CAR_Public/071011.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 11, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 201

                            Headlines


AARON BROTHERS: Cal. Court Okays “Morris” Labor Suit Settlement
AARON BROTHERS: Settlement Reached in Calif. Lead Framer's Suit
ABC: Filipino-American Group Plans Suit Over “Racial Slur”
APPLE INC: Sued Over “Illegal” iPhone Servicing Deal with AT&T
AUSTRALIAN STOCK EXCHANGE: Faces AU$40M Suit for Trading Halt

BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Litigation in N.Y.
BEBE STORES: Agrees to Settle Calif. “Tarlecki” Labor Lawsuit
BEBE STORES: June 2008 Hearing Set for Former Worker's Cal. Suit
CANADIAN PACIFIC: $7M Minot Derailment Suit Settlement Okayed
CINTAS CORP: Still Faces Race, Gender Discrimination Lawsuits

COMPUTER SCIENCES: “Colossus” Certification Hearing Set Nov. 20
DEL MONTE: Suits Over Recalled Pet Food, Snacks Consolidated
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE: Calif. Suit Claims Bogus Business Practices
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: High Court Allows “Compaq” Consumer Suit
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Subsidiary Seeks Dismissal of “Sewell”

HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Seeks Dismissal of RESPA Lawsuit in Pa.
INTERVOICE-BRITE: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Lawsuit
KRATOS DEFENSE: Answers Complaint in Calif. Securities Lawsuit
KRATOS DEFENSE: Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated
MATTEL INC: Sued in Canada Over Recalled Chinese-Made Toys

MICHAELS STORES: One Plaintiff Remains in Tex. Shareholder Suit
NORTHERN MARIANAS: $130T Shelved for Garment Suit Tax Penalties
PATHMARK STORES: Nov. 5 Hearing Set for $1.25M Suit Settlement
VANGUARD HEALTH: Antitrust Suit Over Nurse Pay Continues in Tex.

* Class Action Management Conference Set Nov. 9 in Calif.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
LDK SOLAR: Federman & Sherwood Files First N.Y. Securities Suit
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Pa. Securities Fraud Suit
OPTEUM INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Fla.
TARRAGON CORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AARON BROTHERS: Cal. Court Okays “Morris” Labor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of San Diego gave final approval to a
settlement reached in a purported class action against Aaron Brothers, Inc., a
subsidiary of Michaels Stores, Inc.

On Nov. 16, 2005, Geoffrey Morris, a former company employee in San Diego,
California, commenced the proposed class action proceeding on behalf of
himself, and current and former company employees in California from Nov. 16,
2001 to the present.  

The suit is alleging that the Aaron Brothers failed to pay overtime wages,
reimburse the plaintiff for necessary expenses (including the cost of gas used
in driving his car for business purposes), and provide adequate meal and rest
breaks or compensation in lieu thereof.

Plaintiff seeks, injunctive relief, damages for unpaid overtime pay, meal
break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit alleges that this conduct was in breach of California's unfair
competition law.  With the exception of the meal and rest breaks claim, the
claims are asserted on behalf of the putative class.  

Mr. Morris filed an amended complaint on June 8, 2006 and now seeks to
represent a class of current and former assistant managers only.

The parties participated in a voluntary mediation on Dec. 15, 2006 and have
reached a tentative settlement of the case.

On June 22, 2007, the court granted final approval of the settlement.  On July
11, 2007, the Court entered the Final Settlement Judgment, according to
Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Sept. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts  
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing materials, ideas and
education for creative activities.


AARON BROTHERS: Settlement Reached in Calif. Lead Framer's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Brothers Inc., a subsidiary of Michaels Stores, Inc., reached a
tentative agreement to settle a purported class action filed by on Jan. 26,
2007 by a former "lead framer" for Aaron Brothers in San Diego, California.

Katherine Torgerson filed the suit in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego.  Ms. Torgerson filed the action against Aaron Brothers, Inc. on
behalf of herself and all current and former California-based leads or
keyholders.  

The Torgerson suit alleges that Aaron Brothers failed to provide its leads and
keyholders with adequate meal and rest breaks (or compensation in lieu
thereof) and accurate wage statements.

It additionally alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of
California's unfair competition law.   

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, meal and rest break
penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 10, 2007, the parties participated in a voluntary mediation and have
reached a tentative settlement which is contingent on court approval,
according to Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Sept. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4,
2007.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts and crafts
specialty retailer in North America providing materials, ideas and education
for creative activities.


ABC: Filipino-American Group Plans Suit Over “Racial Slur”  
----------------------------------------------------------
ABC Television network could face a class action by a group of
Filipino-American doctors offended by a perceived slur against Filipino
doctors on one episode of the soap “Desperate Housewives.”

The plan is being pushed even after the network issued an apology.  

“This is the only way I believe we can compel ABC to make a high-profile
apology to the Filipino community,” said Dr. Eustaquio O. Abay, in an e-mail
message to California-based Fil-Am lawyer Rodel Rodis, according to a report
by Nimfa U. Rueda of The Inquirer (Philippines).  “A multimillion-dollar
lawsuit for public defamation and damages is in order,” Dr. Abay said.

The uproar was raised over a remark made by a character played by Teri
Hatcher: “Okay, before we go any further, can I check those diplomas? Because
I would just like to make sure they are not from some med school in the
Philippines.”

The doctors and allied Filipino groups said they were not satisfied with a
brief apology issued by ABC’s publicity department.

According to Ms. Rueda’s report, the National Alliance for Filipino Concerns
is demanding that:

     -- the program broadcast its apology during the show’s next
        episode,

     -- conduct cultural sensitivity training workshops for
        network staff,

     -- produce more shows depicting Filipinos and other
        minority groups in “prominent, positive roles,” and

     -- support Filipino-American projects that will strengthen
        diversity awareness.

For more information, contact:

          Rodel E. Rodis
          Web site: http://rodelrodis.com/
          E-mail: Rodel50@aol.com


APPLE INC: Sued Over “Illegal” iPhone Servicing Deal with AT&T
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California resident and Apple Inc. iPhone owner filed a class action against
the company over an alleged illegal tying agreement with AT&T Inc. for the
servicing of its iPhones.

Timothy P. Smith filed the suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated against Apple Inc.  The purported class consists of all natural
persons, sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited partnerships,
corporations, and other entities who own an iPhone, intended for use by
themselves, their families, or their members, participants, or employees
during the period from June 29, 2007 through such time in the future as the
effects of Apple's alleged illegal conduct have ceased.

The class size is estimated to be 1.28 million iPhone owners with a projected
increase of 25 to 37.6 million within the next 18 months, according to the
lawsuit.

The complaint filed on Oct. 4 in Superior Court of California states:

Apple entered into an exclusive five-year agreement with AT&T Mobility LLC
that establishes AT&T as the exclusive provider of cell phone service for the
iPhone through 2012.  As part of the agreement, Apple receives a portion of
AT&T's profit. Apple's agreement is a per se unlawful "tying" agreement
because Apple prohibits iPhone consumers from using or purchasing a cell phone
carrier service other than AT&T.

