CAR_Public/071023.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, October 23, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 210

                            Headlines


ACCREDITED HOME: Reaches Settlement in Calif. FCRA Litigation
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Fraud Suit Over Contact Lens Cleaner
AEROSMITH: Hawaiian Fans Sue Over Canceled Sept. 26 Concert
AINSWORTH LUMBER: Settles OSB Producers’ Antitrust Suits for $9M
ALBERTSON'S INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Suit in Calif.

ALBERTSON'S INC: Still Faces WARN Violations Suit in California
ALLTEL CORP: Settles Ark., Del. Lawsuits Over Atlantis Merger
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Tenn. Court Mulls Class Status for "Kivilaan"
AMERICAN HONDA: Cars Have Defective Michelin Tires, Suit Claims
AVISTA CORP: Dec. 19 Hearing Set for $9.5M Securities Settlement

CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Approves $600M Securities Suit Settlement
ELSEA INC: Dec. 17 Hearing Set for “McWhorter” Suit Settlement
FARMERS & MERCHANTS: Cal. Court Okays Investor Suit Settlement
FASTENAL COMPANY: Asst. Managers Sue Over FLSA Violations
HOST AMERICA: Con. Securities, Derivative Suits Deal Approved

KIMKINS DIET: Members Sue Founder Over Alleged Fraudulent Ad
KOPPERS INC: Tex. Residents Sue Over Effects of Treatment Plant
MCKESSON HBOC: Hearing on Bear Stearn’s $10M Settlement Set Jan.
MEDTRONIC INC: REKO Files CA$550M Suit Over Defibrillators
SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Face Labor Suit in San Diego Court

UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Court Certifies Franchisees’ Lawsuit
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. Suit
WILLIS GROUP: Gender Bias Suit Deal Gets Preliminary Approval


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATLAS MINING: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ida.
BIGBAND NETWORKS: Scott+Scott Files Securities Suit in Cal.
BIGBAND NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
FUWEI FILMS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

NETBANK INC: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Fraud Suit in GA

                            *********


ACCREDITED HOME: Reaches Settlement in Calif. FCRA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in the purported class action, “Phillips v.
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.,” which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaint, which was filed in September 2005, alleged violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with prescreened offers of credit
that the company made.  

The plaintiff sought to recover, on behalf of her and similarly situated
individuals, damages, pre-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court may grant.

On Jan. 4, 2006, plaintiff re-filed the action in response to the court's
Dec. 9, 2005, decision granting motion to:

      -- dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's claim that the offer
         of credit failed to include the clear and conspicuous
         disclosures required by FCRA,

      -- strike plaintiff's request for declaratory and
         injunctive relief, and

      -- sever plaintiff's claims as to the Company from those
         made against other defendants unaffiliated with the
         Company.

Plaintiffs remaining claim is that the company’s offer of credit did not
meet FCRA’s firm offer requirement.

On May 15, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs motion to certify two
subclasses, the first consisting of 58,750 recipients of the initial mailer
received by the named plaintiff, and a second consisting of 70,585
recipients of the second mailer received by the named plaintiff.

On May 24, 2007, the company filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking an immediate appeal from the Order
granting class certification and a stay of the action in the District Court
pending the outcome of that appeal.  

On Sept. 14, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Petition
filed by AHL and AHLHC.  

This matter has been settled, subject to a fairness hearing, for an amount
immaterial to the Company’s financial condition and results of operations,
according to the company's Oct. 19, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Pamela Phillips, et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding
Company, et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-00851-CJC-RNB,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Cormac J. Carney
with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kevin K. Eng, Esq.
         Edward S. Zusman, Esq.
         David S. Markun, Esq.
         Markun Zusman & Compton
         Phone: 415-438-4515 and 310-454-5900
         E-mail: keng@mzclaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Patricia L. McClaran, Esq.  
         Michael J. Steiner, Esq.
         Severson & Werson
         1 Embarcadero Ctr., Ste. 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-398-3344
         E-mail: plm@severson.com


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Fraud Suit Over Contact Lens Cleaner
------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Medical Optics and Allergan, Inc. are facing a class-action
complaint filed Oct. 15 in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division,
Essex County claiming the companies defrauded consumers by falsely claiming
their contact lens disinfectant killed micro-organisms, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Plaintiff Kimberly Perera claims the product, “Complete Moisture Plus Multi
Purpose Solution,” does not kill or disinfect “certain microorganisms such
as bacteria, fungi, and protozoa, including, most relevant here, the species
of the genus known as Acanthamoeba.”

Plaintiffs bring this class-action complaint individually and on behalf of
the class that consists of all persons within the State of New Jersey and
New jersey customers who purchased within New Jersey one or more bottles of
a contact lens disinfectant product that was sold under the brand COMPLETE
Moisture Plus Multi Purpose Solution.

This class action arises from defendants' alleged false, misleading,
deceptive, fraudulent, and unlawful advertising and sale of a product that
defendants sold as a contact lens disinfectant. Defendants materially
misrepresented on the product's packaging and in advertising that the
product was an effective contact lend disinfectant, the complaint states.
Defendants made these representations as part of an unlawful scheme to
deceive consumers and, thus, increase sales of the product, increase
defendant's share of the lucrative market for contact lens solutions, and,
consequently, increase defendants' profits, the suit further claims.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants' conduct is an unlawful business act
         or practice within the meaning of New Jersey Consumer
         Fraud Act;

     (b) whether defendants' conduct is a fraudulent business
         act or practice within the meaning of the New Jersey
         Consumer Fraud Act;

     (c) whether defendants' advertising of the product is false
         or misleading within the meaning of the New Jersey
         Consumer Fraud Act;

     (d) whether defendants made false and misleading
         representations in their advertising and labeling of
         the product;

     (e) whether defendants knew or should have known that their
         representations about the product were false and
         misleading;

     (f) whether defendants' conduct is an unfair method of
         competition and/or an unfair or deceptive act or
         practice; and

     (g) whether defendants represented that the product has
         ingredients, characteristics, benefits, uses or
         quantities that it does not have.

Plaintiffs pray for the following judgment and relief:

     -- an order certifying the action as a class action under
        R. 4:32;

     -- judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the class and
        against defendants on each cause of action;

     -- declared that defendants conduct under the New Jersey
        Consumer Fraud Act NJSA 56:8-2 and enjoin the defendants
        from any future violation;

     -- award the plaintiffs and the class damages including,
        but not limited to, treble the amount of damages
        pursuant to NJSA 56:8-19;

     -- declare that defendants conduct was in violation of the
        Intentional Fraud Act, NJSA 2A:32-1;

     -- an order that directs defendants to disgorge all monies
        they received from the sale of the product in California
        during the class period, permits each class member to
        receive restitution for his/her purchase(s) of the
        product in New Jersey during the class period, and
        distributes any remainder of the disgorged amount under
        the doctrine of cy pres;

     -- an order directing defendants to affirmatively disclose
        to the public in New Jersey that their prior
        representations about the product were false,
        misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, and unlawful so that
        the public does not continue to maintain the false
        impressions that defendants' prior misrepresentations
        and false advertisements created;

     -- an order enjoining defendants from pursuing the
        policies, acts, and practices complained of;

     -- compensatory damages;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- costs of suit;

     -- award plaintiffs and the class prejudgment interest or
        any damages award by the court; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem
        necessary or appropriate.

The suit is "Kimberly Perera et al. v. Advancd Medical Optics, Inc., Docket
No. L-8012-07," filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division:
Essex County.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Bagolie-Friedman LLC
          The Five Corners Building
          660 Newwark Avenue, Third Floor
          Jersey City, NJ 070306
          Phone: (201) 656-8500
          Fax: (201) 656-4703


AEROSMITH: Hawaiian Fans Sue Over Canceled Sept. 26 Concert
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fans of rock band Aerosmith filed a class action in Wailuku Circuit Court in
Hawaii over the group’s alleged snubbing of a Sept. 26, 2007 concert at Maui
for a bigger concert in Chicago, The Associated Press reports.

