CAR_Public/071008.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, October 8, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 198

                            Headlines


ANTIOCH PUBLISHING: Recalls Bookmarks on Clip’s High Lead Level
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Sydney Federal Court Hears Investors Suit
BACK YARD: Settles “Plank” Lawsuit Over BBAC Acquisition
BANK OF AMERICA: CD Holders Sue Over Low Automatic Renewal Rates
BIG LOTS: La. Court Denies Decertification Motion in FLSA Suit

BIG LOTS: Seeks to Consolidate Suits Over Client Info. Request
BIG LOTS: Class Members Challenge Approval of Calif. Suit Deal
BRICKSTREET MUTUAL: Policyholder Sues Over “Agent Commission”
DIEDRICH COFFEE: Still Faces Labor-Related Litigation in Calif.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls Key Chains Containing High Lead Levels

DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Named in FLSA Violations Suit Against Apex
GILMAN & CIOCIA: Parties Seek to Settle “Kosseff” Litigation
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Suits Over Floppy Disk Controllers
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Intel P4 Processor
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces “Smart Chips” Suits in Cal., Canada

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Ill. lawsuit Over EEPROM Chip
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Cal. “Baggett” Suit Over Laserjet Printer
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces “Rich” Suit Over Inkjet Printer
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Survivors Testify for Insurance Bill
JONES FINANCIAL: Settles Two Wage, Hour Lawsuits for $40M

MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Discovery Continues in Md. Securities Suit
MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Cal. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: African-American Workers File Suit in Ill.
PURDUE PHARMA: Ken. Counties File Suit Over Oxycontin Abuse
QUICKSILVER INC: Continues to Face Calif. FACTA Violations Suit

SHUFFLE MASTER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Nev.
UNITED STATES: Towns Mull Suit Against FAA Over Flight Rerouting


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIGBAND NETWORKS: KGS Commences Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


ANTIOCH PUBLISHING: Recalls Bookmarks on Clip’s High Lead Level
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antioch Publishing, of Yellow Springs, Ohio, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 150,000 bookmarks and journals.

The company said paint on the spiral metal bindings of the journals, clip of
the bookmarks and the clear coating on the marquis bookmarks and bracelets
contain excessive levels of lead, which violates the federal lead paint ban.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves various designs of bookmarks and journals from Antioch
Publishing’s Signature Collection. The character-themed bookmarks and journals
include the following designs:

     Clip Bookmarks

Winnie the Pooh (Disney)   Star               Coffee     
Lady Bug & Flower          Sun & Rainbow      Follow Him & Cross
Hope & Courage             Sun & Moon         Monkey & Bananas

     Marquis Bookmarks

Dragon                     Hugging Cat
  
     Bookmarks Sold with Bracelets

Mother’s Touch             Breast Cancer
  
     Journals

Cherry Blossoms            Sweetheart         Sassy

These recalled bookmarks and journals were manufactured in China and are being
sold at book, card and gift stores nationwide from March 2005 through October
2007 for between $4 and $14.

Pictures of the recalled bookmarks and journals:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08010a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08010b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08010c.jpg

Consumers should immediately take the bookmarks and journals away from
children and contact Antioch Publishing for a refund.

For additional information, contact Antioch Publishing at (800) 543-1515
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web
site: http://www.antioch.com


ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Sydney Federal Court Hears Investors Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action brought by shareholders against Australian poker machine
company Aristocrat Leisure has begun in Sydney federal court, reports say.  A
hearing started on Oct. 4 and is expected to finish by the end of the month,
according to ABC News.

In 2003, Maurice Blackburn Cashman Lawyers and litigation company IMF
Australia filed a class action writ against Aristocrat Leisure alleging that
the company's market forecasts were false and misleading and that it failed to
disclose all material information in a timely manner.

The lawsuit alleges that the company misled shareholders by not keeping them
fully informed before announcing earnings downgrades that wiped $1.5 billion
(AU$2 billion) from the company's value in 2003.  The lawsuit claims the
non-disclosure caused them losses.

The case was transferred to the Federal Court in Sydney.  Later, the applicant
applied to amend the class definition to delete the requirement that a group
member must retain Maurice Blackburn Cashman to be a part of the class.

This application was successful and the class definition was amended so that
the case now applies to any person who acquired shares in Aristocrat during
the period Sept. 20, 2002 to May 26, 2003 and who suffered loss as a
consequence of Aristocrat alleged conduct.

The Statement of Claim has been amended to claim losses incurred by
shareholders who purchased shares between Feb. 18, 2002 (previously Sept. 20,
2002) and 26 May 2003.

The case is before Justice Margaret Stone.  The hearing will deal with some
issues common to class members' potential claims, but it will not finally
determine their claims.

Aristocrat Leisure said the lawsuit could cost the company AU$10 million to
AU$20 million in damages -- not the AU$190 million to AU$396 million reported
by the media.

Dorajay Pty Limited is representing shareholders.  Only the Dorajay claim will
be determined finally at the hearing, according to The Age.  Other class
members will need to prove their claims separately, the report said.

Aristocrat said only Dorajay and four other shareholders had filed details of
their claims.

A ruling in the case could set a precedent for other class actions over
failure to disclose material information.

Representing shareholders is:

          Stephen Gageler, S.C.
          Phone: + 612 9233 1209
          Fax: + 612 9232 7626
          E-mail: stephengageler@wentworthchambers.com.au


BACK YARD: Settles “Plank” Lawsuit Over BBAC Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------
BBAC LLC settled a putative class action complaint captioned “Plank v. Back
Yard Burgers, Inc., et. al., Case No. CA-07-2499,” filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Memphis Business Journal
reports.