A tying agreement is a requirement that a buyer purchase one product or
service as a condition of the purchase of another or that the sale of one
product is linked to the other.  Apple achieves its prohibition objectives by
installing software locks on iPhones that prevent consumers from switching
their cell phone service to a competitor's network.  Apple's prohibition
substantially lessens competition and tends to create a monopoly in the trade
and commerce of the iPhone and AT&T's cell phone service.

On Sept. 27, 2007, Apple punished consumers for exercising their rights to
unlock their iPhones.  Apple issued a software update that "bricked" or
otherwise caused iPhone malfunctions for consumers who unlocked their phones
and installed the update.  Under an exemption to the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act of 1998, consumers can lawfully modify their phones for use on a
cell phone network of their choice.  Apple ignored the exemption in disregard
of consumers' rights.

When iPhone owners took their phones to Apple for repair, Apple refused to
honor consumers' warranties.”  

The suit alleges violation of the California Business and Professions Code,
common law, California antitrust law, and Cartwright Act.  It seeks, among
others, certification of the suit as a class action, threefold the damages
determined to have been sustained by the plaintiff, permanent injunction
precluding Apple from:

     (i) selling the iPhone with any software lock;
    (ii) denying warranty service to users of unlocked iPhones;   
   (iii) requiring iPhone consumers to purchase their cell phone
         service through AT&T.

The suit is "Smith v. Apple Inc., Case no. 1-07-cv-095781," filed in Superior
Court of California

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          M. Van Smith, Esq.
          Damian R. Fernandez, Esq.
          Law Offices of Damian R. Fernandez
          14510 Big Basin Way, Suite A PMB 285
          Saratoga, California 95070-6091
          Phone: (408) 355-3021
          Fax: (408) 904-7391
          E-mail: mvsmith@sbcglobal.net
                  damianfernandez@gmail.com


AUSTRALIAN STOCK EXCHANGE: Faces AU$40M Suit for Trading Halt
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pelly of the Australian Business reports that the Australian
Securities Exchange is facing a AU$40 million class action over its subsidiary
Sydney Futures Exchange's decision in July to shut down trading at a busy time.

On July 25, SFE cancelled more than 300 futures trades on the grounds that
pricing on the trades fell outside set safety thresholds.  This was after
stronger-than-expected June quarter consumer price index figures were released.

Lawyers for Aminute, as Trustee of the Aminute Superannuation Fund,
TransMarket Trading, Firehorse, Plutus Commodity Management, Kestrel Trading
and Biskra Aotearoa launched their claim on Oct. 4 in federal court.  

They claim that the cancellation of futures transactions was due to trader’s
error.  They are claiming damages of AU$985,848, but the Asia-Pacific head of
TransMarket, Mike Donohue, reportedly said he expected others to join the
action and that the claim would then be worth AU$35 million to AU$40 million.

The exchange denied that the cancellations were a result of a trade error.
Rather, the trades were cancelled because they breached its market integrity
range thresholds, according to Ross Kelly of the Herald Sun.  That means the
pricing on the trades fell outside the ASX's safety boundaries.

Parties are set to appear in federal court on Oct. 26.


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Litigation in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are seeking for the
dismissal of the case, "In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

The Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in
actions filed on behalf of a putative class of retail merchants that accept
Visa and MasterCard payment cards. The first of these actions was filed in
June 2005.  

On April 24, 2006, putative class plaintiffs filed a first consolidated and
amended class action complaint.  Plaintiffs therein allege that the defendants
conspired to fix the level of interchange and merchant discount fees and that
certain other practices, including various Visa and MasterCard rules, violate
federal and California antitrust laws.

On May 22, 2006, the putative class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint
against many of the same defendants, including the Corporation and certain of
its subsidiaries, alleging additional federal antitrust claims and a
fraudulent conveyance claim under New York Debtor and Creditor Law, all
arising out of MasterCard's 2006 initial public offering.

The putative class plaintiffs seek unspecified treble damages and injunctive
relief.  

Additional defendants in the putative class actions include Visa, MasterCard,
and other financial institutions.

The putative class actions are coordinated for pre-trial proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, together with
additional, individual actions brought only against Visa and MasterCard, under
the caption, "In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Anti-Trust Litigation."

Motions to dismiss portions of the first consolidated and amended class action
complaint and the supplemental complaint are pending.

The company provided no development in the matter in its Sept. 19, 2007 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-CLP," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge John
Gleeson with referral to Judge James Orenstein.  

Representing the plaintiffs:

         Darla Jo Boggs, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.,
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneappolis, MN 55401
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981
         E-mail: djboggs@locklaw.com  

         Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: chrisb@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Jason S. Cowart Esq.
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-661-1100
         Fax: 212-661-8665
         E-mail: jasoncowart@yahoo.com


BEBE STORES: Agrees to Settle Calif. “Tarlecki” Labor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in the labor class action, “Tarlecki v. bebe stores,
inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-01777-MHP.”

A former employee sued the company in a complaint filed on April 28, 2005 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit specifically that claimed that the company obligated plaintiff to buy
and wear its brand clothing as a uniform, without reimbursement or credit, and
the net effect of deducting the value of such required purchases from her
wages would often result in her not being paid minimum wages.

The plaintiff purports to bring the action also on behalf of a class of
hourly, non-managerial employees who are similarly situated.  The lawsuit
seeks compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief.

The company has negotiated a confidential settlement in this case which
remains subject to court approval.  One objection to the settlement has been
filed, according to company's Sept. 14, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 7, 2007.

The suit is “Tarlecki v. bebe stores, inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-01777-MHP,” filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Marilyn H. Patel

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michelle M. Gomez-Novy, Esq.
          Bononi Law Group
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-553-9200
          Fax: 213-553-9215

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Phone: (415) 433-1940
          Fax: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: aeidelhoch@littler.com


BEBE STORES: June 2008 Hearing Set for Former Worker's Cal. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2008 hearing is set for a purported class action against bebe stores,
inc. that was filed by a former employee on July 27, 2006 in the Superior
Court of California, San Mateo County.

The suit (case No. CIV 456550) is alleging a failure to pay all wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal
periods, violation of Labor Code Section 450, violation of Labor Code Section
2802 and California Code of Regulations Section 11040(9)(A), statutory wage
violations (late payment of wages), unlawful business practices under Business
and Professions Code Section 16720 and Section 17200, conversion of wages and
violation of Civil Code Section 52.1.

The plaintiff purports to bring the action also on behalf of current and
former California bebe employees who are similarly situated.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory, statutory, punitive, restitution and
injunctive relief.  

Due to certain similarities in claims between this action and the one
previously mentioned (“Tarlecki v. bebe stores, inc., Case No.
3:05-cv-01777-MHP”), the parties and the Court have postponed active
litigation and discovery until such time as the previously mentioned case
resolves the claims in common.

Notwithstanding, the Court in this case has set a hearing in June 2008
regarding whether class certification would be appropriate if, and to the
extent, any claim(s) in this case remain(s) active at that time.

bebe stores, inc. -- http://www.bebe.com/-- designs, develops and produces a
line of contemporary women's apparel and accessories.  The Company's target
customer is a 21 to 35-year-old woman.  Its product offering includes a range
of separates, tops, sweaters, dresses, active wear and accessories in the
lifestyle categories.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: $7M Minot Derailment Suit Settlement Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Dan Hovland approved a $7,054,000 million dollar
settlement of a class action over a train derailment and chemical spill at
Minot, North Dakota in 2002, reports say.