The class action was filed by attorney Brandee Faria on behalf of fans who
want to be compensated for losses beyond the ticket refunds.

The suit estimates the cancellation had cost ticket-buyers between $500,000
and $3 million in travel costs and other expenses to attend the concert.  
Mr. Faria told The Associated Press that about a dozen ticket holders so far
had joined the suit.

The suit alleges that Aerosmith snubbed Hawaii fans in favor of Chicago.  
The sold-out Maui concert had been planned for months as the dramatic close
of Aerosmith's international tour that started in Brazil back in April.

The rock band later said the Maui appearance was impossible, because they
could not get their gear from Chicago, where more than 18,000 attended, in
time for the island concert, which had sold out with about 9,000 tickets.

In a news release, the band apologized to fans in Hawaii.  But, a few days
later, Aerosmith quietly slipped into Honolulu for a big private concert at
the University of Hawaii.

For more details, contact:

          Brandee J. K. Faria, Esq.
          841 Bishop Street Suite 2000
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: (808)523-2300
          Fax: (808)531-8898
          E-mail: bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.perkinlaw.com


AINSWORTH LUMBER: Settles OSB Producers’ Antitrust Suits for $9M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. has entered into an $8.6 million agreement with
the direct purchaser plaintiffs in the oriented strand board (OSB) Antitrust
Litigation, settling on a class-wide basis all claims asserted against it.

In 2006, Ainsworth was named defendant in several lawsuits filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Class Action
Reporter, March 8, 2006).

A number of other North American OSB producers have also been named as
defendants in one or more of the lawsuits.  Each lawsuit alleges that the
defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws in relation to the pricing and
supply of OSB from mid-2002 to the present.

The plaintiffs seek to have the case certified as a class action, with the
named plaintiffs serving as the representative of a class of persons and
entities that purchased OSB in the U.S. between mid-2002 and the present.

Under the agreement, Ainsworth will pay US$8.6 million to be distributed
across the settlement class. The agreement is subject to court approval.

Ainsworth continues to deny each and every one of plaintiffs' claims and
strongly asserts that it has not violated U.S. antitrust or any other laws.
The decision to enter into the settlement agreement was based solely on the
need to avoid prolonged, expensive litigation.

The suit is “Mazerolle v. Ainsworth Lumber Co., Ltd. et al., Case Number:
2:2006cv01321,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, under the Honorable Paul s. Diamond.


ALBERTSON'S INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's Inc., which was acquired by Supervalu Inc. in 2006, continues to
face a consolidated class action in California that was brought on behalf of
assistant managers, according to Supervalu Inc.'s Oct. 18, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 8, 2007.

                      Gardner Litigation

In April 2000, a class action complaint was filed against Albertsons, as
well as American Stores Company, American Drug Stores, Inc., Sav-on Drug
Stores, Inc. and Lucky Stores, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Albertsons, in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California
by assistant managers seeking recovery of overtime based on plaintiffs’
allegation that they were improperly classified as exempt under California
law.  The suit is “Gardner, et al. v. American Stores Company, et al.”

In May 2001, the court certified a class with respect to Sav-on Drug Stores
assistant managers.

                       Rocher Litigation

A case with very similar claims, involving the Sav-on Drug Stores assistant
managers and operating managers, was also filed in April 2000 against
Albertsons Inc.’s subsidiary Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California and was certified as a class
action in June 2001 with respect to assistant managers and operating
managers.  The suit was “Rocher, Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.”

                         Consolidation

The two cases were consolidated in December 2001.  New Albertsons was added
as a named defendant in November 2006.

Plaintiffs seek overtime wages, meal and rest break penalties, other
statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, and
attorneys’ fees and costs.

Albertson's, Inc. -- http://www.albertsons.com-– is an operator of retail  
food and drug chains in the U.S.  As of Feb. 2, 2006, it operated 2,471
stores in 37 states under the banners Albertsons, Acme, Bristol Farms,
Grocery Warehouse, Jewel, Jewel-Osco, Max Foods, Osco Drug, Sav-on Drug,
Shaw's, Star Market, Super Saver and Lazy Acres.


ALBERTSON'S INC: Still Faces WARN Violations Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's Inc., which was acquired by Supervalu Inc. in 2006, continues to
face the class action, "Joanne Kay Ward et al. v. Albertsons, Inc. et al.,"
which was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California.

The suit alleges that the company and its subsidiaries, Lucky Stores and Sav-
on Drug Stores, paid terminated employees their final paychecks in an
untimely manner.  The suit seeks statutory penalties.

On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action, according to
Supervalu Inc.

Albertson's, Inc. -- http://www.albertsons.com-– is an operator of retail  
food and drug chains in the U.S.  As of Feb. 2, 2006, it operated 2,471
stores in 37 states under the banners Albertsons, Acme, Bristol Farms,
Grocery Warehouse, Jewel, Jewel-Osco, Max Foods, Osco Drug, Sav-on Drug,
Shaw's, Star Market, Super Saver and Lazy Acres.


ALLTEL CORP: Settles Ark., Del. Lawsuits Over Atlantis Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALLTEL Corp. settled class actions in Arkansas and Delaware over a merger
agreement with affiliates of private investment funds TPG Partners V, L.P.
and GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P. (Sponsors), according to the company's
Oct. 19, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

On May 20, 2007, ALLTEL entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Atlantis Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Parent) and
Atlantis Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub).  

Under the terms of the Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into
ALLTEL, with ALLTEL surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent.   Merger Sub and Parent are affiliates of the Sponsors.

Later on, ALLTEL, its directors, and in certain cases the Sponsors, were
named in 16 putative class actions alleging claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting such alleged breaches arising out of the
proposed sale of ALLTEL.  

Eight of the complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas and were subsequently consolidated into one class action complaint
for breach of fiduciary duty.  

The other eight complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and
were also consolidated into one complaint.

Among other things, the complaints in the Arkansas and Delaware actions
allege that:

       -- ALLTEL conducted an inadequate process for extracting
          maximum value for its shareholders, including
          prematurely terminating an auction process by entering
          into a merger agreement with Parent on May 20, 2007,
          despite previously setting June 6, 2007, as the
          outside date for submitting bids;

       -- the ALLTEL directors are in possession of material
          non-public information about ALLTEL;

       -- the ALLTEL directors have material conflicts of
          interest and are acting to better their own interests
          at the expense of ALLTEL’s shareholders, including
          through the vesting of certain options for Scott Ford,
          the retention of an equity interest in ALLTEL after
          the merger by certain of ALLTEL’s directors and
          executive officers, and the employment of certain
          ALLTEL executives, including Scott Ford, by ALLTEL (or
          its successors) after the merger is completed;

       -- taking into account the current value of ALLTEL stock,
          the strength of its business, revenues, cash flow and
          earnings power, the intrinsic value of ALLTEL’s
          equity, the consideration offered in connection with
          the proposed merger is inadequate;

       -- the merger agreement contained provisions that will
          deter higher bids, including a $625.0 million
          termination fee payable to the Sponsors and
          restrictions on ALLTEL’s ability to solicit higher
          bids;

       -- that ALLTEL’s financial advisors, JPMorgan Securities
          Inc. (JPMorgan), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
          Inc. (Merrill Lynch), and Stephens Inc. have conflicts
          resulting from their relationships with the Sponsors;
          and

       -- that the preliminary proxy statement filed by ALLTEL
          with the SEC on June 13, 2007 failed to disclose
          material information concerning the merger.  

The complaints seek, among other things, class action status, a court order
enjoining ALLTEL and its directors from consummating the merger, and the
payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses.

On July 19, 2007, the parties in the shareholder litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding contemplating the settlement of the litigation.  

Shareholders of ALLTEL who are members of the class expected to be certified
in the shareholder litigation will receive written notice of the terms of
the proposed settlement.  