Back Yard Burgers, Inc. (NASDAQ:BYBI - News) had previously reported that it
expected its proposed merger transaction with BBAC, LLC to close in August.

Back Yard Burgers first announced in June its merger agreement with BBAC LLC
and its subsidiary BBAC Merger Sub Inc.

Under the deal, holders of Back Yard Burgers common stock and preferred stock
would get $6.50 a share in cash -- a 29 percent premium above the closing
price of $5.05 a share on June 8. The deal is expected to close in the third
quarter.

Since that time, a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee was served on the Company and unnamed other
defendants that alleges violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, or FACTA, and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA.

The complaint, a putative class action was filed in late July, but not served
on the company until late in the day on August 3, 2007. It alleged violations
of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act. It further alleged that contrary to FACTA and TCPA,
Back Yard Burgers and other unnamed defendants willfully failed to properly
truncate, or shorten, and mask certain personal account information on
plaintiff's credit or debit card receipt provided to her (and, in the case of
the TCPA, the receipt retained by the restaurant) at the point of sale by one
of the company's restaurants.

There was no claim that the plaintiff had suffered any actual damages or that
she was the victim of identity theft related to the incident alleged in the
lawsuit.

In an Oct. 2 filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, BBAC reported
that the lawsuit was settled by the Issuer with the plaintiff on an individual
basis and dismissed on September 14, 2007.

The parties did not request nor did the court make any ruling with respect to
the certification of any putative class as alleged in the complaint.  As a
result, a new closing date for the company's acquisition is extended to Oct. 31.

BBAC is an investment partnership managed by Atlanta-based Cherokee Advisors
LLC. Its principal investors include Reid M. Zeising of Cherokee Advisors and
C. Stephen Lynn, former chairman and CEO of Shoney's Inc. and Sonic Corp.

Back Yard Burgers operates and franchises 181 restaurants in 20 states,
primarily in the Southeast. The company had profit of $900,000 on $44.7
million in revenue in 2006.


BANK OF AMERICA: CD Holders Sue Over Low Automatic Renewal Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. is facing a purported class action filed by two
Massachusetts customers claiming the bank deceived depositors into renewing
certificates of deposits at below-market rates, Reuters reports.

Sheldon and Ruth Kriegel filed the suit in U.S. district court in Manhattan on
Sept. 24.  They seek class-action status for the suit.

The suit claims Bank of America misled Premier" and "Plus" clients into
letting the bank automatically renew maturing CDs at rates well below what
competitors offered, or what it offered even to its own customers.  The
Kriegels have "Premier" status.  Specifically, they claim that the bank rolled
their $338,925 CD when it matured on May 1, but cutting the annual percentage
yield to 2.62 percent from 4.5 percent.  Had they inquired about it, rather
than rely on automatic renewal, they could have a higher rate, the bank
allegedly told them.  Other customers at the time could have received a 3.40
percent rate, it said.

The Kriegels' lawsuit alleges fraud, breach of contract, negligence and other
wrongdoing, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, among other remedies.
Plaintiffs want compensation, costs, and punitive damages.  

The suit is “Kriegel et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al., Case No.
1:2007cv08299,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Richard J. Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joel Laitman, Esq.
          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
          Cannon's Walk, 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, New York 10038
          (New York Co.)
          Phone: 212-964-0046
          Telecopier: 212-267-8137


BIG LOTS: La. Court Denies Decertification Motion in FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied a motion
that sought for the decertification of the class in a lawsuit alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by Big Lots, Inc.

The civil putative collective action complaint was filed on November 2004
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.  It alleges that the company violated FLSA by misclassifying
assistant managers as exempt.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other
individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation,
as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 5, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally certifying a class of
all current and former assistant store managers who have worked for the
company since Nov. 23, 2001.  

As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to approximately
5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to the Louisiana matter.

As of Aug. 4, 2007, approximately 1,100 individuals had joined the Louisiana
matter.  

The company has filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion was
denied on Aug. 24, 2007, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No.
2:04-cv-03201-SSV-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Sarah S. Vance with referral to Judge Sally
Shushan.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Bohrer Law Firm
          8712 Jefferson Hwy, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: 225-925-5297
          E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Dominic J. Ovella, Esq.
          Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale
          One Galleria Blvd., P.O. Box 8288, Suite 1400          
          Metairie, LA 70011-8288
          Phone: 504-836-6500
          E-mail: novella@hmhlp.com


BIG LOTS: Seeks to Consolidate Suits Over Client Info. Request
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. is seeking for the consolidation of two purported class actions
filed in California alleging that the company violated California law by
requesting certain customer information in connection with the return of
merchandise for which the customer sought to receive a refund to a credit card.

In May 2007, two-class action complaints were filed against the company, one
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, and one in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other
individuals who are similarly situated, statutory penalties, costs and
attorneys' fees and seek injunctive relief.

The company believes that substantially all of the purported class members of
the San Diego County lawsuit are within the purported class of the Orange
County lawsuit.  

Thus, it is currently seeking to have a single court coordinate these two
lawsuits, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4,
2007.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national broadline closeout
retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company operated a total of 1,375 stores in
47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.’s merchandising categories include Consumables,
Home, Seasonal and Toys, and Other.


BIG LOTS: Class Members Challenge Approval of Calif. Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two members in a California labor class action against Big Lots, Inc. appealed
a final order approving a settlement reached in the matter.

In October 2005, a class action complaint was served upon the company for
adjudication in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Ventura.  The suit alleged that the company had violated certain California
wage and hour laws.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other
individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid wages and rest and meal
period compensation, as well as penalties, injunctive and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

In the third quarter of fiscal year 2006, the company and the plaintiff
reached a tentative settlement of the California matter.  

