CAR_Public/071017.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 17, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 205

                            Headlines


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: ACOM Debtors File Objection to Claims
APARTHEID LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reinstates Alien Tort Claims
APPLEBEE’S INTERNATIONAL: Settles Lawsuit Over Sale to IHOP
CANADA: Widows Sue to Retain Dead Spouse's Pension Benefits
COBB EMC: CEO Seeks to Dismiss Lawsuit by Co-op Members

CORNERSTONE PROPANE: Dec. 10 Hearing Set for $13.5M Settlement
DANA CORP: SEIU Pension Objects to Disclosure Statement
DELPHI INC: Lead Plaintiffs Object to Disclosure Statement
DYNAMEX INC: Employee Pursues Bid to Have Lawsuit Certified
FLAGHOUSE INC: Recalls Beams for Lead Paint Standard Breach

FLORIDA: Trial Ongoing in Canker Eradication Program Lawsuit
FRESH DEL MONTE: Former Employees File Lawsuit in Oregon
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Court Stays Securities Fraud Litigation
KAHOOT PRODUCTS: Recalls Badges for Lead Paint Standard Breach
MAYER BROWN: Refco Shareholders Sue Over Role in Collapse

MICROSOFT CORP: High Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on “Odom” Case
PEOPLE’S CHOICE: Amended Motion for Class Certification Filed
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Jan. 11 Hearing Set for $13.5M Agreement
RIDDELL INC: Recalls Mini Helmets for Lead Paint Standard Breach
SCORES STRIP CLUB: Faces Suit Over Skimmed Tips, Overtime, Wages

THE GROVE: Student Housing Complex Faces Suit Over Meal Plans
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Court Oks PCT'S Bid for Deal With Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES: Gov't. Sides With Vatican in Ky. Sex Abuse Suit
WCI COMMUNITIES: Faces ILSA Violations Lawsuit in Florida


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BRAVO! BRANDS: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Fraud Suit
LDK SOLAR: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
NU HORIZONS: Faces Cal. Securities Suit Related to Vitesse


                            *********


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: ACOM Debtors File Objection to Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen V. Saia, Esq., in Pembroke, Massachusetts, argues that contrary to
the contentions of Adelphia (in bankruptcy; together with affiliates in
bankruptcy, the Debtors), Claim Nos. 21, 13109, 13110, 13111, and 13112 do
not interfere with the timely distribution of the Debtors' estate.

Gilbert Dibbern maintains that the Debtors sought to significantly reduce
his represented class' estimated damages by, among other things:

  (1) limiting the number of affected subscribers to only
      subscribers of Harron Communications, Corp., in a
      particular geographic area within the Commonwealth of
      Massachusetts, thereby ignoring millions of affected
      subscribers;

  (2) shortening the time frame within which the Debtors failed
      to properly notify subscribers that they did not need to
      rent a box to view non-scrambled programming on their
      cable-ready TVs or VCRs; and

  (3) overlooking their violation of the negative option billing
      requirement under Section 543(f) of the Telegraphs,
      Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs Code.

Mr. Saia points out that the salient issue with respect to the Dibbern Class
Claims is not complex.  That issue pertains to the date when ACOM integrated
the Harron subscribers onto its existing system and ceased scrambling its
expanded basic or basic plus service.

Mr. Dibbern has not failed to pursue class certification for his represented
class, Mr. Saia maintains.  The purpose of the Dibbern Class Claims, he
explains, is to make sure that there are funds available to provide a remedy
in connection with the class action Mr. Dibbern initiated against certain of
the ACOM Debtors in August 2002.

Mr. Saia contends that the Dibbern Class Claims can be maintained as a Class
Action and that the Dibbern Class satisfies the requirements Rule 23(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, Mr. Dibbern asks the Court to:

  (a) overrule the Debtors' claim objection;

  (b) certify the Dibbern Class; and

  (c) allow the Dibbern Class Claims.

The Dibbern Class Action and the Dibbern Class Claims are the most efficient
methods to provide relief for all class members,
Ms. Saia avers.  "This is a straight forward case where the proof as to the
class is easily accomplished by determining when [the] Debtor ceased
scrambling its expanded basic service, and mathematically determining the
damages related to the unnecessary rental of converter boxes."

(Adelphia Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 177; Creditors' Service Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


APARTHEID LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reinstates Alien Tort Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated some class action claims in
a suit accusing 50 American, Canadian and European companies of supporting
apartheid in South Africa, Associated Press reports.

Originally, 10 separate actions were filed in several federal courts by
millions of people who have lived in South Africa after 1948.  The cases
were combined in New York.  

In 2004, U.S. District Judge John Sprizzo threw out claims brought under the
Alien Tort Claims Act saying he did not have jurisdiction.  The appeals
court heard arguments in January of last year.  In a ruling on Oct. 12, the
appeals court recommended that the lower court consider prior rulings.  It
reinstated claims brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act.  The appeals
court said he must analyze the subject further.

Both the U.S. and South African governments object to the reinstatement of
the suit.  America said it would interfere with South Africa's
reconciliation and redress efforts; South Africa said it would interfere
with its right to litigate such claims itself.

Michael Hausfeld is lawyer for the plaintiffs.


APPLEBEE’S INTERNATIONAL: Settles Lawsuit Over Sale to IHOP
-----------------------------------------------------------
Applebee's International Inc. has agreed to settle a class action filed by a
union challenging a proposed $1.9 billion sale of the restaurant operator to
IHOP Corp., The Associated Press reports.

Under the settlement, the company will provide shareholders with additional
information about the sale.  No financial agreements were reached in the
deal.

The suit was filed by the New Jersey Building Laborers Pension and Annuity
Funds in Delaware Chancery Court in July, shortly after the deal was
announced.  The deal, announced July 6, valued the chain at $25.50 per share
and would entail the disposal of most of the 508 company-owned stores to
franchisees and the sale of the real estate associated with the stores.  A
vote on the proposal is set Oct. 30.

The union alleged they would benefit better financially if Applebee’s stayed
independent and sell its remaining company-owned locations to franchisees.  
Union officials had said they were at a loss as to IHOP’s plan to convert to
a franchise-based system, the method at which the company’s value was
determined, and the details on the deal’s financing.

