CAR_Public/071009.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, October 9, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 199

                            Headlines


ABM INDUSTRIES: Cal. Court Approves Labor Suit Settlement
AURORA DAIRY: Miss. Suit Alleges Fraudulent Advertising of Milk
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
BIG LOTS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Manager Misclassification
COOPER COS: Cal. Securities Suit Junked; Amended Complaint Filed

CSK AUTO: Seeks Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Fraud Complaint
DANIER LEATHER: Canadian High Court to Rule on IPO Suit Fri.
DUANE READE: Still Faces "Damassia" Labor Litigation in N.Y.
DUANE READE: Continues to Face "Chowdhury" Labor Lawsuit in N.Y.
EXCELSIOR PRIVATE: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Trading Practices

GENESCO INC: Settles Tenn. Suit Over Rejected Foot Locker Bid
HEWLETT-PACKARD: N.Y. Court Considers Appeal in "Digwamaje" Suit
JACKSON MEDICAL: EEOC Files Age Discrimination Lawsuit in Texas
MAKHTESHIM CHEMICAL: Faces $249.48 Million Pollution Lawsuit
MCDONALD'S CORP: Settlement of Suit Over Promo Contests Okayed

MERCK & CO: N.J. High Court Reviews “Sinclair” Vioxx Lawsuit
MERCK & CO: Still Faces Vioxx Shareholder Lawsuits in New Jersey
MERCK & CO: N.Y. Court Issues CMO in Consolidated Fosamax Case
NORTH COAST: Still Faces W.Va. Landowners Royalties Litigation
NUCO2 INC: Faces Fla. Suit Over Customers' Administrative Fee

QUIXTAR INC: Calif. Court Dismisses IBO’s Pyramid Scheme Charges
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Hearing on Third-Party Liability Set Today
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: NASCAT Decries Immunity for Silent Partners
SHARPER IMAGE: Fla. Court Considers Purifier Lawsuit Settlement
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Advertiser Sues for “Inflated” Fees

WET SEAL: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Complaint
WET SEAL: Calif. Suit Over Credit Rules Violations Dismissed


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIGBAND NETWORKS: KGS Files First Securities Fraud Suit in Cal.
CHINA SUNERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
SEMTECH CORP: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                            *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Cal. Court Approves Labor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries, Inc. settled one of several purported class actions filed
against it in relation to alleged violations of federal or California
wage-and-hour laws.  On Aug. 23, 2007, the Los Angeles Superior Court approved
a settlement of the lawsuit “Augustus and Hernandez v. ACSS,” filed on Feb 23,
2006.

The Company was also named as a defendant in these purported class actions:

       -- The consolidated cases of “Augustus, Hall and Davis v.
          American Commercial Security Services (ACSS) filed      
          July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California,
          Los Angeles County (L.A. Superior Ct.);

       -- the recently consolidated cases of “Bucio/Morales and
          Martinez/Lopez v. ABM Janitorial Services,” filed on
          April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California,
          County of San Francisco;

       -- the consolidated cases of “Batiz/Heine v. ACSS,” filed
          on June 7, 2006, respectively, in the U.S. District
          Court of California, Central District;
     
       -- “Joaquin Diaz v. Ampco System Parking,” filed on Dec.
          5, 2006, in L.A. Superior Ct;

       -- “Castellanos v. ABM Industries,” filed on April 5,
          2007, in the U.S. District Court of California,
          Central District; and

       -- “Villacres v. ABM Security filed,” on Aug. 15, 2007,
          in the U.S. District Court of California, Central
          District.

The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current or former employees of ABM
subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were required to work
“off the clock,” were not paid for all overtime and were not provided work
breaks or other benefits.  

The plaintiffs generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief,
or both.

On April 25, 2007, a settlement was reached in “Augustus and Hernandez v.
ACSS,” which was approved by the court on Aug. 23, 2007.

ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com/-- is a facility services
contractor for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail facilities in
a number of cities throughout the U.S. and in British Columbia, Canada.  The
Company conducts its business through a number of subsidiaries, which are
grouped into five segments based on the nature of the business operations.


AURORA DAIRY: Miss. Suit Alleges Fraudulent Advertising of Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Dairy Corp., dba Aurora Organic Dairy, is facing a class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri alleging it
advertised and sold its milk as organic though it did not meet industry
standards, Joe Harris of the Courthouse News reports.

Lead plaintiffs Kristine Mothershead and Leonie Lloyd say Aurora can sell its
milk at lower prices than competitors because it milks its cows three times a
day and keeps them confined. Most organic farmers milk their cows twice a day
and allow them to graze, the suit states.

The plaintiffs claim Aurora fails to provide a total feed ration, fails to
provide appropriate pasture conditions, allowed conventional cows to be milked
as organic and allowed organic cows to be managed by non-organic ranches.

Plaintiffs state that Aurora committed unfair and deceptive practices and was
unjustly enriched by marketing and selling milk alleged to be organic, at
prices much higher than non-organic milk, when defendants knew or should have
known that its milk did not meet the standards or organic certification.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons who, in the United
States, since Jan. 1, 2003, purchased milk which was produced by Aurora and
contained, anywhere on the carton or container, the word "organic."

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant failed to provide a total feed ration
         that included pasture;

     (b) whether defendant entered conventional dairy animals
         into organic milk production before they completed one
         year of continuous organic management;

     (c) whether defendant labeled and represented milk as
         organically produced when such milk was not produced
         and handled in accordance with the National Organic
         Program regulations;

     (d) whether defendant failed to maintain adequate records
         under NOP regulations;

     (e) whether all milk produced by Aurora was tainted;

     (f) whether Aurora misrepresented its milk to the retailers
         and customers who purchased it;

     (g) whether plaintiffs and class were damaged by paying
         organic prices of non-organic milk;

     (h) whether defendant's milk was "organic;"

     (i) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         damages;

     (j) whether defendant's conduct rises to the level of
         willingness so as to justify punitive damages; and

     (k) whether an injunction in necessary in order to prevent
         Aurora from continuing to engage in illegal activity.

Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

     -- ordering that this action be maintained as a class
        action pursuant to the court's powers under Federal Rule
        of Civil Procedure 23(c) and defining the class as all
        Missouri residents who, since 2003, purchased milk which
        was produced by Aurora and contained, anywhere on the
        carton or container the word "organic."

     -- certifying plaintiffs as class representatives
        appointing plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- awarding plaintiff and class compensatory damages for
        their ascertainable losses, to include any fees and
        interest illegally charged, and further awarding any
        damages caused by such payments;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and class their consequential and
        incidental damages;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and class pre-judgment and post-
        judgment interest as provided by law;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class punitive damages as
        provided by law;

     -- imposing a constructive trust and equitable lien against
        all money paid by the class to and wrongfully withheld
        by defendant;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and class attorneys' fees and costs
        as provided by law;

     -- entering a preliminary and permanent injunction
        enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the
        unlawful activities described, specifically including
        any labeling of milk as organic when it is not;

     -- entering an order that defendant abide by the terms of
        the spoilation letter attached to the complaint; and

     -- awarding plaintiffs and class such other and further
        relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is "Kristine Mothershead et al. v. Aurora Dairy Corporation d/b/a/
Aurora Organic Dairy," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          John Simon
          Erich Vieth
          John Campbell
          701 Market Street, Suite 1450
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: 314-241-2929
          Fax: 314-241-2029
          E-mail: jcampbell@simonpassanante.com


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule
on a motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class
action pending against Authentidate Holding Corp. and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class actions were
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company and certain of current and former officers and directors.  

Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the company failed
to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) could cancel is August 2002
contract with it if the company did not meet certain performance metrics, and
when it disclosed in 2005 that the USPS could cancel its contract because the
company had not met those performance metrics, the market price of its stock
declined.  The class action complaints seek unspecified monetary damages.

Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders filed motions seeking to
consolidate the class actions and to be appointed a lead plaintiff under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

On Oct. 5, 2005 the court consolidated the class actions as, "In re
Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05
Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board of Investment as lead
plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on Jan. 3,
2006, which asserted the same claims as the prior complaints and also alleged
that the company violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting that
it possessed certain patentable technology.

On July 14, 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety;
certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and plaintiff was given leave to
replead those claims, which were not dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which does not
assert any claims relating to the company's patents, but which otherwise is
substantially similar to the prior complaint.  The second amended complaint
seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on Nov. 13, 2006.
The motion is pending before the court.

The company reported no development in the matter at its Sept. 13, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-05323-LTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge Laura Taylor Swain.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard William Gonnello, Esq.
         Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
         Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
         Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 894-7200
         Fax: (212) 894-7272
         E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
                 jwhitman@entwistle-law.com

              - and -

         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Irwin Howard Warren, Esq.
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: (212) 310-8000
         Fax: (212) 833-3148
         E-mail: irwin.warren@weil.com


BIG LOTS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Manager Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots Inc. continues to face a purported class action filed in September
2006 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that the company violated certain California wage and hour laws by
misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime,
unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage
statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, reimbursement of
expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

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 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.


COOPER COS: Cal. Securities Suit Junked; Amended Complaint Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud complaint filed against the
Cooper Cos., Inc. but granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to
state a valid claim.

On Feb. 15, 2006, Alvin L. Levine filed a putative securities class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.
SACV-06-169 CJC, against:

     -- the company;

     -- A. Thomas Bender, its chairman of the board, president
        and chief executive officer and a director;

     -- Robert S. Weiss, its executive vice president, chief
        operating officer and a director; and

     -- John D. Fruth, a director.

Shortly after the filing of the Levine lawsuit, two similar putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Case Nos. SACV-06-306 CJC and SACV-06-331 CJC.

On May 19, 2006, the Court consolidated all three actions under the heading,
“In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation,” and selected a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 31, 2006.  The
consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s
securities between July 28, 2004, and Dec. 12, 2005, including persons who
received Company securities in exchange for their shares of Ocular in the
January 2005 merger pursuant to which the Company acquired Ocular.

In addition to the Company, Messrs. Bender, Weiss, and Fruth, the consolidated
complaint names as defendants several of the Company’s other current officers
and directors and one former officer.

On July 13, 2007, the Court granted Cooper’s motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend to
attempt to state a valid claim.

                 Amended Consolidated Complaint

On Aug. 9, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint.
As before, the amended consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company’s securities between July 28, 2004, and Dec. 12,
2005, including persons who received Company securities in exchange for their
shares of Ocular in the January 2005 merger pursuant to which the Company
acquired Ocular.

In addition to the Company, the amended consolidated complaint names as
defendants Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Fruth, Steven M. Neil, the Company’s
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Gregory A. Fryling,
CooperVision’s former President and Chief Operating Officer.

The amended consolidated complaint purports to allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by, among
other things, contending that the defendants made misstatements concerning the
Biomedics product line, sales force integration following the merger with
Ocular, the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses and financial projections.

The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that the Company improperly
accounted for assets acquired in the Ocular merger by improperly allocating
$100 million of acquired customer relationships and manufacturing technology
to goodwill (which is not amortized against earnings) instead of to intangible
assets other than goodwill (which are amortized against earnings), that the
Company lacked appropriate internal controls and issued false and misleading
Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications.

On Sept. 5, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007
Form 10-Q Filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

The suit is "In re Cooper Companies Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 8:06-cv-00169-CJC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Cormac
J. Carney with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         X. Jay Alvarez, Esq.
         Rudman and Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

         Michiyo Michelle Furukawa, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2350
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         E-mail: mfurukawa@ssbla.com

              - and -

         Eben O. McNair, Esq.
         Schwarzwald and McNair, 1330 East
         Ninth Street, 616 Penton Media Building
         Cleveland, OH 44114-1503
         Phone: 216-566-1600

Representing the defendants is:

         Charles W. Cox, II, Esq.
         Latham and Watkins
         633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
         Phone: 213-485-1234
         E-mail: chuck.cox@lw.com


CSK AUTO: Seeks Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Fraud Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
CSK Auto Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of a second amended complaint in a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according to the company's
Sept. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

On June 9 and 20, 2006, two shareholder class actions were filed against the
company and certain current and former officers, one of whom is also a director.

The cases are:

      -- "Communications Workers of America Plan for Employees
         Pensions and Death Benefits v. CSK Auto Corporation, et
         al., No. Civ. 06-1503 PHX DGC;" and

      -- "Wilfred Fortier v. CSK Auto Corporation, et al., No.
         Civ. 06-1580 PHX DGC."

The cases were consolidated on Sept. 18, 2006, with the Communications Workers
case as the lead case.  The consolidated actions have been brought on behalf
of a putative class of purchasers of the company's stock between March 20,
2003 and April 13, 2006, inclusive.

The consolidated complaint, filed on Nov. 30, 2006, alleged that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, as well as Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing
that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead violations of the federal
securities laws.

On March 28, 2007, the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss,
with leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on
April 26, 2007, alleging violations of the same federal securities laws and
adding additional factual allegations.

The amended consolidated complaint names as defendants the company and three
individuals:

      -- Maynard Jenkins, chairman of the board and chief
         executive officer;

      -- Martin Fraser, former president and chief operating
         officer; and

      -- Don Watson; former chief financial officer and former
         chief administrative officer.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges that defendants issued false
statements before and during the class period about the company's income,
earnings and internal controls, allegedly causing the company's stock to trade
at artificially inflated prices during the class period.  It seeks recovery of
damages in an unspecified amount.

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on May 25, 2007, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, against the same
Defendants, except for James Riley, whom the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on July 13,
2007.  On Aug. 10, 2007, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company’s
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  The Company filed its reply
in support of its motion to dismiss on Aug. 24, 2007.

The suit is "Communication Workers of America Plan for Employees' Pensions and
Death Benefits v. CSK Auto Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-01503-DGC," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge David G. Campbell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC
         2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         Fax: 602-274-1199
         E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com

Representing the defendants are

         Donald Wayne Bivens, Esq.
         Snell & Wilmer
         400 E. Van Buren
         Phoenix, AZ 85004
         Phone: 602-382-6549
         Fax: 602-382-6070
         E-mail: dbivens@swlaw.com

              - and -

         Gareth T. Evans, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         333 S. Grand Ave., 51st Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-229-7734
         Fax: 213-229-6734
         E-mail: gevans@gibsondunn.com


DANIER LEATHER: Canadian High Court to Rule on IPO Suit Fri.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on Friday, Oct. 12, 2007
at 9:45 a.m., in the "Kerr v. Danier" class action.  