On Nov. 6, 2006, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of
the tentative settlement.

On April 30, 2007, the court entered the final order approving the class
action settlement and judgment of dismissal with prejudice.  

Two class members whose objections to the settlement were overruled by the
court have appealed the final order to the California Court of Appeal,
challenging the settlement, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national broadline closeout
retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company operated a total of 1,375 stores in
47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.’s merchandising categories include Consumables,
Home, Seasonal and Toys, and Other.


BRICKSTREET MUTUAL: Policyholder Sues Over “Agent Commission”
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aero-Fab Inc. of Cabell County, W.Va. is suing to seek refund from BrickStreet
Mutual Insurance Co. for alleged insurance overcharge, the State Journal reports.

The sheet metal fabricator in Huntington's east end filed the suit in Cabell
County Circuit Court on Sept. 26.  It alleges that the compensation insurance
provider overcharge companies that had coverage through it by overcharging an
“agent commission.”  The commission is non-existent, as a result, BrickStreet
is unjustly enriched, the lawsuit states.

With the approval of the West Virginia Legislature, BrickStreet is the sole
provider of workers' compensation insurance from the time it started writing
policies in January 2006 until July 1, 2008.  It was created as part of
reforms in how the state’s workers compensation system is managed.  Aero-Fab
enrolled with BrickStreet on Jan. 1, 2006.  Its policy covered six months.

Aero-Fab is suing after being refused of a refund by BrickStreet, according to
the suit.  The lawsuit said BrickStreet representatives told the company that
the premium costs are the same whether a policyholder works with an agent or
not, and agent compensation is built into the workers' comp rates as part of
"administrative costs."

The suit seeks to represent 38,000 workers who have compensation policies as
of Aug. 22, 2006, and who were charged an agent commission even though no
agents were retained.

According to the report, as part of the discovery, Aero-Fab is requesting:

     -- documents that might outline why and how BrickStreet
        decided to charge an agent commission;

     -- disclosure of the number of companies and people it
        insured during each effective policy period from Jan. 1,
        2006, to the present;

     -- disclosure of the total amount of agent commissions
        charged to all policyholders since January 2006, as well
        as the total compensation paid to BrickStreet agents;
        and

     -- documentation showing the "total amount of agent
        commissions charged to those BrickStreet insureds
        without a registered agent during each effective policy
        period from Jan. 1, 2006, to the present. ..."

Andy Wessels, a spokesman for BrickStreet, refused to comment on the pending
litigation, according to the report.

Representing Aero-Fab are:

          Paul T. Farrell Jr., Esq.
          Farrell, Farrell & Farrell, PLLC
          The Farrell Building, 914 Fifth Avenue
          P.O. Box 6457
          Huntington, West Virginia 25772-6457
          (Cabell & Wayne Cos.)
          Phone: 304-522-9100
          Fax: 304-522-9162


          Alex J. Shook, Esq.
          Hamstead, Williams & Shook PLLC
          315 High Street
          Morgantown, WV 26505
          Phone: (304) 296-3636
                 (888) 298-2529
          Fax: (304) 291-5364


DIEDRICH COFFEE: Still Faces Labor-Related Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diedrich Coffee, Inc. continues to face two class actions in California over
allegations that it violated labor laws.

On Sept. 21, 2006, a purported class action complaint entitled, "Jason Reid,
Kimberly Cornia, et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et al.," was filed against the
company in U.S. District Court Central District of California by two former
employees, who worked in the positions of team member and shift manager.

A second similar purported class action complaint entitled, "Deborah Willems,
et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et al.," was filed in Orange County, California
Superior Court on Feb. 2, 2007, on behalf of another former employee who
worked in the position of general manager.

These cases currently involve the issue of whether employees and former
employees who worked in California stores during specified time periods were
deprived of overtime pay, missed meal and rest breaks.

In addition to unpaid overtime, these cases seek to recover waiting time
penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other types of relief on behalf of
the current and former employees in the purported class.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 25, 2007 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 27, 2007.

Diedrich Coffee, Inc. -- http://www.diedrich.com/-- is a specialty coffee
roaster, wholesaler and retailer.  The Company sells brewed, espresso-based
and various blended beverages primarily made from its own fresh roasted
premium coffee beans, as well as light food items, whole bean coffee and
accessories, through Company operated and franchised retail locations.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls Key Chains Containing High Lead Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Merchandising Inc., of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 192,000 key chains.

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

This recall involves key chains with a coiled cord and a metal charm with one
of the following engraved words: “wisdom”, “truth”, “believe”, “love”, “hope”,
or “dream”. The key chains were sold on a cardboard tab with floral designs
and the words “Metal Keyring” and “$1” on the front.

These recalled key chains were manufactured in China and are being sold at
Dollar General stores nationwide from June 2005 through August 2007 for about $1.

Pictures of recalled key chains:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08009a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08009b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take these key chains away from young
children and return them to the store where purchased for a refund or
replacement product.

For additional information, contact Dollar General at (800) 678-9258 between 9
a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site:
http://www.dollargeneral.com


DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Named in FLSA Violations Suit Against Apex
------------------------------------------------------------
Dycom Industries, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In December 2006, two former employees of Apex Digital LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Dycom Industries, Inc., that was discontinued during the quarter
ended Jan. 27, 2007, commenced a lawsuit against the subsidiary in Illinois
State Court.   

The lawsuit alleges that Apex violated certain minimum wage laws under the
FLSA and related state laws by failing to comply with applicable minimum wage
and overtime pay requirements.  

