failing to provide 60
days’ notice to plaintiffs who were terminated through no fault of their own
as part of or as the reasonable consequence of a mass layoff and/or plant
closing effectuated by AHL on or about Aug. 10 and 22, 2007.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated former employees, the alleged wages for the work days in the 60
calendar days prior to their respective terminations along with benefits,
interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed, and there has been no
ruling on the merits of either the plaintiffs’ individual claims or the claims
of the putative class.

The suit is “Viera et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Inc., Case No.
1:07-cv-00719-SS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas under Judge Sam Sparks.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Hubert Bell, Jr., Esq.
          Law Office of Hubert Bell, Jr.
          1907 N. Lamar Blvd., Suite 300
          Austin, TX 78705
          Phone: (512) 469-9006
          Fax: 512/469-9008
          E-mail: bellhjr@aol.com

          J. Cecil Gardner, Esq.
          The Gardner Firm
          1119 Government Street, Post Office Drawer 3103
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Phone: (251) 433-8100
          Fax: (251) 433-8181

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          Lankenau & Miller, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 423
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: (212) 581-5005
          Fax: (212) 581-2122

Representing the defendant is:

          Fazila Issa, Esq.
          Littler & Mendelson, P.C.
          1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: (713) 652-4707
          E-mail: fissa@littler.com


ACCREDITED HOME: Faces “National” FHA, ECOA, CRA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. (AHL) faces a purported class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging
violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA),
and Civil Rights Act (CRA).

In July 2007, AHL was named in a class action, ”National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., et al.,”
brought in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The NAACP filed the action on behalf of itself and its African-American
members, alleging that AHL and 12 other lenders violated FHA, ECOA, and CRA by
steering African-American applicants who would otherwise qualify for prime
loans into non-prime loans and charging African-American borrowers higher
interest rates and fees than similarly situated Caucasians.

Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
declaratory and injunctive relief and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs of
suit.

AHL has not been served with the complaint and is unaware of any motion to
certify the class having been filed or of any ruling on the merits of either
the plaintiff’s individual claims or those of the putative class.

The suit is “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v.
Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-00794-AG-AN,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge
Andrew J. Guilford with referral to Judge Arthur Nakazato.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Angela Ciccolo, Esq.
          NAACP
          4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
          Baltimore, MD 21215
          Phone: 410-580-5792

          Vic Feazell, Esq.
          Feazell & Tighe LLP
          6300 Bridgepoint Parkway, Suite 220
          Austin, TX 78730
          Phone: 512-372-8100

               - and -

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Kabateck Brown Kellner
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-217-5000
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com


ACCREDITED HOME: Settles Calif. Litigation Over Lone Star Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. (AHLHC) settled a purported class action
filed in California over a merger agreement with affiliates of Lone Star Fund
V (U.S.) L.P.

In June 2007, AHLHC was served with class actions:

       -- “Korsinski v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
          al.,” and

       -- “Wan v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.”

The suits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Diego.  The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duty by AHLHC and
members of its Board of Directors in connection with AHLHC’s entry into the
Merger Agreement with affiliates of Lone Star.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the tender offer for AHLHC common stock which is
pending under the Merger Agreement, and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs
of suit.

The Korsinski matter has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without
prejudice.

In the Wan matter, parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for
settlement of the case, subject to certain conditions, including most
significantly the completion of the tender offer at the offer price of $15.10
per share.

Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com-- is a
mortgage company operating throughout the U.S and in Canada.  The Company
originates, finances, securitizes, services, and sells non-prime mortgage
loans secured by residential real estate.


ACCREDITED HOME: New Defendants Named in Cal. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust and certain directors of Accredited Home
Lenders Holding Co. (AHLHC) were added as defendants in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against AHLHC in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

In March 2007, AHLHC was served with a class action, “Atlas v. Accredited Home
Lenders Holding Co., et al.,” brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by AHLHC and
certain members of senior management.  

AHLHC is aware that five similar securities class actions were also filed in
the same court.  They are:

       -- “Joory v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
          al.,”

       -- “Pourshafie v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
          al.,”
  
       -- “Theda v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et
          al.,”

       -- “City of Brockton Retirement System v. Accredited Home
          Lenders Holding Co.,” and

       -- “Kornfeld v. James A. Konrath, et al.”

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, these cases have
been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been selected.

The consolidated, amended complaint was filed on Aug. 24, 2007, and added as
defendants the Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust and certain directors of
AHLHC.  

The suit is “Atlas et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co et al., Case
No. 3:07-cv-00488-H-RBB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge Marilyn L. Huff with referral to Judge
Ruben B. Brooks.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423
          E-mail: davew@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

           Andrea M. Kimball, Esq.
           Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps
           600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
           San Diego, CA 92101-3372
           Phone: (619) 236-1414
           Fax: (619) 645-5323
           E-mail: akimball@luce.com

                - and -

          Joshua G. Hamilton, Esq.
          Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
          515 South Flower Street, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371
          Phone: (213) 683-6000
          Fax: (213) 927-5896
          E-mail: joshuahamilton@paulhastings.com


ACCREDITED MORTGAGE: Faces Racial Discrimination Suit in D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust, Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co.
(AHLHC), and Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. (AHL) face a racial discrimination
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In July 2007, Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust, AHL, and AHLHC were served
with the complaint, “National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) v.
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Company [sic], et al.”

The complaint alleges that REIT, AHL and AHLHC engaged in a practice of
discriminating against African-American and Latinos by requiring minimum
property values of $100,000 on row homes for certain loan programs and
prohibiting the use of row homes as collateral for certain other loan
programs, without business justification for those restrictions.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.  

The suit is “National Community Reinvestment Coalition v. Accredited Home
Lenders Holding Company et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01357-EGS,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Bradley Howard Blower, Esq.
          Relman & Associates, PLLC
          1225 19th Street, NW Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 728-1888
          Fax: (202) 326-3768
          E-mail: bblower@relmanlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Matthew P. Previn, Esq.
          Buckley Kolar, LLP
          1250 24th Street, NW Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20037
          Phone: (202) 349-8090
          E-mail: mprevin@buckleykolar.com


ACCREDITED HOME: Cal. Court Okays “Yturralde” Labor Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California court approved the settlement in a suit against Accredited Home
Lenders, Inc. (AHL) that alleges violations of California labor laws,
according to the Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co.'s Sept. 18, 2007 Form
10-k Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2007.
  
A California court approved a settlement of a suit filed against Accredited
Home Lenders, Inc. (AHL), alleging violations of California labor laws.

In January 2004, AHL was served with a complaint, "Yturralde v.  
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought in Sacramento County,  
California for its its misclassifying employees, failing to pay for overtime
work, and failing to keep appropriately keep payroll record.

The named plaintiff is a former commissioned loan officer of AHL, and the
complaint alleges that AHL violated California and federal law by
misclassifying the plaintiff and other non-exempt employees as exempt
employees, failing to pay the plaintiff on an hourly basis and for overtime
worked, and failing to properly and accurately record and maintain payroll
information.  

Plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all of the company's
other similarly situated current and former employees, lost wages and
benefits, general damages, multiple statutory penalties and interest,
attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and also seeks to enjoin further violations
of wage and overtime laws and retaliation against employees who complain about
such violations.  

AHL has been served with eleven substantially similar complaints on behalf of
certain other former and current employees, which have been consolidated with
the Yturralde action.

The parties have agreed to, and the court has approved, a settlement with
respect to the named plaintiffs and with respect to a class of current and
former AHL employees which the court has certified for settlement purposes.

Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com-- is a
mortgage company operating throughout the U.S and in Canada.  The Company
originates, finances, securitizes, services, and sells non-prime mortgage
loans secured by residential real estate.


AIRLINES: Accused of Charging Illegal “Tourist Tax” on Mexicans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Henry Rossbacher, representing Maria Sanchez, accuses airlines of
illegally collecting 10% “tourist taxes” on citizens of Mexico who buy tickets
in the United States for flights to Mexico, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Ms. Sanchez filed three class-action complaints in Superior Court against:

          -- Alaska Airlines,
          -- Mexicana Airlines, and
          -- AeroMexico

According to the report, Ms. Sanchez claims Alaska Airlines, for example,
charged her $22 tourist tax on a $215 ticket to Guadalajara. She says Mexican
citizens are exempt from the tourist tax, which varies depending upon the
currency exchange ratio. She demands restitution, compensation and costs.

Mr. Rossbacher can be contacted at:

          Henry Huntington Rossbacher
          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC  
          35 East State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone:  (610) 891-9880 or (877) 891-9880 (Toll Free)
          Fax:  (610) 891-9883


APPLE INC: Cal. Lawyer Seeks Plaintiffs for iPhone Locking Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Saratoga, Calif. attorney has launched a Web site --
https://www.appleiphonelawsuit.com/ -- soliciting plaintiffs for a possible
class action against Apple Inc. over the company’s iPhone warranty, Alexander
Wolfe of Information Week reports.

