---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 10, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 200

                            Headlines


ALLIANZ LIFE: Settles Lawsuits Over Deferred Annuity Products
ASHWORTH INC: Opposes Certification Motion in Cal. FCRA Lawsuit
CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls Soups that Might Contain Plastic Pieces
COORS BREWING: Appeals Court Dismisses Suit Over Ads to Minors
HOMETOWN BUFFET: Reaches $7.2M Settlement in Calif. Labor Suit

IMPAC FUNDING: Faces Calif. Fraud Lawsuit Over Interest Rates
KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Baking Squares Posing Health Risk
MACY’S INC: 401(k) Member Files Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces “Bolton” Securities Lawsuit in N.J.
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Settles N.J. Securities Suit for $2.5M

MAY DEPARTMENT: Mo. Court Denies "Decristofaro" Dismissal Motion
MONSANTO CO: Suit Filed Over Dioxin-Related Cancer in W.Va.
MONSANTO CO: Oct. Hearing Set in Property Damage Suits in W.Va.
NETWORK SOLUTIONS: Accused of Failing to Protect Client’s Info
NEW JERSEY: $1.85M Settlement Reached in Rancocas Creek Flooding

NEW JERSEY: “Crawford” Suit Against Educ. Commissioner Junked
P3 INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Air Purifiers Due to Risk of Fire
PEP BOYS: Faces Multiple Labor Violation Lawsuits in California
QUAKER FABRIC: Workers File Suit for Alleged WARN Act Violation
RAZOR USA: Recalls Electric Scooters with Weak Handlebar Weld

RENAISSANCERE: $13M Securities Suit Deal Gets Preliminary Okay
RYAN'S RESTAURANT: S.C. Court Approves Merger Suit Settlement
RYAN'S RESTAURANT: W.Va. Court Denies Remand Bid in Labor Suit
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Labor Lawsuit
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Justices Question Third-Party Liability

SPORTS AUTHORITY: Recalls Bottles for Lead Paint Standard Breach
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Parties Working to Settle N.Y. GTA Lawsuit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Amended Complaint Filed in “St. Clair”
WASHINGTON GROUP: Investor Sues to Block Sale to URS Corp.

* Tim Campbell to Get $79T Share of Fees from Homecomings Suit


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                            *********


ALLIANZ LIFE: Settles Lawsuits Over Deferred Annuity Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Hennepin County judge approved a settlement of a class action in Minnesota
in connection with the marketing and sale of deferred annuity products by
Allianz Life Insurance Co. NA, Joshua Freed of The Associated Press reports.

Two such lawsuits in Minnesota have been certified as class actions (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 18, 2007).  The complaints allege that the defendant
engaged in, among other practices, deceptive trade practices and misleading
advertising in connection with the sale of such products, including, that with
respect to the Minnesota lawsuit, the violation of the Minnesota Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive and Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson had accused Allianz of selling
annuities that weren't appropriate for older retirees. Many of them claimed
they had been told they could get their money out, only to be forced to choose
between onerous penalties or leaving their money in the annuity for years.

Under the settlement, Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America, a
subsidiary of Allianz SE, did not admit any wrongdoing, but agreed to pay
$500,000 in fines and expenses.

According to the settlement, people who are over 65 and who bought Allianz
deferred annuities after Jan. 1, 2001, can apply for a full refund without
penalties.  According to Ms. Swanson, more than 7,000 annuity holders with
$325 million worth of annuities could get settlement notices. Annuity holders
will have four months to apply for refunds.

According to the report, Allianz and the attorney general's office will decide
jointly whether to grant the refund, but the settlement calls for them to
"liberally construe" the facts in favor of the consumer. They will look for
evidence that the annuity "was unsuitable on the date of application or that
Allianz or its agent misrepresented the terms or conditions" of the annuity.

A third party will settle disputes over who should get refunds, the report said.

Minnesota-based Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America --
http://www.allianzlife.com– through its subsidiaries and affiliates offer a
range of insurance, investment, and savings products throughout the U.S.  It
boasts more than 200,000 independent agents and financial planners selling
such products as mutual funds and other broker-dealer services; variable and
fixed life insurance and annuity products; and long-term care insurance.
Allianz Life also offers life, health, and annuity reinsurance and other
products geared to health care providers and to employers with self-funded
benefits plans. Allianz Life became a subsidiary of Allianz SE in 1979 and has
been operating as such ever since.


ASHWORTH INC: Opposes Certification Motion in Cal. FCRA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashworth, Inc. is opposing a motion that seeks to certify aclass in a
purported class action alleging that the company violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by printing on credit or debit card receipts more than the last
five digits of the credit or debit card number and/or the expiration date.

The suit was filed on Feb. 27, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  Plaintiff seeks statutory and punitive damages,
attorney's fees and injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class.

The proposed class representative for the putative class has now filed his
motion to certify this matter as a class action.

Ashworth is taking discovery and filed its opposition to that motion with the
court on Aug. 27, 2007, according to 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 suit is "Burnis L. Simon Jr. v. Ashworth Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-01324-GHK-AJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge George H. King with referral to Judge
Andrew J. Wistrich.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Farris E. Ain, Esq.
          Herbert Hafif Law Offices
          269 West Bonita Avenue
          Claremont, CA 91711-4784
          Phone: 909-624-1671
          E-mail: farris.ain@hafif.com

Representing the defendants is:

          J. Scot Kennedy, Esq.
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
          4 Park Plaza, 17th Floor
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: 949-451-3805
          E-mail: skennedy@gibsondunn.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls Soups that Might Contain Plastic Pieces
--------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company is voluntarily recalling a limited quantity of 18.8
ounce cans of "Campbell's Chunky" Baked Potato with Cheddar & Bacon Bits
because they may contain pieces of hard plastic that present a choking hazard
and may cause injury if swallowed.

Three consumers have reported minor injuries in and around the mouth.

No other "Campbell's" soup products are affected by this recall.

72,300 units of the recalled soups were shipped to customers in the following
24 states:

          -- Alabama,
          -- Arkansas,
          -- Arizona,
          -- California,
          -- Colorado,
          -- Illinois,
          -- Iowa,
          -- Kansas,
          -- Kentucky,
          -- Louisiana,
          -- Minnesota,
          -- Missouri,
          -- Mississippi,
          -- Montana,
          -- Nebraska,
          -- New Mexico,
          -- Nevada,
          -- North Dakota,
          -- Oklahoma,
          -- South Dakota,
          -- Tennessee,
          -- Texas,
          -- Utah, and
          -- Wyoming.

The affected product is labeled as "Campbell's Chunky" Baked Potato with
Cheddar & Bacon Bits and has the following individual code on the bottom of
the can:

        JUL 08 2009       BZ       07097
        CT DT                      XXXX (equals military time)

Consumers who have purchased the "Campbell's Chunky" Baked Potato with Cheddar
& Bacon Bits with the can code JUL 08 2009 07097 should not eat this product.
Consumers are encouraged to return the product to the store where they
purchased it for an exchange or full refund. Consumers also can contact
Campbell at 888-453-3868.