Plaintiffs seek damages and costs.  They also seek to certify, and eventually
notify, a class consisting of former employees who, since December 2004, have
worked for Apex.  

On Jan. 30, 2007 the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  In July 2007, plaintiffs amended the complaint
to include Dycom as a defendant, according to the company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended July 28, 2007.

The suit is "Radinski et al. v. Apex Digital, LLC et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-00571," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois before David H. Coar.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ruth Irene Major, Esq.
          Penny Nathan & Kahan & Associates
          208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1660
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 855-1660
          E-mail: rmajor@pnkahan.com

               - and -

          James J. Oh, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson, P.C.
          200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 372-5520
          E-mail: joh@littler.com


GILMAN & CIOCIA: Parties Seek to Settle “Kosseff” Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a purported stockholder class action pending in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County against Gilman
& Ciocia, Inc. are negotiating a settlement.

On Feb. 4, 2004, the company was served with a summons and a shareholder's
class action and derivative complaint filed by Gary Kosseff against James
Ciocia, Thomas Povinelli, Michael P. Ryan, Kathryn Travis, Seth A. Akabas,
Louis P. Karol, Edward H. Cohen, Steven Gilbert and Doreen Biebusch, and
Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. (Civil Action No. 188-N).

The action accuses the company, its board of directors and its management of
breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty in connection with the sale of
offices to Pinnacle Taxx Advisors, LLC in 2002.

The action alleges that the sale to Pinnacle was for inadequate consideration
and without a fairness opinion by independent financial advisors, without
independent legal advice and without a thorough evaluation and vote by an
independent committee of the board of directors.

The action seeks:

     -- a declaration that the company, its board of directors
        and management breached their fiduciary duty and other
        duties to the plaintiff and to the other members of the
        purported class;

     -- a rescission of the Asset Purchase Agreement;

     -- unspecified monetary damages; and

     -- an award to the plaintiff of costs and disbursements,
        including reasonable legal, expert and accountants
        fees.

On March 15, 2004, counsel for the company and for all defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  On June 19, 2004, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

On July 12, 2004, counsel for the company and for all defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 8, 2005, oral argument was heard on the motion to dismiss, and on
July 29, 2005 the case Master delivered his draft report denying the motion.

The parties filed exceptions to the report and on Aug. 3, 2006, the Master
delivered his final report denying the motion to dismiss.  

The parties are proceeding with discovery and a June 4, 2007 trial was
scheduled for the case.

The trial was postponed without a new date pending settlement negotiations,
according to the company's Sept. 28, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. -- http://www.gilcio.com/-- provides federal, state and
local tax preparation services to individuals, predominantly in the middle and
upper income tax brackets, and financial planning services, including
securities brokerage, insurance and mortgage agency services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Suits Over Floppy Disk Controllers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) continues to face purported class actions in Texas,
Oklahoma and California over faulty floppy disk controllers.

                          Texas Cases

One of the suits is “Alvis v. HP,” which is a defective product consumer class
action filed in the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas in April 2001.

In February 2000, a similar suit captioned, “LaPray v. Compaq,” was filed in
the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

The basic allegation is that HP and Compaq sold computers containing floppy
disk controllers that fail to alert the user to certain floppy disk controller
errors.  That failure is alleged to result in data loss or data corruption.

The complaints in “Alvis” and “LaPray” seek injunctive relief, declaratory
relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray case, which the
Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002. The Texas Supreme Court
reversed the certification and remanded to the trial court in May 2004.

On March 29, 2005, the Alvis trial court certified a Texas-wide class action
for injunctive relief only, which HP appealed on April 15, 2005.  HP's appeal
in the Alvis case is still pending.

                         Oklahoma Cases

On June 4, 2003, each of “Barrett v. HP,” and “Grider v. Compaq,” was filed in
the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, with factual allegations
similar to those in Alvis and LaPray.

The complaints in “Barrett” and “Grider” seek, among other things, specific
performance, declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

On Dec. 22, 2003, the District Court entered an order staying the Barrett case
until the conclusion of “Alvis.”

On Sept. 23, 2005, the District Court granted the “Grider” plaintiffs' motion
to certify a nationwide class action, which the Oklahoma Court of Civil
Appeals affirmed on Oct. 13, 2006.

On Nov. 5, 2006, HP filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Oklahoma
Supreme Court seeking reversal of the lower courts' decisions.  That petition
was denied on March 26, 2007.

The Grider case is scheduled for trial in January 2008.  

                        California Cases

On Nov. 5, 2004, “Batiste v. HP (formerly Scott v. HP),” and on Jan. 27, 2005,
“Schultz v. HP (formerly Jurado v. HP),” were filed in state court in San
Joaquin County, California, with factual allegations similar to those in
“LaPray” and “Alvis,” seeking certification of a California-only class,
injunctive relief, unspecified damages (including punitive damages),
restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 27, 2006, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification and certified the Schultz case as a California-only class.

On March 26, 2007, HP filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the California
Supreme Court.  That petition was summarily denied on May 9, 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2007.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of products,
technologies, solutions and services to individual consumers, small and
medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises.  Its offerings span
personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing-related
products and services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and
multi-vendor customer services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Intel P4 Processor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face a purported class action in California
with regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s Pentium 4 processor.

The suit, "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard Co.," generally
alleges that the company along with Intel, misled the public by suppressing
and concealing the alleged material fact that systems that use the Pentium 4
processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the Pentium III
processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel.

The company was joined to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004.  It was initially
filed in state court in Alameda County, California, based upon factual
allegations similar to those in the Illinois cases.