The suit is brought against the company, certain of its directors and officers
in Ontario state court.  The statement of claim was made under the Class
Proceedings Act and relates to subordinate voting shares purchased at the time
of the company's initial public offering in May 1998.

Essentially, the suit seeks damages equal to the alleged diminution in value
of the shares after the public offering. The plaintiffs allege a Danier's
forecast in the fourth quarter of 1998 intentionally boosted expectations for
its annual results.  The suit got class-action status in October 2001.

In December 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed the class action.  The
decision stated that the Danier Leather met its statutory disclosure
obligations during the IPO process.  It noted that the company's achievement
of its financial forecast was a relevant consideration.  

It also stated that greater deference should have been accorded the business
judgment of the company's senior management, judgment that turned out to be
correct (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2005).  As a result, the company and
its senior officers are not required to pay any of the damages, interest or
costs awarded by the trial judge.

Since the decision will be released during Toronto Stock Exchange trading
hours, Danier will request that trading in Danier's shares be halted on Friday
morning until Danier issues a press release announcing the result of the
Supreme Court of Canada's decision.

Danier Leather Inc. (CA:DLSV) -- http://www.danier.com-- is an    integrated
designer, manufacturer, and retailer of high-quality  leather and suede
clothing and accessories.  

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey Wortsman, President and Chief Executive
          Officer
          Bryan Tatoff, Senior Vice-President and
          Chief Financial Officer
          Danier Leather Inc.
          Phone: (416) 762-8175 ext. 302 or ext. 328
          Fax: (416) 762-7408 or (416) 762-6072
          Email: leather@danier.com or bryan@danier.com


DUANE READE: Still Faces "Damassia" Labor Litigation in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade, Inc. continues to face the purported class action, "Damassia v.
Duane Reade, Inc.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that from the period beginning November 1998, the
company incorrectly gave some employees the title, "assistant manager," in an
attempt to avoid paying these employees overtime, in contravention of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Law.  It seeks an award equal to twice an
unspecified amount of unpaid wages.

The company reported no development in the case at its Sept. 13, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv- 08819-GEL,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Gerard E. Lynch.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      -- Tarik Fouad Ajami, Esq.
         Adam T. Klein, Esq.
         Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
         Outten & Golden, LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 245-1000
         Fax: (212) 977-4005
         E-mail: tfa@outtengolden.com
                 atk@outtengolden.com
                 jms@outtengolden.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Gerald Thomas Hathaway, Esq.
         Lisa A. Schreter, Esq.
         Littler Mendelson, P.C.
         Phone: 212.583.2684 and (404) 233-0330
         Fax: 212.832.2719 and (404) 233-2361
         E-mail: ghathaway@littler.com


DUANE READE: Continues to Face "Chowdhury" Labor Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade, Inc. still faces a purported class action entitled, "Enamul
Chowdhury v. Duane Reade Inc. and Duane Reade Holdings, Inc.," which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on March 24, 2006.  The company was served with the
purported class action complaint on April 2006.

The suit alleges that from a period beginning March 2000, the company
incorrectly classified certain employees in an attempt to avoid paying
overtime to such employees, thereby violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York law.  It seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

The company reported no development in the case at its Sept. 13, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Chowdhury v. Duane Reade, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-02295-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Seth Richard Lesser, Esq.
         Locks Law Firm, PLLC
         110 East 55th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-838-3333
         Fax: 212-838-3735
         E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Gerald Thomas Hathaway, Esq.
         Frances Mollie Nicastro, Esq.
         Littler Mendelson, P.C.
         885 Third Avenue 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-583-2684 and (212) 583-2688
         Fax: 212-832-2719
         E-mail: ghathaway@littler.com
                 fnicastro@littler.com


EXCELSIOR PRIVATE: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Trading Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Excelsior Private Equity Fund II, Inc., (Managing Investment Adviser)
continues to face a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.

The Managing Investment Adviser, certain of its affiliates, and others were
named in five class actions, which allege that the defendants allowed certain
parties to engage in illegal and improper mutual fund trading practices, which
allegedly caused financial injury to the shareholders of certain mutual funds
managed by Excelsior.

Each suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and related equitable relief.

The class actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial proceedings.   The
cases now fall under the title, "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation,
MDL-1586."

In November 2005, the Maryland court dismissed many of the plaintiffs' claims
in both the fund shareholder class action.   Several affiliates of the former
Managing Investment Adviser and individual defendants have also been dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and under Section 36(b) and 48(a) of the 1940 Act,
however, have not been dismissed.

The company provided no development in the matter in its Sept. 14, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2007.


GENESCO INC: Settles Tenn. Suit Over Rejected Foot Locker Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc. settled a purported class action in Tennessee Chancery Court
over a proposal by Foot Locker, Inc. to acquire the company, according to the
company's Sept. 13, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

Maxine Phillips filed the suit on April 24, 2007.  Generally, the complaint
alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants (directors of the
Company) refused to consider properly the proposal.

The complaint seeks class certification, a declaration that defendants have
breached their fiduciary and other duties, an order requiring defendants to
implement a process to obtain the highest possible price for shareholders’
shares, and an award of costs and attorney’s fees.

Following the execution of the merger agreement with The Finish Line Inc.,
plaintiff’s counsel indicated, and continues to indicate, that plaintiff
intends to file an amended complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duties by
the individual defendants in connection with the board of directors’ approval
of the merger agreement and the disclosures made in the preliminary proxy
statement related to the merger and seeking injunctive relief.

The Company and the individual defendants reached an agreement with plaintiff
under which the Company agreed to include certain additional disclosures in
its definitive proxy statement related to the merger which was filed on Aug.
13, 2007.

The parties are seeking to finalize and execute a Memorandum of Understanding
to formalize the settlement.

Under the terms of the Memorandum, the Company would pay $450,000 in
attorneys’ fees and expenses if the settlement and payment of fees are
approved by the Court and certain other conditions, including the consummation
of the merger with Finish Line, Inc., occur.

Genesco Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com-- is a retailer of branded footwear,
licensed and branded headwear, and a wholesaler of branded footwear.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: N.Y. Court Considers Appeal in "Digwamaje" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal regarding the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of
the purported class action, "Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et al.," which names
Hewlett Packard Co. and numerous other multinational corporations as defendants.  

The case was filed on Sept. 27, 2002 in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of current and former South African citizens
and their survivors who suffered violence and oppression under the apartheid
regime.  

The lawsuit alleges that HP and other companies helped perpetuate, profited
from, and otherwise aided and abetted the apartheid regime during the period
from 1948-1994 by selling products and services to agencies of the South
African government.  

Claims are based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Victims Protection
Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state law.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the creation of a
historic commission, compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion, punitive
damages in excess of $200 billion, costs and attorneys' fees.  

On Nov. 29, 2004, the court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs'
complaint.  In May 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended notice of appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On Jan. 24, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
argument on the plaintiffs' appeal but has not yet issued a decision.

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.

The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corp., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kweku J. Hanson, Esq.
          487 Main Street
          Harford, CT 06106
         Phone: (860) 728-5454
         Fax: (860) 548-9660

              - and -

         Paul M. Ngobeni, Eqs.
         914 Main Street, Suite 206
         East Hartford, CT 06108
         Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508) 620-4798

Representing the defendants are:

         Kristin M. Heine, Esq.
         Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
         500 Campus Drive
         Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047
         Phone: (973) 549-7338
         Fax: (973) 360-9831
         Web site: http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/

              - and -

         Kristin Michele Heine, Esq.
         Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
         140 Broadway, 39th Flr.
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: (973) 549-7338
         Fax: (973) 360-9831
         E-mail: kristin.heine@dbr.com


JACKSON MEDICAL: EEOC Files Age Discrimination Lawsuit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed an age discrimination
class action against the Jackson County Hospital District and Jackson Medical
Clinic of Edna, the Victoria Advocate reports.