A proposed settlement requires that shareholders receive supplemental
disclosures about the deal.


CANADA: Widows Sue to Retain Dead Spouse's Pension Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Canadians Alvina Bartlett and Merle Mutch have filed a purported class
action in the Winnipeg Court of Queen's Bench on behalf of Manitoba widows
who want to keep their dead spouses' pension benefits even if the women
remarry, The Canadian Press reports.

In a statement of claim, the women allege that widows who receive death
benefits under workers compensation are forfeiting full benefits once they
remarry.

None of the allegations has been proven in court and a statement of defense
has not yet been filed.

Ms. Bartlett says that in 1999 when the Manitoba government revamped
legislation governing those benefits, it issued lump sums of about $83,000
to several widows who had remarried.  

However, she claims that several other provinces have reinstated full
benefits to such women.


COBB EMC: CEO Seeks to Dismiss Lawsuit by Co-op Members
-------------------------------------------------------
The chief executive officer of Cobb EMC and its for-profit affiliate Cobb
Energy filed a motion to dismiss a suit filed on behalf of two co-op members
questioning the company’s management of the affiliate, The (KRT) Atlanta
Journal-Constitution reports.

Co-op members filed a suit against chief executive Dwight Brown and the
companies in Cobb Superior Court on Sept. 12.  The suit was filed on behalf
of two co-op members, Sims Maddox and his son.  They are seeking class-
action status for the suit.

The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of taking the co-op’s funds to benefit
the for-profit affiliate.  Mr. Brown and the companies allegedly "improperly
squandered, mismanaged and converted the resources of Cobb EMC."  The
plaintiff wants the court to order the two companies and Brown to disclose:

     -- details of their financial dealings and the financial
        relationships between Cobb Energy and co-op executives;

     -- information on how much the co-op pays for Cobb
        Energy's management services; and

     -- how much Mr. Brown gets paid to be Cobb Energy chief
        executive.

The motion to dismiss states that the suit demonstrated stark ignorance of
the laws governing Cobb EMC," and used “flimsy allegations” against the
defendants.  At the same time, the motion extolled on the co-op’s growth
leadership, track record and vision.  It explained that the co-op formed
Cobb Energy to protect itself from market deregulation and hostile takeovers
by spreading out costs among a range of for-profit services and by offering
customers more such services.

But central to the argument to dismiss is the assertion that the suit
is “fatally defective.”  It allegedly used general corporation law instead
of state laws that are specific to electric cooperatives, for instance.  It
is also too vague, and that most of the complaints in the case are
derivative complaints, but that the plaintiffs failed to follow the
mandatory process for filing such complaints.

Cobb EMC is a 189,000-member, customer-owned non-profit electric cooperative
based in Marietta.  Cobb Energy is a for-profit affiliate that earns a
profit to operate the co-op, in addition to offering a range of other, for-
profit products and services.


CORNERSTONE PROPANE: Dec. 10 Hearing Set for $13.5M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a
fairness hearing on Dec. 10, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for a proposed $13,500,000
settlement in the matter, “In re Cornerstone Propane Partners L.P.
Securities Litigation, Case No. Case No. C03-2522-MHP.”

The Court will hold the hearing at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California, in
Courtroom 15 before Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.

Any objections or exclusion to and from the settlement must be made on or
before Nov. 14, 2007.  Deadline of the submission of a proof of claim is on
Dec. 24, 2007.

                        Case Background

On May 28, 2003, the first of eight class actions were filed against
Cornerstone, and some or all of the individual defendants  Keith G. Baxter,
Ronald J. Goedde, William L. Woods, Charles J. Kittrell, Richard D. Nye,
Merle D. Lewis, Richard R. Hylland, and Daniel K. Newell on behalf of a
class of public investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Cornerstone
common units during the Class Period.

By an order dated Oct. 3, 2003, the Court consolidated all eight cases.  By
the same order, the Court appointed

     * Gilbert H. Lamphere as lead plaintiff in the Action

and approved Lead Plaintiffs selection of

     * Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (now Schiffrin Barroway Topaz &
       Kessler, LLP) as lead counsel for the Class, and

     * Green Jigarjian, LLP (now Green Welling LLP) as liaison
       counsel for the Class.

On Oct. 27, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed the Amended Class Action Complaint,
followed by the Corrected Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
March 2, 2004, asserting claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Defendants.

The Complaint alleged that the Defendants issued false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financials during the Class Period, and
that this alleged conduct by the Defendants caused the price of Cornerstone
units to be artificially inflated, injuring those who purchased or otherwise
acquired Cornerstone common units at the inflated prices.

On March 22, 2004, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. Lead Plaintiff
filed an opposition to Defendants motion to dismiss on May 6, 2004, and
Defendants filed reply memorandum to Lead Plaintiffs opposition to the
motion to dismiss on June 2 and June 3, 2004. Cornerstone filed for Chapter
11 Bankruptcy, and the Court issued an order removing the case from the
Courts calendar on June 24, 2004.

The Court subsequently executed an order granting relief from the prior
order removing the case from its calendar.

On Jan. 24, 2005, the Judge Marilyn Hall Patel held a hearing on the
Defendants motion to dismiss and granted the motion with leave for Lead
Plaintiff to amend.

Lead Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on April 1,
2005.  Cornerstone was not named as a defendant in the amended complaint due
to its bankruptcy.  

All of the Defendants, except Messrs. Woods and Kittrell, filed answers to
the amended complaint.  Messrs. Woods and Kittrell filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on May 10, 2005.

The Court granted Mr. Woods motion, dismissing him from the Action, and
denied Mr. Kittrells motion.  Mr. Kittrell filed an answer to the amended
complaint on July 19, 2005.

Thereafter, Lead Plaintiff initiated the discovery process and pursued
certification of the Class.  Lead Counsel reviewed hundreds of thousands of
pages of documents produced by the Defendants, and many third parties.

The Court certified the Class by an order dated May 3, 2006.  At the same
time that Lead Counsel was conducting discovery and pursuing certification
of the Class, the Parties began negotiating a settlement of the Action, in
late 2005.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the Parties attended a mediation of the Action before the
Honorable Daniel Weinstein (Ret.).  The Parties were unable to resolve the
Action at the mediation.