The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages, restitution,
attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class.  

The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in Santa Clara
County, California.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2007.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of products,
technologies, solutions and services to individual consumers, small and
medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises.  Its offerings span
personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing-related
products and services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and
multi-vendor customer services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces “Smart Chips” Suits in Cal., Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face several lawsuits over its use of "smart
chips" in its inkjet printer cartridges, according to the company's Sept. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

The suits clam that the “smart chips” erroneously signal to the customer that
certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be replaced before they are really
empty, and include an expiration date that is allegedly not documented in
marketing materials provided to consumers.  Some of these lawsuits have been
dismissed by without prejudice by the plaintiffs.

                        Feder Litigation

The suit, “Feder v. HP (formerly Tyler v. HP),” was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 16, 2005 asserting
breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and deceptive advertising and unfair business
practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that HP employed a "smart chip" in
certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion
prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration
date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.

Plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink depletion warnings
and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge
to its full capacity or to choose competitive products.

                        Ciolino Litigation

On Sept. 6, 2005, a lawsuit captioned, “Ciolino v. HP,” was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The allegations in the Ciolino case are substantively identical to those in
“Feder,” and the two cases have been formally consolidated in a single
proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under the caption, “In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation.”

                       Blennis Litigation

In addition, on Jan. 17, 2007, an additional lawsuit captioned, “Blennis v.
HP,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California with allegations substantially the same as those consolidated in
“In re Inkjet Printer Litigation.”

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, damages (including
enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

                      Canadian Litigation

Substantially similar allegations have been made against HP and its
subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., in four Canadian class actions, one
commenced in British Columbia in February 2006, two commenced in Quebec in
April 2006 and May 2006, respectively, and one commenced in Ontario in June
2006, all seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages.

                     Dismissed Litigations

Three related lawsuits filed in California state court have been dismissed
without prejudice by the plaintiffs.  The suits are:

       -- “Tyler v. HP” (filed in Santa Clara County on Feb. 17,
          2005),

       -- “Obi v. HP” (filed in Los Angeles County on Feb. 17,
          2005), and

       -- “Weingart v. HP” (filed in Los Angeles County on March
         18, 2005)

In addition, two related lawsuits filed in federal court have been dismissed
without prejudice by the plaintiffs.  The suits are:

        -- “Grabell v. HP” (filed in the District of New Jersey
           on March 18, 2005), and

        -- “Just v. HP” (filed in the Eastern District of New
           York on April 20, 2005).

The consolidated federal suit is "In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case
No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge
Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
         Cotchett Pitre & Simon
         S.F. Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Phone: 650.697.6000
         Fax: 650.692.3606
         E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Sally J. Berens, Esq.
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
         1881 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-849-5300
         Fax: 650-849-5333
         E-mail: sberens@gibsondunn.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Ill. lawsuit Over EEPROM Chip
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face a purported class action alleging
violations of Illinois state law in its inclusion of an electrically erasable
programmable read only memory (EEPROM) chip in certain of its LaserJet
printers that prematurely advises the user that the drum kit needs replacing.

The suit, “Schorsch v. HP,” was filed against HP on Oct. 28, 2003 in Illinois
state court.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint seeking to expand the
class from purchasers of drum kits to purchasers of all HP printer consumables
that contain EEPROM chips.

The most current amended complaint seeks certification of an Illinois-only
class and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs, according to
the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of products,
technologies, solutions and services to individual consumers, small and
medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises.  Its offerings span
personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing-related
products and services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and
multi-vendor customer services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Cal. “Baggett” Suit Over Laserjet Printer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. faces a purported consumer fraud class action containing
allegations that it employs a technology in its LaserJet color printers
whereby the printing process shuts down prematurely, preventing customers from
using the toner that is stranded in the cartridge.

The suit, “Baggett v. HP,” was filed on June 6, 2007 in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The plaintiffs allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers that they will be
unable to utilize the toner remaining in the cartridge after the printer shuts
down.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of all
HP LaserJet color printers and seeks unspecified damages, restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, according to the
company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

The suit is “Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., Case No.
8:07-cv-00667-AG-RNB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge Andrew J. Guilford with referral to Judge
Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Darren T. Kaplan
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Phone: 213-229-7000

               - and -

          Robert A. Particelli, Esq.
          Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-5000
          Fax: 215-963-5001


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces “Rich” Suit Over Inkjet Printer
------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face a purported consumer fraud class action
alleging that HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color
ink in addition to black ink when printing black and white images and text.

The suit, “Rich v. HP,” was filed against the company on May 22, 2006 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a nationwide class.  

The Court has granted HP's motion to dismiss several of the plaintiffs'
claims, and HP answered the remaining claims in February 2007, according to
the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

The suit is “Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 5:06-cv-03361-JF,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

Representing the defendants are:

          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-229-7000
          Fax: 213-229-7520
          E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Survivors Testify for Insurance Bill
----------------------------------------------------------
Holocaust survivors testified before the U.S. House of Representatives in
support of a bill that would track remaining Holocaust-era policies, The
Associated Press reports.  The witnesses are urging that settlement process in
a suit against foreign banks and insurance companies remain open.

During the hearing of the testimonies, U.S. ambassador Christian Kennedy
revealed that cash payments to survivors and descendants of Holocaust victims
have reached about $8 billion.  He said it is “imperfect justice” but,
nonetheless, the U.S. had helped a lot in seeking justice for victims and
their families by intervening in class actions in the 1990s.

He said the $8 billion came from funds established in Germany, Austria, France
and Switzerland in a $1.25 billion settlement of class actions. In addition,
he said the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims paid
out $300 million, according to the report.