Thirty-one cars on the 112-car Canadian Pacific Railway train derailed on the
west edge of Minot and fire broke open early on the morning of that day.   

The case was dismissed by the court in March 2006.  In that dismissal, the
court found that people injured by a railroad’s negligence could not seek a
legal remedy.  Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  While on appeal the parties agreed to the
settlement.

The class consists of all persons who were exposed to the anhydrous ammonia
cloud in and around the city of Minot, North Dakota, and who were adversely
affected by the release of the hazardous chemical on January 18, 2002, and who
have sustained property damages, property value diminution, personal injuries,
and economic or non-economic damages as a result of the derailment and
hazardous chemical release.

Under the settlement, plaintiffs' attorneys will get $2.9 million of the
settlement to cover their fees and expenses. The three lead plaintiffs will
each get $25,000, with the remainder shared equally by about 2,000 people.

The final number will not be known until Nov. 8 -- the deadline to submit
claims.  Attorneys estimate the rest will be shared by about 2,000 or 3,000
people who were in Minot the day of the derailment on January 18, 2002.

The settlement was granted preliminary approval in July (Class Action
Reporter, July 12, 2007).


The Settlement on the Net: http://www.minotsettlement.com

The suit is "Mehl, et al. v. Canadian Pacific RR, et al., Case  
No. 4:02-cv-00009-DLH-KKK,"on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Dakota under Judge Daniel L. Hovland with referral to Judge
Karen K. Klein.

Representing the company is attorney Tim Thornton (E-mail:
thodgson@SHTB-law.com).  

Representing the plaintiffs is attorney:

         Gordon Rudd, Esq.
         651 Nicollet Mall Suite 501
         Minneapolis, MN
         55402
         Phone: (612)341-0400
         Fax: (612)341-0844
         Website: http://www.zimmreed.com


CINTAS CORP: Still Faces Race, Gender Discrimination Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corp. still faces several purported class actions in Michigan, Ohio and
California, alleging either racial or sex discrimination towards employees,
according to its Oct. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2007.

                       Serrano Litigation

The company is a defendant in a purported class action, “Mirna E. Serrano, et
al. v. Cintas Corp.,” which was filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  

“Serrano” alleges that Cintas discriminated against women in hiring into
various service sales representative positions across all divisions of Cintas
throughout the U.S.  

On Nov. 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intervened in
the Serrano lawsuit.  

The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys’ fees and other remedies.

                       Avalos Litigation

Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action, “Nelly Blanca Avalos,
et al. v. Cintas Corporation,” currently pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.  

“Avalos” alleges that Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans
and Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative positions in
Cintas’ Rental division only throughout the U.S.  

On April 27, 2005, the EEOC intervened in the claims asserted in Avalos.  

The Avalos plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys’ fees and other remedies.

                       Ramirez Litigation

The claims in “Avalos” originally were brought in the previously disclosed
lawsuit captioned, “Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Ramirez),”
which was filed on Jan. 20, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  

On May 11, 2006, however, those claims were severed from Ramirez and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
where the case was re-named “Avalos.”  

                  Avalos, Serrano Consolidation

On July 10, 2006, “Avalos” and “Serrano” were consolidated for all pretrial
purposes, including proceedings on class certification.  

The consolidated case is known as “Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et
al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos),” and remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  

No filings or determinations have been made in Serrano/Avalos as to class
certification.  

                       Grindle Litigation

On Feb. 20, 2007, a separate lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Wood County, Ohio, captioned, “Colleen Grindle, et al. v. Cintas Corporation.”

It was brought on behalf of a class of female employees at Cintas’ Perrysburg,
Ohio location who allegedly were denied hire, promotion or transfer to service
sales representative positions on the basis of their gender.  

The Grindle plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys’ fees and other remedies.  

No filings or determinations have been made in “Grindle” as to class
certification.

                       Houston Litigation

A class action, captioned, “Larry Houston, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Houston),” was filed on Aug. 3, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of African-American managers
alleging racial discrimination.  

On Nov. 22, 2005, the court entered an order requiring the named plaintiffs in
the Houston lawsuit to arbitrate all of their claims for monetary damages.  

Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized products and
services to businesses of all types throughout the U.S. and Canada.  The
products and services provided by Cintas include uniforms and apparel; mats,
mops and towels; restroom and hygiene service; first aid and safety; fire
protection; branded promotional products; document shredding and storage;
cleanroom resources, and flame resistant clothing.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: “Colossus” Certification Hearing Set Nov. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kirk Johnson of the Miller County Circuit Court (Arkansas) has set a
Nov. 20 hearing to address pending motions in relation to the case, "Hensley,
et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp., et al.," Michelle Massey of the Southeast
Texas Record reports.

The suit was filed as a putative nationwide class action on Feb. 7, 2005.  It
claimed that defendants conspired to wrongfully use the Colossus software
products licensed by the company and the other software vendors to reduce the
amount paid to the licensees' insureds for bodily injury claims.  It was
originally filed by plaintiff Georgia Hensley, individually and as a class
representative.

The suit faults the defendants for civil conspiracy, breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
fraud.

Plaintiffs sought injunctive and monetary relief of less than $75,000 for each
class member, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

On July 11, Judge Johnson ordered State Automobile Insurance Co. to produce
documents despite pleadings by company attorneys that State Automobile would
not produce documents which contained confidential information.  

Judge Johnson found that a previous protective order was sufficient protection
and that the defense may no longer withhold documents.  He ordered that the
documents should be designated "confidential" and shall be destroyed on
expiration of all appeals (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2007).

In a recent hearing Judge Johnson heard defendants' attorneys request for a
hearing for ruling on issues in the Colossus software case. He had asked the
attorneys to prepare short statements on their motions and briefs, which will
be heard in November after which, an amended scheduling order will be entered.

According to the report, until Judge Johnson decides to rule on something
besides discovery, defendants are without the ability to appeal. Without a
ruling, insurance companies can either mediate or continue in the ongoing
discovery battle.

The suit is "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp., et al., Case No.:
CV-2005-0059-3," filed in Miller County Circuit Court (Arkansas), under Judge
Kirk Johnson.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         John Goodson, Esq.
         Keil & Goodson, P.A.
         611 Pecan Street
         Texarkana, AR  
         71854
         Phone: (870)772-4113

Representing defendant State Automobile Insurance Company are:

         Mark Burgess, Esq.
         2301 Moores Lane
         P.O. Box 6297
         Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297 (Bowie Co.)
         Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com

         Jason Horton, Esq.
         Crisp, Boyd, Poff & Burgess, L.L.P.
         Moores Lane, P.O. Box 6297
         Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297
         Phone: 903-838-6123
         Fax: 903-832-8489 2301
         Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com


DEL MONTE: Suits Over Recalled Pet Food, Snacks Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Certain class actions over Del Monte Foods Co.’s  recalled pet foods and
snacks were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey and consolidated with other pet food class actions.