This follows reports that a post on Apple's own iPhone discussion forums had
sought comments from other forum users on a possible class action over Apple's
refusal to service users who have unlocked their iPhones or loaded them with
"unauthorized" applications.

The forum user who posted the topic identified himself as myndex.  Myndex had
stated that the company should be required to service iPhones under warranty,
even if they have been modified or used in tandem with unofficial software.
The original post has now been deleted for unexplained reasons.  


BIOENVISION INC: Faces Lawsuits in Del., N.Y. Over Genzyme Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bioenvision, Inc. faces several purported class actions in Delaware and New
York over its merger agreement with Genzyme Corp., according to the company's
Sept. 12, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

On May 29, 2007, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Genzyme Corp. the company's North American co-development partner for
clofarabine and Wichita Bio Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Genzyme.  The
merger is the second and final step in the proposed acquisition of Bioenvision
by Genzyme.  The first step was the tender offer for all of the outstanding
common stock and all of the outstanding preferred stock of Bioenvision, which
expired on July 10, 2007.  

                      Trombley Litigation

On June 7, 2007, three purported stockholders of Bioenvision filed a purported
class action in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, New Castle
County against the company, each of its directors, Genzyme and Wichita Bio.
The suit is captioned, “Trombley v. Bioenvision, Inc., et al., Civ. A. No.
3008.”  

The Trombley lawsuit purports to be brought individually and on behalf of all
holders of shares of the company's common stock.  It alleges that the
company's then directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's
stockholders in connection with the tender offer and that Genzyme aided and
abetted such alleged breach of the company's directors’ fiduciary duties.  

Based on these allegations, the Trombley lawsuit seeks, among other relief,
injunctive relief preliminarily and permanently enjoining each of the company,
its directors, Genzyme and Wichita Bio from consummating the merger, directing
its directors to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that
is in the best interests of its stockholders, and rescinding, to the extent
already implemented, the merger or any of the terms thereof.

                 Ortsman & Gerstle Litigation

On June 8, 2007 and June 13, 2007, the company was named as a defendant in two
purported class actions filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware, New Castle County, against us, each of the company's directors,
Genzyme and Wichita Bio.  

These actions are docketed as:

       -- “Ortsman v. Wood, et. al., Civ. A. No. 3009.” and

       -- “Gerstle v. Bioenvision, Inc., et. al., Civ. A. No.
          3019.”

Both the Ortsman lawsuit and the Gerstle lawsuit purport to be brought
individually and on behalf of all holders of the company's common stock.  

Both lawsuits also allege that the company's then directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders in connection with the tender
offer and that Genzyme aided and abetted such alleged breach of its directors’
fiduciary duties.  

Based on these allegations, the Ortsman lawsuit and the Gerstle lawsuit seek,
among other relief, injunctive relief preliminarily and permanently enjoining
each us, the company's directors, Genzyme and Wichita Bio from consummating
the merger, awarding damages, and rescinding, to the extent already
implemented, the merger or any of the terms thereof.

                   Trombley Amended Complaint

In addition, on June 13, 2007, the plaintiff in the Trombley lawsuit filed an
amended complaint, which expands upon the allegations made in that plaintiff’s
original complaint filed on June 7, 2007.  

On June 13, 2007, the purported stockholder also filed a preliminary
injunction motion, seeking to enjoin the merger in advance of the date it is
scheduled to close, and an expedited proceedings motion, seeking to proceed
with discovery on an expedited basis and to set June 28, 2007 as the date for
hearing plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction.

                      Albstein Litigation

On June 14, 2007, a purported stockholder of Bioenvision filed a purported
class action in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, New Castle
County against the company, each of its directors, Genzyme and Wichita Bio.

The suit is “Albstein v. Bioenvision, Inc., et. al., Civ. A. No. 3025.”  It
purports to be brought individually and on behalf of all holders of the
company's common stock.  

The lawsuit alleges that the company's then directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the company's stockholders in connection with the tender offer and
that Genzyme aided and abetted such alleged breach of the company's directors’
fiduciary duties.  

Based on these allegations, the Albstein lawsuit seeks, among other relief,
injunctive relief preliminarily and permanently enjoining each of the the
company, its directors, Genzyme and Wichita Bio from consummating the merger,
directing the director defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain
a transaction that is in the best interests of its stockholders, and
rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the merger or any of the terms
thereof.

                     Oppenheim Litigation

On June 20, 2007, a purported stockholder of Bioenvision filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, New
Castle County against the company, each of its directors, Genzyme and Wichita
Bio.

The suit is “Oppenheim Asset Management, et. al. v. Bioenvision, Inc., et al.,
Civ. A. No. 3040-VCP.”  It purports to be brought individually and on behalf
of all holders of the company's common stock.  

The lawsuit alleges that the company's then directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the company's stockholders in connection with the tender offer and
that Genzyme aided and abetted such alleged breach of the company's directors’
fiduciary duties.  

Based on these allegations, the Oppenheim Asset Management lawsuit seeks,
among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining each of the company's, its
directors, Genzyme and Wichita Bio from consummating the merger, rescinding,
to the extent already implemented, the merger or any of the terms thereof,
declaring that the defendants have committed or participated in a breach of
their fiduciary duty to the purported stockholder and other members of the
class, and awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this Oppenheim
Asset Management lawsuit including a reasonable allowance for plaintiff’s
attorneys and experts’ fees.  

The purported stockholder also filed an expedited proceedings motion, seeking
to proceed with discovery on an expedited basis. We and the company's board of
directors believe the allegations in the Oppenheim Asset Management lawsuit
are without merit.

               Consolidation of Delaware Lawsuits

On June 20, 2007, the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, New Castle
County entered an order that consolidated all Delaware actions filed as of
that date into the Trombley proceeding, under the caption, “Brian Trombley et
al. v. Bioenvision, Inc. et al., Consolidated Civ. A. 3008-VCP.”  

On June 26, 2007, in connection with this consolidated proceeding, plaintiffs
voluntarily withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction and removed the
hearing thereon scheduled for June 28, 2007 from the calendar of the Court of
Chancery.  Plaintiffs’ claims remain pending before the Court of Chancery.

                 Vladimir Litigation (New York)

On June 22, 2007, the company was served with a purported class action lawsuit
filed on June 7, 2007 by a purported stockholder of Bioenvision in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County, captioned, “Bert Vladimir v.
Bioenvision, Inc. et al., Index No. 650163-2007.”  

The Vladimir lawsuit purports to be brought individually and on behalf of all
holders of the company's common stock against the company and each of the
company's then directors.  

The lawsuit alleges that the company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the company's stockholders in connection with the tender offer.  

Based on these allegations, the Vladimir lawsuit seeks, among other relief,
injunctive relief preliminarily and permanently enjoining us and the company's
directors from consummating the merger, rescinding, to the extent already
implemented, the merger or any of the terms thereof, declaring that the
defendants have committed a breach of their fiduciary duties to the purported
stockholder and other members of the class, and awarding plaintiff the costs
and disbursements of the Vladimir lawsuit including a reasonable allowance for
plaintiff’s attorneys and experts’ fees.  

The purported stockholder also filed an expedited discovery proceedings
motion, seeking to proceed with discovery on an expedited basis, and a
memorandum of law in support of expedited discovery proceedings.

Bioenvision, Inc. -- http://www.bioenvision.com-- is a product-orientated
biopharmaceutical company primarily engaged in the acquisition, development,
distribution and marketing of compounds and technologies for the treatment of
cancer, autoimmune disease and infection.  


CAREER EDUCATION: Students Allege Systematic Recruitment Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gallo & Associates filed a class action against Career Education Corp.
alleging that the company's profit-oriented approach to education crossed the
line into fraud on a massive scale at its California Culinary Academy
vocational school, victimizing thousands of students seeking a better life and
income as a degreed professional chef.

The litigation, filed in San Francisco Superior Court by dozens of former CCA
students (for themselves and on behalf of all others), alleges that:

     * CCA misrepresented that its admissions were selective,
     * its program elite, and
     * its degree prestigious, and
     * that upon graduation well-paying jobs would be waiting
       and students' education loans would be readily repayable.

The Plaintiffs allege none of this was true when it was said to them, or when
they went to look for jobs.

California consumer class action lawyer Ray Gallo, who represents these former
CCA students, said, "CEC claims to offer a high quality education to
approximately 90,000 students at more than 75 campuses across the world in a
variety of career-oriented disciplines.