According to the report, the bill quoted unidentified experts as estimating
the value in 2006 of unpaid life, annuity, endowment and dowry insurance theft
from European Jewry from the Holocaust and its aftermath ranges between $17
billion and $200 billion.


JONES FINANCIAL: Settles Two Wage, Hour Lawsuits for $40M
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. agreed to pay up to $40 million to settle two
class actions filed against the firm claiming the company failed to pay
overtime, improperly made wage deductions, failed to properly reimburse
business-related expenses and failed to provide meal and rest breaks to
investment advisers, the St. Louis Business Journal reports.

Edward Jones denied these allegations, but agreed to pay $21 million in the
first case and up to a maximum of $19 million in the second.

                         Case Background

Jones Financial has been sued in five putative class actions that allege it
has misclassified its financial advisors as exempt from overtime pay,
improperly deducted certain business expenses and otherwise failed to comply
with certain state and federal wage and hour laws.

Those actions were:

     -- "Booher, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.,
         (National class under federal statutes);"

     -- "Ellis, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.
         (Pennsylvania only class);"

     -- "Weaver, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Ohio
         only class);" and

     -- "O'Brien, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (New
         York only class)."

     -- "Thill, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P." in the
        United District Court in California

St. Louis-based Edward Jones, an investment brokerage company, is one of the
largest privately held companies in St. Louis.


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Discovery Continues in Md. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against Martek Biosciences Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland.

Since May 4, 2005, several other putative class actions making similar
allegations were filed against the company and certain of its officers.

The court entered orders consolidating these cases, appointing lead plaintiffs
and approving lead plaintiffs' counsel and liaison counsel.

On Nov. 18, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in "In re Martek
Biosciences Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224."

While the court has not made a determination of whether a putative class can
be certified, the consolidated complaint claims to be filed on behalf of the
purchasers of the company's common stock during a purported class period
beginning Dec. 9, 2004 and ending April 28, 2005.

At this time, plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages they are
seeking in the actions.  The consolidated complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b- 5, promulgated thereunder, and violations of Section 11
and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements and failed to
disclose material facts regarding its business and prospects in public
statements the company made or failed to make during the period and, in the
case of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 claims, in the company's January 2005
prospectus.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Feb. 3,
2006, and a hearing before the court on this motion was held on May 22, 2006.

On June 14, 2006, the court denied our motion to dismiss and on July 25, 2006,
the court entered a scheduling order for further proceedings in the case.  

Subsequently, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the claims arising
under the Securities Act of 1933, leaving only the alleged violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the action.

On Sept. 20, 2006, the court approved the dismissal of the 1933 Act claims.
Additionally, on Sept. 21, 2006, the court approved the parties' stipulation
certifying a class to prosecute claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Subject to certain exceptions, the stipulated class generally consists of all
persons who either purchased Martek common stock during the class period of
Dec. 9, 2004 through April 28, 2005, inclusive or otherwise acquired, without
purchasing, Martek common stock during the class period from a person or
entity who purchased those particular shares of Martek stock during the class
period.

Discovery is proceeding and is not expected to be complete until 2008.

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

The suit is "Black v. Martek Biosciences Corp. et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-01224-MJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland under Judge Marvin J. Garbis.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Christopher L. Nelson, Esq.
         Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 16108220262
         Fax: 16106677056
         E-mail: cnelson@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Charles J. Piven, PA
         The World Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 14103320030
         Fax: 14106851300
         E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Steven F. Barley, Esq.
         Hogan and Hartson, LLP
         111 S. Calvert St., Ste. 1600
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 14106592700
         Fax: 14105396981
         E-mail: sfbarley@hhlaw.com


MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Cal. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities fraud class action, "In re
Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-3395,"

In November 2006, Hewlett-Packard Co. completed its acquisition of Mercury
Interactive Corp.  Upon completion of the acquisition, Hewlett Packard assumed
oversight for all litigation and regulatory matters pending or subsequently
commenced against Mercury.

Prior to the announcement of the acquisition, and beginning on or about Aug.
19, 2005, four securities class actions were filed against Mercury Interactive
and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Mercury's
stock from October 2003 to November 2005:

The original actions were:

      -- "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. C05-3395";

      -- "Johnson v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         3864";

      -- "Munao v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         4031"; and

      -- "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-5157."

These class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California as, "In re Mercury Interactive Corp.
Securities Litigation."

The consolidated complaint filed on Sept. 8, 2006 alleges that the defendants
made false or misleading public statements regarding Mercury's business and
operations in violation of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  

On July 30, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with leave to amend, according to the company's Sept.
7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
C05-3395," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          Scott + Scott, LLC, 600 B. Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Fax: 619-233-0508
          E-mail: ashingler@scott-scott.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Nicole Acton Jones, Esq.
          Heller Ehrman, LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-772-6032
          Fax: 415-772-6268
          E-mail: nicole.jones@hellerehrman.com

          Kirk Andrew Dublin, Esq.
          Jones Day
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1500
          Phone: 415-626-3939
          Fax: 415-875-5700
          E-mail: kdublin@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Facter, Esq.
          Shearman & Sterling, LLP
          525 Market Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-616-1100
          Fax: 415-616-1199
          E-mail: jfacter@shearman.com


MORGAN STANLEY: African-American Workers File Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------
Former and current financial advisors of African-American Morgan Stanley (MS)
filed a lawsuit over alleged discrimination in hiring, compensation and
promotion because of their race, Dow Jones reports.  The suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 3.