Following many months of continuous telephonic negotiations, the Parties
reached the basic terms of the Settlement in May 2006.

The Defendants and their insurers have agreed to create a $13,500,000
settlement fund.

For more details, contact:

          Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
          Kay E. Sickles, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 667-7706
          Fax: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


DANA CORP: SEIU Pension Objects to Disclosure Statement
-------------------------------------------------------
The SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust, West Virginia Laborers'
Pension Trust Fund and Plumbers, and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, as
Lead Plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action, object to the Debtors'
disclosure statement attached to their Joint Plan of Reorganization filed
August 31, 2007.

In January 2006, a District Court consolidated approximately five pending
class actions into the Securities Litigation.  In
May 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
appointed the Lead Plaintiffs, who then filed the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint alleging violations by the Debtors and certain non-Debtor parties
of federal securities laws.  The Securities Litigation is stayed against the
Debtors, and was proceeding against the Non-Debtor Defendants until August
2007, when the District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the
Securities Litigation.

The Lead Plaintiffs have filed a claim on behalf of the Securities Class in
an undetermined amount for damages arising out of the purchase of certain
debt and equity securities of Dana and for violation of the federal
securities laws.

The Disclosure Statement does not contain sufficient information to enable a
reasonable person to make an informed judgment of the Plan, Michael S.
Etkin, Esq., at Lowenstein Sandler, P.C., in New York, asserts.

The Disclosure Statement and the Plan, Mr. Etkin adds, contain broad and
ambiguous provisions and omit material facts that may mislead holders of
claims or interests.

The description of the Securities Litigation must be revised so that the
creditors are adequately informed to its status and potential magnitude and
impact of the Class Claim, Mr. Etkin asserts.  Mr. Etkin explains that
although the description of the Securities Litigation was accurate at the
time the Disclosure Statement was filed, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Appeal of the District Court's Order granting the motion to dismiss the
Class Complaint.

Although the Lead Plaintiffs' claim is in an undetermined amount, Mr. Etkin
points out, they believe that the claim will be significant and may have a
substantial impact on recoveries by other creditors and holders of interest.

The members of the putative Securities Class include current and former
holders of Dana's bonds and common stock, according to Mr. Etkin.  He adds
that it appears that the plan properly provides that members of the two plan
classes are treated the same.

However, because the holders of the respective interests and claims are
placed in separate plan classes, there may be some confusion, hence, Mr.
Etkin asserts, that the Disclosure Statement must expressly set forth that
the plan classes are being treated the same and are being paid with the same
priority.

Pursuant to the Plan, holders of claims and interests who vote in favor of
the Plan are deemed to have released, waived and discharged of liabilities
against not only the Debtors, but also the released parties, Mr. Etkin
points out.  He notes that the   Released Parties include non-debtors, who,
in the absence of unusual circumstances, are not entitled to the protections
of the Bankruptcy Code.

However, to the extent the release is approved, it should be limited to the
claim or interest identified on the ballot, if the holder votes in favor of
the Plan, and should not release any other claims or interests held by the
holder against any party, especially a non-debtor, Mr. Etkin elaborates.

In effect, "[T]he Plan creates a trap for the unwary, potentially imposing
an involuntary release of claims in favor of numerous non-debtor insiders
and agents with no corresponding benefit or consideration to the creditor,"
Mr. Etkin says.

The Disclosure Statement fails to disclose the extent of the directors and
officers policies and which parties may have a right to the proceeds
thereof, Mr. Etkin further asserts.

According to Mr. Etkin, the Lead Plaintiffs maintain that the Securities
Class is entitled to look to the proceeds of the insurance for payment of
the class claim and may, at least, pursue the claim against the Debtors if
the class claim is not paid in full under the Plan.

Because the Lead Plaintiffs may not have a direct action against the D&O
insurance carriers under the D&O policies, the D&O policies may only be
accessed through the Securities Litigation.

"Accordingly, the Plan should not impact the rights of Lead
Plaintiffs or the putative Securities Class, either through injunctive
relief or discharge, to pursue their claims against the proceeds of the D&O
policies," Mr. Etkin says.   

To obtain approval of the Disclosure Statement, the Debtors are required to
prove under Section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code that the Disclosure
Statement provides "adequate information" regarding the Plan to enable the
parties to make an informed judgment as to whether to accept or reject the
Plan.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 57; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).               


DELPHI INC: Lead Plaintiffs Object to Disclosure Statement
----------------------------------------------------------
Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma, Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi, Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-
Gesellschaft m.b.H., and Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP, the Lead
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action entitled
In re Delphi Corp. Securities Litigation, Master Case No. 05-md-
1725 (GER) (E.D.Mich.), relate that although the Debtors'
Disclosure Statement addresses several of their concerns, it does not
address all of them.

The Lead Plaintiffs are, and represent, creditors, equity holders and
parties-in-interest in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases who bought certain of
the Debtors' common stock and debt securities between March 7, 2000, and
March 3, 2005.  The Lead Plaintiffs contend that the Debtors, certain of the
Debtors' current and former directors and officers, and certain other
parties concealed and misrepresented the Debtors' true financial condition
before and during the Class Period.  The Lead
Plaintiffs and the putative class assert damages in excess of
$1,000,000,000, Michael S. Etkin, Esq., at Lowenstein Sandler PC, in New
York, notes.

Over the course of several months in 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs, the Debtors
and other parties to the Securities Litigation, with the assistance of a
special master appointed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, conducted discussions and negotiations regarding a settlement
of the Securities Litigation, Mr. Etkin relates.  On August 31, 2007, those
discussions resulted in an agreement resolving the Securities Litigation as
to the Debtors and certain other defendants.

Contemporaneous with resolving the Securities Litigation, the Debtors
prepared their Disclosure Statement and Joint Plan of Reorganization.  The
Lead Plaintiffs, Mr. Etkin says, have provided the Debtors with numerous
comments, several of which have been incorporated into the Disclosure
Statement and Plan.