The cases in which the company is currently a defendant are:

      -- “Blaszkowski v. Del Monte,” filed on May 9, 2007 in the
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         Florida;

      -- “Carver v. Del Monte,” filed on April 4, 2007 in the
         U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
         California;

      -- “Ford v. Del Monte,” filed on April 7, 2007 in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of
         California;”

      -- “Picus v. Del Monte,” filed on April 30, 2007 in state
         court in Las Vegas, Nevada;

      -- “Schwinger v. Del Monte,” filed on May 15, 2007 in U.S.
         District Court for the Western District of Missouri;
         
      -- “Wahl v. Del Monte,” filed on April 10, 2007 in state
         court in Los Angeles, California; and

      -- “Tompkins v. Del Monte,” filed on July 13, 2007 in U.S.
         District Court for the District of Colorado.

The complaint filed on July 13, 2007 was an amended complaint that added the
Company as a defendant to the case.

The named plaintiffs allege that their pets suffered injury and/or death as a
result of ingesting the Company’s and other defendants’ allegedly contaminated
pet food and pet snack products.

The Blaszkowski and Picus cases also contain allegations of false and
misleading advertising by the Company.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of class actions in the respective
jurisdictions as well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief against
further distribution of the allegedly defective products.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Schwinger, Wahl and Tompkins
cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey and consolidated with other pet food class actions under the federal
rules for multi-district litigation.  The Blaszkowski and Picus cases were not
consolidated.

Del Monte Foods Co. -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a producer, distributor
and marketer of branded food and pet products for the U.S. retail market.  The
segments in which the Company operates include The Consumer Products segment
and The Pet Products segment.


GREENPOINT MORTGAGE: Calif. Suit Claims Bogus Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. and Capital One Financial Corp. are facing a
class-action complaint filed Oct. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California for failing to disclose important information in
mortgage loan transactions in a clear and conspicuous manner.

The action claims the company filed to comply with the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA). This action also concerns defendants' alleged 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 plaintiffs Steven and Laurie Garrison bring 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. 5, 2003 and Oct. 5, 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 "Steven and Laurie Garrison et al. v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding,
Inc., et al., Case No. CV07-06490 GPS," 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


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: High Court Allows “Compaq” Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed to proceed the product liability suit "Grider
v. Compaq," accusing Compaq Computer Corp., now a part of Hewlett-Packard Co.,
of selling defective computers that it then refused to repair, reports say.

The suit was filed by Stephen and Beverly Grider in the District Court of
Cleveland County, Oklahoma in June 2003.  The complaint seeks among other
things, specific performance, declaratory relief, unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees.

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

On Nov. 5, 2006, HP filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Oklahoma
Supreme Court seeking reversal of the lower courts' decisions.  Compaq argued
in court papers filed with the Supreme Court that a virtually identical
lawsuit was brought in Texas in 2000.

“LaPray v. Compaq,” was filed in the District Court of Jefferson County,
Texas.  The basic allegation is that HP and Compaq sold computers containing
floppy  disk controllers that fail to alert the user to certain floppy disk
controller errors.  That failure is alleged to result in data loss or data
corruption.  In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray
case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002. The Texas
Supreme Court reversed the certification and remanded to the trial court in
May 2004.

Oklahoma's highest court not only certified the class in “Grider,” but said
that Texas law should be applied in the case because, among other things,
Compaq was headquartered in Texas.

The case now goes back to an Oklahoma state court.

The case is “Compaq Computer Corp. v. Grider, 07-95.”


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Subsidiary Seeks Dismissal of “Sewell”
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of
the matter, “Sewell et al. v. D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00343-JES-SPC.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on May 30, 2007, alleging violations of the federal
securities acts, among other allegations, in connection with the sale of some
of the Company’s subsidiary’s homes in Fort Myers, Florida.

Defendants in the suit include:

     * Frank D'Alessandro,
     * Gates, D'Allesandro & Woodyard LLC,
     * K.Hovnanian First Homes LLC,
     * First Home Builders of Florida,
     * First Home Builders of Florida I, LLC,
     * Samir Cabrera, and
     * Honora Kreitner.

Defendants are accused of running a subprime mortgage scam.  Named plaintiffs
Randolph Sewell and Daphne Sewell sue for, inter alia, federal securities
fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
1701 et seq., and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida
Statutes, Section 501.201 et. seq., in connection with the offering and sale
of real estate investment opportunities in Lee County, Florida.

According to the complaint, defendants promised 14 percent annual returns
through a “Lease To Own” program, in which would supply lessees with poor
credit to “investors” who bought new homes; the lessees would get options to
buy the homes within three years, at a “promised” annual appreciation of 14
percent.

The D'Alessandro & Woodyard prospectus “explains that investors will realize
their guaranteed 14 percent annual rate of return when the ‘ready-made’ tenant
procured by D'Alessandro & Woodyard ‘buys’ the investor out of the deal.

In the “Exit Strategy,” D'Alessandro & Woodyard explains that this ‘buyout’ is
made possible through the tenant’s successful procurement of refinancing in
the ‘sub-prime’ lending market, and that they will be ‘coached’ in this
process by D'Alessandro & Woodyard and its affiliates.”

According to plaintiffs, they “invested” $15,000 in three such homes, couldn’t
get financing, and stand to lose everything.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons who received the "First
Home Lease Purchase Investment Opportunity" prospectus and thereafter
purchased properties from First Home Builders in Cape Coral and Lehigh Acres,
Florida for investment purposes.

Questions raise include:

     (a) whether defendants violated the federal securities
         laws by inducing purported class members to purchase
         investment properties from First Home Builders based
         upon false and misleading representations contained in
         the Prospectus and in oral communications with the
         Plaintiffs and class members;

     (b) whether defendants violated the Interstate Land Sales
         Full Disclosure Act by inducing purported class members
         to purchase investment properties from First Home
         Builders based upon false and misleading             
         representations contained in the Prospectus and in oral
         communications;

     (c) whether defendants' actions also constitute deceptive
         and unfair trade practices, in violation of Sections
         501.201 to 501.213, Florida Statutes;

     (d) whether defendants D&W and First Home Builders breached
         their contractual obligations to purported class
         members failing to obtain tenants for the purchased
         properties.

Plaintiffs demand the following relief:

     -- that the court certify the case as a class action and  
        appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives and
        plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants in the
        amount of their damages incurred with interest thereon,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- that the court order such other relief as it deems just
        and proper, including, but not limited to, rescission of
        the subject purchase agreements and the return of each
        purchaser's down payment or contract deposit (as well as
        any other monies paid to defendants).