“We expect to prove that the California Culinary Academy, CEC's once-elite
culinary school in San Francisco, misrepresented and hid the truth of its
increasingly poor reputation and inability to place graduates in well-paying
jobs-and did so acting under CEC's instructions.

“We also expect to prove that CEC, CCA, or their personnel accepted
undisclosed benefits from lenders to place students in loans that exceeded
market rates. I don't know what's happened at other CEC schools, but I have
seen reports of similar sounding lawsuits involving other CEC schools, and I
have heard that at least one CEC shareholder is demanding that CEC refocus its
strategy on providing quality education to its students."

"CCA's reputation was good before CEC bought it," Gallo added, "and CCA's
recruiters reportedly told students it still was."

But the Plaintiffs allege that CCA's increasingly bad reputation in the food
service industry means its nearly $50,000 program (often financed with high
interest loans sold by CCA that, in many cases, will accrue another $50,000 or
more in interest) was essentially worthless in the job market.

In the suit, students allege that:

     * While CCA was once well respected, CEC ended selective
       admissions, admitting everyone or nearly everyone, and
       ended meaningful graduation requirements, graduating
       everyone or nearly everyone.

     * As a result, students allege, a CCA degree is not
       prestigious and does not open doors-many employers even
       consider it a minus.  Even students who did well at the
       school often find employment only at $10 or $12 an hour
       upon graduation, making their students loans (often
       $50,000 or so, plus substantial interest) difficult or

       impossible to pay, contrary to what CCA promised them.

      * CCA, CEC, or their employees received undisclosed
        benefits from lenders to place students in above-market
        rate loans, and some students face interest rates of
        19%.

Mr. Gallo credits the students for coming forward and the San Francisco Weekly
with breaking the case. "My hat is off to the SF Weekly for paying attention
to these students and their plight. Its article brought this matter to my
attention and, as my firm began investigating, we received reports that
suggest systematic fraud in connection with the 'recruiting' process at CCA."

Mr. Gallo notes that recent changes to the bankruptcy laws make even
non-federally guaranteed student loans difficult or impossible to discharge in
bankruptcy.

"This case may also shed some further light into student loan practices," Mr.
Gallo said, "which have been the subject of various civil and criminal
investigations by state and federal prosecutors in the last couple of years.

“It looks like something untoward happened here. Our interviews of numerous
former students suggest that CCA was not helping students find the best loan
rates, but instead was pushing everyone toward one or two favored lenders who,
as a consequence, were free to charge above-market rates."

For more information, contact:

          Laura Brophy
          Marketcom PR
          Gallo & Associates
          Phone: (203) 364-8657
          E-mail: lbrophy@marketcompr.com


CYBERONICS INC: Continues to Seek Tex. Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cyberonics, Inc. continues to seek for the dismissal of the consolidated class
action, "In re: Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
H-0502121," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.

On June 17, 2005, a putative class action was filed against the company and
certain of its officers and Robert P. Cummins, then chairman and chief
executive, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The lawsuit is, "Richard Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
H:05-cv-02121."  

A second lawsuit with similar allegations is "Stanley Sved v. Cyberonics,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-2414," which was filed on July 12, 2005.

On July 28, 2005, the court consolidated the two cases under Civil Action No.
H-05-2121, captioned, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation," and
entered a scheduling order.

           Consolidation, Appointment of Lead Counsel

On Sept. 28, 2005, the court appointed EFCAT, Inc., John E. and Cecelia
Catogas, Blanca Rodriguez, and Mohamed Bakry as lead plaintiffs and also
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Nov. 30, 2005.
The complaint generally alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by making false and
misleading statements regarding the company's VNS Therapy System device as a
therapy for treatment resistant depression.

                  Dismissal Motion, Amendments

On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to allege facts that state any
claim for securities fraud.

On July 20, 2006, the district court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, allowing the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended
complaint.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to plead a
securities fraud claim with particularity, including failures to allege with
particularity a material misstatement or omission, to allege facts sufficient
to raise a strong inference of intent or severe recklessness, and to allege
sufficiently the causal connection between the plaintiffs' loss and the
defendants' actions.

The court noted that "the deficiencies in plaintiffs' complaint might well
extend beyond the point of cure," but nonetheless granted plaintiffs the right
to amend their complaint in light of the strong presumption of law favoring a
right to amend.

                    First Amended Complaint

On Aug. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint for
violation of the securities laws.  The complaint generally alleges, among
other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements regarding the VNS
Device as a therapy for treatment resistant depression.

Lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to disclose:

     -- that certain individuals associated with the U.S. Food
        and Drug Administration had safety and efficacy concerns
        about the use of the VNS Device for the treatment of
        depression and questioned the adequacy of evidence of
        safety and effectiveness the company presented to the
        FDA;

     -- that the defendants misrepresented the prospect for
        payer reimbursement for the VNS Device;

     -- that the defendants concealed executive compensation and
        governance issues and that the defendants falsely stated
        that an analyst's statements about options granted in
        June 2004 were inaccurate and without merit.

Lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and entities, except
those named as defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities during the period Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006.  

The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and equitable or
injunctive relief, if available.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to allege facts that state any
claim for securities fraud.

The lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on Oct. 23,
2006, and the defendants filed a reply to the opposition on Nov. 6, 2006.

   Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assoc. Intervenes

On Oct. 31, 2006, a week before the defendants filed their reply in connection
with the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the Los Angeles County
Employees Retirement Association filed a motion seeking to intervene and
asking the court to require the lead plaintiffs to republish notice of the
amended class action claims.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the court issued an order compelling republication of notice
and staying the proceeding pending determination of the lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs published notice of the filing of the
first amended complaint, stating that investors who purchased our securities
during the expanded class period (Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006,
inclusive) may move the court for consideration to be appointed as lead
plaintiff within 60 days.

                       Supplements to Motions

In February 2007, the court lifted the stay, and in March 2007, the lead
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend without
prejudice and stayed the litigation in light of issues raised in a case that
is currently submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In June 2007, the court lifted the stay and granted plaintiffs leave to
“supplement —- not amend” their first amended complaint and granted the
company leave to “supplement —- not amend” its motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint.

In July 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a supplemental amended complaint, and
in August 2007, the company filed a supplement to its motion to dismiss,
according to the company's Aug. 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 12, 2007.

The suit, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. H-05-2121,"
is originally "Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc. et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02121," and
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under
Judge Sim Lake.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Elizabeth A. Abbott, Esq.
         John G. Emerson Esq.
         Scott E. Poynter, Eq.
         Emerson Poynter LLP
         2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 100
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037
         E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com
   
         Mark A. Golovach, Esq.
         Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
         Jeffrey R. Krinsk Esq.
         Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
         501 West Broadway, Ste 1250
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-238-1333
         Fax: 619-238-5425
         E-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com
                 fk@classactionlaw.com

              - and -

         Neil Rothstein, Esq.
         David R. Scott, Esq.
         Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
         Scott & Scott LLC
         600 B Street, Ste. 1500
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-233-4565

Representing the defendants is:

         N. Scott Fletche, Esq.
         Vinson & Elkins LLP
         1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
         Houston, TX 77002-6760
         Phone: 713-758-3234
         Fax: 713-615-5168
         E-mail: sfletcher@velaw.com


DAVE & BUSTER'S: Seeks Consolidation of Labor Lawsuits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave & Buster's, Inc. and one of its subsidiaries are seeking to consolidate
two class actions in the State of California alleging violations of California
regulations concerning mandatory meal breaks and rest periods

The company is working to have these two cases consolidated and coordinated
because the potential class members are virtually identical, according to the
company's Sept. 18, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 5, 2007.

Dave & Buster's, Inc. -- http://www.daveandbusters.com-- is an operator of
large-format, high-volume, regional entertainment complexes.  Each
entertainment complex offers an array of entertainment attractions, such as
pocket billiards, shuffleboard, interactive simulators and virtual reality
systems, as well as traditional carnival-style games of skill. The Company's
complexes offers food and beverages.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Employees Commence Labor Code Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Pelton Serpe LLP and William Coudert Rand served Deutsche
Bank Securities with a class and collective action complaint on September 28,
2007 seeking unpaid overtime wages on behalf of certain current and former
employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The class and collective action complaint was brought on behalf of Roland
Oyejola, a former Deutsche Bank employee, and all other similarly situated
Deutsche Bank and Raymond Michaels Associates employees who choose to opt-into
the action.

The attorneys of Pelton Serpe LLP and the Law Offices of William Coudert Rand
look forward to pursuing this matter on behalf of all current and former
Deutsche Bank and Raymond Michaels Associates employees who were improperly
denied overtime pay.