The parties have not yet been able to reach agreement on two of the Lead
Plaintiffs' proposed revisions to the Disclosure Statement and Plan
involving third party releases and certain conditions to the effectiveness
of the Plan, Mr. Etkin informs Judge Drain.  

(Delphi Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 87 Creditors' Service Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).


DYNAMEX INC: Employee Pursues Bid to Have Lawsuit Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported labor class action against Dynamex, Inc.
continues to appeal a decision by the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County denying a motion for class certification of the matter.

A company driver filed the suit on April 15, 2005.  It alleges that the
company unlawfully misclassified its California drivers as independent
contractors, rather than employees.

It asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the purported class
claimants to overtime compensation and other benefits under California wage
and hour laws, reimbursement of certain operating expenses, and various
insurance and other benefits and the obligation of the company to pay
employer payroll taxes under federal and state law.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Nov. 2,  
2006.  The company responded in a memorandum of points and authorities in
support of defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion for class
certification on Nov. 29, 2006.   

A hearing was held on Dec. 12, 2006, and on Dec. 14, 2006, the Plaintiff’s
Motion for Class Certification was denied.  The Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal on Jan. 5, 2007.

During the summer of 2007, Plaintiff associated additional counsel for the
Appeal.  Plaintiff requested and was granted a 30 day extension to Aug. 27,
2007, in which to file his Opening Brief.

An additional 30 day extension was granted on Aug. 27, extending the time to
Sept. 26.  The Company’s answering brief will be due 30 days after the
Opening brief is filed.  

Plaintiff will have 30 days following that in which to file a rebuttal
brief.  Thereafter the Court will schedule an Oral hearing, most likely in
the early months of 2008.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com-- is a provider of same-day  
delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada. Through its network
of business centers, the Company provides same-day, on-demand, door-to-door
delivery services utilizing its ground couriers.


FLAGHOUSE INC: Recalls Beams for Lead Paint Standard Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flaghouse Inc., of Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,400 Kidnastics
Balance Beams.

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

The recall involves a foam balance beam measuring 72-inches x 4-inches x 1/2-
inch with a blue vinyl cover. A yellow Kidnastics logo is printed on the top
of the beam.

These recalled balance beams were manufactured in Taiwan and are being sold
at various catalogs and Internet Web sites from January 2007 through
September 2007 for about $13.

Picture of recalled balance beams:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08501.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the beam and contact
Flaghouse for a free replacement, a full refund, or credit toward the
purchase of another product.

For additional information, contact Flaghouse at (800) 793-7900 between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site:
http://www.flaghouse.com.


FLORIDA: Trial Ongoing in Canker Eradication Program Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A non-jury trial is ongoing in a purported class action over the cutting of
citrus trees in Palm Beach county as part of a state-federal citrus canker
eradication program in March 2001, Susan Salisbury of Palm Beach Post
reports.

The trial in West Palm Beach before Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Robin
Rosenberg is expected to last eight to 10 days.  At issue is whether the
owners of the 66,468 destroyed trees in the county's back yards were justly
compensated when the government, acting under a state law, removed all
citrus trees within 1,900 feet of a tree that tested positive for canker.

Homeowners whose citrus trees were taken out got a $100 Wal-Mart voucher to
replace the first tree removed, and $55 in cash for each additional tree.

"This trial is for the court to determine whether the department is liable
to pay whatever a jury decides is just compensation," said lead attorney
Robert Gilbert of Miami.  Mr. Gilbert said the Florida Supreme Court ruled
that the Wal-Mart vouchers and cash payments set a minimum for compensation,
not a ceiling.  If the plaintiffs win, then a jury trial will be held later
to determine how much the trees are worth, he said.

At contention is on the value of the trees. The state says the trees have no
value at all because they were from the start doomed to catch bacterial
disease.  

"Our position is that they are worth something, and it is up to a jury to
decide how much that something is," Mr. Gilbert said.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2002 on behalf of 40,937 Palm Beach County
residents against the state Agriculture Department, Mr. Gilbert said.  The
lead plaintiffs in the suit are David and Lillian Mendez.

The trial's witness list includes Florida Department of Agriculture
officials Richard Gaskalla, Connie Riherd, Craig Meyer and Liz Compton, as
well as scientists Pete Timmer, Tim Schubert, Jim Graham and Xiaoan Sun.

A tree appraiser from Lakeland also is expected to testify about how to
value ornamental trees in a residential setting, according to Mr. Gilbert.

Wes Parsons, a partner with Adorno & Yoss in Coral Gables, is the lead
attorney for the state.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Former Employees File Lawsuit in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Foods is facing a lawsuit in Portland filed by former
employees alleging the company refused to pay overtime wages and didn’t
allow breaks for employees, KPTV.com reports.

Two former employees filed the suit seeking class-action status in Multnomah
County Circuit Court.  The plaintiffs are Maria Del Pilar Delgado and Abdia
Cortez Liberio.  They are two of 167 employees who lost their jobs after a
federal immigration raid at the plant in June.

The plaintiffs claim the company refused to give workers rest breaks, pay
overtime for more than 10 working hours a day and underpaid employees by 30
minutes each day.  They are asking for overtime and back pay.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Court Stays Securities Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted
defendant's motion to stay a consolidated securities lawsuit filed against
Herley Industries, Inc., and certain other defendants.

In June and July 2006, the Company was served with several class-action
complaints against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

The claims are made under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  All defendants in the class-
action complaints filed motions to dismiss on April 6, 2007.

On July 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the Herley Industries
Inc.'s and Herley's former Chairman, Lee N. Blatt's motion to dismiss and
granted, in part, the other defendants' motion to dismiss.  

Specifically, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the other
defendants  and denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim against
them.

On July 18, 2007, the Court granted defendant's motion to stay these
actions, according to its Oct. 11, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 29, 2007.

The suit is “In re Herley Industries Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:06-cv-02596-JS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, under Judge Juan R. Sanchez.