The Company’s subsidiary has filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint,
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 suit is “Sewell et al. v. D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00343-JES-SPC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele with referral to Judge Sheri
Polster Chappell.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Gary C. Rosen, Esq.
          Daniel L. Wallach
          Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
          Emerald Lake Corp Pk
          3111 Stirling Rd.
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312-9057
          Phone: 954/987-7550
          Fax: 954/985-4176
          E-mail: bthomas@becker-poliakoff.com or
                  dwallach@bellsouth.net

          -- and –

Representing Mr. D’Alessandro are:

          Christopher T. Vernon, Esq.
          3080 Tamiami Trl E
          Naples, FL 34112 Map
          Phone: (239) 649-4900

          -- and --

          Philip J. Snyderburn, Esq.
          Snyderburn, Rishoi & Swann
          258 Southhall Lane, Suite 420
          Maitland, Florida 32751
          (Orange Co.)
          Phone: 407-647-2005
          Fax: 407-647-1522


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Seeks Dismissal of RESPA Lawsuit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. is seeking to dismiss the matter, “Mark W. Mellar
et al. v. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. et al.,” which is alleging violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on May 30, 2007.  The complaint accuses Hovnanian of taking
kickbacks and unearned fees by requiring homebuyers and sellers to use a
specified title insurance company, in violation of RESPA (Class Action
Reporter June 5, 2007).

Named plaintiffs Mark W. Mellar and Margaret Ann Liguori bring this action on
behalf of residential mortgage borrowers who:

     -- purchased a home from Hovnanian Enterprises Inc.;

     -- received a mortgage loan for such home purchase that was
        originated, processed and/or brokered by K. Hovnanian
        American Mortgage, LLC; and/or

     -- brought title insurance for such home purchase from a
        title company designated by and affiliated with
        Hovnanian, wherein the borrowers were required by the
        literal terms of their real estate purchase agreement
        with Hovnanian to finance their purchase through
        Hovnanian Mortgage and obtain title insurance through a
        Hovanian-affiliated title company, or else forfeit
        various discounts off of the purchase price and/or
        closing costs for their new home.

By requiring home buyers to finance their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage
and to obtain title insurance through a Hovnanian-affiliated title company,
under the direct threat of having to otherwise pay more money for their new
home, defendants have allegedly failed to comply with the statutory
prerequisites for exemption as an affiliated business arrangement and,
consequently, have violated RESPA’s prohibition against kickbacks and unearned
fees.

Additionally, Hovnanian, as a seller of property, has allegedly violated
Section 9 of RESPA by requiring the use of a particular title insurance company.

Defendants are accused of engaging in a uniform, systematic pattern and
practice of requiring the use of Hovnanian Mortgage for the financing of home
purchases from Hovnanian and the use of a Hovnanian-affiliated title company
for the provision of title insurance for such home purchases, in violation of
Sections 8 and 9 of RESPA.

             Plaintiffs’ Transaction with Hovnanian

On or about March 30, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Terms and Conditions
Purchase Agreement with Hovnanian, pursuant to which Plaintiffs agreed to
purchase a new home from Hovnanian, located in its “Byers Station” community,
in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania.

Subsequently, plaintiffs entered into an Amendment to Purchase Agreement,
dated April 5, 2007, which amended the purchase price to $427,366.44.  This
Amendment is valid only if K. Hovnanian Mortgage and Governor’s Abstract Co.
are used.

On or about April 7, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Price Reduction Addendum,
which purported to reduce the price of plaintiffs’ home in the amount of
$14,041.78. This price reduction was, once again, conditioned upon Plaintiffs’
agreement to, inter alia, “use K. Hovnanian American Mortgage,
LLC, an affiliate of Seller, to obtain a mortgage loan and purchase the home
with a loan made by K. Hovnanian American Mortgage, LLC” and “use Governor’s
Abstract Co., Inc., an affiliate of the Seller, to obtain title insurance to
complete the purchase of the home.”

On or about April 7, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Decorator Selection
Credit Addendum, which purported to issue plaintiffs a “Decorator Selection
Credit” at closing in the amount of $55,958.22. This credit was, once again,
conditioned upon Plaintiffs’ agreement to use Hovnanian Mortgage and
Governor’s Abstract for the financing and title insurance of their new home.

As a direct result of the requirement placed upon them by Hovnanian to either
use Hovnanian Mortgage for financing and Governor’s Abstract for title
insurance, or pay an additional $70,000.00 in order to purchase their home,
Plaintiffs financed their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and obtained
title insurance through Governor’s Abstract.  Plaintiffs closed on their
purchase on April 26, 2007.

By “requiring” the use of Hovnanian Mortgage and the affiliated title company,
under the threat of charging buyers thousands of dollars more for their homes,
Defendants, however, fail to meet the prerequisites for the affiliated
business arrangement exemption. 12 U.S.C. Section 2607(c).

This is a class action filed on behalf of all residential mortgage borrowers,
nationally, who, within one year of the filing of this Class Action Complaint:

     -- purchased a home from Hovnanian;

     -- received a mortgage loan for such purchase that was
        originated, processed and/or brokered by Hovnanian
        Mortgage; and/or

     -- bought title insurance for such home purchase that was
        provided, processed and/or brokered by a title company
        affiliated with and selected by Hovnanian, wherein the
        borrower(s) were required by the literal terms of their
        real estate purchase agreement with Hovnanian to finance
        their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and obtain
        title insurance through a title company affiliated with
        and selected by Hovnanian, or else forfeit various
        discounts off of the purchase price and/or closing costs
        for their new home.

Plaintiffs and the class respectfully request judgment against Defendants as
follows:

     -- for an Order certifying this action may be maintained as
        a class action, as defined, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
        and 23(b)(3);

     -- for an Order appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of
        the class;

     -- for an Order appointing the undersigned counsel as class
        counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

     -- for an Order directing that reasonable notice of the
        class action be provided to all members of the class at
        the appropriate time after discovery and dispositive
        motions have been resolved;

     -- for violating RESPA, an Order and Judgment finding that
        the Defendants are liable as a matter of law to each
        member of the class for treble damages;

     -- for declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by
        law or equity, including Enjoining Defendants from
        continuing the unlawful practices as set forth herein;

     -- for reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by law and
        statute;

     -- for pre-and-post judgment interest as provided by law in
        an amount according to proof at trial;

     -- for an award of costs and expenses incurred in this
        action; and

     -- for such other relief as the Court may deem just and
        proper.

The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint, according to its
Sept. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?208f

The suit is “Mellar et al. v. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. et al, Case No.
2:07-cv-02196-AB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, under Judge Anita B. Brody.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Carlson Lynch Ltd
          36 N. Jefferson Street
          P.O. Box 7635
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Phone: 724-656-1555
          Fax: 724-656-1556
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


INTERVOICE-BRITE: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------InterVoice-Brite,
Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of the second amended complaint in the class
action, "David Barrie, et al. v. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et al., Case No.
3-01CV1071-D."

Initially, several related class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of common stock of
InterVoice, Inc. during the period from Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000.

Plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding,
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the company as well as
certain named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on
behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs claim that the company and the named current and
former officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during
the Class Period concerning the financial condition of Intervoice, the results
of the merger with Brite Voice Systems, Inc. and the alleged future business
projections of Intervoice.

Plaintiffs have asserted that these alleged statements resulted in
artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ complaint because it lacked the
degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards
applicable to federal securities litigation.

The Plaintiffs’ appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
5th Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part.  The
5th Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further proceedings in the
District Court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion to
certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice stock during the Class
Period between Oct. 12, 1999 and June 6, 2000.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted the company’s petition to appeal
the District Court’s decision to grant Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class.