COORS BREWING: Appeals Court Dismisses Suit Over Ads to Minors
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed a multibillion-dollar class action
that accused Coors Brewing Co. and other alcoholic-beverage makers of
illegally marketing alcohol to minors, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit, which was originally filed in December 2003 by law firm Straus &
Boies LLP, also named as defendants:

          -- Bacardi USA,
          -- Heineken NV,
          -- Mike's Hard Lemonade Co.
          -- Adolph Coors Co.,
          -- Kobrand Corp.,
          -- Beer Institute Inc.,
          -- Heineken USA Inc.,
          -- Brown-Forman Corp.,
          -- Diageo North America Inc., and
          -- Mark Anthony Brands Inc.

It listed Randy and Colleen Kreft as lead plaintiffs.  

The alcohol-marketing lawsuit had accused the company of using the Coors Light
Twins to promote the PG-13-rated film "Scary Movie 3."

The lawsuit also alleged that Bacardi advised website visitors how to "avoid
any dirty looks from Mom as you reach for a Bacardi bottle at 8 a.m." while
preparing a "breakfast with a bang" consisting of rum, grapefruit and sugar.

In 2005, Jefferson County, Colorado District Judge James Zimmerman, dismissed
the class action (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 23, 2005).

On Oct. 4, Justice Furman held that plaintiff Colorado residents lacked
standing because they never claimed to have minor children.  They also failed
to show that an underage drinker had suffered injury or was exposed to the
allegedly illegal advertisements, let alone whether any of the defendants’
advertisements induced the child to use “family assets” to buy or drink
alcoholic products.

The suit is “Kreft et al. v. Adolph Coors Company et al., Case No. No.
04CV1827,” filed in Jefferson County District Court, under the Honorable James
D. Zimmerman, with referral to the Honorable Tamara Russell.


HOMETOWN BUFFET: Reaches $7.2M Settlement in Calif. Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
preliminarily approval to a $7.2 million settlement of a labor class action
filed against HomeTown Buffet, Inc., a subsidiary of Buffets Holdings, Inc.

On Nov. 12, 2004, two former restaurant managers of the of HomeTown Buffet,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class
action in California Superior Court in San Francisco County.  

The lawsuit alleges that HomeTown Buffet violated California wage and hour
laws by failing to pay all of its California managers and assistant managers
overtime, and for making deductions from bonus compensation based on the
company's workers' compensation costs.  

In March 2006, the plaintiffs amended the complaint in the lawsuit to add OCB
Restaurant Co., LLC as a defendant, and to limit the claims to those managers
below the level of restaurant General Manager.  

In April 2006, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  

The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, penalties, restitution of unpaid
overtime and deductions, pre-judgment interest, cost of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees.  The complaint did not make a specific monetary demand.  

During the course of discovery, but prior to a motion for certification of a
class, the parties reached a tentative $7.2 million settlement of this action
in mediation in late February 2007.  

The settlement received preliminary court approval on Sept. 12, 2007.

The suit is "Tiffany, et al. v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., Case No.  
4:06-cv-02524-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James F. Clapp, Esq.
          Dostart Clapp Gordon & Coveney, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: 858-623-4200
          Fax: 858-623-4299
          E-mail: jclapp@sdlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Paul R. Lynd, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Phone: 415-433-1940
          Fax: 415-743-6653
          E-mail: plynd@littler.com


IMPAC FUNDING: Faces Calif. Fraud Lawsuit Over Interest Rates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Funding Corp. and Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. are facing a
class-action complaint filed Oct. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, over alleged unfair and fraudulent business practices.

The complaint alleges that the companies promised low, fixed-interest rates on
home mortgages and charged buyers much higher, adjustable rates.

This action arises out of defendants' failure to disclose pertinent
information concerning residential mortgage loan transactions in a clear and
conspicuous manner, in writing, as required by the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA). This action also concerns defendants' unlawful, fraudulent and unfair
business acts or practices.

Defendants allegedly engaged in a campaign of deceptive conduct and
concealment aimed at maximizing the number of California consumers who would
accept this type of loan in order to maximize defendants' profits, even as
defendants knew their conduct would cause many of these consumers to lose
their homes through foreclosure.

This action also concerns defendants' breaches of contract. Defendants have
failed to fulfill the obligations they expressly and impliedly assumed when
they entered into loan agreements with plaintiff and the class.

Named plaintiff, Vincent D. Marshell, brings this lawsuit pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, California Civil Code, Section 1781, et.
seq., and California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382 and the case law
thereunder, on behalf of all individuals who received an Option ARM loan
through defendants on their primary residence located within California
between Oct. 4, 2003 and Oct. 4, 2007.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants' acts and practices violate the
         Truth in Lending Act;

     (b) whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR Section
         226.17;

     (c) whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR Section
         226.19;

     (d) whether defendants engaged in unfair business practices
         aimed at deceiving class members before and during the
         loan application process;

     (e) whether defendants, by and through their officers,
         employees, and agents failed to disclose that the
         interest rate actually charged on these loans was
         higher than the rate represented and promised to class
         members;

     (f) whether defendants, by and through their officers,
         employees and agents concealed information they were
         mandated to disclose under TILA;

     (g) whether defendants failed to disclose the true variable
         nature of the interest rates applied to these loans;

     (h) whether defendants failed to properly disclose the
         process by which negative amortization occurs on these
         loans, ultimately resulting in the recasting of the
         payment structure over the remaining lifetime of the
         loans;

     (i) whether defendants' conduct in immediately raising the
         interest rate on consumers' loans above the promised
         "teaser" rate so that no payments were made to the
         principal balance constitutes a breach of contract,
         including a breach of the covenant of good faith and
         fair dealing;

     (j) whether defendants' marketing plan and scheme
         misleadingly portrayed or implied that these loans were
         fixed rate loans, when defendants knew that only the
         periodic payments were fixed (for a time) but that
         interest rates were, in fact, never "fixed;"

     (k) whether the terms and conditions of defendants' Option
         ARM home loan are unconscionable;

     (l) whether all class members are entitled to punitive
         damages;

     (m) whether all class members are entitled to actual
         damages;

     (n) whether all class members are entitled to rescission;
         and

     (o) whether all class members are entitled to reformation.

Plaintiff and all class members pray for judgment against each defendant,
jointly and severally, as follows:

     -- for actual damages according to proof;

     -- for compensatory damages where appropriate;

     -- for actual damages where appropriate;

     -- for punitive damages where appropriate;

     -- for rescission;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- for statutory damages;

     -- for an order certifying this case as a class action and
        appointing plaintiff and her counsel to represent the
        class;

     -- for an order requiring defendants to disgorge all
        profits obtained as a result of their unfair
        competition;

     -- for equitable relief, including restitution; and

     -- for such other relief as is just and proper.