For more information, contact:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Pelton Serpe LLP
          Phone: (212) 725-3600
          111 Broadway, 9th Floor
          New York, New York 10006

          - and -

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          Law Office of William Coudert Rand
          711 Third Ave., Suite 1505
          New York, New York 10017
          Phone: (212) 286-1425


ESTES-COX: Recalls Model Rockets with Parts that can Separate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Estes-Cox Corp., of Penrose, Colorado, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 80,000 X-15 Flying Model Rockets.

The model rockets side or engine retainer ring can separate and cause the
rocket to fall without the nose cone separating and the parachute deploying,
posing a risk of an impact injury to nearby consumers.

Estes-Cox has received seven reports of the side or engine retainer ring
separating and the nose and parachute failing to release and 25 reports of the
retainer ring being lost during flight, including one report that a consumer
was struck in the arm, requiring surgery.

This recall involves the X-15 flying model rocket, a 1:44 scale version of the
North American Aviation hypersonic rocket plane. The model rockets are about
13.5-inches long and have a wingspan of about 5 inches. The rockets are black
and yellow, and have the number 66670 on the tail. The rockets were sold
individually (item #1890) and as part of a starter kit (item #1412). The item
number is printed on the product’s instruction sheet and above the bar code on
the product’s packaging.

Pictures of recalled model rockets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07319a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07319b.jpg

These recalled model rockets were manufactured in China and are being sold at
hobby stores and other retailers nationwide from June 2005 through July 2007
for between $16 and $36.

Consumers should stop using the recalled rockets immediately and contact
Estes-Cox for instructions on receiving a replacement product.

For additional information, contact Estes-Cox at (800) 576-5811 between 8 a.m.
and 4 p.m. MT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site:
http://www.estesrockets.com


FEDEX CORP: Faces Fuel Surcharge Rates Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corp. and other freight carriers continue to face purported class
actions alleging a conspiracy to fix fuel surcharge rates, according to the
company's Sept. 21, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2007.

In late July 2007, a purported antitrust class action was filed in California
federal court, naming FedEx Corp. (particularly FedEx Freight Corp. and its
LTL [less-than-truckload] freight subsidiaries) and several other major LTL
freight carriers as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants conspired to fix fuel surcharge rates
in violation of federal antitrust laws and seeks injunctive relief, treble
damages and attorneys’ fees.

Since the filing of the original case, similar cases have been filed against
the company and other LTL freight carriers, each with the same allegation of
conspiracy to fix fuel surcharge rates.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that
compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under
the respected FedEx brand.  


FEDEX GROUND: Discovery Now Complete in Owner-Operators Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery and class certification briefing are now complete in a consolidated
owner-operators class action pending against FedEx Ground Package System,
Inc., a major service line of FedEx Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous other purported class actions and
administrative proceedings that claim that the company’s owner-operators
should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the purported class actions have been consolidated for administration
of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

With the exception of recently filed cases that have been or will be
transferred to the multi-district litigation, discovery and class
certification briefing are now complete, and the company are awaiting a
hearing date from the court, according to the company's Sept. 21, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Aug. 31, 2007.

FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of
transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that
compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under
the respected FedEx brand.


KEY ENERGY: Continues to Face Labor-Related Litigation in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. still faces a purported class action in Ventura
County, California Superior Court alleging labor laws-related violations,
according to the company's Sept. 21, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit was filed back in September 2005 under the caption, “Gonzales v. Key
Energy Services, Inc.”  It generally alleges that the company did not pay its
hourly employees for travel time between the yard and the wellhead and that
certain employees were denied meal and rest periods between shifts.

Key Energy Services, Inc. -- http://www.keyenergy.com-- is an onshore,
rig-based well servicing contractor in the U.S. that provides a range of of
well services to major oil companies and independent oil and natural gas
production companies, including rig-based well maintenance, workover, well
completion and recompletion services, oilfield transportation services,
cased-hole electric wireline services and ancillary oilfield services, fishing
and rental services and pressure pumping services.


KEY ENERGY: Oct. Hearing Set for Tex. Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 24, 2007 preliminary approval hearing is scheduled for a proposed
$16.6 million settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against Key Energy Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.

Since June 2004, the company has been named as a defendant in six class action
complaints for alleged violations of federal securities laws, which have been
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

These six actions have been consolidated into one action.  On Nov. 1, 2005,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock from May 29, 2003 to June 4, 2004.

The complaint generally alleges that the company made false and misleading
statements and omitted material information from the company's public
statements and SEC reports during the class period in violation of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including alleged:

       -- overstatement of revenues, net income, and earnings
          per share,

       -- failure to take write-downs of assets, consisting of
          primarily idle equipment,

       -- failure to amortize the Company’s goodwill,

       -- failure to disclose that the Company lacked adequate
          internal controls and therefore was unable to
          ascertain the true financial condition of the Company,

       -- material inflation of the Company’s financial results
          at all relevant times,

       -- misrepresentation of the value of acquired businesses,
          and

       -- failure to disclose misappropriation of funds by
          employees.

On Sept. 7, 2007, the Company reached agreements in principle to settle all
pending securities class actions and some derivative lawsuits in consideration
of payments totaling $16.6 million in exchange for full and complete releases
for all defendants.  

The Company’s contribution to the settlement, net of payments by its insurers
and contributions from other defendants, will amount to $1.0 million.  

The settlement is subject to completion of documentation and court approval
following notices to all potential claimants eligible for class participation.  

A preliminary approval hearing is scheduled for Oct. 24, 2007, with a final
hearing scheduled on March 25, 2008, according to the company's Sept. 21, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is “Kaltman v. Key Energy Serv., In, et al., Case No.
7:04-cv-00082-RAJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas under Judge Robert A. Junell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 667-7706
          Fax: (610) 667-7056

               - and -

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          Hoeffner, Bilek & Eidman, L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1302
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 227-7720
          Fax: 713-227-9404
          E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

Representing the defendants are:

          James Devin Alsup, Esq.
          Lynch Chappell & Alsup
          300 North Marienfeld, Suite 700
          Midland, TX 79701
          Phone: (432) 683-3351
          Fax: 432/683-2587
          E-mail: dalsup@lcalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert R. Burford, Esq.
          Gibbs & Bruns, L.L.P.
          1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 650-8805
          Fax: (713) 750-0903
          E-mail: rburford@gibbs-bruns.com


MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Employees Sue Over Alleged Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail Co. West, which operates the region’s
commuter rail system, is accused of discriminating against minority employees,
Noah Bierman of Boston Globe reports.

Five employees, including Earl West, a storeroom attendant, filed the suit in
federal court.  Lawyers are attempting to get the suit certified as a class
action.  Mr. West said he has a bachelor's degree in management, but was
denied a management position given to a white applicant from outside the
company after the position was left vacant for two months, according to the
report.

Another plaintiff is Elaine DeRosa, an African-American electrician, who says
in the suit that she was passed over for promotions or transfers at least
three times and that the jobs she sought did not have posted selection
criteria in most cases.

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which supervises Massachusetts
Bay Commuter’s contract, was also named as defendant in the lawsuit.

Massachusetts Bay has been running the commuter system since 2002 when it won
a contract previously held by Amtrak.  In the process, Massachusetts Bay
inherited Amtrak’s employees consisting of 90% white men, as well as cases of
employee grievances.

Allegations that are being presented in the suit are without foundation,
according to James F. O'Leary, general manager of the Massachusetts Bay Rail
Co.  He said Massachusetts Bay has since made efforts to broaden its
workforce, work through individual grievances, and increase the number of
minority and female managers.

Mr. Bierman obtained an internal review, prepared for the company in June by
the Holland & Knight law firm, that praises the company’s recent focus on
improving diversity, but recommends an intensification of its efforts.  The
report found there is an inaccurate perception among employees that the
company has not taken any action to address diversity and affirmative action
issues.

Mr. O'Leary said the company is following the recommendations.  Meanwhile,
Laurie Houle, a lawyer for the employees, said the employees have been trying
to do something internally and have been frustrated in their attempts.

For more information, contact:

          Laurie Renea Houle, Esq.
          Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          18 Tremont Street, Suite 500
          Boston, Massachusetts 02108
          (Suffolk Co.)
          Phone: 617-367-7200        
          Fax: 617-367-4820


MOODY’S CORP: Pension Fund Files N.Y. Suit Over Subprime Ratings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund has filed a class-action complaint on
Sept. 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Moody’s Corp. and the company’s chief financial officer and executive
vice president Linda Huber, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit claims defendants made false and misleading statements to investors
about bonds backed by risky subprime mortgages, inflating the price of Moody’s
stock.