The briefing on the merits of company’s appeal is now complete, and oral
argument occurred on Oct. 1, 2007.

The company filed a motion to stay further discovery pending the Fifth
Circuit’s decision on the merits of the company's appeal, but the District
Court denied the motion.

The District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second
amended compliant.  

The company has moved to dismiss portions of that amended complaint, according
to its Oct. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Barrie, et al. v. Intervoice Brite Inc., et al., Case No.
3:01-cv-01071," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
         Stanley Mandel & Iola
         3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
         Dallas, TX 75205
         Phone: 214/443-4301
         Fax: 214/443-0358
         E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com

              - and -

         Lauren M. Winston, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         100 Pine St., Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415/288-4545.

Representing the defendants is:

          Timothy R. McCormick, Esq.
          Thompson & Knight
          1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 3300,
          Dallas, TX 75201-4693
          Phone: 214/969-1103
          Fax: 214/880-3253
          E-mail: timothy.mccormick@tklaw.com


KRATOS DEFENSE: Answers Complaint in Calif. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Wireless Facilities, Inc.
filed its answer to plaintiffs’ complaint in the consolidated class action,
"In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
04CV1589-JAH," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

In August 2004, as a result of the Company's announcement on Aug. 4, 2004 that
it intended to restate its financial statements for the fiscal years ended
Dec. 31, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in several securities
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.  

These actions were filed on behalf of those who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, the Company's common stock between April 26, 2000 and Aug. 4, 2004.
The suits generally allege that, during that time period, defendants made
false and misleading statements to the investing public about the Company's
business and financial results, causing its stock to trade at  
artificially inflated levels.  

Based on these allegations, the lawsuits allege that Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.
These actions have been consolidated into a single action under the caption,
"In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
04CV1589-JAH."  

The plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in January 2005 and did not
name the Company a defendant in that complaint. After the individual
defendants filed their motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs requested leave to
amend their complaint to add the Company as a defendant.  

Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
April 1, 2005.  Defendants filed their motion to dismiss this first amended
complaint on April 14, 2005.  

The plaintiffs then requested leave to amend their first amended complaint.
The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on June 9, 2005, this time
on behalf of those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's common
stock between May 5, 2003 and Aug. 4, 2004.  

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss this second amended complaint on July
14, 2005.  The motion to dismiss was taken under submission on Oct. 20, 2005
and on March 8, 2006, the Court granted the Company's motion.  

However, plaintiffs were granted the right to amend their complaint within 45
days and subsequently filed their Third Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on April 24, 2006.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint on June 8, 2006.  On May
7, 2007, the court denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Defendants’ filed their answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint on July 13, 2007,
according to its Oct. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 04CV1589-JAH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California under Judge John A. Houston.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Phone: 619.231.1058
          Fax: 619.231.7423

               - and -

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


KRATOS DEFENSE: Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., f/k/a Wireless Facilities, Inc.,
faces a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, captioned, “In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities
Litigation II, Master File No. 07-CV-0482-BTM-NLS.”

In March and April 2007, there were three federal class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the
Company and several of its current and former officers and directors.

These class actions followed the Company’s March 12, 2007 public announcement
that it was conducting a voluntary internal review of its stock option
granting processes.  

These actions have been consolidated into a single action, “In re Wireless
Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation II, Master File No.
07-CV-0482-BTM-NLS,” according to its Oct. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2007.

The suit is “In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation II, Master
File No. 07-CV-0482-BTM-NLS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California under Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Johnson & Perkinson
          1690 Williston Road
          South Burlington, VT, 05403
          Phone: 802.862.0030
          Fax: 802.862.0060
          E-mail: JPLAW@adelphia.net

          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti PC
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, NY, 10038
          Phone: (212) 964-0046
          Fax: (212) 267-8137
          E-mail: shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott & Scott LLC
          P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT, 06415
          Phone: 860.537.5537
          Fax: 860.537.4432
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


MATTEL INC: Sued in Canada Over Recalled Chinese-Made Toys
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Close of Winnipeg (Canada) filed a statement of claim against Mattel
Inc., alleging Mattel sold toys with "dangerous defects and design flaws" such
as lead paint and tiny magnets that could detach and be swallowed by kids, The
Canadian Press reports.

According to the report, Mattel had recalled more than 21 million Chinese-made
toys this summer because of concerns over lead paint and detachable magnets.
But last month, the company apologized to China, taking the blame for design
flaws and saying more toys than necessary had been recalled, the report said.

The suit was filed in Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.


MICHAELS STORES: One Plaintiff Remains in Tex. Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Fathergill continues as the only remaining named plaintiff and proposed
class representative in a consolidated action against Michaels Stores, Inc.
with regards to a merger wherein the company was acquired by affiliates of two
private investment firms, Bain Capital Partners, LLC and The Blackstone Group.  

Purported former shareholders Julie Fathergill, Feivel Gottlieb, and Roberta
Schuman, who seek to represent a class of other former shareholders, filed the
suit.  

The action is a consolidation of three previously filed lawsuits and is
pending in the 192nd District Court for Dallas County, Texas.  

The plaintiffs' claims arise out of the merger and, in addition to Michaels,
the plaintiffs name as defendants certain former and then-current officers and
directors of Michaels and certain other entities involved in the merger or
affiliated therewith.  

The plaintiffs allege that the merger was procedurally and financially unfair
to Michaels' then-shareholders and assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against the individual defendants and claims for aiding and abetting such
breaches against the entities.  

Among other things, plaintiffs seek:

      -- a declaration that the merger is void and ordering it
         rescinded;

      -- an accounting for, disgorgement of, and the imposition
         of a constructive trust on, property and profits
         received by the defendants; and

      -- unspecified damages, including rescissory damages.

On July 12, 2007, named plaintiffs and proposed class representatives Feivel
Gottlieb and Roberta Schuman voluntarily dismissed their claims.  

Julie Fathergill continues as the remaining named plaintiff and proposed class
representative, 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 Aug. 4, 2007.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts and crafts
specialty retailer in North America providing materials, ideas and education
for creative activities.


NORTHERN MARIANAS: $130T Shelved for Garment Suit Tax Penalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Marianas Island District Judge Alex R. Munson has approved a request
by plaintiffs' lawyers in the class action against the garment industry to
withhold $130,000 of the $286,000 balance in settlement funds to cover any
future federal tax penalties, according to Ferdie de la Torre of Saipan Tribune.

In 1999, New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP filed the suit
in the U.S. District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, on behalf of some
garment workers who were allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions.  A
settlement reached five years after, provided an award close to $20 million.
A $280,000 tax-related reserve was then set up.

The $130,000 tax reserve is allotted as:

     * $100,000 to cover any future federal tax penalties,

     * $25,000 to pay for efforts to secure abatements of all
        penalties (both CNMI and federal), and

     * $5,000 to pay for preparation of the settlement fund's
        2007 and 2008 tax returns

The $156,000 balance of the fund shall be remitted to the Government Oversight
Board, which has offered to assume responsibility for obtaining refunds and
penalty abatements from the CNMI tax authorities.