The suit is "Vincent D. Marshell et al. v. Impac Funding Corporation et al.,
Case No, EDCV07-1290 SGL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Eric M. George
          Michael A. Bowse
          Browne Woods & George LLP
          450 North Roxbury Drive, Seventh Floor
          Beverly Hills, California 90210-4231
          Phone: (310) 274-7100
          Fax: (310) 275-5697
          E-mail: egeorge@bwgfirm.com or mbowse@bwgfirm.com

          - and -

          Jeffery K. Berns, Esq.
          Law Offices of Jeffrey K. Berns
          19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tarzana, California 91356
          Phone: (818) 961-2000
          Fax: (818) 867-4820
          E-mail: jberns@jeffbernslaw.com


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Baking Squares Posing Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kraft Foods has issued a recall in the U.S. for Baker’s Premium White
Chocolate Baking Squares (6 oz.) with a UPC Code 0043000252200 and four best
when used by dates:

          -- 31 MAR 2008 XCZ
          -- 01 APR 2008 XCZ
          -- 02 APR 2008 XCZ
          -- 03 APR 2008 XCZ

This product may be contaminated with Salmonella, (a bacterium that causes
foodborne illness).

Symptoms of foodborne illness caused by Salmonella include fever, diarrhea and
abdominal cramps. In persons with poor underlying health or weakened immune
systems, Salmonella can invade the bloodstream and cause life-threatening
infections.

The product was distributed nationwide. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product and should discard any product they may have.

The potential for contamination was noted after testing by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration that detected the presence of Salmonella in some packages
of Baker’s Premium White Chocolate Baking Squares (6 oz.). The company is
aggressively investigating the source of the problem.

This recall is only for Baker’s Premium White Chocolate Baking Squares (6
oz.). No other varieties of Baker’s White Chocolate or any other Baker’s
products sold in the United States are impacted by this recall.

Consumers can contact the company at 1-800-310-3704 with any questions they
may have or to request reimbursement for purchased product.


MACY’S INC: 401(k) Member Files Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Macy’s Inc. is facing a class action filed on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of its 401(k) and May Department Stores' retirement plans,
Business Courier of Cincinnati reports.

The suit was filed by Cincinnati lawyer Stephen Imm with Katz Greenberger and
Norton LLP on behalf of Ebrahim ShanehChian, who is identified as a resident
of Texas who was a Macy's employee and plan participant during a purported
class period. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio against:

     * Macy's, Inc.;
     * officers and directors and plan committee members;
     * Terry J. Lundgren, chief executive;
     * Meyer Feldberg;
     * Plan Committee for the Macy's, Inc.;
     * Profit Sharing 401(K) Plan;
     * Plan Committee for the May Department Stores Company
       Profit Sharing Plan; and
     * John Does 1 – 25

The lawsuit defines the class period as beginning on Feb. 27, 2005, the day
Macy's and May entered into the May Department Store merger, and continuing to
the present.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and
omissions regarding the company's operations and performance and violated
their fiduciary duties to plan participants by investing in and encouraging
participants to invest in Macy's stock.

The suit is "Shanehchian v. Macy's, Inc., Case No. 1:2007cv00828," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge S.
Arthur Spiegel with referral to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hogan.

For more information, contact:

          Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
          Katz, Greenberger and Norton, LLP
          105 East Fourth Street
          4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4056
          Phone: (513) 721-5151
          Fax: (513) 621-9285


MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces “Bolton” Securities Lawsuit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Majesco Entertainment Co. faces a purported securities fraud class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On July 26, 2007, Charlie Bolton filed a complaint against the Company and
several current and former directors and officers of the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The current or former officers and directors named as defendants in the
complaint are Morris Sutton, Jesse Sutton, Joseph Sutton and Carl Yankowski.

The Complaint alleges four causes of action:

       -- a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and
          Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) against all the
          named defendants;

       -- a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
          against Morris Sutton, Jesse Sutton and Joseph Sutton;

       -- a claim under Section 18(a) of the Exchange Act
          against all the named defendants; and

       -- a common law fraud claim against Morris Sutton, Jesse
          Sutton, Joseph Sutton and Carl Yankowski.

Mr. Bolton seeks compensatory damages of no less than $2 million and $2
million in punitive damages.  

The suit is “Bolton v. Majesco Entertainment Company et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-03470-PGS-ES,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Peter G. Sheridan with referral to Judge Esther Salas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John R. Mininno, Esq.
          Mininno Law Office
          475 White Horse Pike
          Collingswood, NJ 08107
          Phone: (856) 833-0600
          Fax: 856-833-9649
          E-mail: john@minfirm.com


MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Settles N.J. Securities Suit for $2.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Majesco Entertainment Co. reached a tentative settlement in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, according to company's Sept. 13, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2007.

In July 2005, four purported class action complaints were filed against the
company and several of its current and former directors and officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  

On Sept. 12, 2005, a fifth purported class action complaint was filed in the
same court on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased shares of the
company's common stock on Jan. 26, 2005 offering of six million shares of
common stock.  

The complaint named as defendants the company, current and former officers of
the company, and certain financial institutions who served as underwriters
with respect to the offering.

On Oct. 11, 2005, the court consolidated the five cases and appointed a lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff is Diker M&S Cap Master Ltd.  On Dec. 14, 2005,
the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint, which is now the
operative complaint.  

The complaint names as defendants:  

     -- the company,  
     -- Carl Yankowski,  
     -- Jan E. Chason,  
     -- Jesse Sutton,  
     -- Joseph Sutton,  
     -- Morris Sutton,  
     -- Laurence Aronson,  
     -- F. Peter Cuneo,  
     -- James Halpin,  
     -- Louis Lipschitz,  
     -- Marc Weisman,  
     -- RBC Capital Markets Corp.,  
     -- JMP Securities LLC,  
     -- Harris Nesbitt & Corp.,  
     -- Wedbush Morgan Securities Inc., and  
     -- Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
company's offering and certain of the company's press releases and other
public filings contained material misstatements and omissions about the
company's financial condition and prospects as well as its products.  

The lead plaintiff asserts a claim under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act
against all the defendants on behalf of investors who purchased in the offering.  

It asserts a Section 12(a)(2) claim against the company and the financial
institutions who served as underwriters in connection with the offering, and a
Section 15 control person claim against defendants Carl Yankowski, Jan Chason,
Jesse Sutton, Joseph
Sutton, and Morris Sutton.  

The lead plaintiff also asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under against the company and
the defendants and a claim under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act
against the defendants.  

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The proposed class
period for the Exchange Act claims is Dec. 8, 2004 through Sept. 12, 2005.  

The Company and the Individual Defendants have been in negotiations with
Plaintiffs to resolve the matter, and have reached a tentative understanding
on settlement terms.  

These terms include a payment in the form of common stock of the Company with
a market value of approximately $2.5 million in addition to payments in cash
from proceeds of the Company’s insurance carrier.