Representing defendants are:

          Joel L. Frank
          Thomas P. Hogan, Jr.
          Lamb McErlane PC
          24 East Market Street
          P.O. Box 565
          West Chester, PA 19381-0565
          Phone: 610-430-8000
          Fax: 610-692-6210
          E-mail: jfrank@chescolaw.com or thogan@chescolaw.com

          - and -

          Timothy D. Katsiff
          Blank Rome LLP
          One Logan Square
          18th & Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
          Phone: 215-569-5500
          Fax: 215-569-5555
          E-mail: katsiff@blankrome.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stanley P. Kops
          102 Bala Avenue
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 610-949-9999
          E-mail: Stankops@aol.com

          - and -

          Marc A. Topaz
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056


KAHOOT PRODUCTS: Recalls Badges for Lead Paint Standard Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahoot Products Inc., of Roswell, Georgia, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1.6 million Cub
Scouts Totem Badges.

The company said the surface paints on the badges contain excessive levels
of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled Cub Scout Totem Badges measure 4 inches x 3 inches with a
square portion measuring 2 inches x 2 inches. The Boy Scout emblem is
printed on the badge along with a wolf and bear. “PROGRESS TOWARD RANKS” is
also printed on the badge.

These recalled totem badges were manufactured in China and are being sold at
Boy Scouts of America retail outlets nationwide from January 2000 through
September 2007.

Picture of recalled totem badges:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08018.jpg

Parents are advised to immediately remove the badges from clothing and keep
the badges away from children. Contact the firm for instructions on
obtaining a free replacement badge.

For additional information, contact Kahoot at (770) 552-2921, or visit the
firm’s Web site: http://www.kahoot.com


MAYER BROWN: Refco Shareholders Sue Over Role in Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------
Refco Inc. shareholders have named Mayer Brown LLP, Refco’s former lead
counsel, as defendant in a class action over the brokerage business’
collapse in 2005, CFO.com reports.

The shareholders, led by Pacific Investment Management Co., have filed a
lawsuit against Mayer Brown and Joseph Collins, one of its senior partners.  
The suit includes investors who owned Refco common stock and bonds from mid-
2004 to October 2005.  The suit is in addition to one filed by Refco
trustees earlier this year.

Mayer Brown is accused of helping Refco hide $430 million of debt by
preparing and editing Refco's "misleading" financial statements and other
disclosures aimed at investors.  Specifically, Mayer Brown allegedly helped
Refco document a transfer of at least $70 million in uncollectible debt by
making it appear as though it was sold to Refco Group Holdings Inc.  The
money would later appear to be a collectible receivable from a third party
on its books.  This is allegedly to fraudulently remove the problematic debt
from Refco's books and replace it with one that appeared collectible, claim
the shareholders.

CFO.com received a communication from Mayer Brown saying the firm is in the
process of looking at the complaint and plans to defend itself "with
vigor."  Mayer Brown added that it doubts whether the shareholders’ suit
could proceed against the firm, as it was merely an outside adviser.  Mr.
Collins did not respond to CFO.com's request for comment.


MICROSOFT CORP: High Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on “Odom” Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take on a case that accuses Microsoft
Corp. and Best Buy Co. Inc. of deliberately tricking customers into signing
up for MSN Internet service and improperly charging them when a trial period
expires.

With the decision, the two companies are now faced with a class action
arguing that the joint venture between them violated the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided en banc
to reinstate the lawsuit, which was claiming racketeering violations against
(Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007).

                        Case Background

The suit was filed by James Odom, who claimed defendants entered into an
agreement under which "Microsoft invested $200 million in Best Buy and
agreed to promote Best Buy's online store through its MSN service."  In
return, "Best Buy agreed to promote MSN service and other Microsoft products
in its stores and advertising."

Best Buy employees allegedly distributed different Microsoft trial compact
discs that it scans for information if the customer was paying by debit or
credit card.  Mr. Odom alleged that what this scanning actually did was send
the information to Microsoft.  Microsoft would then, without the customer's
knowledge or permission, activate an MSN account in the customer's name.

If the customer did not cancel the account before the expiration of the free
trial period, Microsoft allegedly would start billing the debit or credit
card number.  Odom further alleged that when customers called to dispute
these charges, Microsoft directed some of them to "seek relief from their
debit or credit card issuers."

Microsoft, joined by Best Buy, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to allege an associated-in-fact enterprise, and under Rule 9(b) for
failure to plead wire fraud with particularity.

The district court dismissed an amended complaint on both grounds without
leave to amend.  It held that an associated-in- fact enterprise had not been
alleged within the meaning of RICO
under Rule 12(b)(6), and that wire fraud had not been pled with
particularity under Rule 9(b).  

Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed their non-RICO claims in order to
allow entry of final judgment.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their
RICO claims.

In an opinion filed May 4, 2007, the Appeals Court ruled that
plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the existence of an
associated-in-fact enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. SS
1961(4) and 1962(c).  

It also hold that plaintiffs have alleged wire fraud with sufficient
particularity to satisfy Rule 9(b).   It therefore reversed the decision of
the district court and remanded the suit for further proceedings.

The case is "Odom v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 04-35468 D.C. No. CV-03-02976-
MJP," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Ste 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-4416
          Phone: 206.682.5600
          Fax: 206.682.2992
          E-mail: bterrell@tousley.com
          Web site: http://www.tousley.com/

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          Fax: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael J. Shepard, Esq.
          Heller Ehrman LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2878
          Phone: (415) 772-6451
          Fax: (415) 772-6268
          Web site:

               - and -

          J. Kevin Snyder, Esq.
          Dykema Gossett PLLC
          Los Angeles, California
          Phone: 213-457-1810
          E-mail: ksnyder@dykema.com
          Web site: http://www.dykema.com


PEOPLE’S CHOICE: Amended Motion for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2007, former employees Shayda Bakhtlari, Shane
Fowler, Debbie Oliphant, David Hester, Michael Riley, Desiree
Gutierrez, Jenae Kama, Dipan Desai, Manuel Maldonado, and the putative class
withdrew their Motion for Class Certification without prejudice.   

The Bakhtlari Employee Group has filed an amended motion for class
certification based upon an agreement for a reconstituted class reached
regarding Adversary Proceeding No. 07-01987.

Previously, John P. Salvador, Douglas McClary and Melinda McZiel filed their
original class adversary proceeding on April 6, 2007, on their behalf and on
the behalf of all other persons similarly situated, for damages pursuant to
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and California Labor
Code.