Joyce C. H. Tang, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, submitted the proposal to
withhold the amount for tax reserve and to remit the balance immediately to
the GOB on the day of the status conference on Sept. 27, 2007.  Judge Munson
said the late filing violates both federal and local rules.  He now said the
plaintiff’s settlement fund report and proposal were already served on the
GOB, and parties concerned are in further discussions regarding the tax reserve.

Ms. Tang and another attorney, Pamela M. Parker, apologized to Judge Munson
for the late filing of documents and for being absent at the Sept. 27 case
status hearing.  Ms. Parker said their non-appearance was entirely inadvertent.  

Judge Munson reset the status conference for Oct. 4, but after the lawyers’
apology and the submission of the proposed order, the court automatically took
off the status conference schedule.  Judge Munson said the court would
reschedule the status conference when it receives the claims administrator's
request for reimbursement of costs.

For more details, contact:    

          Pamela M. Parker
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 231-1058
          Fax: (619) 231-7423
          
          Steven P. Pixley
          2nd Floor, CIC Centre
          Beach Rd., Garapan
          P.O. Box 7757
          SVRB, Saipan, MP 96950
          Phone: (670) 233-2898/5175
          Fax: (670) 233-4716
          E-mail: sppixley@aol.com

          - and -

          Joyce C. H. Tang
          Civille & Tang, PLLC
          330 Hernan Cortez Avenue, Suite 200
          Hagatna 96910, Guam
          Phone: 671-472-8868
          Fax: 671-477-2511


PATHMARK STORES: Nov. 5 Hearing Set for $1.25M Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, will hold a
fairness hearing on Nov. 5, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for a proposed $1,250,000
settlement in the matter, “In re Pathmark Shareholder Litigation, Docket No.
MID-C-112-07.”

The hearing will be held before Judge Alexander P. Waugh, Jr. P. Ch., in the
Middlesex County Courthouse, 56 Paterson Street, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08903.

Any objections towards the settlement must be made on or before Oct. 26, 2007.

                         Case Background

The suit was filed against Pathmark Stores, Inc. over a definitive merger
agreement in which The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. (A&P) will
acquire the company.

On March 6, 2007, Chris Larson, a stockholder in the company, filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, a purported
class action complaint against the company and its directors.

The complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of the company's
stockholders' claims against the defendants for alleged self-dealing and
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the merger.

It seeks:

      -- an injunction of the merger unless and until the
         company adopts and implements certain procedures to
         obtain the highest possible price for its stockholders;

      -- imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of
         plaintiffs, upon any benefits received by defendants as
         a result of their alleged wrongful conduct; and

      -- recovery of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

Defendants have not filed answers, or otherwise responded, to the complaint.

On March 12, 2007, Sarah Kleinmann, a stockholder in the Company, also filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County a
purported class action complaint against the Defendants, as defined in the
above paragraph, and A&P.

The Kleinmann Complaint asserts similar claims and seeks the same relief as
the Larson Complaint.

The Court entered a Consolidation Order after those actions were transferred
to the Chancery Division.

On July 16, 2007, Chris Larson and Sarah Kleinmann filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint against the Defendants.

The Amended Complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of Company
stockholders claims against the Individual Defendants for alleged self-dealing
and breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, as well as
claims against the Company and A&P for aiding and abetting the Individual
Defendants.

The Amended Complaint seeks:

       -- an injunction of the Merger unless and until the
          Company implements certain procedures to obtain the
          highest possible price for its stockholders;
    
      -- imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of the
         Plaintiffs and the Class, upon any benefits improperly
         received by the Defendants as a result of their alleged       
         wrongful conduct; and

      -- recovery of attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements.
         
For more details, contact:

         Pathmark Stores, Inc. Shareholder Litigation Settlement
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
         P.O. Box 9206
         Dublin, OH 43017-4606
         Phone: 1 (888) 404-8013
         Web site: http://grocerymergersettlement.com/


VANGUARD HEALTH: Antitrust Suit Over Nurse Pay Continues in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit "Maderazo v. Hospital Corp. of America, Inc., et al.," continues in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

The suit was filed on June 20, 2006 against Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.'s
Baptist Health System subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two other large
hospital systems in San Antonio.  

In the complaint, which was amended on Aug. 29, 2006, plaintiffs allege that
the three hospital system defendants conspired with each other and with other
unidentified San Antonio area hospitals to depress the compensation levels of
registered nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within the San Antonio
area by engaging in certain activities that violated the federal antitrust laws.  

The complaint alleges two separate claims.  The first count asserts that the
defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act, which
prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain competition, by conspiring to
depress nurses' compensation.  

The second count alleges that the defendant hospital systems also violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act by participating in wage, salary and benefits
surveys for the purpose, and having the effect, of depressing registered
nurses' compensation or limiting competition for nurses based on their
compensation.  

The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is alleged to
comprise all registered nurses employed by the defendant hospitals since June
20, 2002.  

The suit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage amount pursuant to
federal law, interest, costs and attorneys fees.  

Currently, the parties are producing documents relating to the company's
efforts to defeat class certification in this suit, according to the company's
Sept. 19, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30 2007.

The suit is "Maderazo v. Hospital Corp. of America, Inc., Case No.
5:06-cv-00535-OLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas under Judge Orlando L. Garcia.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Allyson B. Baker, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500, Wes Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: abaker@cmht.com

               - and -

          John H. Bright, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback, L.L.P
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384

Representing the defendants are:

          Joseph Casseb, Esq.
          Goode Casseb Jones Riklin Choate & Watson, P.C.
          2122 North Main Avenue, P.O. Box 120480
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Phone: (210) 733-6030
          Fax: 210/733-0330
          E-mail: jcasseb@goodelaw.com

               - and -

          David Marx, Esq.
          McDermott Will & Emery, LLP
          227 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 372-2000
          Fax: (312) 984-7700


* Class Action Management Conference Set Nov. 9 in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The 2007 Class Action Litigation & Management Conference will be held in
Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel, Costa Mesa, Calif. on November 9, 2007 at 9:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

This seminar is designed for transactional and litigation attorneys, in both
private practice and corporate counsel.  

This program will cover the latest developments in the law of federal class
actions, California class actions and class actions in hotbed states. The
class action is a unique animal in the legal world that requires exceptional
and specific skills in researching, writing, case management, and client
contact. This workshop was designed to give the practicing attorney and
in-house counsel a comprehensive overview of each step in the process, with an
emphasis on the procedural rules. The program will also cover Prop. 64 and its
effect on the UCL and class actions.

This one-day program is designed for attorneys and corporate counsel as well
as risk and claims managers. The Program includes breakfast and handouts. This
unique, fast-paced program will incorporate both plaintiff and defense
perspectives.  

Topics include:

   * CAFA Update
   * Class Actions Case Update
   * Preparing and Attacking the Complaint
   * Settlement or Trial
   * An Update on the Injunction Remedy
   * 17200, 17500 & CLRA
   * ediscrovery in Class Actions
   * Class-Wide Arbitration Agreements

Faculty: Richard Grabowski of Jones Day, Sunny Huo of Severson & Werson, Ross
Hyslop of McKenna Long and Aldridge, Ted Pintar of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins, Peter B. Maretz of Shea Stokes, Harry Chamberlain of
Buchalter Nemer, Robert “Bo” Phillips of Reed Smith, Stanley Gibson of Jeffer
Mangels Butler & Marmaro and more.