The suit is "In Re: Majesco Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-cv-03557-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.   

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq.
         Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
         163 Madison Ave., P.O. BOX 1277
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
         Phone: (973) 775-8997
         E-mail: procco@lawssb.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph Domenick Giacoia, Esq.
         Capuder Fazio Giacoia, 90 Broad Street
         New York, NY 10004
         Phone: 212-509-9595
         E-mail: jgiacoia@cfgny.com


MAY DEPARTMENT: Mo. Court Denies "Decristofaro" Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri denied a motion that sought for the
dismissal of a purported stockholder class action filed against The May
Department Stores Co., which was acquired by Macy's, Inc. f/k/a Federated
Department Stores, Inc.

On Jan. 11, 2006, Edward Decristofaro, an alleged former May stockholder,
filed a purported class action on behalf of all former May stockholders
against May and the former members of the board of directors of May.  

The complaint generally alleges that the directors of May breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith and candor to May
stockholders in connection with the Merger.

The plaintiffs seek rescission of the Merger or an unspecified amount of
rescissory damages and costs including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.  

In July 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case,
according to Macy's, Inc.'s Sept. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.fds.com-- formerly Federated Department Stores,
Inc., operates departmental stores.  Its retail stores sells a range of
merchandise, including men’s, women’s and children’s apparel and accessories,
cosmetics, home furnishings and other consumer goods, and are diversified by
size of store, merchandising character and character of community served.


MONSANTO CO: Suit Filed Over Dioxin-Related Cancer in W.Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charleston attorney Stuart Calwell filed 77 lawsuits against Monsanto Co. and
related companies over the health hazards resulting from the operation of its
defunct dioxin-producing plant in Nitro, Chris Dickerson of West Virginia
Record reports.

The suits filed in Putnam Circuit Court on Oct. 1 accused Monsanto and
companies that have something to do with the trichlorophenol plant of
negligence and unlawful release of dioxin from properties owned and/or
controlled by them.  Among the defendants are Pharmacia Corp., Akzo Nobel
Inc., Flexsys America, Solutia Inc., and Apogee Coal Co.

According to the complaints, Monsanto owned and operated the plant from 1934
to 2000.  Production of the dioxin was made from 1949 to approximately 1971 at
the Monsanto Nitro plant.  The plant closed in 2004.  In between those years,
the plant merged with Akzo Nobel, a Dutch company, and began operating as
Flexsys America Inc.  In 1997, Monsanto renamed a subsidiary as Solutia Inc.
and the Nitro was distributed to Solutia.

The complaints maintain the defendants knew or should have known the Nitro
plant site was contaminated and dangerous.  The defendants acted carelessly,
negligently, recklessly and/or deliberately, the suits say.

Each of the 77 suits seeks $5 million in compensatory damages, and the
plaintiffs seek $300 million total in punitive damages or a total of $685
million in damages.

"The proposed class is made up of persons with one or more dioxin related
cancers and who live or lived in the class defined area ... for at least two
years during the period 1949 to the present and/or have attended school in the
class defined area for at least two years and/or who have been employed in a
building in the class defined area for two years or more," the complaints state.

There are 12,503 residences in the area, according to the report.

For more information, contact:

          W. Stuart Calwell, Jr.
          The Calwell Practice, PLLC
          Law and Arts Center West
          500 Randolph Street, P.O. Box 113
          Charleston, West Virginia 25302
          (Kanawha Co.)
          Phone: 304-343-4323
          Toll Free Telephone: 1-800-876-5529
          Fax: 304-344-3684


MONSANTO CO: Oct. Hearing Set in Property Damage Suits in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Charleston attorney who filed more than 70 purported class actions against
Monsanto Co. in Putnam Circuit Court has two other suits up for class
certification later this month in the same court, it emerged in a report by
the West Virginia Record.

The suits about property damage stemming from dioxin exposure in Nitro were
filed in December 2004 by W. Stuart Calwell.  One of the suits is "Virdie
Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al.," which names Monsanto, Pharmacia Corp. and
seven others.  The company was named as the successor in interest to the
liabilities of Pharmacia.   

The purported class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and
students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to
dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia.  

The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant
in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a
joint venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.   

Akzo Nobel and Flexsys are named defendants in the case, but  
Solutia is not, due to its bankruptcy proceeding.   

The suit seeks damages for property clean up costs, loss of real estate value,
funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to test for human
contamination and future medical monitoring costs.   

The complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination and
punitive damages.

For more details, contact:  

          W. Stuart Calwell, Esq.
          Alex McLaughlin, Esq.
          The Calwell Practice
          P.O. Box 113, Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: 304-343-4323
                 304-291-5223
          Fax: 304-344-3864
               304-291-2240

          -- and --

         James F. Humphreys, Esq.
         J. David Cecil, Esq.
         Thomas G. Wilson, Esq.
         James F. Humphreys & Associates
         United Center,  Suite 800
         500 Virginia Street
         East Charleston, WV 25301
         Phone: 304-347-5050
         Fax: 304-347-5055


NETWORK SOLUTIONS: Accused of Failing to Protect Client’s Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Network Solutions, LLC is facing a class action filed Oct. 4, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming it makes its
customers’ private email messages publicly available on the Internet through
common search engines such as Google, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint claims Network Solutions “knowingly failed to install
industry-standard hardware and/or software that would have prevented the
release of this information.”

The suit is brought for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, U.S.C. Section 2702, the California Online Privacy Act 2003, California
Business and Professions Code Section 22575, et seq., the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Action, California Civil Code Section 1798.80, et seq., the
California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et
seq., unjust enrichment and private disclosure of public facts.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose, at any time
within the four years preceding the filing of this class action complaint,
email (or email accounts) were released, published and/or made available for
publication by defendant.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's release or publication (or reckless
         failure to adequately secure or keep private) customer
         email and email accounts was a violation of the
         Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
         Section 2702, et. seq;

     (b) whether defendant released, published and/or made
         available to the public email, email accounts or the
         content of other communications to third parties and,
         if so, the number of times defendant did so;

     (c) whether defendant's release and publication of email,
         email accounts or the content of other communications
         to third parties is a violation of California law;

     (d) whether defendant violated the California Consumers
         Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.Code Section 1750, et.
         seq;

     (e) whether defendant is in violation of California
         Business and Professions Code Section 22575;

     (f) whether defendant violated Cal.Civ.Code Section
         1798.80, et seq;

     (g) whether defendant violated the California Business and
         Professions Code Section 17200, et seq;

     (h) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to damages, statutory penalties and/or restitution and
         the appropriate measure of such damages, penalties
         and/or restitution; and

     (i) the scope of injunctive relief that should be imposed
         against defendant to prevent such conduct in the
         future.

Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment as follows:

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

     -- declaring that defendant has violated and are in
        violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
        18 U.S.C. Section 2702;

     -- declaring that defendant has violated and are in
        violation of Cal.Civ.Code Section 1770, et seq;

     -- declaring that defendant has violated and are in
        violation of Cal.Civ.Code Section 1798.80, et seq;

     -- declaring that defendant has violated and are in
        violation of Cal.Business and Professions Code Section
        17200, et seq;

     -- declaring that defendant has violated and are in
        violation of the federal common law or the common law of
        California and the several states with respect to public
        disclosure of private facts, unjust enrichment;

     -- awarding plaintiff and those similarly situated
        statutory and actual damages of no less than $1,000 per
        class member;

     -- awarding plaintiff and those similarly situated
        statutory and actual damages of no less than $1,000 per
        California Subclass member for defendant's violation of
        Cal.Civ.Code SEction 1770, et seq;

     -- awarding plaintiff and those similarly situated
        statutory and actual damages of no less than $3,000 per
        California Subclass member for defendant's violation of
        Cal.Civ.Code Section 1798.80. et seq;

     -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and
        the class members against defendant, for all damages
        sustained as a result of defendant's violations of the
        laws set forth, in an amount to be proven at trial,
        including interest thereon;

     -- awarding statutory penalties;

     -- awarding plaintiff and those similarly situated punitive
        damages;

     -- awarding plaintiff and those similarly situated their
        reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
        including counsel fees and expert fees; and

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

The suit is "Doe et al. v. Network Solutions, LLC, Case No. C 07 5115," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Adam J. Gutride
          Seth A. Safier
          Gutride Safier Reese LLP
          835 Douglas Street
          San Francisco, California 94114
          Phone: (415) 271-6469
          Fax: (415) 449-6469


NEW JERSEY: $1.85M Settlement Reached in Rancocas Creek Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven defendants in a class action stemming from Rancocas Creek flooding that
damaged Burlington County homes and businesses in 2004 agreed to settle the
suit for $1.85 million, Carol Comegno of Courier Post reports.

Superior Court Judge Harold B. Wells III said he does not expect to conduct a
hearing to approve the settlement until November because all parties in the
lawsuit must be notified.

The suit was filed by 180 property owners against public and private owners of
21 dams that failed and 30 damaged in the July 2004 storm.  The plaintiffs
claim that defendants failed to maintain the dams.

Property damages are estimated at $25 million.  The settlement is yet the
fourth to be reached so far, bringing the settlement to $4.9 million in total.
Ten defendants have not yet settled, including the Girl Scouts of Camden
County, YMCA Camp Ockanickon in Medford, the New Jersey Department.

Other defendants include Lost Lake Colony Club, the Marlton Lakes Civic
Association, which owns Crane Lake Dam in Evesham, three estates that own
other dams and Bowman Contractors of West Berlin.

Under the recent settlement, Pine Acres Associates, which owns Kenilworth dams
in Evesham, would pay $725,000, the largest portion of the latest settlement.

Burlington County has agreed to pay $55,000 of the overall settlement through
its insurance company, according to the report.

One of the defense lawyers in the case is:

          Edward Petkevis, Esq.
          1380 Hornberger Ave.
          Roebling, N.J. 08554-1309


NEW JERSEY: “Crawford” Suit Against Educ. Commissioner Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
State Superior Court Judge Neil Shuster dismissed a lawsuit seeking immediate
relief for New Jersey's alleged failure to provide essential basic education
to thousands of its children, reports say.

The suit, "Crawford v. Davy," was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in
Newark, against State Commissioner of Education Lucille Davy and 30 more
defendants in July 2006.  

The case represented a class of more than 60,000 students in 96 failing
schools in 25 districts.  The lawsuit argued that the denial of basic
educational opportunities violates the children's right to a thorough and
efficient education under the state constitution, and to equal protection of
the laws under the state and federal constitutions.

It sought two interrelated remedies:  

     -- an end to district-based residential school assignments,  
        in which children are forbidden to cross attendance zone  
        lines to attend a different state-supported public  
        school; and  

     -- a pro rata share of public funds allocated for the  
        child's education, so that the family can secure a  
        better education in another public or private school.

Judge Shuster was critical of the plaintiffs' claims that the present system
wasn't holding their schools accountable or that the system was actually
failing.  He ultimately concluded it was not the court's place to order such a
sweeping alternative system over the heads of the legislative and executive
branches.

Richard Shapiro was the attorney for eight districts.  Michelle
Miller represented the state Department of Education.

The suit was filed in Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General
Equity, Essex County.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patricia Bombelyn, Esq.
          Perez & Bombelyn, P.C.
          402 Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick
          New Jersey 08901  
          Phone: (732) 213-1166
          Fax: (732) 846-6667

          -- and --  

          Julio C. Gomez, Esq.
          Attorney at Law LLC
          152 Paterson Road, Fairwood
          New Jersey 07023-1065
          Phone: (908) 490-0360   
          Fax: (908) 490-0362

Representing defendants is:

          Richard E. Shapiro, Esq.
          5 Mapleton Road. Princeton
          New Jersey 08540 (Mercer Co.)
          Phone: 609-919-1888
          Fax: 609-919-0888


P3 INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Air Purifiers Due to Risk of Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
P3 International, of New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 83,000
units of IonizAir table top air purifiers.

The company said the air purifier’s cartridge can overheat, posing a risk of
fire.  P3 has received 10 reports of purifiers melting or catching fire. No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled air purifier is a tabletop model that is about 6” x 3 1/2” x 11
1/4”. The unit has a removable cartridge with a silver-colored handle. The
recall involves model number P4620 with lot numbers beginning with either 03
or 04 or having no lot number. The lot number is located on the bottom of the
air purifier. No other models or lot numbers are included in this recall.

These recalled air purifiers were manufactured by Leaven Enterprise Co., of
Taiwan and are being sold at various retailers nationwide including mail-order
and Internet retailers from January 2003 through July 2004 for between $60 and
$90.

Pictures of recalled air purifiers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08012a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08012b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using and unplug the recalled air purifier
immediately, and contact the firm for a free replacement cartridge.

For additional information, contact the firm toll-free at (888) 734-0449
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web
site: http://www.getnewcartridge.com


PEP BOYS: Faces Multiple Labor Violation Lawsuits in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack faces several purported class actions in
California, alleging violations to state labor laws, according to the
company's Oct. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

During the fourth quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007, the Company
was served with four separate lawsuits brought by former associates employed
in California, each of which lawsuits purports to be a class action on behalf
of all current and former California store associates.  

One or more of the lawsuits claim that the plaintiff was not paid for:

       -- overtime,
       -- accrued vacation time,
       -- all time worked (i.e. “off the clock” work), and/or
       -- late or missed meal periods or rest breaks.

The plaintiffs also allege that the Company violated certain record keeping
requirements arising out of the foregoing alleged violations.  

The lawsuits:

       -- claim these alleged practices are unfair business
          practices,
       
       -- request back pay, restitution, penalties, interest and
          attorney fees, and

       -- request that the Company be enjoined from committing
          further unfair business practices.