The suit charges that a clinic manager singled out former nurse Sandra Macha
and other workers based on their age, and unjustifiably disciplined or fired
them.  The manager then hired younger workers to replace them, the EEOC
contends.  That manager, Donna Coleman, is no longer employed there, said Jim
Sacher, an EEOC attorney.

Mr. Sacher said the suit involves three employees –- Mrs. Macha, who is in her
50s, and two others.  Mrs. Macha and another were fired, and one employee was
forced to quit, Mr. Sacher said.

These clinic employees were fired or forced to quit from November 2005 to
early February 2006, he said.  Ms. Coleman was hired in August 2005. Before
Coleman's hiring, the employees received good marks. After Ms. Coleman began,
they were almost immediately disciplined, the attorney said.

Mrs. Macha seeks reinstatement to the clinic and lost wages, while others seek
varying monetary damages, Mr. Sacher said.  He did not put an exact figure on
the amount being sought.

According to the report, Kenneth Early -- board president of the Jackson
County Hospital District -- faxed a lawyer-prepared statement to the Advocate
denying the allegations.  



MAKHTESHIM CHEMICAL: Faces $249.48 Million Pollution Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd. is facing a $249.48 million lawsuit filed in
the Beersheva District Court in Israel for allegedly putting the lives of
250,000 Negev residents at risk due to pollution, the Israel Business Arena
reports.

The plant produces chemicals for the global agricultural industry.  Random
inspections at the plant’s chimneys showed it exceeded the levels set by the
plant's operating license for emissions of carbon tetrachloride, methyl
isobutyl ketone, and volatile organic compounds, substances that are
considered highly toxic and damaging to the health.

Plaintiffs allege that Makhteshim "had been polluting the air for years, and
it was continuing to do so despite all the warnings, disciplinary proceedings
against its management, fines, and private notices of complaint, and it posed
a clear and present danger to the residents of Beersheva, Beduin communities,
Kibbutz Revivim, and Segev Shalom."

They further allege that a comprehensive epidemiology report due to be
published in the near future by the Ministry of Health will show that
Beersheva has had the highest rate of incidences of cancer since 2001, and
that these have risen by 40% more than any other region.

The plaintiffs are residents of the Wadi El Naam community, and are
represented in court by Adv. Yohai Geva.  They asked that the court approve
the suit as a class action.  They claim the pollution "is one of the worst
cases of air pollution by hazardous substances ever in Israel.”  

No statement of defense has yet been filed, the report said.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Settlement of Suit Over Promo Contests Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Settlements of class actions against McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited,
McDonald's Corp., and Simon Marketing Inc. have received court approval.

The action alleged that the high level prizes in a number of McDonald's
promotional contests that ran in Canada between January 1, 1995 and December
31, 2001 were embezzled by an employee of Simon Marketing Inc. and his
co-conspirators, that the defendants were negligent in supervising the
contests, they were unjustly enriched, and that the defendants were in breach
of federal and provincial statutes.

The allegations were not proven in court, and the defendants have agreed to
settle the class action without any admissions of liability.

Under the terms of the settlement with Simon Marketing Inc., Simon Marketing
Inc. will pay a lump sum of CA$650,000, which will be paid in equal amounts to
The Canadian Association of Food Banks and to Ronald McDonald House
Charities(R) of Canada, after deduction of legal fees and settlement
administration costs.

The settlement with Simon Marketing Inc. includes a term that limits the
damages that the Class can recover from McDonald's to that amount of the loss
suffered by the Class that can be attributed solely to the conduct of
McDonald's.  Subject to the terms of the settlement with McDonald's,
McDonald's will make an additional prize of CA$1 million, payable in 20 annual
installments of CA$50,000, available to be won in Canada in a promotional
contest to be held no later than December 31, 2009.

If the settlement prize is, for any reason, not claimed and awarded in the
contest, the prize will be awarded to Ronald McDonald House Charities(R) of
Canada.

In consideration of these payments, the defendants will be fully and finally
released from any liability with respect to the issues raised in the class
action. Any person who does not wish to be bound by the terms of the
settlements must opt out of the class action by sending a written and signed
opt out notice to class counsel at the address below. Any person who opts out
of the McDonald's settlement will not qualify to win the settlement prize.

                   Case Background

The class action was commenced by Preston Parsons on September 13, 2002 against:

          -- McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited
          -- McDonald’s Corporation, and
          -- Simon Marketing Inc.

Mr. Parsons alleged that McDonald’s knowingly withheld high-level prize
contest pieces from McDonald’s restaurants in Canada from 1995 to 2001, and
that they were embezzled by an employee of Simon Marketing.

On or about September 16, 2002, a group of Canadians, including Mr. Parsons,
moved for leave to intervene in a settlement of an action that had been
commenced in the United States. However, the objections of the Canadian
objectors were dismissed and the terms of the U.S. settlement were given final
approval. Parsons’ claim was subsequently dismissed by the Ontario Courts.

Another class action was commenced by Greg Currie on October 28, 2002 against
McDonald’s and Simon Marketing Inc.  The claim was the same as that brought by
Mr. Parsons.

The action is brought on behalf of all customers of McDonald’s restaurants in
Canada, who between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2001, purchased food at
any McDonald’s restaurant in Canada and/or participated in a game and/or
obtained or attempted to obtain a game piece for any contest sponsored by
McDonald’s in Canada.  The claim seeks damages on behalf of the Class against
both Simon Marketing Inc. and McDonalds.

On September 25, 2007, Cullity, J. finally approved the settlements, which had
been provisionally approved on March 1, 2006.

On the Net: http://www.mcdonaldscontestclassaction.com.

For more information, contact:

          Margaret L. Waddell
          Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
          Phone: (416) 646-4329
          Email: marg.waddell@paliareroland.com


MERCK & CO: N.J. High Court Reviews “Sinclair” Vioxx Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court is reviewing a decision by an appeals court
decision that revived a medical-monitoring claim in the suit, “Sinclair v. Merck.”

The case was originally filed in December 2004 and sought the creation of a
medical monitoring fund.  It is a purported class action against Merck & Co.,
Inc., the manufacturer of Vioxx, on behalf of Vioxx users who had taken the
drug for at least six consecutive weeks.  

The plaintiffs brought claims based on negligence, the New Jersey Product
Liability Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and breach of warranty.  

They did not claim that they had been injured by taking Vioxx, but rather,
alleged that as a result of “direct and prolonged exposure to Vioxx,” they
“have an enhanced risk of sustaining serious, undiagnosed and unrecognized
myocardial infarctions (UMIs) that . . . would subject them to the risk of
further, significant, long-term cardiovascular harm.”  

As a remedy, the plaintiffs asked that Merck be ordered to pay for a
medical-screening program to detect UMIs and other “latent or unrecognized
injuries.”  

Judge Carol E. Higbee of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County,
dismissed the medical-monitoring claim, finding that although claims had been
recognized in the toxic tort context, they were not sustainable in the
products liability context.