Two class proofs of claim were pending at that time, on behalf of the
Bakhtlari Employee Group.  Both proofs of claim asserted WARN and non-WARN
wage damages and were filed on March 28, 2007.

On June 1, 2007, the original motion for class certification was filed in
this adversary matter by the Salvador Employee Group.   The Bakhtlari
Employee Group filed their motion for class certification on June 6.  Both
matters were set for the June 26, 2007 hearing.

Before the hearing, both employee groups entered into a tentative agreement
to jointly represent the former employees of People's Choice Financial
Corporation and People's Choice Home Loan, Inc., for their WARN and non-WARN
wage claims.

The Court was informed during the June 26, 2007 hearing of the tentative
agreement to consolidate the WARN claims and pursue them separately from the
non-WARN wage claims.   

In order to effectuate the agreement, Messrs. Salvador and
McClary, and Ms. McZiel amend their original Motion for Class Certification
to add Mr. Fowler and Ms. Oliphant as additional class representatives, and
to add Spiro Moss Barnes, LLP, as additional class counsel.   

The former employees, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, seek an order certifying a class, pursuant to
the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7023, comprised of former employees
of PCFC and PCHLI who were terminated without cause from their employment
during the period from March 19, 2007, or thereafter as part of, as the
reasonably expected consequence of, the mass layoff or plant closing, as
defined by the WARN Act.

The Former Employees propose the appointment of (i) The Gardner Firm, P.C.,
Lankenau & Miller, LLP, and Spiro Moss Barness, LLP, as class counsel; (ii)
Messrs. Salvador and Fowler, and Ms. McZiel and Ms. Oliphant as class
representatives; and approving the form and manner of notice to the class of
the Class Action.

Stuart J. Miller, Esq., at Lankenau & Miller, LLP, in New York, states that
the Class Representatives' claims arise from a course of conduct by PCHLI
and PCFC that also gives rise to the claims of other Class Members based on
the same legal theory.  There are no conflicts of interest between the
representatives of the Class and the other Class Members.

The Former Employees are being represented by attorneys who are highly
experienced in class action litigation under the WARN Act and have been
appointed class counsel in some 30 WARN class actions, Mr. Miller tells the
Court.

Neither the Class Representatives nor any of the other Class Members have an
interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions.  
Concentrating the WARN litigation in a class action will avoid multiple
suits, Mr. Miller says.  The difficulties in managing the litigation as a
class action are few, he adds, namely, that the Class Members can be easily
identified; the potential liability of PCFC and PCHLI can be readily
calculated; and there is but one combined course of conduct to examine and
adjudicate.

Mr. Miller submits that the proposed Notice, which will include information
on the nature of the action; the definition of the class certified; the
class claims, issues or defenses; that a class member may enter an
appearance though counsel if the member so desired; and that the court will
exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion, are sufficient.

The Former Employees also ask for an allowed administrative priority claim
under Section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code for the reasonable attorneys fees
and the costs and disbursements that the Former Employees incurred in
prosecuting the action, as authorized by WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2104(a)
(6).

PCFC and PCHLI have agreed to the non-substantive amendment, but do not
waive their right to assert defenses regarding the appropriateness of the
proposed class representatives or of the proposed class counsel.

The status conference will be continued to October 30, 2007, at
1:30 p.m.  The hearing on the Amended Motion for Class
Certification will be heard on October 30, at 2:30 p.m.

(People's Choice Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 17; People's Choice
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 17)


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Jan. 11 Hearing Set for $13.5M Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a
fairness hearing on Jan. 11, 2008 at 12:00 p.m. for the proposed $13.5
million settlement of the securities fraud class action, "In re
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 05-Civ.-6764 (WHP)."

The hearing will be held before Judge William H. Pauley at the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 1007.

Any objections or exclusion to and from the settlement must be made on or
before Nov. 14, 2007.  Deadline of the submission of a proof of claim is on
Jan. 4, 2008.

                         Case Background

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


RIDDELL INC: Recalls Mini Helmets for Lead Paint Standard Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Riddell Inc., of Rosemont, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,500 collectible “Jeff
Gordon” mini helmets.

The company said the surface paints on the recalled helmets contain
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled product is a six-inch tall, collectible, miniature helmet,
modeled after the helmet worn by race car driver Jeff Gordon. The helmet is
red and blue with a black visor, and is painted with various sponsor logos
and playing cards. The UPC number 095855720029 is located on the bottom of
the product?s packaging. No other Riddell mini helmet models are included in
this recall.

These recalled mini helmets were manufactured in China and are being sold at
academy stores and other retailers nationwide, as well as the Web site:
http://www.nascar.com,from February 2007 through October 2007 for about $40.

Picture of the recalled mini helmets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08019.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the recalled helmets away from young children
immediately and contact Riddell to receive a full refund.

For further information, contact Riddell at (800) 611-8114 between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, via e-mail:
racingminirecall@riddellsports.com, or visit the firm’s Web site:
http://www.riddell.com


SCORES STRIP CLUB: Faces Suit Over Skimmed Tips, Overtime, Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scores strip club in New York is facing a purported class action filed
by a female bartender on behalf of dozens of dancers, claiming that managers
skimmed tips, paid sub-minimum wages, and cheated employees out of overtime,
Jeff Rossen of WABC Eyewitness News reports.

The suit was filed by attorney Tammy Marzigliano of Outten & Golden Law Firm
on behalf of former bartender Siri Diaz.  Strippers say Scores is skimming
their tips 10 percent off the top.

In her class action, Ms. Diaz accuses Scores of skimming the tips, while at
the same time playing below minimum wage.  Ms. Diaz was fired from Scores
earlier this year, but she said she didn't file the lawsuit out of revenge.  

For more details, contact:

          Tammy Marzigliano, Esq.
          Outten & Golden Law Firm
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 245-1000
          Fax: (212) 977-4005
          E-mail: tm@outtengolden.com


THE GROVE: Student Housing Complex Faces Suit Over Meal Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of The Grove student housing complex at the University of South
Alabama (USA) are facing a class action in Mobile County Circuit Court over
their meal plans, Ashley Gruner of the University of South Alabama News
reports.