Among other things, the memorandum of understanding provides that:

       -- the termination fee payable under certain
          circumstances by ALLTEL to Parent is waived to the
          extent it exceeds $550 million;

       -- certain additional disclosures were made in the proxy
          statement filed with the SEC on July 24, 2007 asking
          shareholders to approve the merger transaction; and

       -- shares personally owned by Scott Ford and Warren
          Stephens were voted in the same proportion in favor,
          against and abstaining as all votes cast other than
          with respect to such shares at the special
          shareholders’ meeting held on Aug. 29, 2007.

ALLTEL also agreed that, at a regularly scheduled meeting of its board of
directors on July 19, 2007, the board would request and receive oral advice
from JPMorgan and Merrill Lynch concerning whether they had learned of any
matter that would cause them to withdraw or modify their fairness opinions.  

At the July 19, 2007 board of directors’ meeting, JPMorgan and Merrill Lynch
advised the board that, taking into consideration the types of factors and
analyses considered in rending their May 20, 2007 opinions, they were aware
of no matter, during the period since May 20, 2007, that would cause them to
withdraw or modify their fairness opinions.  

Certain provisions of the proposed settlement and the memorandum of
understanding are subject to court approval.  

In connection with the settlement, ALLTEL agreed to pay certain attorneys’
fees and expenses.  

ALLTEL Corp. -- http://www.ALLTEL.com-- provides an array of wireless  
communication services to individual and business customers.

    
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Tenn. Court Mulls Class Status for "Kivilaan"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has yet to
certify a class in the purported class action "Kelley Kivilaan v. American
Airlines, Inc."

The gender discrimination class action was filed by flight attendants on
Sept. 16, 2004.  A flight attendant who seeks to represent a purported class
of current and former flight attendants brought it against the company.

Generally, suit alleges that several of the company's medical benefits plans
discriminate against females on the basis of their gender in not providing
coverage in all circumstances for prescription contraceptives.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.  A motion for class
certification has been filed, but the case has not yet been certified as a
class action.

The suit is "Kivilaan v. American Airlines, Case No. 3:04-cv-
00814," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee under Judge John T. Nixon with referral to Judge
John S. Bryant.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gordon Ball, Esq.
         Ball & Scott
         Bank of America Center, 550 Main Avenue, Suite 750
         Knoxville, TN 37902
         Phone: (865) 525-7028

              - and -

         Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Avenue, NW, West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 408-4600
         Fax: (202) 408-4699
         E-mail: lgreen@cmht.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Stanley E. Graham, Esq.
         Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis
         Nashville City Center, 511 Union Street, Suite 2100
         Nashville, TN 37219
         Phone: (615) 244-6380
         E-mail: sgraham@wallerlaw.com

              - and -

         Melissa M. Hensley, Esq.
         Baker & McKenzie
         2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Phone: (214) 965-7252
         Fax: (214) 978-3099
         E-mail: melissa.hensley@bakernet.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Cars Have Defective Michelin Tires, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co. is facing a class-action complaint in federal court
for allegedly equipping its cars with a defective Michelin PAX Tire and
Wheel Assembly System the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Lead plaintiff Jeffrey Kreitman claims the defendants knew the system did
not actually makes cars drivable on flat tires as it is supposed to do.  The
complaint accuses defendants of concealing that the PAX System makes tires
wear out prematurely, as soon as 15,000 miles, is prohibitively expensive to
repair and replace, and that they lack sufficient U.S. repair facilities and
stock needed to handle demand.  Defendants allegedly continue to sell it and
falsely advertise it on 2005-2007 Honda Odyssey Touring models and Acura RLs.

Plaintiffs demand restitution, punitive damages and an injunction.

Lead counsel is:

          Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Box 10
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958
          Phone: 732.636.8000
          Fax: 732.855.6117


AVISTA CORP: Dec. 19 Hearing Set for $9.5M Securities Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington will hold a
fairness hearing on Dec. 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed $9.5 million
settlement of the matter, "The Hackett Group, et al. v. Avista Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:00-cv-00262-RHW."

The hearing will be held before the Judge Fred Van Sickle, U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Thomas S. Foley, U.S.
Courthouse, 920 West Riverside Ave., Spokane WA 99201.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or
before Nov. 21, 2007.  Deadline for the submission of proof of claim forms
is on Nov. 21, 2007.

                        Case Background

Several class action complaints were filed in September through November
2002 in the same court against the company, Mr. Matthews, former chairman of
the board, president and chief executive officer; Gary G. Ely, current
chairman of the board and chief executive officer; and Mr.  Eliassen, former
senior vice president and chief financial officer (Class Action Reporter,
June 11, 2007).

In February 2003, the court issued an order, which consolidated the
complaints and in August 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.

On June 13, 2005, the company filed a motion for reconsideration of its
earlier motion to dismiss this complaint, based, in part, on a recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision with respect to the pleading requirements surrounding
a sufficient showing of loss causation.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss this
complaint.  The order to dismiss was issued without prejudice, which allowed
the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

The amended complaint filed on Nov. 10, 2005 alleges approximately $2.6
billion in damages due to the decrease in the total market value of the
company's common stock during the class period.

These alleged losses stemmed from violations of federal securities laws
through alleged misstatements and omissions of material facts with respect
to the company's energy trading practices in western power markets.

Plaintiffs assert that alleged misstatements and omissions regarding these
matters were made in the company's filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and other information made publicly available by the
company, including press releases.

The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the company's common
stock between Nov. 23, 1999 and Aug. 13, 2002.

On Jan. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss an amended class
action complaint -- filed on Nov. 10, 2005 -asserting deficiencies in it,
including that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege loss causation.

On June 2, 2006, the District Court entered an order denying the company's
motion to dismiss the complaint.  Settlement negotiations began last fall
and the sides made progress with a federal mediator in January 2007.

A second round of mediation in April 2007 led to an agreement in principle
to settle the suit.  During the time period in question, Messrs. Matthews,
Ely and Eliassen were not trading large amounts of stock, according to court
records, a factor that showed the executives did not enrich themselves by
cashing in before the stock price tanked.

                          Settlement

Insurers will pay all of the settlement costs, legal fees and expenses.  
Avista is responsible for paying a $1 million deductible.  The settlement
would erase claims against the company as well as against former chairman
and chief executive Thomas Matthews.

In a prepared statement, Avista said it agreed with the settlement to avoid
the risk of trial and protracted legal costs.

Despite the settlement, Avista continues to deny the core allegations of the
lawsuit originally filed in September 2002 that it failed to disclose its
role in electricity trades between Enron Corp. and Portland General
Electric, an Enron subsidiary at the time.

The suit is "The Hackett Group, et al. v. Avista Corp., et al., Case No.
2:00-cv-00262-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington, under Judge Robert   
H. Whaley.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Randi D. Bandman
         Michael Reese
         Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP - CA(SF)
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111

         Karl P. Barth
         Lovell Mitchell & Barth LLP
         1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: (425) 452-9800
         Fax: (425) 452-9801
         E-mail: kbarth@lmbllp.com

         - and -

         Steve W .Berman
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-7292
         Fax: 12066230594
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

Representing the company are:   

         Curt Roy Hineline
         David M. Jacobson
         Evan L. Schwab
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP – SEA
         U S Bank Center
         1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-903-8800
         Fax: 206-903-8820
         E-mail: jacobson.david@dorsey.com and
                 schwab.evan@dorsey.com

         - and -

         Donald Gene Stone
         Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke & Miller – SPO
         717 W Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200
         Spokane, WA 99201-3503
         Phone: 509-455-6000
         Fax: 15098380007
         E-mail: don.stone@painehamblen.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Approves $600M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio gave preliminary approval to the $600 million settlement of
a consolidated securities class action filed against Cardinal Health, Inc.

Since July 2, 2004, purported purchasers of the company's securities have
filed 10 purported class action complaints. They named the company and
certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.   

The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be brought on
behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities during various periods
beginning as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and ending as late as July 26, 2004.   

The suits allege, among others, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act
by issuing a series of false and/or misleading statements concerning the
company's financial results, prospects and condition.   