On Sept. 28, 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, heard
argument on plaintiffs’ appeal of Judge Higbee’s dismissal of the claim.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Appellate Division reversed the decision and remanded
the case back to Judge Higbee for further factual inquiry.

On April 4, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition
for review of the Appellate Division’s decision.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com-- is a global pharmaceutical
company that discovers, develops, manufactures and markets a range of products
to improve human and animal health.


MERCK & CO: Still Faces Vioxx Shareholder Lawsuits in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. continues to face a consolidated litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey that the company designated as
the “Vioxx Shareholder Lawsuits.”

                  Vioxx Securities Lawsuits

The company and various current and former officers and directors are
defendants in various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under the
federal securities laws and state securities laws.

All of the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits pending in federal court have been
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before District Judge
Stanley R. Chesler for inclusion in a nationwide MDL.  Judge Chesler has
consolidated the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits for all purposes.

Plaintiffs requested certification of a class of purchasers of Company stock
between May 21, 1999 and Oct. 29, 2004.  

The complaint alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements
regarding Vioxx in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought unspecified compensatory damages
and the costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees.

The complaint also asserts a claim under Section 20A of the Securities and
Exchange Act against certain defendants relating to their sales of Merck stock.

In addition, the complaint included allegations under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 that certain defendants made incomplete and
misleading statements in a registration statement and certain prospectuses
filed in connection with the Merck Stock Investment Plan, a dividend
reinvestment plan.

On April 12, 2007, Judge Chesler granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  

Plaintiffs have appealed Judge Chesler’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

In October 2005, a Dutch pension fund filed a complaint in the District of New
Jersey alleging violations of federal securities laws as well as violations of
state law against the Company and certain officers.

                   Vioxx Derivative Lawsuits

Various shareholder derivative actions filed in federal court were transferred
to the Shareholder MDL and consolidated for all purposes by Judge Chesler.

On May 5, 2006, Judge Chesler granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied
plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that Judge Chesler erred in denying plaintiffs’
leave to amend their complaint with materials acquired during discovery.

On July 18, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the
District Court’s decision on the grounds that Judge Chesler should have
allowed plaintiffs to make use of the discovery material to try to establish
demand futility, and remanded the case for the District Court’s consideration
of whether, even with the additional materials, plaintiffs’ request to amend
their complaint would still be futile.

                        Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits

Various putative class actions filed in federal court under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act against the Company and certain current and
former officers and directors have been transferred to the Shareholder MDL and
consolidated for all purposes.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain of the
Company’s current and former employees who are participants in certain of the
Company’s retirement plans for breach of fiduciary duty.

The lawsuits make similar allegations to the allegations contained in the
Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.  On July 11, 2006, Judge Chesler granted in part
and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the ERISA Complaint.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “Merck & Co., Inc., Securities Derivative and ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-01151-SRC-TJB,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Paul B. Brickfield, Esq.
          Brickfield & Donahue
          70 Grand Avenue
          River Edge, NJ 07661
          Phone: (201) 488-7707
          E-mail: pbrickfield@bricdonlaw.com

               - and -

          Irma Lois Bradley-Klein, Esq.
          Lemmon Law Firm, LLC
          650 Poydras St. Suite 2335
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (985) 783-6789
          Fax: (985) 783-1333

Representing the company is:

          Edward Cerasia II, Esq.
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          One Newark Center, 18th floor
          Newark NJ 07102-5211
          Phone: 973 274-3200
          E-mail: ecerasia@proskauer.com

               - and -

          John N. Poulous, Esq.
          Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
          101 Hudson St. Suite 3601
          Jersey City, NJ 07302-3918
          Phone: (201) 536-9220
          E-mail: poulos@hugheshubbard.com
    

MERCK & CO: N.Y. Court Issues CMO in Consolidated Fosamax Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Case
Management Order setting forth a schedule governing the proceedings which
focuses primarily upon resolving the class action certification motions in
several purported class actions against Merck & Co. Inc. over its Fosamax drug.

As of June 30, 2007, 225 cases, which include approximately 700 plaintiff
groups, had been filed against Merck in either federal or state court,
including 5 cases which seek class action certification, as well as damages
and medical monitoring.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have
suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw, generally subsequent to invasive dental
procedures such as tooth extraction or dental implants, and/or delayed
healing, in association with the use of Fosamax.

On August 16, 2006, the JPML ordered that the Fosamax product liability cases
pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated
into one multidistrict litigation (Fosamax MDL) for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.

The Fosamax MDL has been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  As a result of the JPML order,
over 190 of the cases are before Judge Keenan.

Judge Keenan has issued a Case Management Order setting forth a schedule
governing the proceedings which focuses primarily upon resolving the class
action certification motions in 2007, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com-- is a global pharmaceutical
company that discovers, develops, manufactures and markets a range of products
to improve human and animal health.


NORTH COAST: Still Faces W.Va. Landowners Royalties Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
North Coast Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of EXCO Resources, Inc., continues to
face a putative class action over the payment of royalties in the Circuit
Court of Roane County, West Virginia.

The suit is "PRC Holdings, LLC, et al. v. North Coast Energy, Inc., Civil
Action No. 06-C-80E," was filed on Oct. 11, 2006. Certain landowners and
lessors in West Virginia brought it for themselves and on behalf of other
similarly situated landowners and lessors in West Virginia.  

Specifically, the suit alleges that North Coast has not been paying royalties
to the plaintiffs in the manner required under the applicable leases, has
provided misleading documentation to the plaintiffs regarding the royalties
due, and has breached various other contractual, statutory and fiduciary
duties to the plaintiffs with regard to the payment of royalties.  

In the case, "The Estate of Garrison Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources,
LLC," announced in June 2006, the West Virginia Supreme Court held that
language such as "at the wellhead" and similar language contained in leases
when used in describing how to calculate royalties due lessors was ambiguous
and, therefore, should be construed strictly against the lessee.  

Accordingly, in the absence of express language in a lease that is intended
allocate between a lessor and lessee post-production costs such as the costs
of marketing the product and transporting it to the point of sale, no
post-production costs may be deducted from the lessor's royalty payment due
from the lessee.  

The claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the company
are similar to the claims alleged in the Tawney case.  

Plaintiffs are seeking common law and statutory compensatory and punitive
damages, interest and costs and other remedies.   

The company reported no development in the matter at its Sept. 13, 2007 Form
S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dallas, Texas-based EXCO Resources, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXCO) --  
http://www.excoresources.com/-- is a public oil and natural gas  acquisition,
exploitation, development, and production company with principal operations in
Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.


NUCO2 INC: Faces Fla. Suit Over Customers' Administrative Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
NuCO2 Inc. faces a purported class action alleging violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and for breach of contract.

On May 21, 2007, Pop's Pancakes, Inc. and Zuccarelli's Italian Kitchen, Inc.
filed a lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status.  These complaints alleged that
the company failed to disclose an administrative fee that the company charged
to its customers.