Plaintiffs claim they were denied employment opportunities at the firm on the
basis of color. They alleged "dramatic underrepresentation" of
African-Americans as brokers and in executive and management positions at the
firm. They also claimed higher attrition and lower compensation.

"Plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to hold Morgan Stanley accountable for its
unlawful treatment of African-Americans and to achieve meaningful reform,"
says a court document filed by Chicago-based law firm Stowell & Friedman.

The lawsuit against Morgan Stanley is yet to seek class-action status and is
estimated to have 200 potential class members, the report said.

The suit is “Moore et al v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Case No:
1:2007cv05606,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under the Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon.

Plaintiffs’ counsel:

          Stowell & Friedman , Ltd.
          Suite 1400, 321 South Plymouth Court
          Chicago, IL 60604-3912
          Phone:  (312) 431-0888
          Fax:  (312) 431-0228


PURDUE PHARMA: Ken. Counties File Suit Over Oxycontin Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo filed a lawsuit seeking class-action
status against OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma to claim reimbursement for
money spent countering widespread abuse of the drug in Appalachia, the AP
WorldStream reports.  The suit was filed in Pike County Circuit Court.

OxyContin is sold under the brand name for oxycodone.  It has been blamed for
hundreds of deaths across the U.S. in recent years. Its intended slow-release
effect can be easily circumvented, and abuse has been especially high in
Appalachian states such as Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia.

The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for costs incurred in drug abuse programs, law
enforcement and prescription payments through Medicaid and the Kentucky
Pharmaceutical Assistance program.

It seeks unspecified punitive damages and the creation of a court-monitored
fund, financed by Purdue Pharma, that would pay for a program that would
notify users of the potential harms of the drug and spur research on the
effects of the drug, among other initiatives.

The company’s current or former executives have pleaded guilty this year to
misleading the public about the drug's risk of addiction.

At least six eastern Kentucky counties have agreed to participate in the suit,
with more expected to join, said Gary C. Johnson, the county's outside counsel
who is handling the case.

To contact Mr. Johnson:
    
          Gary C. Johnson, P.S.C.
          110 Caroline Avenue
          P.O. Box 231
          Pikeville, Ky 41502-0231
          Phone: (606) 437-4002
          Fax: (606) 437-0021


QUICKSILVER INC: Continues to Face Calif. FACTA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quicksilver Inc. still faces a purported federal class action alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

The suit, "Burnis L. Simon, Jr. v. Quicksilver, Inc. (sic), Case No.
CV07-01326," was filed on Feb. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  

The company has yet to be served with the complaint.  The suit specifically
alleges willful violation of FACTA based upon certain of the company's retail
stores' alleged electronic printing of receipts on which appeared more than
the last five digits of customers' credit or debit card number and/or the
expiration of such customers' credit or debit card.

The complaint seeks statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than
$1,000 for each violation, as well as unspecified punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and a permanent injunction from further engaging in violations of FACTA.
It does not allege that any class member has suffered actual damages.  

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

The suit is "Burnis L. Simon, Jr. v. Quicksilver, Inc. (sic), Case No.
CV07-01326," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Jeffrey W.
Johnson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Herbert Hafif Law Offices
         269 W. Bonita Ave.
         Claremont, CA 91711-4784
         Phone: 909-624-1671
         Web site: http://www.hafif.com


SHUFFLE MASTER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Nev.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ordered the consolidation
of several securities fraud class actions filed against Shuffle Master, Inc.

Initially, several complaints were filed against the company.  They are as
follows:

                        Stocke Litigation

On June 1, 2007, a putative class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws against the Company and the company's Chief Executive
Officer, Mark L. Yoseloff, and Chief Financial Officer, Richard L. Baldwin,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of
persons who purportedly purchased the company's stock between Dec. 22, 2006,
and March 12, 2007.

The case is entitled, “Joseph Stocke vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L.
Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin.”  The company, as well as, Dr. Yoseloff and
Mr. Baldwin, were served with the complaint on June 6, 2007.

The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder.

These claims allegedly relate to the company's March 12, 2007, announcement
that it would restate its Fiscal Fourth Quarter and full year financial results.  

The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unstated amount.

On or about Aug. 4, 2007, four plaintiffs moved the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff.  No decision has yet been made.

On or about Sept. 6, 2007, one of those plaintiffs withdrew its application
for appointment.  

                      Armistead Litigation

On June 12, 2007, a second putative class action complaint for violation of
the federal securities laws against the Company and Dr. Yoseloff and Mr.
Baldwin was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

The case is entitled, “Robert Armistead, Jr. vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L.
Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin.”  The Company, Dr. Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin
were served with the complaint on June 12, 2007.

This lawsuit effectively mirrors the allegations in the Stocke lawsuit filed
against these same defendants on June 1, 2007, except that the Armistead
complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased our stock between March
20, 2006, and March 12, 2007.

                        Tempel Litigation

On June 25, 2007, a third putative class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws against the Company, Dr. Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

The case is entitled, “Andrew J. Tempel vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L.
Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin.”  This lawsuit is a “copycat” lawsuit of the
Stocke lawsuit filed against these same defendants on June 1, 2007.

                          Consolidation

On June 22, 2007, a Joint Stipulation was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada providing that all presently filed and any subsequently
filed related class actions shall be consolidated and captioned, “In Re
Shuffle Master, Inc. Securities Litigation.”

The suit is “In Re Shuffle Master, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
07-CV-00715,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
under Judge Kent J. Dawson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright
          801 South Rancho Drive, Quail Park Suite D-4
          Las Vegas, NV, 89106
          Phone: 702.384.7111

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

          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA, 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-915
          Fax: (310) 201-916
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 212.661.1100
          Fax: 212.661.8665
          E-mail: info@pomerantzlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Towns Mull Suit Against FAA Over Flight Rerouting
----------------------------------------------------------------
Towns affected by the Federal Aviation Administration’s plan to reroute
flights are contemplating about filing a class action to oppose the proposal,
reports say.