Certain of the complaints also allege violations of Section 11 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming material misstatements or
omissions in prospectuses issued by the company in connection with its
acquisition of Bindley Western Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in
2003.   

The alleged misstatements relate to the company's accounting for recoveries
relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin manufacturers, and to
classification of revenue in the company's Pharmaceutical Distribution
business as either operating revenue or revenue from bulk deliveries to
customer warehouses, and other accounting and business model transition
issues, including reserve accounting.   

The alleged misstatements are claimed to have caused an artificial inflation
in the company's stock price during the proposed class period.   

The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable relief against
the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.   

On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions were
consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Federal
Securities Litigation."  

On Jan. 26, 2005, the court appointed the Pension Fund Group as lead
plaintiff in this consolidated action.   

On Apr. 22, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
naming the company, certain current and former officers and employees and
the company's external auditors as defendants.  

The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and other unspecified relief
against the defendants.   

On Mar. 27, 2006, the court granted a motion to dismiss with respect to the
company's external auditors and a former officer and denied the motion to
dismiss with respect to the company and the other individual defendants.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the parties stipulated that the case could proceed as a
class action with a class comprised of all persons other than Company
officers or directors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s
stock during the class period.

On April 23, 2007, the Company announced that it had determined that it was
necessary to record a reserve of $600 million for the quarter ended March
31, 2007 in respect of the Cardinal Health federal securities actions.

Since that announcement, the Company has negotiated a proposed memorandum of
understanding with counsel for the plaintiffs to settle these actions,
including an agreement by the Company to pay $600 million.   

On May 2, 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the proposed
memorandum of understanding; however, the proposed memorandum of
understanding remained subject to approval by the class representatives for
the plaintiffs.

Under the MOU, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions will be
terminated for a payment of $600 million, an amount reserved by the Company
in the third quarter of fiscal 2007.  The Company transferred the $600
million into an escrow account on May 25, 2007.

The Company has entered into a stipulation of settlement with counsel for
the plaintiffs, which was filed with the Court on July 27, 2007.  

On July 31, 2007, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the
settlement (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2007).

On Oct. 19, Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that Judge Marbley
approved the $600 million settlement.

In approving the settlement, Judge Marbley noted that the $600 million was
an extraordinary result representing a significant recovery for the class
achieved by co-lead plaintiffs:

     * Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the LongView Collective
     Investment Fund, LongView 600 Small Cap Collective Fund,
     LongView VEBA 500 and LongView Quantitative Fund,
     California Ironworkers Field Trust Funds, New Mexico State
     Investment Council and PACE Industry Union-Management
     Pension Fund.

"The Judge's approval of this settlement is a tremendous victory for the
shareholders that were victimized by Cardinal Health's fraudulent activity,"
said Coughlin Stoia partner Henry Rosen.

The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-
CV-575," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:   

        Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
        10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
        New York, NY, 10016
        Phone: 800-217-1522
        E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
  
        Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP
        600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza,   
        San Diego, CA, 92101
        Phone: 800.449.4900
        E-mail: support@milberg.com

             - and -

        John R. Climaco, Esq.
        Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli LPA
        1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900
        Cleveland, OH 44115-1891
        Phone: 216-621-8484
        Fax: 216-771-1632
        E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com

Representing the company are:

        John M. Newman, Jr., Esq.
        Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq.
        Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue
        North Point, 901 Lakeside Ave.
        Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
        Phone: 216-586-3939
        E-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com
                gjritts@jonesday.com


ELSEA INC: Dec. 17 Hearing Set for “McWhorter” Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio will hold a
fairness hearing on Dec. 17, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement
in the matter, “David McWhorter, et al., v. Elsea, Inc., et al., Case No. C2-
00-473.”

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, 85 Marconi Blvd., Columbus, Ohio 43215.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or
before Dec. 3, 2007, and Nov. 13, 2007, respectively.   

                        Case Background

The lawsuit claims, inter alia, that certain of Elsea's practices relating
to conducting closings, charging purchasers for a buyer protection plan,
selling insurance, fulfilling its warranty obligations, and certain ways in
which Elsea represented the quality of its products and the credit terms
available to potential buyers violated certain federal and state
regulations.

                       Settlement Terms

The settlement benefits each Person or Persons who purchased a new or used
manufactured home from Elsea, Inc. for use as a personal residence between
Sept. 1, 1997 and Dec. 31, 2006.

The settlement includes these Elsea companies: Elsea, Inc., Elsea Financial
Services, Inc., and Elsea Insurance Agency.

As part of the settlement, cash payments will be paid to Eligible Class
Members.  Cash payments will be determined pursuant to the following
calculation: $1,300,000 less attorneys fees, costs and expenses and any
incentive compensation approved by the Court and paid to Class Counsel and
Class Representatives; divided by the number of Eligible Class Members.

For more details, contact:

         Judith B. Goldstein, Esq.
         Benson A. Wolman, Esq.
         Equal Justice Foundation
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1590
         Columbus, Ohio 43215
         Phone: 1(800) 898-0545

              - and -

         Gary M. Smith
         Law Office of Gary Michael Smith
         Suite C, 4310 North 75th Street
         Scottsdale, AZ 85251
         Phone: (602) 423-9838
         Fax: (602) 990-7860


FARMERS & MERCHANTS: Cal. Court Okays Investor Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach announced that the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange has preliminarily approved
a proposed settlement of the class action and derivative lawsuit brought by
shareholder Marcus D. Walker against certain present and former officers
and/or directors of the Bank and the Bank as nominal defendant.

The proposed settlement is intended to fully, finally and forever resolve
the lawsuit and provides for a complete release of the Bank and the other
defendants from any claims that were or could have been asserted in the
litigation.

The proposed Settlement also provides that, after it becomes effective and
subject to certain conditions, the Bank will commit to make certain
distributions to its shareholders. As part of this commitment, the Bank
would commence a tender offer after the effective date of the proposed
settlement whereby the Bank would offer to purchase up to 14,720 shares of
its common stock at a price of $7,300 per share.

If the proposed Tender Offer does not proceed or close for any reason other
than as a result of the termination of the settlement, then the Bank would
instead commit to make distributions to its shareholders in the aggregate
amount of $86,000,000 (including the amounts required to be used by the Bank
to repurchase shares from Marcus D. Walker and his related and affiliated
parties pursuant to the Standstill Agreement).

These alternate proposed distributions could take the form of share
repurchases, dividends or other distributions, and, subject to all necessary
regulatory and corporate approvals, would be made from time to time, but
ultimately no later than the date that is three years following the last day
of the calendar quarter during which the effective date of the Settlement
occurs.

In addition, plaintiff Marcus D. Walker, members of his immediate family,
and certain of his related and affiliated parties have entered into a
Standstill Agreement whereby they have agreed to sell to the Bank, after the
effective date of the proposed Settlement, all of their 5,827 shares of the
Bank's common stock at the same per share price that would be offered to the
Bank's shareholders in the proposed Tender Offer described above.

Marcus D. Walker, members of his immediate family, and his related and
affiliated parties also agreed in the Standstill Agreement to never again
purchase any of the Bank's securities or seek to influence the management of
the Bank in any way. Marcus D. Walker has also agreed to bear all of his
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the filing, prosecution, and
settlement of the lawsuit, and to waive any claim to recover attorneys' fees
and costs from the Bank, its shareholders and the other defendants.

Effectiveness of the proposed Settlement is subject to various conditions,
including, but not limited to, the Court granting its final approval of the
Settlement and entering a judgment dismissing the litigation with prejudice
and the Bank obtaining all necessary approvals with respect to the proposed
Settlement and each of its elements. While the Bank recently obtained
regulatory approvals for the contemplated share repurchases, such approvals
require that the share repurchases also be approved by the affirmative vote
of at least two-thirds of the Bank's outstanding shares of common stock.

A proposal seeking such approval will be submitted to the Bank's
shareholders at the Bank's upcoming 2007 annual meeting of shareholders. The
2007 Annual Meeting is currently scheduled to be held on December 6, 2007.

Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach -- http://www.fmb.com-- offers  
personal and business banking services in California. It provides business
banking products and services, such as business checking accounts, money
market accounts, investment accounts, merchant card services, small business
loans, real estate and construction loans, commercial loans, church and
nonprofit loans; and personal banking services, including personal checking
accounts, personal money market accounts, personal savings accounts, and
personal and home loans. The bank operates 20 branches in Long Beach and
Orange County.

Farmers & Merchants Bank was founded in 1907 and is based in Long Beach,
California.


FASTENAL COMPANY: Asst. Managers Sue Over FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Assistant managers at Fastenal Company filed on Oct. 18 a putative overtime
collective action and class action against the company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The lawsuit alleges that Fastenal violated the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act by misclassifying its assistant managers as exempt from the FLSA and the
corresponding state wage and hour laws.

The lawsuit was brought by two assistant managers who worked for Fastenal in
California and Pennsylvania. They brought the action as a nationwide
collective action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated as
well as a class action in California and Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs' attorney Paul Lukas explained, "Fastenal misrepresented that
assistant managers were exempt employees that should be paid on a salary
basis. In reality, the assistant managers performed non-exempt work; they
did not have management duties and did not supervise other employees. As a
result, assistant managers across the country were wrongfully denied
overtime pay for the hours they worked."

Fastenal is a Minnesota company that manufactures and distributes fasteners.

The suit is “Calhoun et al. v. Fastenal Company, Case Number:
3:2007cv05326,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, under the Hon. Marilyn H. Patel.

For more information, contact:

          Donald Nichols
          Paul Lukas
          Matthew Helland
          Nichols Kaster & Anderson PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 S. Eighth St.,
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
          Tel: 612-256-3200


HOST AMERICA: Con. Securities, Derivative Suits Deal Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary approval was granted to a settlement of a class action filed
against Host America Corp. and certain of its past and present directors and
officers.  The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut as “In re Host America Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-01250 (VLB).”

The actions concern allegations stemming from a press release issued by the
Company on July 12, 2005.  In general, plaintiffs alleged that Host's July
12, 2005 press release contained materially false and misleading statements
regarding Host's commercial relationship with Wal-Mart.  

The complaints alleged that these statements harmed the purported class by
artificially inflating the price of Host's securities and that certain
defendants personally benefited from the inflated price by selling stock
during the alleged class period.

On May 22, Host America Corp., its past and present directors and officers
filed agreements to settle and fully resolve all claims against them.

The settlement provides for the dismissal of all claims against the Host
America's defendants with prejudice. In exchange, Host America has agreed to
pay the Class $2,450,000, of which $1,700,000 will be funded by defendants'
insurer.

The settlement remains subject to additional requirements, including notice
to Class members and final approval by the Court.

A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for January 28,
2008. There can be no assurance that the settlement will become final.

The parties' request for preliminary approval of a related shareholders
derivative suit remains pending in the Federal District Court.

The Company and the other Host America defendants have steadfastly
maintained that the claims raised in the class action and derivative
litigation are without merit, and have vigorously contested those claims. As
part of the settlement, the Host America defendants continue to deny any
liability or wrongdoing.

"Host America is focused on the future and it is important that we put this
unfortunate chapter behind us so we can concentrate on our continuing
prospects for growth," said David J. Murphy, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Host America. "We have agreed to settle this lawsuit so that we
may move forward focusing on our core energy management business. This
settlement is a milestone in that direction."

The case is “Yorks v. Host America Corp., et al. (In re Host America Corp.
Securities Litigation), Case No. 3:05-cv-01250 (VLB)(District of
Connecticut).”


KIMKINS DIET: Members Sue Founder Over Alleged Fraudulent Ad
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing 11 former members of the Kimkins Diet Web site filed
a complaint in a Southern California court against Kimkins founder
Heidi “Kimmer” Diaz, alleging false advertising, fraud, and unjust
enrichment. The attorneys are seeking certification of the lawsuit as a
class action, the CalorieLab Calorie Counter News reports.

The Kimkins Diet is a variation of a low-carb Atkins-style diet that adds
explicit calorie tracking to keep calorie intake very low, partly through
limiting fat intake, the report said.

The lawsuit alleges that:

     (1) Heidi Diaz falsely claimed to have lost 198 pounds in
         one year, but in fact remains morbidly obese,

     (2) members’ lifetime memberships were unjustly terminated,

     (3) Ms. Diaz made claims of the diet’s medical safely
         without justification,

     (4) members using the diet plan suffered various medical
         complications, including hair loss, heart palpitations,
         irritability, and menstrual irregularities, and

     (5) Ms. Diaz falsely propagated the rumor that actress
         Jessica Alba lost 12 pounds in ten days using the
         Kimkins Diet plan.

The lawsuit seeks restitution of membership fees that range from $14.95 to
$119.90 per plaintiff, punitive damages for fraud, and an injunction to
prohibit further illegal conduct.

In addition, the lawsuit seeks the payment of the plaintiff’s attorney’s
fees.

According to the report, although health complications are mentioned in
support of a fraud claim and a request for punitive damages, the complaint
itself does not present evidence supporting claims that the Kimkins Diet
caused any medical injuries, and no compensation for medical injuries or
medical costs is sought.

The 16-page complaint was accompanied by nearly 200 pages of printouts from
various internet Web sites and forums, including photographs from a Russian
bride Web site where some of the “after” photographs used on the Kimkins Web
site were recently discovered by suspicious Kimkins members, the report said.

Ms. Diaz has 30 days in which to file an answer to the complaint, and has
until November 1 to submit to a sworn deposition regarding her assets.


KOPPERS INC: Tex. Residents Sue Over Effects of Treatment Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Robert H. Weiss, PLLC joined with the residents of
Somerville, Texas together to file on Oct. 12 a class action demanding that
Koppers, Inc. establish and maintain a medical monitoring program for the
residents living in Somerville, Texas.  The program is to detect the
presence of cancer and other diseases related to the toxic pollution caused
by Koppers' wood treatment facility.

                          Allegations
      
Located about 90 minutes south of Houston, by car, the small town of
Somerville, population around 1700, is polluted with some of the most toxic
and harmful chemicals known to man, such as creosote, dioxin, and PAHs.
These highly toxic chemicals are used in the wood treatment process to
extract water and moisture from the wooden logs and telephone poles to
render them weather and insect proof so that they will not rot or
deteriorate over the years while exposed to the elements.

Unfortunately, this railroad tie plant in the heart of Somerville has
unleashed a toxic soup of chemicals upon the dust, soil, air and water in
this lakeside community. Nearly every Somerville Resident has a neighbor,
friend or family member who has been tragically struck down by cancer or
another illness. This leaves the rest of the residents who have been exposed
to years and years of chemical contamination at risk for developing the same
cancers and malignant diseases.

The full extent of this risk cannot be fully understood or predictable
without a long term medical monitoring program which will allow the past and
present residents to be regularly screened with a series of tests to
facilitate the early detection and treatment of cancers and diseases
believed to be associated with their chemical exposure to the pollution
coming from the wood treatment plant.

Attorneys for Rights For America have filed a medical monitoring class
action suit to force the Koppers Inc., the operators of the Somerville wood
treatment plant to establish and maintain a comprehensive medical
surveillance program.

The class action was filed on Friday, October 12, 2007 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh, where Koppers
Inc. is headquartered.

More than 60 families have already filed or intend to file lawsuits against
Koppers Inc. and the owner of the land where the plant is located, the
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad, for wrongful death, personal
injury, loss of property values, and other causes of action related to
injuries sustained through their exposure to the highly toxic pollutants the
residents breathe and ingest through contaminated water and other sources.

The suit is “Batts et al. v. Koppers, Inc., Case Number: 2:2007cv01381,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
under Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

Plaintiffs Counsel:

          Rights For America
          Law Offices of Robert H. Weiss, PLLC
          Phone: 1-877-744-4874
          Website: http://www.rightsforamericans.com


MCKESSON HBOC: Hearing on Bear Stearn’s $10M Settlement Set Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hold on
January 4, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. an approval hearing for a $10 million proposed
settlement of Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. of the class action "In re McKesson
HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMV (PVT)."