The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack -- http://www.pepboys.com/-- is an automotive
retail and service chain.  The Company operates in one industry, the
automotive aftermarket.  It is engaged principally in the retail sale of
automotive parts, tires and accessories, automotive repairs and maintenance
and the installation of parts.


QUAKER FABRIC: Workers File Suit for Alleged WARN Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Outten & Golden LLP filed a class action against bankrupt company Quaker
Fabric Corp., alleging violations of federal law requiring 60 days notice
before a closing or large-scale layoff, Brian Crandall of the NBC 10
Providence reports.

The federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act requires large
companies to give their employees 60 days advance written notice before they
shut down and that didn't happen in this instance," said Rene Roupinian of the
firm Outten & Golden LLP.  "The employees learned of the shutdown through the
media."

According to the report, Quaker announced in July it was not likely to resume
production after its annual two-week shutdown that began June 29.

The company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Quaker Fabric Corp. of Fall
River, voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August.  The company's
closure put 930 employees out of work.

Lawyers said they hope to recoup 60 days pay and benefits for the workers, the
report said.

Mr. Crandall said since Quaker filed for bankruptcy, the case is being pursued
in bankruptcy court.

According to the report, Quaker's president told NBC 10 he didn't know much
about the case and referred NBC 10 to the company's lawyer who didn't return a
phone call.

Based in Fall River, Mass., Quaker Fabric Corp. (NASDAQ: QFAB) --
http://www.quakerfabric.com–- designs, manufactures, and markets woven
upholstery fabrics primarily for residential furniture manufacturers and
jobbers.  It also develops and manufactures specialty yarns, including
chenille, taslan, and spun products for use in the production of its fabrics,
as well as for sale to distributors of craft yarns, and manufacturers of
homefurnishings and other products.  The company is one of the largest
producers of Jacquard upholstery fabrics.

Quaker Fabric sells its products through sales representatives
andindependent commissioned sales agents in the United States, Canada, Mexico,
and internationally.


RAZOR USA: Recalls Electric Scooters with Weak Handlebar Weld
-------------------------------------------------------------
Razor USA LLC, of Cerritos, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 20,000 Razor E300 electric scooters.

The company said a weld can break causing the handlebar to detach. This can
cause the rider to lose control and fall from the scooter.

Razor has received 25 reports of welds breaking on the handlebar, including
three reports of minor injuries, such as scrapes and bruises.

The recall involves Model E300 Electric Scooters, which are powered by
battery-operated motors. The model number appears on the tube that connects
the head tube to the deck. The recalled scooters are blue or silver. This
recall includes only products with barcodes beginning in 100620-03 through
-09. Products with other barcodes or no barcode are not included in this
recall. The barcode can be located on the steering stem, the battery tray, the
charger, and the product’s packaging.

These recalled electric scooters were manufactured in China and are being sold
at Pep Boys stores nationwide and various Internet retail sites from January
2006 through October 2006 for between $190 and $230.

Pictures of the recalled electric scooters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08013a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08013b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08013c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08013d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08013e.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the product immediately and contact Razor
USA to obtain a free repair kit.

For additional information, contact Razor USA toll-free at (866) 623-3297
anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site at http://www.razor.com/recall


RENAISSANCERE: $13M Securities Suit Deal Gets Preliminary Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Pauley of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted preliminary approval to a $13.5 million
settlement of a securities fraud class action filed against RenaissanceRe
Holdings Ltd., BESTWIRE reports.

Beginning in July 2005, seven putative class actions were filed against the
defendants.  In December 2005, these actions were consolidated and in February
2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased and/or acquired the publicly traded
securities of the company between April 22, 2003 and July 25,
2005.

The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants in addition to the
company, current and former officers of the company as defendants.

It alleges that the company and the other named defendants violated the U.S.
federal securities laws by making material misstatements and failing to state
material facts about the company's business and financial condition in, among
other things, U.S. Securities and Exchange filings and public statements.

In March 2006, defendants notified the court of their intention to move to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  Thus on June 2006, they filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On Oct. 24, 2006, before those motions were ruled upon, counsel for the lead
plaintiffs requested permission from the court to move for leave to file a
second amended complaint (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 20, 2006).

On October 30, 2006, the defendants consented to that request.  
Once the new complaint is filed, it is expected that the defendants will file
motions to dismiss the new complaint.

On Feb. 14, 2007, the company executed a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiffs’ representatives setting forth an agreement in principle to settle
the claims alleged in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, as amended.  

The total amount to be paid in settlement of the claims is $13.5 million
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2007).

Judge Pauley will decide on January 11 if the $13.5 million settlement is fair
and reasonable.

The suit is "In re RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. Securities  
Litigation, No. 05-Civ.-6764 (WHP)," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William  
H. Pauley, III.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

         Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, 100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 907-0853
         Fax: (212) 883-7053
         E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Steven Robert Paradise, Esq.
         Vinson  & Elkins, L.L.P.
         666 Fifth Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, New York 10103
         Phone: (917) 206-8000
         Fax: (917) 849-5338
         E-mail: sparadise@velaw.com


RYAN'S RESTAURANT: S.C. Court Approves Merger Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas in Greenville, South Carolina granted final approval
to a proposed settlement in a putative shareholder class action filed against
Ryan's Restaurant Group is in connection with a merger between Ryan's and
Buffets, Inc.    

On July 28, 2006, Ryan's shareholder Marjorie Fretwell, with the help of law
firm Motley Rice LLC, filed a class action in the Court of Common Pleas in
Greenville, South Carolina alleging the purchase price didn't result from a
fair and open process (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2007).

The deal would combine Ryan's 340 restaurants with Buffet's 337 to form what
the two companies said would be the nation's largest buffet restaurant chain.

The suit alleges Ryan's and its directors breached their fiduciary duty to
shareholders by failing to disclose material information about the sale.

Ryan's has reached an agreement in principle with plaintiff's counsel, subject
to court approval, to resolve the litigation by responding to certain
allegations in the amended complaint.

On Aug. 29, 2007, The Court of Common Pleas in Greenville, South Carolina
overseeing the 2006 putative shareholder class action, captioned, “Marjorie
Fretwell v. Ryan’s Restaurant Group, Inc.,” entered a final order approving
the consensual settlement agreement between the parties, previously disclosed.

Ryan's Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.ryans.com/-- owns and operates
family dining restaurants with a grill/buffet format under the Ryan's and Fire
Mountain brand names.  The restaurants are located principally in the southern
and Midwestern U.S.


RYAN'S RESTAURANT: W.Va. Court Denies Remand Bid in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied a
motion seeking for the remand a purported class action against Ryan’s
Restaurant Group, Inc. back to state court.

In June 2006, a lawsuit was filed in the Berkeley County (West Virginia)
circuit court on behalf of three plaintiffs alleging wage and hour violations.

This case seeks class-action status, but pertains only to West Virginia
employees who worked for Ryan’s during the five years ending July 2006.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, penalties, restitution of unpaid wages
and deductions, pre-judgment interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’
fees.  The complaint does not make a specific monetary demand.