The suit is “Pop's Pancakes, Inc. et al. v. NuCO2 Inc., Case No.
2:07-cv-14157-DLG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida under Judge Donald L. Graham with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Scott Michael Dimond, Esq.
          Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein PA
          2665 S Bayshore Drive
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Phone: 305-374-1920
          Fax: 305-374-1961
          E-mail: sdimond@dkrpa.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Jr.
          Gunster Yoakley & Stewart
          777 S Flagler Drive, Suite 500 E
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6194
          Phone: 561-655-1980
          Fax: 561-655-5677
          E-mail: gschwinghammer@gunster.com


QUIXTAR INC: Calif. Court Dismisses IBO’s Pyramid Scheme Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gary Feess of the U.S. District Court for the District of California
dismissed a lawsuit filed by a group of terminated Quixtar independent
business owners (IBOs) that alleged the Michigan company is "an illegal
pyramid scheme."

On August 9, 2007, a group including eight of the largest Quixtar distributors
filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Quixtar from enforcing its distributor
contracts, including the non-competition and non-solicitation provisions.  

The plaintiffs allege that the company knowingly operates as a pyramid scheme
and prevents its distributors from leaving the organization through the
aforementioned provisions.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Plaintiffs did not seek damages against Quixtar, or to shut it down.  Rather,
plaintiffs sought a judicial declaration that the noncompetition and
non-solicitation provisions of the uniform Quixtar distributor agreement are
unenforceable as a matter of law, so those plaintiffs who so choose will be
able to extricate themselves from continued forced participation in Quixtar's
illegal pyramid scheme and pursue legitimate business opportunities instead.

On August 10, 2007, the group sought a preliminary and permanent injunction
restraining Quixtar from enforcing or attempting to enforce the
non-competition and non-solicitation provisions.

The company adamantly denies the charges and noted that a Michigan court has
already ordered the plaintiffs, led by terminated IBO Orrin Woodward, to
arbitrate their claims.

In his order, Judge Feess wrote, "[T]he Michigan court has already enjoined
Plaintiffs from violating the covenants not to compete and not to solicit and
sent the case to arbitration." He later added, "[T]he Court agrees with the
Michigan court and believes the parties' arbitration agreement is valid and
binding."

The judge concluded: "[T]he court grants Quixtar's motion to dismiss on
declaratory relief abstention grounds and the matter is hereby dismissed with
prejudice."

Quixtar general counsel Mike Mohr said, "We are grateful for the court's
decision. Orrin Woodward mounted a cynical and toxic attack on our business
after we terminated him, and did his best to hurt a lot of innocent people on
his way out the door."

More information regarding Woodward v. Quixtar is available at
http://www.FreeTheIBO.com.

The suit is "Orrin Woodward et al. v. Quixtar, Inc. Quixtar, Inc., Case No.
CV07-05194," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Thomas A. Brackey II
          Derek S. Lemkin
          Freund & Brackey, LLP
          427 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 247-2165
          Fax: (310) 247-2190
          E-mail: tbrackey@freundandbrackey.com or
                  dlemkin@freundandbrackey.com

          - and -

          D.J. Poyfair
          Bennet L. Cohen
          Reid A. Page
          Nicole A. Westbrook
          Shuggart, Thomson & Kilroy
          1050 17th Street, Suite 2300
          Denver, Colorado 80265
          Phone: (303) 572-9300
          Fax: (303) 572-7883


SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Hearing on Third-Party Liability Set Today
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today on whether investor lawsuits
can go beyond defendant firms to include third parties such as banks and
accounting firms.  Stephen Shapiro of Mayer Brown LLP will argue for
defendants Motorola Inc. and Scientific-Atlanta in the suit, “StoneRidge
Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.”

                        Case Background

Stoneridge Investment Partners brought a securities fraud class action in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of those who
purchased Charter Communications Inc. stock between Nov. 8, 1999 and Aug. 16,
2002.  

Plaintiffs alleged that Charter -- one of the nation's largest cable
television providers -- engaged in a "pervasive and continuous fraudulent
scheme intended to artificially boost the company's reported financial
results" by deliberately delaying the disconnecting of customers no longer
paying their bills, improperly capitalizing labor costs and entering into sham
transactions with two equipment vendors that improperly inflated Charter's
reported operating revenues and cash flow.

                   District Court’s Dismissal

The district court -- relying on "Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate
Bank of Denver" -- granted the Vendors' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims
under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. S78j(b),
and the SEC's implementing regulation, Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. S 240.10b-5.  

On Dec. 12, 2005, the district court denied plaintiffs' motions to reconsider
the dismissal and to grant leave to file an amended complaint.  

                     Appeal Against Dismissal

Stoneridge appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.  It
argued that plaintiffs properly alleged a primary violation of the securities
laws within the meaning of "Central Bank" because the Vendors violated Rule
10b-5(a) and (c) by participating in a "scheme or artifice to defraud" and by
engaging in a "course of business which operates...as a fraud or deceit."  

The argument emphasizes that Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) are broadly worded and,
unlike Rule 10b-5(b), do not require proof of a fraudulent misrepresentation
or failure to disclose.  The argument depends on the assertion that "Central
Bank's" analysis did not affect the scope of primary liability under subparts
(a) and (c), relying primarily on a court decision in "In Re Parmalat
Securities Litigation."

                Circuit Court Affirms Dismissal

On April 11, 2006, the circuit court affirmed the decision of the district
court.  It rejected Stoneridge's narrow interpretation of "Central Bank,"
concluding that "Central Bank" and the earlier cases on which it relied stand
for three governing principles:

     (1) The court's categorical declaration that a private  
         plaintiff "may not bring a 10b-5 suit against a
         defendant for acts not prohibited by the text of S
         10(b),” 511 U.S. at 173, included claims under Rule
         10b-5(a) and (c), as well as Rule 10b-5(b);

     (2) A device or contrivance is not “deceptive,” within the
         meaning of S 10(b), absent some misstatement or a
         failure to disclose by one who has a duty to disclose;

     (3) The term “manipulative” in S 10(b) has the limited
         contextual meaning ascribed in “Santa Fe.”

The court determined that any defendant who does not make or affirmatively
cause to be made a fraudulent misstatement or omission, or who does not
directly engage in manipulative securities trading practices, is at most
guilty of aiding and abetting and cannot be held liable under S 10(b) or any
subpart of Rule 10b-5.

In this case, the focus of plaintiffs’ S 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims was
deception -- they alleged a “continuous course of conduct” in which Charter
allegedly “made and/or failed to correct public representations which were or
had become materially false and misleading regarding Charter’s financial
results and operations.”

The court said that indeed, eighteen pages of the amended complaint alleged in
fifty detailed paragraphs the fraudulent financial reports and press releases
published by Charter during the class period. However, neither Motorola nor
Scientific-Atlanta was alleged to have engaged in any such deceptive act.

They did not issue any misstatement relied upon by the investing public, nor
were they under a duty to Charter investors and analysts to disclose
information useful in evaluating Charter’s true financial condition. None of
the alleged financial misrepresentations by Charter was made by or even with
the approval of the Vendors. Accordingly, the district court properly
dismissed the claims against the Vendors as nothing more than claims, barred
by Central Bank, that the Vendors knowingly aided and abetted the Charter
defendants in deceiving the investor plaintiffs.

Like the district court and the court in “In re Homestore.com, 252 F. Supp. 2d
at 1041,” the court said it is not aware of no case imposing S 10(b) or Rule
10b-5 liability on a business that entered into an arm’s length non-securities
transaction with an entity that then used the transaction to publish false and
misleading statements to its investors and analysts.