The class consists of all persons or entities who:

     -- all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
        acquired publicly traded securities of HBO & Company   
        ("HBOC") during the period from January 20, 1997 through
        and including January 12, 1999, and all persons or
        entities who purchased or otherwise acquired call
        options or sold put options of HBOC during the period
        from January 20, 1997 through and including April 27,
        1999;

     -- all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
        acquired publicly traded securities or call options, or
        who sold put options, of McKesson or of McKesson HBOC,
        Inc. during the period from October 18, 1998 through and
        including April 27, 1999; and

     -- all persons or entities who held McKesson common stock
        on November 27, 1998 and still held those shares on
        January 12, 1999; and who were injured thereby.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California in the courtroom of the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte.

Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on December 4, 2007.

The suit was filed in April 1999 against McKesson, HBOC,  
McKesson HBOC, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., Arthur Andersen, LLP, and certain
officers or directors of McKesson or HBOC.

The litigation alleges that HBOC, and after the merger with  
McKesson, McKesson HBOC reported fraudulent revenues, income and assets,
which caused members of the class to suffer losses.

Lead Plaintiff is the New York State Common Retirement Fund.

The defendants in the McKesson settlement have agreed to pay a total of $960
million, plus interest, to the class.

Arthur Anderson LLP has agreed to pay a total of $72.5 million, plus
interest (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2007), and the Bear Stearns
settlement creates a settlement fund of $10 million, plus interest, for a
total settlement amount of $1,042,500,000.

In summary, the Lead Plaintiff believes the Settlement is fair, reasonable
and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.
Lead Plaintiff believes that $10 million in cash, plus interest; Bear
Stearns’ withdrawal of the Ninth Circuit Appeal, which will permit
distribution of the McKesson Settlement Fund to the Members of the
Settlement Class; and the mutual releases that will effectively end all
actions related to the Litigation, confers a substantial benefit to the
Settlement Class after more than eight years of Litigation.

Lead Plaintiff considered, among other factors, the immediacy of the
recovery to the Settlement Class in lieu of protracted litigation through
trial and appeals; the defenses asserted in the Litigation; and the inherent
uncertainty and risk associated with a complex action, such as this one.

McKesson HBOC Inc. Securities Litigation on the net:

           http://www.mckessonhbocsettlement.com/

The suit is "In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 99-CV-20743 RMV (PVT)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to
Judge Patricia V.
Trumbull.

Class counsels are:

          McKesson HBOC Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o David Stickney and Timothy A. DeLange
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, California, 92130

          - and -

          McKesson HBOC Inc Securities Litigation
          c/o Leonard Barrack and M. Richard Komins
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Representing defendants are:

          Lyn Robyn Agre
          Topel & Goodman
          832 Sansome St. 4th Flr.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 421-6140
          Fax: 415-398-5030
          E-mail: lra@topelgoodmanc.com

          Sima Saran Ahuja
          Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
          One New York Plaza
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 820-8000

          - and -

          William F. Alderman
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
          405 Howard St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415/773-5944
          Fax: 415/773-5700
          E-mail: walderman@orrick.com


MEDTRONIC INC: REKO Files CA$550M Suit Over Defibrillators
----------------------------------------------------------
REKO Barristers, together with Rochon Genova LLP, have launched a national
class action against Medtronic Inc. and Medtronic of Canada Ltd. seeking
damages of $550,000,000.00 for the manufacture and sale of defective Sprint
Fidelis leads.

An implantable defibrillator is a device that monitors the heart for rapid,
slow or irregular rhythms. When abnormal rhythms are detected, the
defibrillator delivers a shock to the heart to return it to a normal rhythm.
The shock is delivered to the heart by way of leads, which are small,
insulated wires implanted in the heart and connecting it to the
defibrillator.

Medtronic, the world's leading manufacturer and seller of heart devices,
announced on Sunday, October 14, 2007 that it was recalling its Sprint
Fidelis electrical leads because the leads were prone to a defect that
caused the leads to malfunction, potentially delivering unnecessary shocks
to patients or failing to provide life-saving shocks to patients in need.

It is estimated that approximately 268,000 patients have received Sprint
Fidelis leads in Canada and elsewhere. By letter dated October 15, 2007,
Medtronic notified 13,000 physicians that Sprint Fidelis leads models 6930,
6931, 6948 and 6949 should no longer be implanted due to the defects and
requested physicians to return any unused leads to Medtronic. Malfunctioning
leads may have contributed to five patient deaths worldwide thus far.

Medtronic has suspended sale of all Sprint Fidelis leads and has recommended
that physicians stop implanting the leads. Medtronic is urging patients who
have the leads to see their doctors to ensure that their leads have not
developed a fracture, which could cause a malfunction.

While the Sprint Fidelis leads may be removed and replaced, if necessary,
with an older lead called the Sprint Quattro, Medtronic has advised that it
does not have enough Sprint Quattro leads available to replace all of the
potentially faulty leads.

Medtronic has been using Sprint Fidelis leads with its defibrillators since
2004 and nearly all Medtronic defibrillators implanted since that time use
the leads. Medtronic estimates that between 4,000 and 5,000 people, or about
2.3% of those implanted with the Sprint Fidelis leads, will experience a
lead fracture within 30 months of implantation. These patients will require
a delicate and dangerous surgical procedure to have their leads replaced.

Sherry Robinson, a 34-year-old resident of Sechelt, British Columbia and the
representative plaintiff in the Canadian class action, says she is
incredulous that so many defective leads have been implanted in patients. In
January of this year, Ms. Robinson's defibrillator delivered 18 successive,
unnecessary and painful shocks to her heart. Ms. Robinson immediately
underwent surgery to have the leads removed.

For more information, contact:

          Victoria Paris
          REKO
          Phone: (416) 362-1989 x. 238 or
          E-mail: vp@reko.ca

          - and -

          Joel Rochon
          Rochon Genova LLP
          Phone: (416) 363-1867
          E-mail: jrochon@rochongenova.com


SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Face Labor Suit in San Diego Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc. still faces a lawsuit alleging that it failed to pay wages
for time worked during meal breaks by its non-exempt employees employed in
key carrier positions.

Sally Wilcox and Dennis Taber filed the complaint in California Superior
Court in and for the County of San Diego in August 2004.  It was later
certified as a class action.

The lawsuit further alleges that Albertson's failed to provide itemized wage
statements as required by California law and that Albertson's failed to
timely pay wages of terminated or resigned employees as required by
California law.  

It further alleges a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

The lawsuit seeks recovery of all wages, compensation and/or penalties owed
the members of the class certified, including compensation of one hour of
pay for rest or meal period violations and wages for all time worked while
employees were clocked out for meal periods or required to remain on the
premises during meal periods.

It further seeks to recover all past due compensation and penalties for
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and to pay all wages
due at time of termination for members of the class certified with interest
from Aug. 6, 2000 to time of trial.  The Company is vigorously defending
this lawsuit

The company reported no development in the matter in Supervalu Inc.'s Oct.
18, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 8, 2007.

Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery channel  
that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats:
combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited
assortment food stores.  The Company’s business is classified into two
segments: Retail food and Supply chain services.


UNITED PARCEL: Calif. Court Certifies Franchisees’ Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
A California court has certified a national class action brought by United
Parcel Service, Inc. franchisees against UPS over alleged nondisclosure of
relevant information to franchisees and making false claims about the
performance of a UPS store.

In March, UPS was named as a defendant in an amended class action filed by
220 franchisees of The UPS Store in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007).

The suit was originally filed on May 9, 2006 and was amended.  
In it, the franchisees contend that, among other claims, UPS:

      -- omitted and/or did not disclose relevant information to
         franchisees opening new The UPS Store locations and
         those franchisees switching from the one brand to The
         UPS Store brand;

      -- it made false claims about how well The UPS Store would
         perform financially; and

      -- competes and uses information from the franchisee to
         acquire customers for UPS directly, bypassing the
         franchisee altogether.