Moody's, through its subsidiaries, provides credit ratings, research, and
analysis covering fixed-income securities, other debt instruments and the
entities that issue such instruments in the global capital markets.

Among other things, the company assigns ratings to mortgage bonds comprising
risky "subprime" home loans, including bonds packaged as "collateralized debt
obligations" and other securities backed by subprime assets. Investors rely on
these ratings to assess the value and risk of these investments.

Plaintiffs claim that throughout the class period, defendants misrepresented
or failed to disclose that the company assigned excessively high ratings to
bonds backed by risky subprime mortgages -- including bonds packaged as
collateralized debt obligations -- which was materially misleading to
investors concerning the quality and relative risk of these investments.

Moreover, even as a downturn in the housing market caused rising delinquencies
of the subprime mortgages underlying such bonds, Moody's maintained its
excessively high ratings, rather than downgrade the bonds to reflect the true
risk of owning subprime-mortgage-backed debt instruments.

The on July 11, 2007, Moody's shocked investors when it announced that the
company was downgrading 399 mortgage-backed securities issued in 2006 and
reviewing an additional 32 for downgrade, affecting approximately $5.2 billion
of bonds. The company also disclosed that it had downgraded 52 bonds issued in
2005.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Moody's between Oct. 25, 2006 and July 10, 2007 inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by
         defendant's acts and omissions as alleged;

     (b) whether defendants participated in and pursued the
         common course of conduct complained of;

     (c) whether documents, press releases, and other statements
         disseminated to the investing public and the company's
         shareholders during the class period misrepresented
         material facts about the business, operations,
         financial condition, and prospects of Moody's;

     (d) whether statements made by defendants to the
         investigating public during the class period
         misrepresented and/or omitted to disclose material
         facts about the business, operations, value,
         performance, and prospects of the company;

     (e) whether the market price of Moody's common stock during
         the class period was artificially inflated due to the
         material misrepresentations and failures to correct the
         material misrepresentations complained of; and

     (f) the extent to which the members of the class have
         sustained damages and the proper measure of damages.

Plaintiffs pray and demand for judgment as follows:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action
        and certifying plaintiff as class representative under
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and
        the other class members against defendants, for all
        damages sustained in favor of plaintiff and the other
        class members against defendants, for all damages
        sustained as a result of defendants' wrongdoing, in an
        amount to be proven at trial, including interest
        thereon;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs
        and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
        fees and expert fees; and

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

The suit is "Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Moody's Corp.
et al., Case No. 07 CV 8375," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Ira M. Press
          Kirby McInerney, LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 371-6600
          Fax: (212) 751-2540


REDDY ICE: Hearing on Motion for TRO on GSO Merger Set Today
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed in the U.S. District Court of Texas in Collin County
against Reddy Ice Holdings Inc. its board and GSO Capital Partners LP, seeking
to temporarily prohibit a shareholder vote on Reddy's $1.1 billion buyout by
GSO, according to the company's Sept. 27 Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company said a motion for temporary restraining order was filed to enjoin
the special meeting of the Company’s stockholders to adopt the agreement and
plan of merger dated as of July 2, 2007 and entered into between the Company
and entities formed by funds affiliated with GSO Capital Partners LP.  

The takeover has drawn fire from at least one major shareholder, Shamrock
Activist Value Fund, which called the price "grossly inadequate" and suggested
a potential conflict of interest involving company executives and some board
members, the Associated Press reports.

A hearing with respect to the motion has been scheduled for October 3, 2007.  

The Company believes that the claims asserted in this action are without merit
and that no grounds exist for the granting of a temporary restraining order.  

The Company intends to defend against this suit vigorously.

Reddy Ice -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- is the largest US maker and
distributor of packaged ice. In addition to its Ice Factory machines, Reddy
Ice sells packaged ice in a variety of shapes and sizes (ranging from
seven-pound bags to 300-pound blocks) to retail, commercial, and industrial
users in 31 states across the southern US and the District of Columbia. Reddy
Ice also leases ice equipment, provides refrigerated warehousing, and bottles
water. In 2007 the company agreed to be acquired.


SEITEL INC: Continues to Face Merger-Related Litigation in Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seitel, Inc. still faces a purported class action in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas, 189th Judicial District over a February 2007 merger
agreement it entered into, 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 June 30, 2007.

On Feb. 14, 2007, Seitel Acquisition Corp. (Acquisition Corp.) was merged with
and into Seitel, Inc. (Company), pursuant to a merger agreement between the
Company, Acquisition Corp. and Seitel Holdings, Inc. (Holdings) dated Oct. 31,
2006.  

Pursuant to the merger agreement, the Company continued as the surviving
corporation and became a privately owned corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Holdings.  Holdings is an investment entity controlled by
ValueAct Capital Master Fund, L.P.

On Nov. 6, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas, 189th Judicial District (No. 2006-71302) by
Todd Augenbaum, an alleged stockholder of the Company.  

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Jan. 22, 2007.  The amended
complaint names as defendants the Company and each member of its Board of
Directors as well as ValueAct Capital Master Fund, L.P., Seitel Holdings,
Inc., and Seitel Acquisition Corp.

The amended complaint is a purported class action that alleges, among other
things, that:

       -- the defendants have breached fiduciary duties they
          assertedly owed to the Company's stockholders in
          connection with the Company entering into the
          Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of Oct. 31,
          2006, with Holdings and Acquisition Corp., or aided
          and abetted in the breach thereof,

       -- the defendants have breached their duty of candor to
          the Company's stockholders by failing to disclose
          material information, or aided and abetted in the
          breach thereof, and

       -- the merger consideration is unfair and inadequate.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class, an
injunction against the consummation of the merger, and the costs and
disbursements of the action.

On Feb. 1, 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary
restraining order and/or preliminary injunction of the shareholder vote, which
then occurred as scheduled on Feb. 9, 2007.

Seitel, Inc. -- http://www.seitel-inc.com/-- is a provider of seismic data
and related geophysical services to the oil and gas industry in North America.
The Company has ownership in a library of onshore and offshore seismic data
that it offers for license to oil and gas companies.  


SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Del. Court Approves Merger Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in New Castle County approved a
settlement of a purported class action against Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. in
relation to its acquisition of Micro Linear Corp.

On Aug. 30, 2006, a complaint, "Yevgeniy Pinis v. Timothy R. Richardson, et
al., No. 2381-N," was filed against the company, Micro Linear, Metric
Acquisition Corp. and Micro Linear's board of directors in connection with the
company's proposed acquisition of Micro Linear.

The complaint was amended on Sept. 12, 2006.  The amended complaint alleges,
among other things, that:

     -- the Micro Linear board of directors violated its
        fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Micro Linear by
        approving the merger of Metric Acquisition Corp. with
        and into Micro Linear; and

     -- the consideration paid to the stockholders of Micro
        Linear in the merger was unfair and inadequate and that
        the proxy statement/prospectus that forms a part of the
        company's registration statement on Form S-4 (as amended
        and filed on Sept. 13, 2006) was deficient in a number
        of respects.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the company
and Micro Linear from consummating the merger, rights of rescission against
the merger and the terms of the merger agreement, damages incurred by the
class, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the company and Micro Linear agreed in principle with the
plaintiff to a settlement of this lawsuit.

The agreement in principle as to the proposed settlement contemplated that
counsel for the plaintiff would request a reasonable award of fees and
expenses from the court in connection with the lawsuit, with the amount of any
fee award ultimately granted being within the court’s discretion.

The company and the other defendants reserved its rights to negotiate in good
faith regarding and to oppose plaintiff’s related fee application.

Further to the proposed settlement, the parties agreed to provide the
stockholders of Micro Linear with certain additional disclosures.

The settlement was subject to the approval of the Delaware Court of Chancery
and provided for a broad release of claims by the stockholder class.

In May 2007, notice of the court’s hearing to consider and potentially approve
the proposed settlement, including further information about the terms of the
proposed settlement and the release of claims was mailed to the members of the
stockholder class.

On July 19, 2007, the Delaware Court of Chancery held a settlement hearing, at
which the proposed settlement was approved in all respects, the plaintiff’s
attorneys were awarded $350,000 in attorney’s fees and costs, and the action
was dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.

Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. -- http://www.sirenza.com/-- is a supplier of
radio frequency (RF) components for the commercial communications, consumer
and aerospace, defense and homeland security equipment markets.  


STAR GAS: Discovery Stayed in Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Star
Gas Partners, L.P. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

On or about Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class action on behalf of a purported
class of unitholders was filed against the Partnership and various
subsidiaries and officers and directors of the company in the U.S. District
Court of the District of Connecticut.  The suit is “Carter v. Star Gas
Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3:04-cv-01766-IBA.”