In July 2006, Defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of West Virginia.  

In February 2007, the Court denied Plaintiffs motion to remand the matter back
to West Virginia state court, according to  
Buffets Holdings, Inc.'s Sept. 25, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2007.    

Ryan's Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.ryans.com/-- owns and operates
family dining restaurants with a grill/buffet format under the Ryan's and Fire
Mountain brand names.  The restaurants are located principally in the southern
and Midwestern U.S.


SKYWEST AIRLINES: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
California's Second Appellate District, Division Six, upheld a summary
judgment entered by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Denise de
Bellefeuille in November 2005, in the matter “Michaelena Fitz-Gerald et al. v.
SkyWest Airlines, Inc.,” the Regional Aviation News reports.

Two former California-based flight attendants challenged SkyWest's method of
compensating its nearly 2,000 flight attendants across the country. Plaintiffs
claimed that SkyWest flight attendants' bargained-for, pay-and-work-rule
agreement violated California's minimum wage, meal and rest breaks, and
overtime wage requirements.

SkyWest's method of compensating and giving meal and rest breaks to flight
attendants is an industry standard.

In her ruling, Judge de Bellefeuille found the minimum wage, overtime pay, and
meal and rest break requirements contained in California Industrial Welfare
Commission Order No. 9-2001 were preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act
and the federal Airline Deregulation Act and violate the U.S. Constitution's
Commerce Clause.

She also ruled that SkyWest flight attendants were exempt from California's
overtime pay requirements because they have a valid collective bargaining
agreement with SkyWest, which contains its own overtime pay guarantee.

The Ventura-based, three-judge panel upheld Judge Bellefeuille’s summary judgment.

SkyWest Airlines, Inc.’s counsel:

          Reed Smith LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA, 90071
          Tel: +1 213 457 8000
          Fax: +1 213 457 8080
          Website: http://www.reedsmith.com


SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Justices Question Third-Party Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justices hearing the case “StoneRidge Investment Partners, LLC v.
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.” appeared strongly inclined to uphold the lower
court's dismissal of the suit and leave it to the Congress to decide on the
liability of secondary players in private securities fraud actions, Linda
Greenhouse of The New York Times reports.

Stephen Shapiro of Mayer Brown LLP argued for vendor defendants Motorola Inc.
and Scientific-Atlanta.  The two are accused of dealings with cable television
company Charter Communications that allowed it to inflate its earnings and
hide its failure to achieve its financial targets.

Stanley M. Grossman, lawyer for Stoneridge, argued that the vendors entered
into a fraudulent bookkeeping transaction with Charter that met the definition
of a deceptive practice prohibited by securities law.  The two vendors
allegedly agreed to increase the price they were charging for the cable boxes
they sold to Charter and to use the resulting windfall to buy advertising on
Charter’s cable stations.

The transaction amounted to $17 million.  Stoneridge sued on behalf of
shareholders resulting to a settlement of $144 million, and the admission of
crime by four of Charter’s executives.  Regarding the case against Motorola
and Scientific Atlanta, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri --relying on "Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of
Denver" –- granted the vendors' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims.
Stoneridge appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.  The
circuit court affirmed the decision of the district court, and now the case is
before the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, Mr. Shapiro reportedly did not dispute the facts, but
argued that at most, his clients had “aided and abetted” Charter’s fraud and
were not themselves primary violators of any securities law, according to Ms.
Greenhouse’s report.

The difference between aiding and abetting and a primary violation was the
subject of intense debate during the argument, she said.  This is in light of
the 1994 case, “Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank,” in which the
Supreme Court ruled there was no “aiding and abetting” liability under the
securities laws.  Congress then gave the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission the authority to bring such suits, but not private lawyers.

“Why shouldn’t we be guided by what Congress did in reaction to the Central
Bank case?” Chief Justice Roberts asked Mr. Grossman. “Congress has taken over
and is legislating in the area,” the chief justice added, according to Ms.
Greenhouse.

Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito made it clear they don't believe
federal law allows investors to go after vendors, accounting firms or others
in private securities lawsuits, according to Mark H. Anderson of Dow Jones.

Justices Roberts and Alito are the two justices who didn't rule on the 1994
case. They are likely to join Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and
Clarence Thomas in a ruling favorable to business, according to the report.
Those three opposed third-party aiding and abetting liability in the 1994
ruling.  Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, who in the past have
favored third-party liability, asked numerous critical questions while Justice
John Paul Stevens said little.

Only eight justices will rule in the case because Justice Stephen Breyer is
recused from the appeal because he holds Cisco stock.

A decision is likely by the end of 2007 or early 2008, according to the Dow
Jones report.


SPORTS AUTHORITY: Recalls Bottles for Lead Paint Standard Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sports Authority, of Englewood, Colorado, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 11,200 Alpine Design
aluminum water bottles.

The company said the surface paint on the water bottle contains excessive
levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves the Alpine Design aluminum water bottles sold at Sports
Authority. The water bottles are sold in different colors and measure between
six and 10 ½ inches tall. The water bottles are silver, blue, red, blue with
pink flowers, red with the depiction of a mouse, or blue with the depiction of
a zebra. “Alpine Design” is painted on the water bottle.

These recalled water bottles were manufactured in China and are being sold at
Sports Authority stores nationwide from April 2006 through September 2007 for
between $5 and $8.

Pictures of recalled water bottles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08011a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08011b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08011c.jpg

Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately and return it to
a Sports Authority store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Sports Authority at (800) 360-8721 any
time, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.sportsauthority.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Parties Working to Settle N.Y. GTA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the matter, “In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation
(No. II), 06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD),” which was filed against Take-Two Interactive
Software, Inc. are engaging in settlement discussion.

In July 2005, the company received four complaints for purported class
actions.  Two of the four complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, one was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and one was filed in the Circuit
Court in St. Clair County, Illinois.  

The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the Company’s Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas game, assert that the company engaged in consumer deception, false
advertising and breached an implied warranty of merchantability and were
unjustly enriched as a result of the company's alleged failure to disclose
that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained “hidden” content, which resulted
in the game receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the Entertainment Software
Rating Board (ESRB) rather than an Adults Only 18+ (AO) rating.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, declarations of various violations of
law and litigation costs.  In January 2006, the City of Los Angeles filed a
complaint against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California
alleging violations of California law on substantially the same basis.

The state court actions were removed to federal court (a motion to remand
filed by the City of Los Angeles is pending) and the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all the cases to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, which consolidated them under the
caption, “In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II),
06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD).”

The plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking certification of a nationwide
class, which motion is pending.  