Aside from UPS, other defendants in the suit are:
      
      -- Mail Boxes Etc, Inc.;
      -- BSG Holding, Inc;
      -- BSG Holdings Subsidiary, Inc.; and
      -- Rocky Romanella.

Franchisees listed as plaintiffs in the case are:

      -- Samica Enterprises, LLC;
      -- Extex, Inc.;
      -- ST Gabriel, LLC;
      -- Jamar Enterprises, Inc.;
      -- Coto, Inc.;
      -- 5XW, Inc.;
      -- Kingman Enterprises, LLC;
      -- John E. Moran;
      -- Livingston Holdings, Inc.;
      -- Komb Holdings, LLC;
      -- Eagle Shipping, LLC;
      -- Habel, Inc.;
      -- MBMP, Inc.;
      -- Formon Associates, Inc.;
      -- Phoenix Business Systems, Inc.;
      -- 3 Eagles Enterprises, LLC;
      -- Breakpoint, Inc.;
      -- Bowdoin Up, LLC;
      -- Tristar Property Development, Inc.;
      -- McClintock Enterprises, Inc.;
      -- Tap Enterprises, LLC;
      -- S and L Management, Inc.;
      -- Wayne County Holdings, Inc.;
      -- Ladich, LLC;
      -- BMSA, Inc.;
      -- By, LLC;
      -- Derry Postal and Packaging, Inc.;
      -- William Allem; and
      -- Rhonda Norfleet.

The class action involves claims of intentional misrepresentation and
multiple statutory violations relating to UPS' conversion of more than 3400
Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to the UPS store. The suit contends that UPS
misled franchisees into believing that the UPS Store model would be more
profitable for the franchisees. Instead the suit alleges that the conversion
was for the purpose of moving profits to UPS. The class action seeks
rescission of the conversion and monetary damages

"This is a huge win for our organization," said Howard Spanier, a Malibu,
Calif. franchisee for over eighteen years who was forced by UPS to give up
his Mail Boxes Etc. identity in 2006; "We look forward to UPS having to
finally answer for its actions."

Mr. Spanier is the president of the Platinum Shield Association,
representing current and former MBE franchisees who filed suit against UPS
over the alleged misrepresentations referenced in Wednesday's appellate
court decision.

The appellate court noted the background of the dispute in its lengthy
opinion, stating, "After evaluating a plan to create a network of 1,700 to
2,000 UPS-operated stores, UPS rejected that plan as requiring an initial
investment and management costs that were too high. Instead, on April 30,
2001, UPS acquired MBE (based in San Diego) and transferred MBE's assets and
liabilities to MBE Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of UPS. UPS intended to
acquire the MBE franchise system by converting MBE franchises into 'The UPS
Store.'"

Mr. Spanier and his fellow MBE franchisees allege that to persuade them to
convert to the UPS Store, the Atlanta-based shipping giant withheld critical
documents regarding tests UPS conducted in Seattle and St. Louis and other
smaller cities for a new business model that was ultimately called The UPS
Store.

"We were never provided the information we needed to make an informed
decision about our stores," Mr. Spanier said, "and when the conversion took
place for those who agreed to it, the full impact of UPS' scheme was
unavoidable and disastrous for many."

If successful, each franchisee class member will have the opportunity to
rescind its UPS Store contract and to seek related damages. The impact of
such a result would be significant to UPS both in terms of lost revenue and
destruction of its retail network.

In its decision, the appellate court said, "We find that the trial court
made erroneous assumptions of law finding that individual issues
predominated over common issues of law and fact with regard to reliance.
Plaintiff (DT Woodard, a California franchisee of the former Mail Boxes Etc
which UPS acquired in 2001) has alleged facts which create at least an
inference of plaintiff's reliance on defendants' (UPS) representations,
which induced plaintiff to agree to amend a franchise agreement.

The suit is "Samica Enterprises LLC et al. v. Mail Boxes Etc Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02800-GHK-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge George H. King with referral to
Judge Carolyn Turchin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:


          Robert S. Boulter
          Lagarias and Boulter
          1629 Fifth Ave.
          San Rafael, CA 94901-1828
          Phone: 415-460-0100
          E-mail: rsb@tlsgroup.com

          L. Michael Hankes
          63 Commerical Wharf
          Boston, MA 02110, US
          Phone: 617-723-1144

          - and -

          Jonathan Weiss
          Jonathan Weiss Law Offices
          10576 Troon Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-4436
          Phone: 310-558-0404
          E-mail: jw@lojw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Jane H. Barrett
          Morrison and Foerster
          555 West Fifth Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024
          Phone: 213-892-5377
          E-mail: jbarrett@mofo.com


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a
consolidated class action against United Technologies Corp., Otis Elevator
Co. and other elevator and escalator manufacturers.  

The suit, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges a worldwide agreement among elevator and
escalator manufacturers to fix prices in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act.  The lawsuit did not specify the amount of damages
claimed.  

On June 6, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss without
leave to re-plead.  On June 30, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed this decision
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s
decision to grant the company's motion to dismiss without leave to replead.

The suit is "In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-01178-
TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Thomas P. Griesa.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
         Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Esq.
         Stuart S. Saft, Esq.
         Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, L.L.P.
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 545-4600
         E-mail: fait@whafh.com
                 isquith@whafh.com

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         401 B Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101 USA
         Phone: 619-231-7423

              - and -

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         Beth Ann Keller, Esq.
         Anthony Vozzolo, Esq.
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         320 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 983-9330
         Fax: (212) 983-9331
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 bkeller@faruqilaw.com
                 avozzolo@faruqilaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Deborah M. Buell, Esq.
         Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP
         1 Liberty Plaza
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: 212-225-2000
         Fax: 212-225-3499
         E-mail: maofiling@cgsh.com


WILLIS GROUP: Gender Bias Suit Deal Gets Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings, the global insurance broker, announced that the
federal court in New York has given preliminary approval to a settlement of
a nationwide gender discrimination class action filed against it in federal
district court.

The case was commenced in 2001 on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of
present and former female officer and officer equivalent employees alleging
that the company discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and
seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has denied plaintiffs' motions to certify a nationwide class or to
grant nationwide discovery, but has certified a class of female officers and
officer equivalent employees based in the company's Northeast (New York, New
Jersey and Massachusetts) offices.  The class consists of approximately 200
women.  

In June 2007 the parties reached a settlement in principle on the class
claims and with the two remaining named plaintiffs on their individual
claims for an amount that will not have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 6, 2007).

The proposed consent decree, if approved, will create a fund of
approximately $8.5 million that will be distributed to certain current and
former female employees of those offices.

Susan Sztuka, Global Group Director of Human Resources, said today, "Willis
is an employer which values diversity. We reward and respect each and every
Associate equally. It's important to note that the alleged claims of this
lawsuit date back to 1998-2001 and we are pleased to have it settled."

Ms. Sztuka continued, "As part of our Employer of Choice initiative, Willis
does all it can to nurture a diverse workplace and further our commitment to
being a supportive, equal-opportunity business."

Willis Group Holdings Limited -- http://www.willis.com-- is the ultimate  
holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and
subsidiaries) from the United Kingdom to Bermuda.  The Company provides a
range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to
worldwide clients.  


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ATLAS MINING: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ida.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A., on Oct. 19, filed a suit on behalf of shareholders
against Atlas Mining Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who acquired Atlas securities between March 31, 2005
and October 9, 2007, inclusive.

The lawsuit charges Atlas and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading financial statements. On October 9, 2007,
Atlas announced that it would restate its financial statements for each of
the reporting periods from 2004 through the current fiscal quarter as the
result of improper revenue recognition practices. In addition, Atlas
announced it was suspending all activities at its Dragon Mine pending
further review. These announcements caused Atlas' stock price to fall over
50% on October 10, 2007, shaving millions of dollars off the Company's
market capitalization.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 11, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph White, Esq.
          Greg Stone
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Tel: (561) 394-3399
          Fax: (561) 394-3382
          Website: http://www.saxenawhite.com


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Scott+Scott Files Securities Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, LLP filed a class action against BigBand Networks, Inc. and
certain officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of BigBand Networks common stock purchasers
on its Initial Public Offering on March 14, 2007, and on the open market
from March 14, 2007 through September 27, 2007, inclusive, for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements
and material omissions regarding the Company's business and operations and
that, as a result, the price of the Company's securities was inflated during
the Class Period, thereby harming investors.