The court said: The point is significant. To impose liability for securities
fraud on one party to an arm’s length business transaction in goods or
services other than securities because that party knew or should have known
that the other party would use the transaction to mislead investors in its
stock would introduce potentially far-reaching duties and uncertainties for
those engaged in day-to-day business dealings. Decisions of this magnitude
should be made by Congress.”

Since then plaintiff lawyers have argued that in cases of business fraud,
investors should be able to sue third parties that allegedly made the fraud
possible even if they were not directly involved.

Representing the defendants is:

          Stephen M. Shapiro, Esq.
          Mayer Brown LLP
          71 S. Wacker
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          (Cook Co.)
          Phone: 312-701-7327
          Fax: 312-701-7711

Representing Stoneridge is:

          Stanley M. Grossman, (P.C.)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, New York 10017-5516
          (New York Co.)
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665


SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: NASCAT Decries Immunity for Silent Partners
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys asked the
Supreme Court on Oct. 8 to rely upon the clearly worded provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a long-standing Securities and Exchange
Commission clarifying rule establishing liability for knowing participants in
schemes to defraud securities investors.

The outcome of a civil securities fraud lawsuit to be argued orally before the
Supreme Court today (Oct. 9) could decide whether investors may hold
accountable those investment bankers, accountants, lawyers, suppliers and
others who defraud them by knowingly and intentionally colluding with
corporate clients to "cook the books" and, otherwise, participate in schemes
to artificially inflate stock prices.

The Court decision in the suit, “StoneRidge Investment Partners, LLC v.
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., et al., No. 06-43,” cert. granted March 26, 2007,
brought by shareholders of Charter Communications, Inc., could determine the
outcome of a similar "scheme liability" lawsuit brought by Enron's
shareholders, and restrict investors' recourse in many other current and
future fraud cases.

"The law clearly states that anyone who knowingly participates in schemes to
defraud the investing public is liable for their conduct," explains Carol
Gilden, president of the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer
Attorneys (NASCAT). "Yet, the Bush Administration's Solicitor General and the
Stoneridge defendants urge the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench by
effectively rewriting the law to carve-out immunity from accountability to
investors for the silent partners in complex securities fraud schemes."

Ms. Gilden said Stoneridge raises a simple question: "Will corporate advisers
and suppliers who knowingly join their clients in sham business transactions
to falsify financial statements given to the public be held liable to those
they defraud? The Corporate defendants and President Bush's Solicitor General
say, 'No.' Defrauded shareholders and the federal Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), backed by the attorneys general of 32 states say, 'Yes.'"

According to briefs filed with the Court by Stoneridge defendants and
Solicitor General Paul Clements, knowing participants in fraud schemes are
only liable to investors if they themselves directly lie to the market.
Shareholders and the SEC, on the other hand, cite the law, which clearly
states that "any person who makes or shall cause to be made" a manipulative
transaction, or who "employs" a "deceptive device or contrivance," enabling
securities fraud is liable for the fraud. [See Section 10(b) of Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule (10)(b)(5) below.]

Specifically, Stoneridge Investment Partners and other shareholders in Charter
Communications Inc., a national cable TV and internet service provider, allege
that two of Charter's equipment suppliers,

     * Scientific- Atlanta, Inc., and
     * Motorola Corp.,

knowingly engaged with Charter executives in a scheme to inflate revenues
reported to investors on Charter's financial statements. Scientific-Atlanta
and Motorola have each paid substantial fines to the SEC to settle similar
charges of fraudulent conduct in the falsification of financial statements
issued to shareholders of another cable company, Adelphia Communications. And,
two Charter executives have been sentenced to over a year in prison for their
role in creating the false paper trail for, and cover up of, the sham
transactions at issue in Stoneridge.

"Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola are accused not of turning a blind eye to the
fraud of another, but of actively participating in the fraud by their own
deceptive conduct," Ms. Gilden of NASCAT continued. "The complaint alleges
these equipment suppliers willfully engaged in sham transactions with Charter
to inflate revenues and operating cash flow by $17 million, created a false
paper trail and backdated contracts to make the sham transactions appear
legitimate for reporting on Charter's financial statements."

Although declining in number, securities fraud class actions like Stoneridge,
which must be filed and heard in federal courts, remain the primary vehicle
for investors to recover legitimate fraud losses. In 2006, 118 suits
securities fraud class actions were filed, down from 185 in 2005 and 235 in 2004.

The National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Law Attorneys is a
nonprofit organization comprised of about 100 law firms representing consumers
and investors -- including pension funds and individuals -- in cases of
securities fraud and other forms of "white collar" wrong doing and criminal
activity.

The relevant SEC rule and provision of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934:

         RULE 10 (b) (5) Promulgated by the SEC in 1951

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any
means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any
facility of any national securities exchange,

a. To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

b. To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a
material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

c. To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or
would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the
purchase or sale of any security.

Section 10 of Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 -- Regulation of the Use of
Manipulative and Deceptive Devices

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any
means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any
facility of any national securities exchange --

a.

     1. To effect a short sale, or to use or employ any stop-
        loss order in connection with the purchase or sale, of
        any security registered on a national securities  
        exchange, in contravention of such rules and regulations
        as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or
        appropriate in the public interest or for the protection
        of investors.

     2. Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to
        security futures products.

b. To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security
registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so
registered, any manipulative or deceptive device or any securities-based swap
agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), or
contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission
may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors.


SHARPER IMAGE: Fla. Court Considers Purifier Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of Florida has yet
grant final approval to a settlement of a class action against Sharper Image
Corp. in relation to its purifier products.

On or before April 15, 2006, there were five class actions filed against the
Company related to its Ionic Breeze product.  

The actions are filed on behalf of purchasers of the Ionic Breeze in the State
Courts of California (San Francisco) and Florida (Jacksonville), as well as
the U.S. District Courts of Maryland, Florida (Miami) and the Central District
of California.

Only the San Francisco action has been certified for class representation.  

The Florida State Court action was stayed pending resolution of the ongoing
San Francisco case.  The Maryland and Central District of California cases
have been dismissed.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release
in the case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida covering all persons who purchased an Ionic Breeze branded product
between May 6, 1999 and the effective date of the Agreement who do not opt out
of the Agreement (Settlement Class).

The Agreement relates to claims made with respect to the performance,
effectiveness and safety of the Ionic Breeze line of indoor air purification
products (Claims).

The Agreement provides for the full release of the Company by all members of
the Settlement Class with respect to the Claims.

On Jan. 25, 2007, the Court gave preliminary approval to the Agreement.  On
June 22, 2007 and on July 30, 2007, the Company amended and further amended
certain terms of the Agreement, including some of the considerations to be
provided to the Settlement Class.