Plaintiffs include Kelly McKinnell, Mallory Childers, Carolyn Watts and
Melanie Waldrop -- all residents of The Grove and freshmen students at USA.  
They are represented by lawyer Stephen Clements, P.C.

Several freshmen students claim they were either told by representatives of
The Grove or learned from The Grove Web site that they would not be required
to purchase a USA meal plan, and so they signed lease agreements.  But in
fact, all freshmen on campus housing are required to purchase a meal plan
through the University.  As a result, they have to spend extra money on meal
plans that they were not planning to purchase.

Each of the plaintiffs has allegedly paid the sum of $2,230 to USA to pay
for a meal plan despite of the representations made by The Grove.

Will Berry, general manager of The Grove, refused to comment on the lawsuit,
Ms. Gruner said.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are still appealing the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California of a consolidated securities fraud class
action against TIBCO Software, Inc.

In May 2005, three purported shareholder class action complaints were filed
against the company and several of its officers:

      -- "Guzzetti v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02373-SBA," filed on June 10, 2006;

      -- "Bernheim v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02205-SBA," filed on May 31, 2005; and

      -- "Siegall v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-    
         cv-02146-SBA," filed on May 25, 2005.

Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the company's
common stock from Sept. 21, 2004 through March 1,
2005.

The complaints generally allege that the company made false or misleading
statements concerning its operating results, its business and internal
controls, and the integration of Staffware and seek unspecified monetary
damages.  

It charges the defendants with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages.

The actions were consolidated and in September 2006, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed the litigation with
prejudice.  Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 12, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 2, 2007.

The suit is "Lance Siegall, et al. v. Tibco Software, Inc., et al., Case No.
05-CV-02146," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  

Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

         Charles J. Piven
         World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Ste. 2525
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 410.332.0030
         E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

              - and –
  
         Dyer & Shuman, LLP
         801 East 17th Avenue
         Denver, CO 80218-1417
         Phone: 303.861.3003
         Fax: 800.711.6483
         E-mail: info@dyershuman.com


TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Court Oks PCT'S Bid for Deal With Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Allen L. Gropper of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York authorizes the Tower Automotive Post-Consummation Trust
to enter into and consummate a second deal with the ERISA Plaintiffs.

The Court also authorizes the PCT to pay provisional settlement payments and
execute the release agreement with Federal Insurance Company.

(Tower Automotive Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 71; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).


UNITED STATES: Gov't. Sides With Vatican in Ky. Sex Abuse Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. government by way of a friend-of-the-court brief has taken the
Vatican's side in the purported class action, "O'Bryan et al. v. Holy See,
Case No. 3:04-cv-00338-JGH," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky.

The federal lawsuit was filed in 2004 by James O'Bryan, Michael Turner and
Donald Poppe, who claim that priests in the Louisville area sexually abused
them between the 1920s and 1970s.  It is seeking class-action status on
behalf of all those abused by priests in the U.S., according to a report by
Peter Smith of The (Louisville) Courier-Journal.

                    Federal Government Brief

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice and State departments argue that
the Roman Catholic headquarters can be sued only as a foreign state -— a
status that grants it broad protections from lawsuits —- and not as a
private religious organization.

The government brief defends the constitutionality of the law that sets
limits on when foreign governments can be sued, and maintains it's the right
of the president alone, and not the court system, to decide which countries
to recognize.

It did not, however, dispute a previous ruling that allowed the plaintiffs
to sue the Vatican within the limits of the law governing lawsuits against
foreign states.

In addition, government attorneys aren't taking sides on the substance of
the case, especially the allegation that the Vatican covered up sexual abuse
by priests in the U.S.

            Earlier Ruling & General Case Background

Earlier this year, Judge John G. Heyburn II of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky ruled that the plaintiffs could pursue
their claim against the Vatican (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2007).

In that ruling, the court allowed sex abuse victims to pursue damages from
the Vatican in a lawsuit alleging top church officials failed to report
known or suspected cases of child abuse, The Associated Press reports (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2006).

The ruling by Judge Heyburn, essentially allows three men to pursue
negligence claims against the Vatican over allegations of sexual abuse by
priests in the Archdiocese of Louisville in
Kentucky.

The case, "O'Bryan et al v. Holy See," is thought to be the first sexual-
abuse suit to name the Vatican as sole defendant and would be the first
class action against the Vatican regarding clerical sexual abuse.

Filed by attorney William McMurry on June 4, 2004, it was brought on behalf
of three men who say they were abused as far back as 1928 (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 11, 2006).

It alleges a cover up by the Vatican to protect priests who molested
American children.  Specifically, the men alleged that the Vatican knew or
suspected some of its priests or bishops were child molesters, but failed to
warn the public or local authorities about them.  In doing so, the suit
claims that the Vatican was negligent.

Mr. McMurry, who in 2003 represented 243 abuse victims in reaching a $25.7
million settlement with the Archdiocese of Louisville, is seeking to have
the suit certified as a class action, alleging that "several thousand"
victims exist across the U.S.  He is also seeking unspecified damages.  

Previously, Judge Heyburn had previously dismissed parts of the lawsuit that
sought damages for sex abuse allegations outside the U.S.

The recent decision though opens the way to take depositions of Vatican
officials and to get copies of church records and documents.

One of the three plaintiffs suing the Vatican is Michael Turner of
Louisville, who also filed the first lawsuit against the Archdiocese of
Louisville.  Turner alleged the Rev. Louis E. Miller molested him in the
1970s while attending St. Aloysius Church in Pewee Valley, Kentucky.

The late Pope John Paul II removed Mr. Miller from the priesthood in 2006
after pleading guilty in 2003 to sexually abusing children in Jefferson and
Oldham counties.  Mr. Miller is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence.

The other two plaintiffs, James H. O'Bryan and Donald E. Poppe, now both
living in California, allege that while growing up in Louisville priests
abused them.

Mr. O'Bryan contends a "Father Lawrence" at St. Cecilia Church in western
Louisville abused him in 1928.  An archdiocesan spokeswoman has said a Rev.
Lawrence Kuntz worked at St. Cecelia from 1928 to 1935 and died in 1952.