It is alleged that Defendants made false and misleading statements during
the Class Period regarding the Company's readiness to supply the market with
fully developed and robust technologies and products. Defendants' false and
misleading statements served to conceal the fact that the Company faced
serious difficulties with the deployment of its switched digital video
("SDV") technology, as well as the viability of its cable modem termination
("CMTS") business.

On September 28, 2007, the Company announced shocking news of the true
dimensions of its product development woes, which were frustrated by the
very customer technologies and hardware that the BigBand products were
purportedly designed to work with. The Company's disastrous financial
performance knocked as much as $23 million off the revenue guidance for the
third quarter. On this news, shares of BigBand Networks stock fell nearly
$2.67 or 29 percent on volume of 6.8 million shares to close on September
28, 2007 at $6.40 per share.

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

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California a class action
on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired BigBand Networks,
Inc.'s common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's March 14, 2007
Initial Public Offering (Nasdaq: BBND).

The Complaint charges BigBand, certain of its officers and directors, and
the Underwriters of the Company's IPO with violations of sections 11, 12(a)
(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that in connection with the
Company's IPO, the Registration Statement failed to disclose or indicate the
following:

     (1) that the Company's switched digital video ("SDV")
         products suffered from interoperability issues with
         regard to certain video infrastructure systems;

     (2) that the integration of the Company's SDV products
         required significant software customization and
         integration;

     (3) as such, growth of the Company's SDV products and sales
         was stagnant;

     (4) that, as a result of the above, the Company would be
         forced to recognize the revenue associated with its SDV
         product sales over an extended period of time;

     (5) that the Company had shipped excess amounts of TelcoTV
         inventory to customers such as Verizon, which reduced
         future demand for these products; and

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

On March 14, 2007, the Company completed its IPO. In connection with its
IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement with the SEC. The IPO was a
financial success for the Company and certain selling stockholders, as they
sold 10.7 million shares of stock to investors at a price of $13.00 per
share, for gross proceeds of $139.1 million.

On August 2, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced guidance
for its third quarter 2007 and year-end 2007. Specifically, the Company
stated that third quarter net revenues would be $54 to $58 million, and
earnings (loss) per share ("EPS") would be ($0.01) to $0.03. Additionally,
the Company stated that its net revenues would be in the range of $225 to
$230 million for fiscal year 2007, and EPS would be in the range of $0.03 to
$0.08. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $3.88 per share, or
27.75 percent, to close on August 3, 2007 at $10.10, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then on September 27, 2007, the Company revised its revenue outlook for the
third quarter of 2007, and indicated that revenue would be in the range of
$35 to $39 million, well below its previous guidance of $54 to $58 million
for the quarter. The Company revealed that the lower revenue outlook
resulted from the Company deploying SDV across a number of customers and
configurations, which required significant software customization and
integration. Additionally, the Company disclosed that it had experienced a
slowdown in TelcoTV revenues as its major customer worked through existing
inventory. As a result, the Company stated that it expected to report an
operating loss for the third quarter of fiscal year 2007. On this news,
shares of the Company's stock declined an additional $2.67 per share, or
almost 30 percent, to close on September 28, 2007 at $6.40 per share, also
on unusually heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members

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

BigBand develops, markets, and sells network-based platforms that enable
cable operators and telephone companies to offer video, voice and data
services to subscribers.

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


DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm has filed a securities fraud class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers
of Dyadic International, Inc.'s securities during the period starting April
5, 2006 through April 23, 2007, including purchasers in the Company's
Private Placement that closed on December 1, 2006.

The complaint asserts claims against Dyadic and certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint alleges operational and financial improprieties perpetrated by
the Company and its Asian subsidiaries, and knowingly and/or recklessly
approved by the defendants, which culminated in an internal investigation
and subsequent firing of the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Mark A. Emalfarb.

As a result of the improprieties in the Company's Asian subsidiaries and the
subsequent internal investigation, the Company has abandoned its Asian
operations and the Company's stock, which was artificially inflated as a
result of the material omissions and misstatements contained within the
Company's publicly filed financial statements and reports, is no longer
publicly traded and is at risk of being delisted, resulting in total loss of
equity for owners of Dyadic's securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 11, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Tel: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


FUWEI FILMS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Fuwei
Films (Holdings) Co., Ltd. stock from the date of the Company's Initial
Public Offering on December 19, 2006 through October 16, 2007.

The complaint charges that FFHL and certain of its present and former
officers, directors, and control persons violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus (collectively the "Registration Statement") in
connection with the Company's IPO.

According to the Complaint, on December 19, 2006 the Company commenced its
IPO priced at $8.28 per share for 3,750,000 shares of Company stock. On
December 22, 2006 FFHL announced the closing of its IPO and reported gross
proceeds, including over-allotments, of approximately $35.6 million. The
Complaint asserts that FFHL's Registration Statement was false and
misleading because the Company:

     (i) failed to reveal that its main operating assets were
         obtained through transactions that may not have been
         valid under Chinese law;

    (ii) failed to provide complete disclosures as to the
         circumstances of the Company's acquisition of its main
         operating assets; and

   (iii) inaccurately stated that the likelihood of any action
         or recourse in connection with the Company's
         acquisition of its main operating assets was remote.

The Complaint further alleges that on June 25, 2007 the Company announced
that three of the Company's major shareholders, one of whom is a Company
director, were under investigation. On October 16, 2007 the Company
announced that authorities in China had issued arrest notices for the same
three individuals on suspicion of violations of Chinese laws and
regulations. The Complaint asserts that these charges related to the
Company's acquisition of its main operating assets. As a result of these
adverse disclosures, FFHL's stock price dropped, damaging investors.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 18, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Tel:  (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


NETBANK INC: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Fraud Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP has filed a lawsuit seeking class- action status
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of NetBank Inc. (NASDAQ
OTC: NTBKQ.PK) during the period May 1, 2006 through September 17, 2007,
inclusive.

The defendants are NetBank, Steven F. Herbert, who served as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company from the beginning of the Class Period through
October 5, 2006 and as Chief Executive Officer of the Company from October
5, 2006, though the end of the Class Period, and Douglas K. Freeman, who
served as Chief Executive Officer from April 1, 2002 though October 5, 2006
and as Chairman of the Board of Directors beginning on January 29, 2003.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. It alleges that during the Class Period, defendants misled
investors by issuing false and misleading statements about NetBank's
operations and financial condition and as a result, the price of NetBank
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding the restructuring of NetBank's
operations to rid its strong core banking business of high-risk non-
conforming loan origination operations. It is alleged that NetBank falsely
claimed that its restructuring was largely complete by February 2007. The
truth began to emerge when defendants disclosed in May that its core banking
business was so deficient with respect to meeting regulatory capital
requirements, that bank regulators compelled NetBank to consummate a $2.5
billion asset sale at a $60-70 million loss in order to cover NetBank
depositors.

NetBank's May 21, 2007 disclosure regarding the forced sale, coupled with
subsequent disclosures on August 6, 2007, which revealed that its mortgage
business was without any value, and September 17, 2007, which revealed that
a prospective sale would not close because NetBank would not be able to meet
its regulatory requirements, caused the stock price to plummet from $1.75
per share on May 18, 2007 to a closing price of $.08 on September 17, 2007.

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

For more information, contact:

          Lori Smith
          Nikole Davenport
          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          Phone: 1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900
          E-mail: Lsmith@chitwoodlaw.com or
                  Ndavenport@chitwoodlaw.com
          Website: http://www.chitwoodlaw.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  * * *