This course will qualify for 6 hours of CLE credits.

Seminar Details: For additional seminar information
http://pr4.netatlantic.com/t/111315/4312719/4884/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3JlY29uZmVyZW5jZXMuY29tL3VwY29taW5ncHJvZ3JhbXMxLmh0bWw%3d&x=476670ed>http://reconferences.com/upcomingprograms1.html


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of The Children's Place Retail
Stores, Inc. from August 3, 2006 through August 23, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges The Children's Place and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company was not in compliance with certain of
         its obligations under the license agreement with The
         Walt Disney Company ("Disney"), including its
         obligations with respect to store renovations and
         maintenance;

     (2) that the Company would spend approximately $175 million
         to renovate and/or upgrade a substantial number of
         Disney Stores as a result of its noncompliance with the
         license agreement;

     (3) that, as a result of the above, the Company would be
         forced to relinquish material contractual rights,
         including restrictions on Disney's ability to grant
         direct merchandising restrictions to other retailers;

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

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

On June 8, 2007, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement with
Disney to resolve assertions that the Company had committed numerous material
breaches of its long-term license agreement under which the Company operates
the Disney Store retail chain in North America. The letter agreement
specifically obligated the Company to remodel 234 existing Disney Stores, and
to complete a "maintenance refresh" program in approximately 165 Disney
Stores. The Company's Chief Executive Officer stated that The Children's Place
was "committed to executing on this important remodel program which will
contribute to our goal of elevating the guest experience."

Then on August 23, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it disclosed that
it was unable to meet several of the deadlines set forth in the June
agreement. The Company further revealed that it had identified various
deadlines during the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2007 that it would
also likely miss.

The Company's inability to meet such deadlines breached the June letter
agreement, and entitled Disney to exercise remedies including the possible
termination of the agreement. As a result of its breach, the Company was
forced to amend its license agreement with Disney, and to relax restrictions
on Disney's ability to grant direct licenses for the sale of Disney
merchandise to other specialty retail stores. On this news, the Company's
shares declined $5.59 per share, or almost 17 percent, to close on August 23,
2007 at $27.43 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

The Children's Place, through its subsidiaries, is a specialty retailer of
apparel and accessories for children from newborn to 10 years of age.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


LDK SOLAR: Federman & Sherwood Files First N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed on Oct. 9, 2007 the first class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against LDK Solar
Co. Ltd.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of false and material misrepresentations to
the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of
the Company's publicly-traded securities. The class period is from June 1,
2007 through October 2, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 10, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          K. Lynn Nunn
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Email: kln@federmanlaw.com
          Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Pa. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons other than
Defendants who purchased the common stock of NutriSystem, Inc. between
February 14, 2007 and October 4, 2007, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges NutriSystem and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Exchange Act. The Company provides weight management
and fitness products and services in the United States.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to
disclose:

     (a) that the Company was signing up fewer new customers and
         was not performing according to internal expectations;

     (b) that the Company's costs of acquiring new customers
         were significantly increasing;

     (c) that the Company's performance was being negatively
         impacted by competition from other weight loss products
         on the market; and

     (d) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and its prospects.

Then, on October 3, 2007, after the markets closed, the Company announced its
preliminary third quarter 2007 results and revised earnings guidance for the
full year of 2007. In response to this announcement, the price of NutriSystem
common stock fell $15.98 per share, or approximately 34%, to close at $31.59
per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased the common stock of Nutrisystem
between February 14, 2007 and October 4, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Exchange Act.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com


OPTEUM INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Opteum Inc.
pursuant or traceable to the Company's September 17, 2004 Initial Public
Offering or the Company's December 16, 2004 Secondary Offering, and including
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
November 3, 2005 and May 10, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Opteum and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in connection with the
Company's IPO and Secondary Offering, defendants failed to disclose or
indicate the following:

     (1) that the Company's interest costs at the time of the
         IPO and Secondary Offering were substantially
         increasing;

     (2) that as a result, the Company's various approaches to
         risk management did not provide investors reasonable
         protections against losses; and

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls.

Additionally, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose
additional material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being,
business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose or indicate the following:

     (1) that the Company's integration of Opteum Financial
         Services, LLC ("OFS") was not proceeding according to
         plan;

     (2) that the Company's risk management controls and
         procedures were incompatible with OFS' risk management
         controls and procedures;

     (3) that OFS' loans were designed to produce short-term
         financial results, which would subject the Company to
         unreasonable long-term risk and expenses;

     (4) that the Company had improperly valued and monitored
         collateral;

     (5) that the Company had underreported its loan loss
         reserves;

     (6) that the Company's book value and projected cash flows
         were materially overstated;

     (7) that the Company had failed to adequately hedge its
         exposure to losses;

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

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

    (10) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         statements were false and misleading at all relevant
         times; and

    (11) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         guidance about its 2007 financial and operational
         results were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On May 10, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it reported its first
quarter 2007 financial and operational results. The Company reported $12.2
million in negative fair value adjustments to OFS' mortgage servicing rights,
$1.3 million in negative fair value adjustments to OFS' residuals, and $8.8
million in asset write downs at OFS. Additionally, the Company revealed that
nearly 50 percent of the Company's first quarter loss, or $37.4 million, was
attributable to a valuation allowance on OFS' deferred tax assets, nearly 17.5
percent of the loss was attributable to negative fair value adjustments to
OFS' mortgage servicing rights and retained interests in securitizations, and
slightly more than 10 percent of the loss was attributable to asset write
downs at OFS, due in part to the Company's decision to exit the mortgage
origination business.

Also, the Company revealed that its quarterly loss included $14.1 million in
negative fair value adjustments to mortgage loans held for sale and interest
rate lock commitments, and hedging losses of $4.6 million. On this news,
shares of the Company's stock fell $1.37 per share, or over 25 percent, to
close on May 11, 2007 at $4.08 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


TARRAGON CORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of
purchasers of Tarragon Corporation common stock during the period between
January 5, 2005 and August 9, 2007.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public were that:

     (a) the Company failed to consolidate an unprofitable
         variable interest entity into its consolidated
         financial statements;

     (b) the Company failed to properly account for its
         statement of cash flows by failing to properly classify
         its cash inflows and cash outflows as operating,
         investing and financing activities;

     (c) the Company failed to timely take property impairment
         charges and other write downs;

     (d) the Company was experiencing liquidity issues due to
         its inability to obtain loan modifications and
         additional financing and there was serious doubt about
         Tarragon's ability to continue as a going concern; and

     (e) given the increased volatility in the homebuilding
         industry and the real estate credit markets, the
         Company lacked a reasonable basis to make projections
         about its 2007 results.

The Complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' false statements,
Tarragon stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $26.76 per share on July 22, 2005. The complaint asserts
claims arising under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 12, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, N.Y. 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          E-mail: Jabraham@aftlaw.com


                            *********


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  * * *