Mr. Poppe alleges the Rev. Arthur Wood, who died in 1983 and was named as an
abuser by 39 plaintiffs who settled with the archdiocese, molested him.

Commenting on its legal victory and on the case in general, Mr. McMurry, a
trial specialist in medical and legal malpractice said that the primary
purpose of their case is to hold the Vatican accountable and this ruling
gives them the opportunity to get a hold of church documents and take
depositions of church officials.

The suit is "O'Bryan et al. v. Holy See, Case No. 3:04-cv-00338- JGH," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky under Judge
John G. Heyburn II.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         William F. McMurry, Esq.
         William F. McMurry & Associates
         4801 Olympia Park Plaza, Suite 4800
         Louisville, KY 40241
         Phone: 502-326-9000
         Fax: 502-326-9001
         E-mail: bill@courtroomlaw.com

              - and -

         Marci A. Hamilton, Esq.
         36 Timber Knoll Drive
         Washington Crossing, PA 18977
         Phone: 212-790-0215
         Fax: 215-493-1094
         E-mail: hamilton02@aol.com

              - and -

         Ross T. Turner, Esq.
         6500 Glenridge Park Place, Suite 12
         Louisville, KY 40222
         Phone: 502-429-9303 or 502-445-4144
         Fax: 502-429-9304
         E-mail: ross@rossturnerlaw.com


WCI COMMUNITIES: Faces ILSA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
WCI Communities, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging violations of the federal
Interstate Land Sales Act (ILSA), which regulates the sale or lease of land
from developers.

The suit, captioned, “Berry et al. v. WCI Communities, Inc., Case No.
2:2007cv00512,” was filed by David A. Berry and John Schrenkel on Aug. 13,
2007.

Messrs. Berry and Schrenkel signed up to buy Unit 1202 in the Florencia
building at The Colony Golf & Bay Club in Estero. They are both looking to
get out of their condominium contract with WCI that they signed in 2005 for
the purchase of the unit.  Both also seek to have their $115,000 deposit
returned.

The suit claims that the company failed to include a provision in the
contract that gives buyers a 20-day notice of default and an opportunity
to “cure” it, or make it right.  It also alleges that WCI failed to provide
a recordable legal description.  

According to the two men's attorney, Robert Cooper, both exclusions would
allow the purchasers to get out of the contract, and get their deposits back.

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the case.  However, plaintiffs
have recently filed an amended complaint with new claims.  

The suit is “Berry et al. v. WCI Communities, Inc., Case No. 2:2007cv00512,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under
Judge Marcia Morales Howard with referral to Judge Douglas N. Frazier.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Robert H. Cooper, Esq.
         Robert H. Cooper, PA
         2999 NE 191st St. #704
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Phone: 305/792-4343
         Fax: 305/792-0200
         E-mail: robert@rcooperpa.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Kathryn Harrigan Christian, Esq.
         Carlton Fields, PA
         4221 W Boy Scout Blvd - Suite 1000
         Tampa, FL 33601-3239
         Phone: 813-223-4229
         Fax: 813-229-4133
         E-mail: kchristian@carltonfields.com


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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 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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BRAVO! BRANDS: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP announces that it filed a class action
on October 16, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Bravo! Brands, Inc.
(OTC: "BRVO.PK") between November 20, 2005 and May 15, 2007.

The complaint alleges that Bravo CEO Roy G. Warren and Chief Accounting
Officer Tommy E. Kee violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During
the Class Period, Bravo concealed that its sole distributor, Coca Cola
Enterprises, Inc. ("CCE"), had drastically cut its demand for Bravo's milk
drinks. (Bravo sold its products under the brand names Slammers and Bravo.)
Bravo also failed to timely disclose that it had defaulted on interest
payments to senior note holders.

Bravo falsely told investors on April 3, 2007 that it had expanded its drink
products by introducing the first milk-based sports drink. Only one month
later, Bravo announced that it would substantially reduce its workforce,
that it would not roll out brands into new channels of distribution, and
that its sales with CCE had declined substantially in April and May 2007. On
May 15, 2007, the last day of the Class Period, Bravo announced that it had
recognized a $17.6 million non-cash impairment charge during the quarter
ended March 31, 2007. On September 21, 2007, Bravo filed for bankruptcy.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 17, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

     Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
     Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
     Vianale & Vianale LLP
     2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll Free) or (561-392-4750)


LDK SOLAR: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action in the Southern District
of New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
the securities of LDK Solar Co., Inc. during the period June 1, 2007 through
October 8, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint charges LDK 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 had significantly less polysilicon
         feedstock inventory than it was reporting;

     (2) that only a fraction of the feedstock inventory that
         the Company did have was of sufficient quality for use
         in the manufacture of silicone wafers; and

     (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 7, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Brian D. Brooks
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          Phone: (212) 682-1818
          E-mail: bbrooks@murrayfrank.com
          Website: http://www.murrayfrank.com


NU HORIZONS: Faces Cal. Securities Suit Related to Vitesse
----------------------------------------------------------
Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. (Nasdaq:NUHC) said that both Nu Horizons and
its wholly-owned subsidiary Titan Supply Chain Services Corp. were named as
co-defendants in a shareholder class action commenced against Vitesse
Semiconductor Corp., Nu Horizons, Titan and others by a group of Vitesse
shareholders.

The action, filed in the United States District Court in the Central
District of California, alleges that Nu Horizons and Titan violated
Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by participating in a
scheme to artificially inflate Vitesse Semiconductor Corp.’s sales from
January 2003 to April 2006.  Nu Horizons and Titan believe that the
plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intend to defend the matter
vigorously.

About Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. is a
leading global distributor of advanced technology semiconductor, display,
illumination and system solutions to a wide variety of commercial original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and Electronic Manufacturing Services
providers (EMS). With sales facilities in 51 locations across North America,
Europe and Asia and regional logistics centers throughout the globe, Nu
Horizons partners with a limited number of best-in-class suppliers to
provide in-depth product development, custom logistics and life-cycle
support to its customers.


                           *********


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  * * *