The towns of Wilton, Norwalk, Weston, Ridgefield, Redding, Darien, Greenwich,
Stamford, New Canaan, and Pound Ridge, N.Y. are holding meetings regarding a
possible lawsuit.  The meetings follow the FAA’s Sept. 5 announcement of a
proposal to shift high-altitude and low-altitude airspace over areas in
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware to make the
flight system more efficient and reduce delays.  The changes will be
introduced gradually through 2011.

Those who oppose the plan said the rerouting will negatively impact the area's
quality of life while doing little to cut system delays.

A lawsuit must be field within 60 days of the FAA's report.

Bergen County, N.J., Rockland County, N.Y., Delaware County, Pa., and the city
of Elizabeth, N.J. have already filed lawsuits opposing the FAA's decision.

One of the considerations the towns are facing is the cost of a possible suit,
and the time it would take to end it.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


BIGBAND NETWORKS: KGS Commences Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC filed the first class action against BigBand
Networks, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of
BigBand in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering on or about
March 15, 2007, or who purchased shares thereafter in the open market. No
class has yet been certified in this action.

BigBand, certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters
-- collectively, "defendants" -- are charged with including, or allowing the
inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of
the Securities Act of 1933.

The Complaint charges that BigBand raised over $159 million through the sale
of 10.7 million shares, despite the Registration Statement's false and
misleading statements issued in connection with the IPO. Specifically, the
Complaint charges defendants with failing to adequately conduct a due
diligence investigation into the Company prior to the IPO, and that they
failed to reveal BigBand was not performing according to plan, lacked
significant controls and procedures, and lacked any reasonable basis to
forecast near-term foreseeable financial and operational results.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants failed to reveal the Company's
results were already underperforming expectations at the time of the IPO, and
that they had boosted the financial results of the quarter immediately prior
to the offering by loading customers with unnecessary inventory -- such that
sales in future quarters would foreseeably be adversely impacted as customers
"worked off" excess inventory prior to purchasing more of BigBand's products.
Additionally, the Complaint asserts that defendants failed to disclose that
the roll out of its new products was not proceeding according to its growth
plan, and that this transition too was adversely impacting revenues in the
near-term.

On September 28, 2007, BigBand shares fell over 30% in a single trading day --
falling from over $9.00 per share to below $6.00 per share, before closing at
$6.49 on exceptionally heavy trading volume of almost 7 million shares. This
precipitous decline occurred after the truth was revealed to investors the
previous evening that the problems existing at the time of the IPO, and
detailed in the Complaint, would result in extremely disappointing results for
the third quarter of 2007, including substantially reduced revenues.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 3, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          Email: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com
          Website: http://www.kgscounsel.com.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates has filed a lawsuit in the United States District on
behalf of a group consisting of all purchasers of Harman International
Industries, Inc. securities between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007.
The suit arises out of the failure of the buyout, which led to the revelation
of previously concealed adverse facts concerning Harman's business.

The Complaint charges Harman and several of its officers and directors with
violating the Federal Securities Laws by concealing adverse information about
the Company's financial condition, business prospects, and earnings
expectations, which caused a premium bid for the Company to collapse, among
claims by the Bidders that Harman breached the buyout agreement.

As set forth in the Complaint, on April 26, 2007, the Company announced that
it had agreed to a buyout by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. and GS Capital
Partners VI Fund, L.P., (the "Bidders"), where the shareholders were to be
paid $120 cash per Harman share. However, Harman had misrepresented its
earnings prospects, and understated its research and development expenses,
leading the Bidders to terminate the deal.

This news caused the Company's share price to fall from a closing price of
$112.25 on September 20, 2007, to $85.00 on September 21, 2007, a drop of 24%.
On September 24, 2007, the Company admitted that it would fail to meet its
financial guidance for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, and revised
downward its earnings estimates for FY 2008 due, inter alia, to increased
research and development costs. This news caused the Company's share price to
further decline to $80.31.

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Toll Free: 1-800-347-1236
          E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com
          Website: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com


SONIC SOLUTIONS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Sonic Solutions (NASDAQ:SNIC) common stock during the period
between October 4, 2002 and May 17, 2007.

The complaint charges Sonic and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Sonic develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data, photographs, audio
and video in digital formats.

The complaint alleges that prior to the Class Period, Sonic had manipulated
its stock option accounting which caused its SEC filings made during the Class
Period to be false. Also during the Class Period, Sonic and its top officers
made false and misleading statements about its business and prospects, all
while concealing its false stock option grant practices, causing its stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels.

On February 1, 2007, Sonic announced that it had commenced a voluntary review
of its historical and current stock option grant practices and related
accounting. Then, on May 17, 2007, after the market closed, Sonic announced
its preliminary unaudited financial results for the fourth quarter ended March
31, 2007, and stated that based on its previous review, Sonic lacked
sufficient documentation for certain historical option grants and that the
measurement dates associated with these option grants will need to be
adjusted. The Company further stated that it will have to record additional
cash and non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense and restate
previous financial statements, and that such charges will be material.

On this news, Sonic's stock collapsed from $13.37 per share to as low as
$11.76 per share on volume of 1.8 million shares. This drop continued a
decline from $18 per share which began in February 2007, when Sonic first
disclosed its stock option problems.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Sonic common
stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com
          Website: http://www.csgrr.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  * * *