Subsequently, 16 additional class action complaints, alleging the same or
substantially similar claims, were filed in the same district court.  The
class actions were consolidated into one consolidated amended complaint.

On Sept. 23, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal securities
laws and failure to satisfy the applicable pleading requirements of the PSLRA,
and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On July 27, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the pending motion to
dismiss.  On Aug. 21, 2006, the court issued its rulings on defendants’
motions to dismiss, granting the motions and dismissing the consolidated
amended complaint in its entirety.  

On Aug. 23, 2006, the court entered a judgment of dismissal.  On Sept. 7,
2006, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and to alter and reopen the
court’s Aug. 23, 2006 judgment of dismissal and for leave to file a second
consolidated amended complaint (Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion).

On Oct. 20, 2006, defendants filed their memorandum of law in opposition to
the Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion.  Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on
or about November 20, 2006.  On March 22, 2007 the Court issued its decision
denying Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion.

On April 3, 2007, the Star Gas Defendants filed a Motion for a Mandatory Rule
11 Inquiry and fee shifting which seeks recovery of Defendants’ legal fees
pursuant to the PSLRA.

On April 24, 2007, class plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion.
The Star Gas Defendants’ reply was due on May 8, 2007.

On April 20, 2007, class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the Second Court of Judge Arterton’s decisions dismissing the
amended complaint and denying Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion.  

Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, class plaintiffs stipulated
to the dismissal of the appeal as against:

     * Hanseatic Americas, Inc.,
     * Paul Biddelman,
     * A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.,
     * RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.,
     * UBS Investment Bank, and
     * Audrey Sevin

On July 6, 2007, class plaintiffs filed their brief on appeal. The Star Gas
Defendants’ opposition brief was due on Aug. 21, 2007, and class plaintiffs’
reply brief was due on Sept. 11, 2007.  Oral argument on the appeal was
scheduled to take place after Oct. 1, 2007.  

In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant to the
mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA, according to the company's Aug. 9,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No.  
3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:    

         Jonathan F. Andres, Esq.
         Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.
         7733 Forsyth, Suite 700
         St. Louis, MO 63105
         Phone: 314-862-6800
         Fax: 314-862-1606
         E-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com

              - and -

         David L. Belt, Esq.
         Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C.
         350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606
         New Haven, CT 06503-0606
         Phone: 203-772-3100
         Fax: 203-772-1691
         E-mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:   

         Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq.
         Day, Berry & Howard
         One Canterbury Green
         Stamford, CT 06901-2047
         Phone: 203-977-7300
         Fax: 203-977-7301
         E-mail: tjgallagher@dbh.com

              - and -

         Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq.
         Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
         205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936
         New Haven, CT 06509-1910
         Phone: 203-784-8200
         Fax: 203-777-1181
         E-mail: eandrews@tylercooper.com


STATION CASINOS: Lawsuit Over Fertitta Merger in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action pending against Station Casinos, Inc.
in District Court, Clark County, Nevada over the company’s definitive merger
agreement with Fertitta Colony Partners, LLC.

                         Merger Agreement

On Dec. 4, 2006, the company announced that it had received a proposal from
Fertitta Colony to acquire all of Station Casinos' outstanding common stock
for $82 per share in cash.  

On Feb. 23, 2007, the company entered into a definitive merger agreement with
Fertitta Colony, pursuant to which Fertitta Colony agreed to purchase all of
the company's outstanding common stock for $90 per share in cash.  

Fertitta Colony is a company formed by Frank J. Fertitta III, chairman and
chief executive officer of station; Lorenzo J.  
Fertitta, vice chairman and president of station; and Colony  
Capital Acquisitions, LLC, an affiliate of Colony Capital, LLC.

                         Initial Lawsuits

On Dec. 4, 2006, Helen Roessler filed a purported class action complaint in
the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A532367, against the
company, its Board of Directors, and  
Fertitta Colony.   

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
challenges the proposed transaction as inadequate and unfair to the company's
public stockholders.   

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit
and an injunction against the proposed transaction.   

Three similar putative class actions were subsequently filed in the District
Court:   

      -- "Goldman v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532395, filed on Dec. 4, 2006;"  

      -- "Traynor v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532407, filed on Dec 4, 2006;" and  

      -- "Filhaber v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532499, filed on Dec. 5, 2006."

                       Griffiths Litigation

On Jan. 2, 2007 David Griffiths filed a purported class action complaint in
the District Court against the company, its Board of Directors, Delise F.
Sartini, Blake L. Sartini, Colony  
Capital, LLC, Colony Capital Acquisitions, LLC, and FCP.   

The complaint alleges that the company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties and the remaining defendants aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction.   

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
an injunction against the proposed transaction, declaratory relief, the
imposition of a constructive trust upon the defendants, and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs.

                     Consolidation of Cases

On Jan. 4, 2007, the District Court consolidated the Initial Lawsuits under
the heading, "In Re Station Casino's Shareholder  
Litigation," and appointed lead counsel and liason counsel in connection
therewith.   

On Jan. 29, 2007 Mr. Griffiths filed a motion to vacate the District Court's
order appointing lead counsel and to establish a briefing schedule on motions
to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  At the March 5, 2007 hearing on
this motion, the plaintiff’s motion was denied.


                    Class and Derivative Suit

On Feb. 14, 2007, the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a
purported class and derivative action complaint in District Court against the
company's Board of Directors, Thomas J. Barrack, Jr., Delise Sartini, Blake
Sartini, Colony Capital, Colony Acquisitions, FCP, Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas, and German American Capital Corp.   

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company breached its
fiduciary duties and the remaining defendants aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed transaction.   

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
an injunction against the proposed transaction unless and until the company
adopts and implements a fair sale process, the disclosure of all material
information to the company's stockholders, the imposition of a constructive
trust upon the defendants, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs.

                     Consolidation of Cases

All of the above-referenced actions have been consolidated into a single
action under the heading, “In re Station Casinos Shareholder Litigation,
Master Case No. A-532367,” Dept. No. 13, District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

On June 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint in the District Court against Station, Station’s directors, Frank J.
Fertitta III, Lorenzo J. Fertitta, Blake L. Sartini and Delise F. Sartini,
Colony, Colony Acquisitions and FCP.

The Amended Complaint alleges that Station’s directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Station and its stockholders as follows:

     (1)  The defendants failed to engage in a fair process that
          would maximize value to Station’s stockholders because
          the defendants put into place covenants in Station’s
          bond indentures that could, under certain
          circumstances:

          -- require a purchaser of Station not affiliated with
             Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J. Fertitta to
             redeem those bonds;

          -- put into place a stockholder rights plan and a
             staggered board;

       -- adopted a supermajority voting requirement in
         connection with any merger transaction and imposed a
         $160 million termination fee on Station.

     (2) The process being used to sell Station is wrongful,
         unfair and harmful and is an attempt by the defendants
         to aggrandize their personal and financial positions.

         It does not reflect the true inherent value of Station
         that was known only to the defendants.  This value,
         which far exceeds the $90.00 per share merger  
         consideration, includes the returns from Red Rock, the
         Company’s Native American casino-management contracts
         and the expected returns from Aliante Station and other
         expansion projects.

     (3) The directors have not and are not exercising  
         independent business judgment and have acted and are
         acting to the detriment of the plaintiff class.  In
         particular, the members of the Special Committee are
         not independent of Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J.
         Fertitta, were handpicked for Station’s Board of
         Directors by Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J.
         Fertitta, are loyal and beholden to them and will do
         what Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J. Fertitta tell
         them to do.  

         The Special Committee failed to properly shop Station,
         artificially depressing the value of Station’s stock,
         thereby depriving plaintiffs of the right to receive
         the maximum value for their shares. They are taking
         steps to avoid competitive bidding, to cap the price of
         Station stock and to give FCP and other members of the
         buying group an unfair advantage by, among other
         things, failing to solicit other potential acquirers or
         alternative transactions.

     (4) The Company’s preliminary proxy statement filed with
         the SEC on May 7, 2007 misrepresented material facts
         and omits material information necessary for
         stockholders to make an informed decision concerning
         the transaction because, in part, it did not discuss
         whether the defendants considered alternative
         transaction forms, nor did it properly detail the sale
         process.

     (5) The Preliminary Proxy Statement did not detail whether
         Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., financial advisor to the
         Special Committee, performed any sensitivity studies or
         whether it valued Station assuming Station would be
         split into separate operating and holding companies.

         The Preliminary Proxy Statement also failed to detail
         the proper valuation for Station, or the basis for the
         valuation. In addition, Bear Stearns is in a conflict
         position because it owns 36,639 shares of Station
         common stock.