The parties have engaged in settlement discussion, according to 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 suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No.
1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eric James Belfi, Esq.
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 907-0790
         Fax: (212) 883-7579
         E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com
  
             - and -

         Andrew Palmer Bell, Esq.
         Locks Law Firm, PLLC
         110 East 55th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-838-3333
         Fax: 212-838-3735
         E-mail: abell@lockslawny.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven L. Caponi, Esq.
         Blank Rome LLP
         1201 North Market Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302)-425-6408
         Fax: (302)-425-6464
         E-mail: caponi@blankrome.com

              - and -

         Dan Chammas, Esq.
         McDermott Will & Emery
         2049 Century Park E., 34th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
         Phone: (310) 277-4110


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

In February and March 2006, an aggregate of four purported class action
complaints were filed against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer,
its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Global Operating Officer,
and four of its former directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  A fourth complaint brought in Michigan was voluntarily
dismissed.  

The complaints allege that the company violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making or causing the
company to make untrue statements or failing to disclose in certain press
releases and SEC periodic reports that, among other things, Grand Theft Auto:
San Andreas
contained ”hidden” content which should have resulted in the game receiving an
”AO” rating from the ESRB rather than an ”M” rating.  The plaintiffs seek to
recover unspecified damages and their costs.

In July 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.  In September 2006, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint which included claims
regarding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as well as claims relating to the
backdating of stock options.

This complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Chairman of the Board,
and two officers of its Rockstar Games subsidiary.

On April 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
included additional allegations based on an investigation conducted by the
Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors, currently comprised of
Strauss Zelnick, John Levy and Grover Brown (Special Litigation Committee), of
options backdating and the Company’s restatement of financial statements
relating to options backdating.

This complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Chairman of the Board,
two of its directors and one former director, its Rockstar Games subsidiary,
and one officer and one former officer of Rockstar Games.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 25, 2007, according to 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 suit is “IN RE Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:06-cv-00803-SWK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Molly S. Boast, Esq.
         Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
         919 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212 909-6000
         Fax: 212 909-6836
         E-mail: msboast@debevoise.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Amended Complaint Filed in “St. Clair”
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit, "St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System
v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688- MBM," which is pending against
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, filed an amended complaint in the matter.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System
filed a suit against the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of the its
officers and directors and certain former officers and directors.  

The factual allegations in this action are similar to the allegations
contained in the federal securities class actions pending in New York.

Plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duty by
selling company stock while in possession of certain material non-public
information and breached their fiduciary duty and violated Section 14(a) and
Rule 14a-9 of the U.S. Exchange Act by failing to disclose material facts in
the company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which the company
solicited approval to increase share availability under its 2002 Stock Option
Plan.

Plaintiff seeks the return of all profits from the alleged insider trading
conducted by the individual defendants who sold company stock, unspecified
compensatory damages with interest and their costs in the action.

A motion to stay the action pending the determination of an investigation by
the Special Committee was filed with the court.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion and staying the
proceedings for a period of 150 days from the date of the order.

On Jan. 17, 2007, plaintiffs moved for an order granting limited relief from
the court's Oct. 4, 2006 stay of the proceedings in order to file an amended
derivative and class action complaint.

On Feb. 22, 2007, counsel for the Special Litigation Committee advised the
Court that the Special Litigation Committee had completed its investigation
and rendered a report.

On March 23, 2007, counsel for the Special Litigation Committee moved to
dismiss the complaint based on, among other things, its conclusion that
“future pursuit of this action is not in the best interests of Take-Two or its
shareholders.”

The plaintiff subsequently conducted discovery concerning the Special
Litigation Committee’s motion to dismiss.  

On Aug. 24, 2007, plaintiff filed an Amended Derivative and Class Action
Complaint.  The Amended Derivative and Class Action Complaint alleges among
other things that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the issuance of proxy statements in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

The suit is "St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System v. Eibeler,
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688-MBM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Michael B. Mukasey.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         James Joseph Sabella, Esq.
         Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
         45 Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
         New York, NY 10111
         Phone: 646-722-8520     
         Fax: 212-755-6503
         E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

        Leonard D. Steinman, Esq.
        Blank Rome, LLP
        The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Avenue
        New York, NY 10174
        Phone: 212-885-5524
        Fax: 917 332-3746
        E-mail: lsteinman@blankrome.com


WASHINGTON GROUP: Investor Sues to Block Sale to URS Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------
A Washington Group International investor filed a lawsuit seeking to block the
company’s $2.4 billion sale to URS Corp., The News Journal reports.

Schultze Asset Management LLC, the owner of 831,317 Washington Group shares
filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington. In the complaint,
Schultze claims the sale price does not take into account Washington Group's
growth prospects, and company directors failed to solicit alternative offers.  

Schultze wants to have the case certified as a class action to represent all
shareholders.  It also wants a judge to bar the sale unless Washington Group
pursues the highest possible price.

Also opposing the acquisition is investor Greenlight Capital Inc.

Based in Boise, Idaho, Washington Group International, Inc. provides design,
engineering, construction, facilities and operations management, environmental
remediation, and mining services to public and private sector clients in the
United States and internationally.


* Tim Campbell to Get $79T Share of Fees from Homecomings Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County (Ill.) Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder ordered three law firms to
pay $78,892.79 to attorney Tim Campbell of Godfrey for his share of attorney’s
fee in a suit against Homecomings Financial Network, Steve Korris of the
Madison Record reports.

Mr. Campbell has worked on Madison County class actions since the Lakin Law
Firm of Wood River started filing them with Freed and Weiss of Chicago eight
years ago.

Five years ago, Mr. Campbell signed up with Lakin Law Firm, Chicago firm Diab
and Bock, and Freed and Weiss for five percent of all fees in class actions
over fees that lenders charged when closing mortgages.  Alton attorney Emert
Wyss, who owned a title company Centerre Title, signed up for 10 percent, to
find plaintiffs.  

Lakin and Weiss simplified the terms saying Messrs. Wyss and Campbell will
receive a total of 15% of the net attorney’s fees.  Mr. Campbell agreed.  But
when Mr. Campbell challenged Centerre Title’s fees to borrowers, Mr. Wyss
renounced all fees in the mortgage suits.

The Homecomings case settled in December.  The company set aside more than $10
million for refunds and agreed to pay $1.6 million in legal fees.

In April, Mr. Campbell moved to enforce the Homecomings fee agreement against
the three firms.  Richard Burke, who has put up a practice separate from the
Lakin firm, resurrected Mr. Campbell’s request for a 5% fee only.  But Judge
Crowder said the contract that must be enforced is the one that Mr. Campbell
agreed to -- that he and Mr. Wyss’ company should receive 15%.  

"Since Mr. Wyss has forfeited any interest in the 15 percent, the plain
language of the letter awards 15 percent of the net attorneys' fees (fees less
expenses) to Mr. Campbell," Crowder wrote.  She raised Mr. Campbell's fee from
$157,785.58 to $236,678.37, ordering the Lakins, Freed and Weiss and Diab and
Bock to pay $78,892.79.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
October 11-12, 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 9, 2007
2007 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION & MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel
Costa Mesa, CA    
Contact: 818-783-7156

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


                            *********


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  * * *