On Aug. 16, 2007, a fairness hearing was held in Miami, Florida. As of Sept.
10, 2007 a decision has not been rendered regarding the Agreement, according
to the company's Sept. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

The Florida suit is "Figueroa v. Sharper Image Corp., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-21251-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
Court of Florida, under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, with referral to Judge Ted
E. Bandstra.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David L. Aronoff, Esq.
          Thelen Reid & Priest LLP
          333 S Hope Street, 29th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-576-8044
          Fax: 576-8080

          Daniel Dennis Dolan, II, Esq.
          Robert L. Parks, Esq.
          Haggard Parks Haggard & Lewis
          330 Alhambra Circle, 1st Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: 305-446-5700
          Fax: 446-1154
          E-mail: bob@haggardparks.com

          -- and --

          Enrique J. Gimenez, Esq.
          Stephen J. Rowe, Esq.
          Jere F. White, Esq.
          Lightfoot Franklin & White
          400 20th Street North
          The Clark Building, Birmingham, AL 35203-2706
          Phone: 205-581-0774
          Fax: 581-0799

Representing defendants are:

           James S. Toscano, Esq.
           Terry C. Young, Esq.
           Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed
           P.O. Box 2809, Orlando, FL 32802-2809
           Phone: 407-843-4600
           Fax: 843-4444


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Advertiser Sues for “Inflated” Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
New York-based marketing company Digital Art Services Inc. filed a suit
against Verizon Communications Inc., Viamedia Inc. and Verizon Online LLC
complaining that Verizon overstated subscribers to its fiber-optic cable
service, and thus inflated prices for advertising there, reports say.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan and is seeking class
action status for the case.  It alleges that Verizon falsely reported its
subscribers by including prospective subscribers who might not become actual
subscribers until weeks or months later.

Verizon spokesman Eric Rabe denied the alleged wrongdoing and said that
Digital Art sued only after it was unable to withdraw from an advertising
contract, according to Bloomberg News.

The suit is "Digital Art Services, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:2007cv08592" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Loretta A. Preska.

Digital Art's lawyer is Andrew Hayes, Esq.


WET SEAL: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has granted a
motion seeking for the dismissal of an amended complaint in the consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against The Wet Seal, Inc.

Between Aug. 26, 2004 and Oct. 12, 2004, six securities class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, or
the Court, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between Jan. 7,
2003 and Aug. 19, 2004.

The company and certain of its former directors and executives were named as
defendants.  

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, on the grounds that, among other
things, the company failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse
facts that were known to us or disregarded by the company.

On Nov. 17, 2004, the court consolidated the actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs and counsel.  On Jan. 29, 2005, the lead plaintiffs filed their
consolidated class action complaint with the court, which consolidated all of
the previously reported class actions.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the company violated the federal
securities laws by making material misstatements of fact or failing to
disclose material facts during the class period, from March 2003 to August
2004, concerning its prospects to stem ongoing losses in its Wet Seal concept
and return that business to profitability.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that the company's former directors
and La Senza Corp., a Canadian company controlled by them, unlawfully utilized
material non-public information in connection with the sale of its common
stock by La Senza.

The consolidated complaint seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
interest, costs, attorney's fees and injunctive relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in April
2005.  On Sept. 15, 2005, the consolidated class action was dismissed against
the company in the lawsuit.

However, plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint, which
they did file on Nov. 23, 2005.  The company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on Jan. 25, 2006.

A court hearing on the motion was held on Oct. 23, 2006.  On Aug. 28, 2007,
the consolidated class action complaint was dismissed without leave to amend,
according to the company's Sept. 13, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

The suit is "Alexander Vinokurov v. Wet Seal Inc., et al., Case   No.
2:04-cv-07159-GAF-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess with referral to Judge
Carolyn Turchin.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
         Barrack Rodos and Bacine
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 850
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-230-0800
         E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com

              - and -

         William J. Doyle, II, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the defendants are:

         Seth A. Aronson, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers, 400 S. Hope St., 15th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
         Phone: 213-430-6000
         E-mail: saronson@omm.com

              - and -

         Charles Avrith, Esq.
         Nagler and Associates
         2300 South Sepulveda Boulevard
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-473-1200
         Fax: 310-473-7144


WET SEAL: Calif. Suit Over Credit Rules Violations Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a purported class action filed against The Wet Seal Inc. over
alleged violations of credit rules agreed to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice, according to the company's Sept. 13, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4,
2007.

In January 2007, a class-action complaint was filed against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging
violations of The Fair Credit Reporting.

In February 2007 a class-action complaint was filed against the company
alleging similar violations in the same court.  Both parties in the February
2007 complaint have agreed to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a specialty retailer of
fashionable and contemporary apparel and accessory items designed for female
consumers.  The Company operates two, primarily mall-based, chains of retail
stores under the names, Wet Seal and Arden B.  


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BIGBAND NETWORKS: KGS Files First Securities Fraud Suit in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has 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
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com


CHINA SUNERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired China Sunergy Co., Ltd.'s
American Depository Shares pursuant or traceable to the Company's May 17, 2007
Initial Public Offering.

The Complaint charges China Sunergy, certain of its officers and directors and
the Underwriters of the Company's IPO with violations of sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that in connection with the Company's
IPO, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company lacked adequate quantities of silicon
         raw materials to meet its near-term production demands;

     (2) that the Company inflated sales in order to get its IPO
         off the ground by selling its silicon raw materials
         inventory;

     (3) as a result of this, the Company knew that it could not
         meet its quarterly guidance because the sell off
         created production shortages;

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

     (5) that the underwriters of the Company's IPO had failed
         to conduct an adequate due diligence investigation into
         the Company; and

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

On May 17, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO. In connection with its IPO,
the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus with the SEC. The
IPO was a financial success for the Company, as it sold 8.5 million ADSs to
investors at a price of $11.00 per share for gross proceeds of $93.5 million.

On July 3, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it reported preliminary
results for the second quarter of 2007. The Company's preliminary results were
well below its guidance due to a tight supply of raw materials, which had
affected the quality, quantity, and delivery of raw materials, and severely
impacted the Company's margins. This news was in stark contrast to the
Company's IPO materials, which stated that at the time of the IPO, the Company
had entered "into contracts and framework agreements for sufficient silicon
raw material supplies to support our planned production ... in 2007." On this
news, the Company's securities declined $2.69 per share, or over 19 percent,
to close on July 3, 2007 at $11.28 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on August 24, 2007, the Company reported a second quarter 2007 loss of
$3.8 million, or $0.14 per share, as compared with a profit of $1.6 million,
or $0.09 per share, in the comparable quarter of 2006, and against analyst
expectations of $0.02 profit per share. Additionally, the Company provided a
dismal outlook for the second half of 2007, citing "the tight polysilicon
supply situation that may not ease in the near term," which was "likely to
remain unchanged in the medium-term," and "potentially continuing well into
2008 or beyond." On this news, the Company's securities declined an additional
$1.54 per share, or over 20.6 percent, to close on August 24, 2007 at $5.91
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

China Sunergy, through its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of solar cell
products in the People's Republic of China.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          Toll free: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


SEMTECH CORP: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Semtech Corporation
during the period from September 11, 2002 through and including July 19, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants artificially inflated
Semtech's previously reported financial results through an improper stock
option backdating scheme that was perpetrated at the highest levels of the
Company. Defendants carried out this scheme by intentionally manipulating the
grant date of stock options awarded to themselves and other officers and
directors of the Company, selecting dates on which Semtech's stock was trading
at a much lower price than the actual date of grant. In public disclosures,
however, Defendants falsely claimed that the grants were dated and priced as
of the date of the actual grant.

On July 20, 2006, Semtech revealed that it expected to record material amounts
of additional compensation expense and restate its financial results from
fiscal 2002 through 2006, and that its prior financial statements should not
be relied upon.

Semtech's share price fell in reaction to the announcement, falling from
$13.19 to $12.37 per share. Semtech shares continued to fall in reaction to
the news on July 21, 2006, closing at $11.60 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 22, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Emilie Schulz
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower - Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or eschulz@cmht.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  * * *