The Amended Complaint also alleges that Frank J. Fertitta III, Lorenzo J.
Fertitta, Blake L. Sartini, Delise F. Sartini, FCP, Colony and Colony
Acquisitions knowingly aided and abetted the Company’s directors in breaching
their fiduciary duties to the Company’s public stockholders.

The Amended Complaint seeks an injunction preliminarily and permanently
enjoining the defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
proposed merger transaction, and demands that the plaintiffs be awarded their
costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses.

Station believes all of the allegations of wrongdoing in the Amended Complaint
to be without merit, denies any wrongdoing, denies that information in the
definitive proxy statement is false or misleading, and denies that any
material information is omitted from the definitive proxy statement.

In addition, Station has been advised that the other defendants named in the
Amended Complaint similarly believe the allegations of wrongdoing in the
Amended Complaint to be without merit, and deny any breach of duty to or other
wrongdoing with respect to the plaintiff class.

In order to resolve the litigation and avoid further cost and delay, Station
and the individual defendants, without admitting any wrongdoing, agreed to
make certain further disclosures in the Company’s definitive proxy statement
filed with the SEC on July 9, 2007, as requested by counsel for the plaintiffs
in the litigation.

It is anticipated that after further discovery all parties will cooperate in
seeking dismissal of the litigation, 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.

Station Casinos, Inc. -- Net: http://www.stationcasinos.com-- is a gaming and
entertainment company that owns and operates nine major hotel/casino
properties and seven smaller casino properties in the Las Vegas metropolitan
area, as well as manages a casino for a Native American tribe.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Review "Engle"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected tobacco companies’ petition for writ of
certiorari from a Florida Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the case of
“Engle v. Liggett” (“Reynolds v. Engle, 06-1545”).

Handed down last year, the Engle decision upheld a jury's findings that
tobacco companies had committed fraud, were negligent and concealed the
addictive nature of smoking from consumers in order to sell more cigarettes.
For Floridians harmed by cigarettes, they now need only prove that smoking
caused their own illnesses in order to recover damages. Estimates indicate
that between 700,000 and 1,000,000 qualified Florida smokers currently have
the right to sue for justice and compensation.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling effectively denied an industry bid to bar
the use of damaging findings reached at the trial level, according to Billy
Shields of the Daily Business Review.  It means Florida plaintiffs attorneys
have until Jan. 11, 2008, to file individual claims under the Engle decision.

                        Case Background

Trial began in July 1998 in “Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” a case
filed in May 1994, and pending in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida,
in which a class consisting of Florida residents, or their survivors, alleges
diseases or medical conditions caused by their alleged “addiction” to cigarettes.

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and B&W, seeking actual damages and punitive damages in
excess of $100 billion each and the creation of a medical fund to compensate
individuals for future health-care costs.  

                   $145 Billion Damages Award

On July 7, 1999, the jury found against RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other
cigarette-manufacturer defendants in the initial phase, which included common
issues related to certain elements of liability, general causation and a
potential award of, or entitlement to, punitive damages.

The second phase of the trial, which consisted of the claims of three of the
named class representatives, began on November 1, 1999. On April 7, 2000, the
jury returned a verdict against all the defendants. It awarded plaintiff Mary
Farnan $2.85 million, the estate of plaintiff Angie Della Vecchia $4.023
million and plaintiff Frank Amodeo $5.831 million.

The trial court also ordered the jury in the second phase of the trial to
determine punitive damages, if any, on a class-wide basis. On July 14, 2000,
the jury returned a punitive damages verdict in favor of the “Florida class”
of approximately $145 billion against all the defendants, with approximately
$36.3 billion and $17.6 billion being assigned to RJR Tobacco and B&W,
respectively.

               Reversal of Trial Court’s Judgment

On November 6, 2000, the trial judge denied all post-trial motions and entered
judgment. In November 2000, RJR Tobacco and B&W posted appeal bonds in the
amount of $100 million each and initiated the appeals process. On May 21,
2003, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s
final judgment and remanded the case to the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court
with instructions to decertify the class.

                  Florida Supreme Court Review

The class appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court accepted the case on May 12,
2004.  On July 6, 2006, the court issued its decision. The court affirmed the
dismissal of the punitive damages award and decertified the class, on a
going-forward basis. The court preserved a number of class-wide findings from
Phase I of the trial, including that cigarettes can cause certain diseases,
that nicotine is addictive and that defendants placed defective and
unreasonably dangerous cigarettes on the market, and authorized former class
members to avail themselves of those findings under certain conditions in
individual lawsuits, provided they commence those lawsuits within one year of
the date the court’s decision becomes final.

The court specified that the class is confined to those Florida citizen
residents who suffered or died from smoking-related illnesses that
“manifested” themselves on or before November 21, 1996 and that were caused by
an addiction to cigarettes.  In addition, the court reinstated the
compensatory damages awards of $2.85 million to Mary Farnan and $4.023 million
to Angie Della Vecchia, but ruled that the claims of Frank Amodeo were barred
by the statute of limitations.

Finally, the court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal’s 2003 ruling
that class counsel’s improper statements during trial required reversal.

                        Rehearing Motion

On August 7, 2006, RJR Tobacco and the other defendants filed a rehearing
motion arguing, among other things, that the findings from the Engle trial are
not sufficiently specific to serve as the basis for further proceedings and
that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision denied defendants due process.

On the same day, the plaintiffs also filed a rehearing motion arguing that
some smokers who became sick after November 21, 1996, and who are therefore
not class members, should nevertheless have the statute of limitations tolled
since they may have refrained from filing suit earlier in the mistaken belief
that they were Engle class members.

                Supreme Court’s Revised Opinion

On December 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court withdrew its July 6, 2006,
decision and issued a revised opinion, in which it set aside the jury’s
findings of a conspiracy to misrepresent and clarified that the Engle jury’s
finding on express warranty were preserved for use by eligible plaintiffs.

The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion and confirmed that the class was
limited to those individuals who developed alleged smoking-related illnesses
that manifested themselves on or before November 21, 1996. The court issued
its mandate on January 11, 2007, which began the one-year period for former
class members to file individual lawsuits.

Afterwards, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court. On Oct. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal against
the Florida Supreme Court's ruling.

                Statement from Altria Group, Inc.

The decision at this time is "not a decision on the merits of the case, but
rather was based on the current procedural posture of the case, and does not
preclude Supreme Court review at a later stage in the litigation once some
individual cases are tried," according to William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris
USA vice president and associate general counsel.

Philip Morris USA will offer a vigorous defense against any former Engle class
member who elects to bring an individual suit against the company. The company
expects to have additional appellate options if any of those individual cases
are tried, including a renewed request for review by the nation’s highest court.

“Each plaintiff who files suit still must prove liability on the part of the
defendants including, among other things, that the use of a particular
company’s cigarettes caused their illness and that the company’s conduct
prevented them from making an informed choice to smoke,” Mr. Ohlemeyer said.

“Some Florida plaintiffs’ attorneys, in advertising for clients, gave the
false impression that former Engle class members need only file a lawsuit to
collect damages. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“Philip Morris USA intends to defend any and all such cases that may be filed.
Each case will require an inquiry into whether those filing lawsuits are
actually members of the former Engle class and a detailed examination of the
facts behind each individual claim,” Mr. Ohlemeyer said.

Companies named in the lawsuit include Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria
Group Inc., Brown and Williamson Holdings Inc., a unit of British American
Tobacco PLC, Lorillard Tobacco Co., a unit of Loews Corp.; and R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., a unit of Reynolds American Inc.


TRIBUNE CO: Dismissal of Securities, ERISA Suits Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal
regarding the dismissal of certain class actions against Tribune Co.

Several class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers as a result of the circulation
misstatements at Newsday and Hoy, New York.  

These suits alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and other managerial and
director failings under the federal securities laws and Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

The consolidated securities class action lawsuit and the consolidated ERISA
class action lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in Chicago were both
dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 29, 2006 and the dismissals are currently
being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 9, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 1, 2007.

Tribune Co. -- http://www.tribune.com-- is operating businesses in
publishing, interactive and broadcasting.  It reaches more than 80 percent of
U.S. households and is the only media organization with newspapers, television
stations and websites in the nation’s top three markets.


TXU CORP: Finalizing Documents of $7.25M ERISA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
TXU Corp. is in the process of preparing documents in the settlement of a
consolidated class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

In November 2002, February 2003 and March 2003, three lawsuits were filed,
asserting claims under ERISA on behalf of a putative class of participants in
and beneficiaries of various employee benefit plans of TXU Corp.

These ERISA lawsuits were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed
in February 2004 against TXU Corp., the directors of TXU Corp. serving during
the putative class period as well as certain officers of TXU Corp. who were
the members of the TXU Thrift Plan Committee.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of participants in such employee benefit
plans during the period between April 26, 2001 and Oct. 11, 2002.

The plaintiffs filed an initial motion for class certification and, after
class certification discovery was completed, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' initial class certification motion without prejudice and granted
plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs' second class certification motion, filed on the basis of their
amended complaint, was denied and the case was ordered dismissed without
prejudice on Sept. 29, 2005.  They filed an appeal of the dismissal to the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

While on appeal, the matter was referred to the 5th Circuit's alternative
dispute resolution program and subsequently to mediation.

While mediation was unsuccessful, further discussions led to an agreement in
principle to settle this litigation on Dec. 24, 2006 for $7.25 million, before
attorney's fees, to be paid by TXU Corp. to the thrift plan pursuant a court
approved allocation.

A Memorandum of Understanding confirming the agreement in principle was signed
on Jan. 24, 2007 and the settlement is in the process of being confirmed with
final settlement documents after which the settlement will be submitted to the
District Court for approval, 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 "Hargrave v. TXU Corp., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv- 02573," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Ed
Kinkeade.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gary B. Lawson, Esq.
         Godwin Pappas Langley Ronquillo – Dallas
         1201 Elm St., Suite 1700
         Dallas, TX 75270-2084
         Phone: 214-939-4870
         Fax: 214-760-7332
         E-mail: glawson@godwinpappas.com

              - and -

         Jeffrey W. Chambers, Esq.
         Ware Jackson Lee & Chambers
         America Tower, 2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor
         Houston, TX 77019
         Phone: 713-659-6400
         Fax: 713-659-6262

Representing the defendants are:

         David P. Poole, Esq.
         TXU Legal Dept.
         1601 Bryan St., 21st Floor
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Phone: 214-812-6001
         Fax: 214-812-6032
         E-mail: dpoole@txu.com

              - and -

         Robert K. Wise, Esq.
         Hunton & Williams – Dallas
         1601 Bryan St., 30th Floor
         Dallas, TX 75201-3402
         Phone: 214-979-3071
         Fax: 214-880-0011
         E-mail: bwise@hunton.com


UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Package Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Sept. 27
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon alleging it
systematically overcharges customers by using an “in-motion dimensioning
system” that exaggerates the size of packages, and overcharges accordingly,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Berg Design, Inc. claims UPS allegedly knows that its “laser and photo optic
technology” is “mechanically imperfect, measure(s) packages at high speeds,
and frequently produce(s) measurements that are greater than the package’s
true measurements.”

This is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who have shipped
packages with defendant and were subsequently invoiced for shipping charge
corrections relating to a package's dimensions since May 18, 2001.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant has systematically charged plaintiff
         and members of the class more than it was otherwise
         entitled to under the terms of the shipping agreement;

     (b) whether such overcharges constitute a breach of
         contract;

     (c) whether UPS re-measures packages using an in motion
         dimensioning system;

     (d) whether UPS's in-motion dimensioning system is
         inherently imperfect, measures packages at high speeds,
         and produces measurements that are greater than the
         package's true measurements;

     (e) whether plaintiff and members of the class suffered
         damages as a result of UPS's breach; and

     (f) the amount of damages caused to plaintiff and members
         of the class.

They pray for relief as follows:

     -- an order certifying the defined class with the named
        plaintiff as class representative;

     -- a judgment against defendant awarding the class their
        damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

     -- prejudgment interest, as afforded by law; and

     -- all such other legal and equitable relief to which
        plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled.

The suit is "Berg Design, Inc. et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No.
Cv-07-B-1766-S," originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon.  It has been transferred from Portland, Oregon to Birmingham.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Steve D. Larson
          Joshua L. Ross
          Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.
          209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor
          Portland, Oregon +7204
          Phone: (503) 227-1600
          Fax: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: slarson@ssbls.com or jross@ssbls.com

          - and -

          Craig A. Nichols
          David R. Kracke
          Nichols & Associates
          4614 SW Kelly Ave., # 200
          Portland OR 97239
          Phone: (503) 224-3018
          Fax: (503) 222-0693


UNITED PARCEL: Law Firm Seeks Consolidation of Franchisees’ Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, in coordination with two other law
firms, submitted a motion to combine cases filed against shipping giant United
Parcel Service Inc. (NYSE: UPS) alleging the company routinely uses an
inaccurate measurement system that causes thousands of franchise store owners
and corporate account holders to be back-charged for higher shipping rates.

The motion would allow three filed cases, one in San Francisco, one in Oregon
and the third in Alabama, to combine and could broaden the scope of potential
remedies for franchise owners and corporate account holders.

The motion to intervene is on behalf a proposed class of 10,000 UPS Store
franchisees, other package shipment centers and over one million account holders.

"We believe joining the actions into one case will be to everyone's benefit,"
said HBSS managing partner Steve Berman. "The allegations against UPS are
being voiced from around the country and narrowing down the legal process to
one court could also help speed litigation."

According to the complaint UPS changed its measurement system to use a
dimensional weight rate structure after January 1, 2007 which takes into
consideration a package's length, width and height. This process first takes
place in the store or corporate mailroom and then is checked for accuracy at a
UPS hub during the shipping process.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that UPS knew its measuring system was
inaccurate and unreliable which resulted in millions of dollars of
over-charges. The suit also contends that UPS does not allow store owners to
contest or challenge UPS's billing adjustments.

The joint complaint filed by the San Francisco and Oregon plaintiffs on
September 24, 2007 claims UPS' actions are in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, which awards triple damages to
plaintiffs if proven. The RICO claim could also force UPS to change its
billing practices -- a remedy which is unavailable in the Alabama action.

UPS uses Multiple Dimension Measurement Devices, manufactured by outside
parties to determine the pricing of packages. The suit alleges the company
knowingly participated in the scheme to fraudulently measure packages and over
charge shippers.

The proposed complaint claims UPS was in full control of the choice of devices
and how they determined pricing. UPS chose which machines and software
programs to use, directly controlled the manner in which these machines were
used, oversaw calibration and regular machine maintenance.

The updated complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Alabama, and if
certified could represent named plaintiffs on behalf of all UPS franchises
nationwide, other package and mail shipping outlets, and companies that are
account-holders with UPS.

The complaint alleges breach of contract and violations of the RICO Act
against UPS.

According to the compliant UPS is one of the most recognized brands in the
world and has become the largest package delivery company. The company's focus
is enabling commerce worldwide and has grown into a $42.6 billion business
since its founding in 1907.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com

          - and -

          Mark Firmani
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: 206-443-9357
          E-mail: mark@firmani.com


VICORP RESTAURANTS: Continues to Face Suit by Former Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed by two former managers of VICORP Restaurants, Inc.
continues against the company in a California court, 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.

The purported class action was brought in March 2006 and alleges that the
Company violated California law with regard to unpaid overtime, compensation
for missed meals and rest periods, civil penalties for failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to provide notice on paychecks where
paychecks may be cashed without any fees, and unfair business practices.

The classes and subclasses alleged in the action have not been certified by
the court at the current stage of the litigation but generally are claimed to
be persons who have been employed since Feb. 1, 2005, in the position of
restaurant managers, persons who have been employed in California since March
15, 2002, in any capacity who received a payroll check in California, and all
restaurant managers who have ended their employment with the Company prior to
the effective date of any settlement, judgment, or other resolution of the
action.

No dollar amount in damages is requested in the Complaint and the Complaint
seeks statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees in an unspecified amount.

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


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


LCA-VISION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Ohio Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of LCA-Vision, Inc. from February 12,
2007 through July 30, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges LCA 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 procedure volume at existing stores had
         significantly declined;

     (2) that overall growth was solely coming from new store
         openings;

     (3) that the Company was operating under defective
         assumptions about its marketing budget and deferred
         revenue;

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

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

On July 31, 2007 the Company shocked investors when it reported abysmal second
quarter 2007 financial and operational results, which included a decline in
same-store procedure volume and a substantial rise in patient acquisition
costs. Additionally, the Company reported lowering operating income, net
income, and earnings per share (EPS) than in the comparable 2006 quarter. As a
result, the Company significantly lowered its EPS guidance from between $2.05
to $2.15 for full-year 2007 down to between $1.90 to $2.00 for full-year 2007.

On this news, the Company's shares declined $7.48 per share, or 17.4 percent,
to close on July 31, 2007 at $35.51 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The following day, the Company's shares declined an additional $2.11
per share, or almost 6 percent, to close on August 1, 2007 at $33.40 per
share, again on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

LCA is engaged in the provision of fixed-site laser vision correction services
at its LasikPlus vision centers.
          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                        


                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in
any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying)
is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable,
but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of
the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For subscription
information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *