CAR_Public/071025.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 25, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 212

                            Headlines


AMERICAN HOME: Seeks to Employ, Retain Allen & Overy as Counsel
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Experts Testify in Investor Lawsuit
BAUSCH & LOMB: S.C. Judge Dismisses Consolidated ReNu Litigation
BEARINGPOINT INC: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for Appeal in Va. Lawsuit
BLOOMBERG LP: Accused of Discriminating Against Pregnant Women

C.B. FLEET: Siskinds Files Suit in Canada Over Oral Laxative
CLEAR CHANNEL: Lawsuits Over Inflated Ticket Prices Certified
CONNECTICUT: Court Certifies Class in Madison Permit Fees Case
CONOCOPHILIPS LLC: Faces Suit in La. Over Unlawful Terminations
DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls Utility Vehicles to Test Brake Calipers

DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Dismissal Motion in Cal. Lawsuit Granted
ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Seeks Dismissal of Del. Derivative Suit
GARUDA INDONESIA: Australian Families Plan Suit Over Plane Crash
GERMANY FUND: Settlement of Suit Challenging Bylaws Approved
HAMILTON HEALTH: Metroplasty Suit Class to Get up to CA$10M

JC PENNEY: Recalls Ornaments for Lead Paint Standard Breach
LEADING EDGE: $6.5M Settlement of VigRx Suit Gets Court Approval
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Settles N.J. Securities Suit for $2.5M
MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches $16M Settlement in Calif. Bias Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Asks Court to Establish NCWC Claims Bar Dates

NORBORD INC: Named with Eight Others in Pa. OSB Antitrust Suit
PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Securities Suit Settlement Approval Pending
RAYMOND JAMES: Former Employees File Gender Discrimination Suit
ROSS STORES: Recalls Turtle Sprinklers Due to Laceration Hazard
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Eleventh Circuit Denies Re-hearing Petitions

SEATTLE SUPERSONICS: Faces Suit for “Misleading” Ticket Buyers
TOP TANKERS: Moves to Junk Suit Over Alleged Accounting Fraud
T ROWE PRICE: Investors Sue on Failure to Timely Adjust Prices
VALENTINO USA: Card Holders Suit Settlement Hearing Set Today
WORKING FOREX: Faces Penna. Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AETNA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
FIRST HOME: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed in Fla. Court


                            *********


AMERICAN HOME: Seeks to Employ, Retain Allen & Overy as Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Home (together with other affiliates in bankruptcy, The Debtors)
ask for authority to employ Allen & Overy LLP as their special counsel with
respect to certain regulatory securities and class action, effective nunc
pro tunc to September 7, 2007.

James L. Patton, Jr., Esq., at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, relates that the Debtors seek to retain Allen
& Overy as special counsel because of the firm's significant experience in
handling the types of complex disputes to which the Debtors are currently a
party.  Allen & Overy's depth and breadth of litigation experience makes the
firm ideally suited to effectively handle the many disputes that have
arisen, and will likely continue to arise in the areas of regulatory,
investigative, and securities class action litigation matters, Mr. Patton
says.

The Debtors seek to engage Allen & Overy to:

  -- serve as counsel with respect to the Securities and
     Exchange Commission's inquiries regarding the company's
     activities immediately prior to and following its entrance
     into bankruptcy;

  -- handle issues arising with respect to other regulatory
     authorities, which issues may include, but are not limited
     to, the production of documents, interviews of witnesses,
     and the submission of factual and legal analysis; and

  -- to engage Allen & Overy in a number of currently pending
     securities class action litigations.

Compensation will be payable to Allen & Overy on an hourly basis plus
reimbursement of actual, necessary expenses and other charges incurred by
the firm.  The current hourly rates are:

  * Partners     $730 to $825
  * Associates   $340 to $650
  * Paralegals   $185 to $225

The Debtors tell the Court that they have not paid any amounts as a
retainer.

Pamela Rogers Chepiga, a member of Allen & Overy, assures the
Court that her firm is a "disinterested person" and has no interests adverse
to the Debtors.

(American Home Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 11; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Services Inc. http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/
or 215/945-7000)


BLOOMBERG LP: Accused of Discriminating Against Pregnant Women
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg L.P., the news and financial services company, is accused of
violating federal law by discriminating against a class of female employees
who became pregnant and took maternity leave, the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission charges in a lawsuit filed under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

In its suit, the EEOC asserts that Bloomberg engaged in a pattern or
practice of demoting and reducing the pay of female employees after they
announced their pregnancies and after they took maternity leave. Some women
were replaced by more junior male employees, the EEOC says. The lawsuit also
alleges that the same pregnant women and new mothers were excluded from
management meetings and subjected to stereotyping about their abilities to
do their jobs because of their family and caregiver responsibilities.
Complaints made by the women to Bloomberg’s human resources department were
dismissed.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit (Civil Action No. 07- CIV 8383) in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York after first attempting to reach
a voluntary settlement. The suit seeks monetary relief; an order requiring
the company to implement new policies and practices to prevent
discrimination; training on anti-discrimination laws; posting of notices at
the work site; and other injunctive relief.

“Employers need to be aware that it is unlawful to discriminate against
women based on their pregnancy or act on stereotypes concerning their roles
as caregivers,” said EEOC’s New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis,
Jr. “No working woman should be forced to choose between motherhood and her
livelihood.”

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Raechel L. Adams added, “This case exemplifies an
increasing trend where employers engage in stereotyping of female caregivers
and act to limit their employment opportunities. Pregnant women and mothers
who work hard and perform well should be valued for their work, not
penalized for their gender.”

According to its web site, http://www.bloomberg.com,“The New York-based  
company employs more than 9,000 people in more than 125 offices around the
world.”

Pregnancy discrimination charges filed with the EEOC and state/local
agencies nationwide have risen from 3,385 in 1992 to a record high of 4,900
in 2006. The EEOC recently issued new enforcement guidance entitled Unlawful
Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities, which is
available on its Web site at
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.
Further information about the EEOC can be found on its web site at
http://www.eeoc.gov.

For more information, contact:

          Elizabeth Grossman, Esq.
          Phone: (212) 336-3696
   
          Lisa Sirkin, Esq.
          Phone: (212) 336-3697


ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Experts Testify in Investor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Expert witnesses examinations were conducted on Wednesday in a class action
filed against gaming company Aristocrat Leisure before the Australian
federal court.

In 2003, Maurice Blackburn Cashman Lawyers and litigation company IMF
Australia filed a class action writ against Aristocrat Leisure alleging that
the company's market forecasts were false and misleading and that it failed
to disclose all material information in a timely manner.

The lawsuit alleges that the company misled shareholders by not keeping them
fully informed before announcing earnings downgrades that wiped $1.5 billion
(AU$2 billion) from the company's value in 2003.  The lawsuit claims the non-
disclosure caused them losses.

The case was transferred to the Federal Court in Sydney.  Later, the
applicant applied to amend the class definition to delete the requirement
that a group member must retain Maurice Blackburn Cashman to be a part of
the class.

The Statement of Claim has been amended to claim losses incurred by
shareholders who purchased shares between Feb. 18, 2002 (previously Sept.
20, 2002) and 26 May 2003.

The case is before Justice Margaret Stone.  Dorajay Pty Limited is
representing shareholders.  Aristocrat said only Dorajay and four other
shareholders had filed details of their claims.

Proceedings began October 4.  On Oct. 22, the proceedings were dominated by
procedural issues.  Maurice Blackburn submitted a supplementary two-page
letter by forensic accountant Greg Meredith.  Last week, three expert
reports by Mr. Meredith, who is partner and head of forensic accounting at
Ferrier Hodgson, were tendered as evidence on behalf of Dorajay.  All four
reports were uncontested by Aristocrat.

On Wednesday, Brad Cornell, from the California Institute of Technology,
testified for Aristocrat.  The New York econometrician Fred Dunbar testified
for shareholders.

Mr. Cornell said that only part of a 57 per cent fall in Aristocrat
Leisure's share price in February 2003 could be attributed to previously
undisclosed bad news, according to a report by Elisabeth Sexton of the
Sydney Morning Herald.  Meanwhile, Mr. Dunbar argued that almost all the
share price fall could be attributed to the effect on earnings of the new
information, according to the report.

Mr. Dunbar said the share price would have fallen by the same 57 per cent,
albeit in stages, if Aristocrat had announced lower -- correct -- profits in
February and August 2002 and if it had righted an inflated profit forecast
in December 2002.  Mr. Cornell countered that the delay contributed to the
size of the fall.

The case is expected to be finished by the end of the week.

Aristocrat Leisure said the lawsuit could cost the company AU$10 million to
AU$20 million in damages -- not the AU$190 million to AU$396 million
reported by the media.

A ruling in the case could set a precedent for other class actions over
failure to disclose material information.

Representing shareholders is:

          Stephen Gageler, S.C.
          Phone: + 612 9233 1209
          Fax: + 612 9232 7626
          E-mail: stephengageler@wentworthchambers.com.au


BAUSCH & LOMB: S.C. Judge Dismisses Consolidated ReNu Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed a
consolidated class action filed against Bausch & Lomb, Inc. in relation to
its ReNu with MoistureLoc product, The Will Astor of The Rochester Business
Journal reports.

According to the report, the company had been targeted by 573 ReNu with
MoistureLoc-related product liability lawsuits as of Oct. 16, 2007.  The
suits were either pending in federal or state courts.

About 209 of the cases were consolidated in a single class action by a
federal judicial panel back in August 2007, and then dismissed this month by
Judge David C. Norton, the eye-care company stated in a pre-merger U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filing obtained by The Rochester Business
Journal.

The company recalled ReNu with MoistureLoc from store shelves last year
after the Centers for Disease Control warned wearers of soft contact lenses
to beware of fusarium keratitis, a source of potential serious fungal eye
infection.  Asian health officials previously had linked ReNu with
MoistureLoc to the fungal infection.

Federal court records obtained by The Rochester Business Journal revealed
Judge Norton cited discrepancies in how various state laws would deal with
the product-liability claim as a basis for his dismissal of the case.

However, his decision to dismiss the case without prejudice did not deal
with the complaints’ merits, thus, giving plaintiffs a chance to continue to
press claims.

Bausch & Lomb, Inc. -- http://www.bausch.com/-- is a global eye health  
company that develops, manufactures and sells contact lenses and lens care
products, ophthalmic pharmaceuticals and products used in ophthalmic
surgery.  


BEARINGPOINT INC: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for Appeal in Va. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 16, 2007 hearing is scheduled for plaintiff's motion appealing a
dismissal of a securities fraud class action filed against Bearingpoint,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The suits filed after April 2005 claim that the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
U.S. Exchange Act by, among other things, making materially misleading
statements between Aug. 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005 with respect to the
company's financial results in the company's Securities and Exchange
Commission filings and press releases.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court certified a class, appointed class counsel and
appointed a class representative.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on March 10, 2006 and the defendants, including the company, subsequently
filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, which was fully briefed and heard
on May 5, 2006.  

The Company was awaiting a ruling when, on March 23, 2007, the court stayed
the case, pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of “Makor
Issues & Rights, Ltd v. Tellabs,” argued before the Supreme Court on March
28, 2007.

On June 21, 2007, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Tellabs case,
holding that to plead a strong inference of a defendant’s fraudulent intent
under the applicable federal securities laws, a plaintiff must demonstrate
that such an inference is not merely reasonable, but cogent and at least as
compelling as any opposing inference of non-fraudulent intent.

On Sept. 12, 2007, the court dismissed with prejudice this complaint,
granting motions to dismiss filed by the Company and the other named
defendants.

In granting the Company’s motion to dismiss, the court ruled that the
plaintiff failed to meet the scienter pleading requirements set forth in the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended.

On Sept. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion that seeks a reversal of
the court’s order dismissing the case or an amendment to the court’s order
that would allow the plaintiffs to replead.  

The Company filed its brief on Oct. 17, 2007 and a hearing on the
plaintiffs’ motion is scheduled for Nov. 16, 2007, according to the
company’s Oct. 22, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “In Re BearingPoint, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-00454-TSE-TCB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia under Judge T. S. Ellis, III with referral to Judge Theresa
Carroll Buchanan.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steven Jeffrey Toll, Esq.
         Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
         1100 New York Ave., Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005-3965
         Phone: (202) 408-4600

Representing the defendant is:

         Charles William McIntyre, Jr., Esq.
         McGuireWoods, LLP
         1050 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1200
         Washington, DC 20036-5317
         Phone: (202) 857-1742


C.B. FLEET: Siskinds Files Suit in Canada Over Oral Laxative
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Siskinds LLP launched a class action against C.B. Fleet
Company, Inc. regarding its oral laxative, Fleet Phospho-soda.

Fleet Phospho-soda has been marketed in Canada since 1987. Since then, the
laxative has been commonly used as part of a bowel cleansing regimen in
preparing for surgery, x-ray or endoscopic examination.

Use of Fleet Phospho-soda has been linked to an increased risk of developing
renal damage and/or renal failure. A public advisory released in December
2005 cited rare reports of patients who experienced a reduction in kidney
function, both temporarily and permanently, due to formation of calcium
deposits in their kidneys subsequent to their use of Fleet Phospho-soda for
bowel cleansing.

The Statement of Claim alleges that Fleet failed to adequately warn patients
and physicians that Fleet Phospho-soda has been associated with an increased
risk of developing renal damage and/or renal failure.

Michael Eizenga, a partner with Siskinds LLP, says, "We believe that through
this lawsuit Fleet will be required to explain to Canadian consumers what it
knew about the risks associated with Fleet Phospho-soda and when it first
became aware of those risks. In this case, as with all of these types of
cases, we are concerned about whether Canadians were adequately warned of
the risks associated with using the product in question."

It is too early at this stage to quantify the claims of potential class
members, but it is anticipated that the amount is significant.

Canadians who have experienced adverse events from using Fleet Phospho-soda
are encouraged to visit http://www.classaction.caor to call 1-800-461-6166.  

Quebec residents can contact Claude Desmeules at (418) 694-2009.

For more information, contact:

          Michael Eizenga
          Phone: (519) 660-7820

          - or -

          Matthew Baer
          Phone: (519) 660-7782


CLEAR CHANNEL: Lawsuits Over Inflated Ticket Prices Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California gave the green light to a class action claiming Clear Channel
Communications Inc. -- the nation's largest media and entertainment company -
- used its market dominance to illegally inflate ticket prices to live rock
concerts across the country.

Initially, the company is defendant in putative class actions filed by
several plaintiffs in the U.S. District Courts in Philadelphia, Miami, Los
Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey.  The suits are:  

     (1) "Cooperberg v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et  
         al., Civ. No. 2:05-cv-04492 (E.D. Pa.)";  

     (2) "Diaz v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,  
         Civ. No. 05-cv-22413 (S.D. Fla.)";  

     (3) "Thompson v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Civ.  
         No. 2:05-cv-6704 (C.D. Cal.)";  

     (4) "Bhatia v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,  
         Civ. No. 1:05-cv-05612 (N.D. Ill.)"; and  

     (5) "Young v. Clear Channel Communications, et al., Civ.  
         Action No. 06-277-WHW (D.N.J.)."  

The suits claim that Clear Channel used its market dominance in
anticompetitive activities that unfairly increased ticket prices for
consumers and coerced artists to use Clear Channel for concert promotion.

The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to claims made in
the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al., case no. 2:02-cv-04503-JES,"
except that the geographic markets alleged are statewide or more local in
nature, and the members of the putative classes are limited to individuals
who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets
alleged.   

On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the above-listed actions and any
similar ones commenced in the future to a single federal district court for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  

In June 2006, the company asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to transfer to a single federal district court for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings several purported class actions and any similar ones
commenced in the future, which alleges that anti-competitive practices for
concert promotion services by the company caused artificially high-ticket
prices (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2006).

The judge’s recent opinion grants class-action status to five lawsuits on
behalf of concert-goers in regions across the United States, who are being
lead by the Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (HBSS).

"Clear Channel is a multi-billion dollar international media conglomerate
and we intend to argue that it is leveraging its size and industry clout to
exploit consumers and artists by eliminating the choices available to them
and keeping ticket prices and concert promotion rates unreasonably high,"
said HBSS attorney Beth Fegan.

Plaintiffs claim that Clear Channel uses predatory practices to keep
potential competitors from entering regional markets. In some cases, the
complaints state, Clear Channel bids up the fees paid to artists so it
becomes impossible for other promoters to compete.

Such was the case when Clear Channel purchased the entire Backstreet Boys
2001 national tour for $100 million, according to a 2002 New York Times
article. The article explains that Clear Channel set extremely high ticket
prices to recoup the promotion costs it spent in competing with other local
promoters. As a result, those who attended the Backstreet Boys concert paid
far more than those who attended concerts promoted by another company in the
area, the article said.

The complaints state that radio is by far the most effective marketing tool
for music artists to promote concerts, and Clear Channel enjoys a near
monopoly of the market. Artists often have no other choice but to use Clear
Channel to promote live concerts, the complaint continues. According to the
complaints, the company's unlawful leveraging of its economic strength in
the FM radio business obligates artists who would otherwise turn to other
concert promoters to use Clear Channel's promotion services.

The suits allege that because of Clear Channel's abundantly monopolistic
practices, the company controls the content of the radio airwaves and can
prohibit an artist's music from being played on the air if they opt to use a
promoter other than Clear Channel.

"We intend to show that Clear Channel bullies groups into using Clear
Channel's facilities for concerts through its market dominance of the
airwaves," Fegan noted. "The upshot is that if bands don't use Clear Channel
venues, they will be playing to empty houses."

The complaints cite a study which indicates that the rate of inflation and
Clear Channel's rise in ticket prices is disproportionate. During the time
when Clear Channel's consolidation of the industry began and its
anticompetitive practices were implemented, ticket prices ballooned by 61
percent while the Consumer Price Index only rose by 13 percent.

In this multi-district litigation proceeding, plaintiffs from 23 different
regions across the United States who purchased tickets to live rock concerts
from Clear Channel or one of its subsidiaries filed class action suits.
Plaintiffs attended live rock concerts promoted by Defendants such as
Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, Eric Clapton, Billy Joel, Elvis Costello and The
Who.

The Court originally designated five "test" regions -- including the Chicago
region, Denver region, New England region, New York/New Jersey region, and
Southern California region -- for certification proceedings. The Court's
decision unanimously found all five test regions suitable for class
certification.

Now, the certified classes include any person who purchased a live rock
concert ticket in the Chicago, New England, New York/New Jersey, Colorado,
and Southern California regions during the period of June 19, 1998 to
present. Plaintiffs believe that that the remaining 18 regions should be
similarly certified.

The suit cites that Clear Channel violated the Sherman Act for attempting
and achieving monopolization. The suit seeks relief for plaintiffs and
members of the class for company's unjust enrichment as the result of
unlawful conduct.

For more information, contact:

          Beth Fegan (708) 776-5604
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com

          - and -

          Mark Firmani (206) 443-9357
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          E-mail: Mark@firmani.com


CONNECTICUT: Court Certifies Class in Madison Permit Fees Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Superior Court Judge William T. Cremins granted class-action
status to a purported class action that claims that the Town of Madison’s
building permit fees are excessively high.

The judge made the ruling on Oct. 12, 2007 in the complex litigation
division of the court.  Defendants named in the matter have vowed to appeal
the ruling, according to reports.

Case Background

Five local area builders filed the civil suit in Superior Court, alleging
that Madison's building permit fee schedule is an unconstitutional “scheme”
that specifically and illegally targets the building industry as a source of
town revenue (Class Action Reporter, April 29, 2007).

The five builders listed in the suit are:

      -- Dowler Group,
      -- Peter Smith Building Co.,
      -- MJM Builders, Inc.,
      -- Paul Coady Construction, and
      -- Neighborhood Builders, Inc.

Seeking both monetary and punitive damages as well as an injunction
prohibiting the town from continuing to charge its stated fees, the builders
are also seeking to bring the case as a class action on behalf of all
builders affected by the fee schedule and not just the five named plaintiffs.

In 2002, the town revised its building permit fee schedule after Town
Engineer Stew MacMillan surveyed fee schedules in a number of communities
throughout the area and the state and found that the town has neither the
lowest nor the highest fees.  Following that survey he recommended a revised
schedule for building fees.  

In their suit, the plaintiffs allege that the fees do not reflect the actual
costs the town incurs in the administration and inspection of buildings
under construction.

Instead, plaintiffs say, the fee schedule is being used as a revenue
producing measure “in part to fund social programs, and other initiatives
that have no relationship to the offering and regulation of building
activity in the town.”  This allegedly constitutes an illegal tax, which
violates the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act.

For more details, contact:

          Drew Lichtenfels, Esq.
          29 Water Street,
          Guilford, CT 06437
          Phone: 203-458-7879
          Fax: 203-458-0186


CONOCOPHILIPS LLC: Faces Suit in La. Over Unlawful Terminations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ConocoPhilips LLC faces a purported class action in Louisiana that was filed
by former employees who allege that they were terminated by the company
because they participated in settlements of a pollution claim against the
company, Lee Peck of KPLC-TV reports.

The former employees, majority of them contractors or contracted employees,
are represented by Chris Chesson, who told KPLC-TV that the case is “about
retaliation against employees or employees of other companies who are
working on your property.  About retaliating against them for making lawful
claims against your company.”

Additionally, the suit claims that ConocoPhillips has compiled a list of
individuals who are “blacklisted” because they've received monetary benefits
from filing a claim over chemical releases against ConocoPhillips.  

Mr. Chesson also told KPLC-TV that witnesses have said that the so-called
black list has even made its way into the hands of contractors.

Plaintiffs are alleging that that several hundreds, if not thousands, of
individuals have suffered the same retribution at the hands of the
defendants.  

The company has yet to be officially served with the lawsuit, according to
the report.

For more details, contact:

          Chris Chesson, Esq.
          1 Lakeshore Dr., Ste 1800
          Lake Charles, LA 70629-0123
          Phone: 1-877-808-3328, 504-598-3328 or 337-436-5297
          Web site: http://www.lemonlawclinic.com


DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls Utility Vehicles to Test Brake Calipers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company, of Moline, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 5,400 John Deere Gator Utility
Vehicles.

The company said the brake calipers in the front of the utility vehicles may
have been installed incorrectly, causing the vehicle to pull to one side
during braking. This poses an injury hazard to consumers. No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves the XUV and HPX Gator utility vehicles made by John
Deere with model and serial numbers included below. These are four-wheeled
vehicles with a cargo box. “John Deere”, “Gator”, “HPX” and “XUV” are
printed on the side of the cargo box.

The following model and serial numbers can be found on the serial number
plate on the frame of the vehicle.

          Model           Serial Number
          
          XUV 620i Gas     MOXUVGX013294-016669
          XUV 620i Gas     MOXUVGT011480-012186
          XUV 850D Diesel   MOXUVDX011917-013329
          XUV 850D Diesel   MOXUVDT010001-010449
          HPX 4X4 Diesel    MOHP4DX050877-051453
          HPX 4X4 Gas     MOHP4GX051221-052763

These recalled utility vehicles were being manufactured in the United States
and are being sold by John Deere dealers nationwide from June 2007 through
September 2007 for between $8,500 and $10,600.

Pictures of the recalled utility vehicles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08509a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08509b.jpg

Consumers should stop operating the recalled utility vehicles immediately
and contact an authorized John Deere dealer in their area to schedule a free
inspection. The company will provide free repair, if needed. Registered
owners were sent direct mail notification of this recall.

For additional information, contact John Deere at (800) 537-8233 between 8
a.m. and 7 p.m. CT. Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site:
http://www.johndeere.com


DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Dismissal Motion in Cal. Lawsuit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in a
securities fraud class action filed against Ditech Communications Corp, Erin
Coe of the Securities Law360 reports.

Beginning on June 14, 2005, several purported class actions were filed
purportedly on behalf of a class of investors, who purchased the company's
stock between Aug. 25, 2004 and May 26, 2005.

The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its chief executive
officer and chief financial officer in connection with alleged
misrepresentations concerning Voice Quality Assurance orders and the
potential effect on the company of the merger between Sprint and Nextel.

All of the lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, "In re Ditech
Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-02406-JSW."  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on
Feb. 2, 2006.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the motion was granted on
Aug. 10, 2006, with leave to amend.  A second consolidated amended complaint
was filed on Sept. 11, 2006.  

Defendants again moved to dismiss, and by order dated March 22, 2007, the
court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on April 23, 2007.  On May
14, 2007, Defendant again moved to dismiss.  

This latest motion was set for a hearing on Aug. 19, 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, July 20, 2007).

At that hearing, Judge White dismissed the third amended complaint without
leave to amend, finding that the purported class was unable to meet the
heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

In the latest amended complaint, the purported class alleged that Ditech and
its officers misrepresented the company by saying it had received two orders
worth more than $5 million from two new customers in Asia and deceived
investors by saying that the proposed merger between Sprint and Nextel would
benefit the company, but the judge concluded that these two allegations
failed to show falsity.

The investors claimed that Ditech’s two new orders in 2004 had never
been “secured,” either because the company lacked the shipping requirements
necessary for shipments to China or because one of the Asian customers was
bought out by another company, which led to the cancellation of the
international order with Ditech. Judge White said the plaintiffs did not
close the gaps in their amended complaint and did not allege additional
information over whether managers knew the orders were not going to ship.

“Such allegation fails to provide any information indicating that Ditech
knew about obstacles to shipping, let alone knowledge that such alleged
obstacles were insurmountable, before the alleged misrepresentations were
made,” Judge White wrote in his order.

The suit is “In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C.
         425 California Street, Suite 2025
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415/433-3200
         Fax: 415-433-6382
         E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com

Representing the defendants is:

         William S. Freeman, Esq.
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
         Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155
         Phone: 650 843-5000
         Fax: 650 857-0663
         E-mail: freemanws@cooley.com


ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Seeks Dismissal of Del. Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics For Imaging, Inc. is seeking for a dismissal of a consolidated
derivative lawsuit filed in Delaware on behalf of a class claiming breach of
fiduciary duty of disclosure.

                      Ann Arbor Litigation

On Nov. 22, 2006, a purported derivative shareholder complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo
captioned, “City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Retirement Association v. Gecht et
al., No. CIV 459145.”

The complaint asserted derivative claims against certain of the Company’s
current and former officers and/or directors, alleging that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duty by improperly manipulating certain
stock option grants between 1996 and 2003, thereby violating the terms of
the Company’s stock option plan, causing the Company to issue false and
misleading financial statements and proxy statements, and unjustly enriching
the executives who received the subject option grants.

The complaint also purported to be brought on behalf of a class consisting
of all others similarly situated and alleges a class claim for breach of the
fiduciary duty of disclosure.

On Dec. 5, 2006 the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and, on March 9, 2007, the court denied
plaintiff’s motion to remand the case back to state court.

On April 3, 2007 the court granted plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss
its complaint.  Plaintiff re-filed its complaint in Delaware Chancery Court
on April 9, 2007.

                       Denver Litigation

On March 15, 2007 a complaint was filed in Delaware Chancery Court
captioned, “Denver Employees Retirement Plan v. Gecht et al., No. 2797.”

The complaint asserts derivative claims against certain of the Company’s
current and former officers and/or directors, alleging that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duty by improperly manipulating certain
stock option grants between 1996 and 2003, thereby violating the terms of
the Company’s stock option plan, causing the Company to issue false and
misleading financial statements and proxy statements, and unjustly enriching
the executives who received the subject option grants.

The complaint also purported to be brought on behalf of a class consisting
of all others similarly situated and alleges a class claim for breach of the
fiduciary duty of disclosure.

                         Consolidation

On May 9, 2007, the court granted the parties’ proposed order consolidating
the Denver and Ann Arbor cases, designating the Denver complaint as the
operative complaint, and appointing the named plaintiffs lead plaintiffs and
their counsel lead counsel.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the action, according to the company’s Oct.
22, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Electronics for Imaging, Inc. -- http://www.efi.com-- is a provider of  
digital controllers, superwide format printers and inks, and print
management solutions.  


GARUDA INDONESIA: Australian Families Plan Suit Over Plane Crash
----------------------------------------------------------------
Relatives of Australians killed in the Garuda Indonesia Airline plane crash
back in March 2007 are preparing a class action against the company, Radio
New Zealand reports.

Five Australians were among the 21 people who died when a Garuda Boeing 737
overran the runway in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and burst into flames.

The final report on the PT Garuda Indonesia's crash landing in March at
Yogyakarta airport that killed 21 people showed pilot error as the cause of
the disaster, various reports say (Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific,
Oct. 24, 2007).

Caroline Mellish, the sister of a man who died in the crash, says her family
is pursuing legal action, along with the families of other victims.

The Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific reported on March 8,
2007, that Garuda Indonesia Airline Boeing 737-400 plane carrying 140 people
burst into flames on landing at Yogyakarta airport.  The flight was carrying
some Australian diplomats, officials and journalists who had been
accompanying Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

The final report reportedly determined that Captain Marwoto Komar did not
follow company procedures that required him to fly a stabilized approach,
and he did not abort the landing and go around when the approach was not
stabilized.   

United Press International states that the findings said Captain Komar,
despite the 15 warnings from the Ground Proximity Warning
System, landed the plane even though the jet was traveling at an
excessive airspeed and steep flight path angle.

Captain Komar and his co-pilot, Gagam Rohman, initially claimed that a
sudden gust of wind downed their craft, but the black boxes recovered from
the gutted 737 revealed no adverse weather conditions, Deutsche Presse-
Agentur relates.

The transport safety committee, however, refused to attribute the crash to
pilot error despite the findings, Reuters says. Tatang Kurniadi, head of
National Transport Safety Committee, told Reuters that the pilot was not
100% at fault; there were flaws in the system that has led to the accident
as well.  

The airport's rescue and firefighting service vehicles were incapable of
reaching the accident site and did not have appropriate fire suppressants,
Deutsche Presse-Agentur says, citing a transport safety committee statement.

                     About Garuda Indonesia

Headquartered in Jakarta, Indonesia, government-owned airline PT Garuda
Indonesia -- http://www.garuda-indonesia.com/-- currently has a fleet of  
about 77 aircraft offering service to some 27 domestic and 33 international
destinations.  Under its Citilink brand, it serves 10 other domestic
routes.  Garuda also ships about 200,000 tons of cargo a month and operates
a computerized tracking system.

The Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific reported on Sep. 6, 2007, that
Garuda, saddled with a debt of around US$750 million including some US$475
million owed to the European Credit Agency, is in negotiations with
creditors to restructure some of its debt.  The carrier's debt needs to be
restructured, otherwise Garuda will not be able to fly anymore as its debt
is too big, the report added.

The airline was affected by plunging arrivals on the resort island of Bali,
where tourists have been killed in bomb attacks in 2002 and 2005.  It has
also suffered from soaring global oil prices, a weakening of the Indonesian
rupiah and rising interest rates.  Garuda is concentrating its efforts on
repaying its debt with foreign creditors under the European Credit Agency,
which was due on Dec. 31, 2005.

The company, until November 2006, suffered an unaudited loss of IDR390
billion, which was lower than the IDR672 billion, recorded in the same
period the year before.

Garuda is currently undergoing debt restructuring.  The Troubled Company
Reporter-Asia Pacific reported on December 20, 2006, that in line with the
airline's debt restructuring, it continues to consistently pay debt interest.


GERMANY FUND: Settlement of Suit Challenging Bylaws Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has approved the
previously announced settlement of the civil class action “Daniels vs. The
New Germany Fund, Inc. et al.”

Accordingly, under the terms of the settlement and in the absence of any
appeal, the Fund intends to conduct an in-kind tender offer for 20% of its
outstanding shares at 96% of net asset value per share. The Fund will
announce the commencement of the tender offer in a future press release. The
tender offer will remain open for at least 20 business days after
commencement.

Filed in 2005, the suit challenged the validity of the Fund's director
qualification bylaw, which includes a requirement of relevant experience and
country knowledge consistent with the Fund's strategy of investment in
German companies.

Pursuant to the settlement and an agreement with the shareholder group that
sought to nominate competing directors in 2005 and subsequent years, the
Fund would conduct an in-kind tender offer for 20% of the Fund's outstanding
shares of common stock at 96% of net asset value per share (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 1, 2007).

Payment for shares would be in the form of a pro rata portion of the Fund's
cash and portfolio securities.

The New Germany Fund, Inc. is a non-diversified, closed-end investment
company seeking capital appreciation primarily through investment in the
Mittelstand -- an important group of small and mid-cap German companies.

The suit is “Daniels v. The New Germany Fund, Inc. et al. Case No. 1:05-cv-
01890-MJG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
under Judge Marvin J. Garbis.

Representing defendants are:

          Jeremy C. Bates
          Marc De Leeuw
          Justin J. DeCamp
          Lauren F. Gershell
          Sullivan and Cromwell LLP
          125 Broad St
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 12125584822 or 12125584219 or 12125581688
          Fax: 12125583358
          E-mail: batesj@sullcrom.com or deleeuwm@sullcrom.com
                  or decampj@sullcrom.com or
                  gershell@sullcrom.com

          Michael James DeVinne
          Venable LLP
          Two Hopkins Plz Ste 1800
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Phone: 14102447518
          Fax: 14102447742
          E-mail: mjdevinne@venable.com

          Amy S. Dolgin
          Peter Glatz Rush
          Bell Boyd and Lloyd LLC
          70 W Madison St Ste 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 13128074245 or 13128074352
          Fax: 13128278155 or 13128278005
          E-mail: adolgin@bellboyd.com or prush@bellboyd.com

          - and -

          Mark D. Gately
          Scott R. Haiber
          Hogan and Hartson LLP
          111 S Calvert St Ste 1600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 14106592700
          Fax: 14105396981
          E-mail: mdgately@hhlaw.com

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Meryl W. Edelstein
          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          1230 Peachtree St NW Ste 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 14048733900
          Fax: 14048764476
          E-mail: medelstein@chitwoodlaw.com

          Gregory Edward Keller
          Chitwood Harley and Harnes LLP
          11 Grace Ave Ste 306
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: 15167736090
          Fax: 14048764476
          E-mail: gkeller@chitwoodlaw.com

          - and -

          John Bucher Isbister
          Toyja E. Kelley
          Tydings and Rosenberg LLP
          100 E Pratt St 26th Fl
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 14107529714 or 14107529700
          Fax: 14107275460
          E-mail: jisbister@tydingslaw.com or
                  tkelley@tydingslaw.com


HAMILTON HEALTH: Metroplasty Suit Class to Get up to CA$10M
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action against Dr. Salim Daya and and Hamilton Health Sciences
Corporation has been settled, AM900 CHML reports.

The lawsuit claims both were negligent in their care and treatment of women
who underwent a surgical procedure known as a Tompkins metroplasty between
January 1, 1990 and March 31, 2004.  

The suit claims that women who underwent the outdated Tompkins metroplasty
procedure in that time frame are entitled to damages. It covers 189 women
who underwent an "obsolete" and "unnecessary" surgical procedure, between
1990 and 2004.

The parties to the action participated in a mediation in Toronto on three
occasions in an attempt to resolve the action. As a result of the mediation,
the parties have entered into a proposed settlement which will only take
effect if it receives court approval.

Under the proposed settlement, each of the women will receive a minimum of
CA$35,000. The bulk of the settlement, about 95%, will be paid by Dr. Daya.
The hospital covers the other 5%, the report said.

The court will consider whether to approve the settlement at a hearing to be
held on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at the Courthouse, 361 University Avenue,
Toronto, ON (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19, 2007).

If approved by the courts, the settlement will result in the defendants
paying the female victims a total of CA$10 million. In turn, the defendants
do not admit to any wrongdoing or liability.

The plaintiffs and their counsel believe that the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate and will ask the court to approve it. If the
proposed settlement is not approved, the class action will continue.

For more information, contact:

          Harvey T. Strosberg , Q.C.
          Sutts, Strosberg LLP
          Phone: 519.561.6231        
                 800.229.5323 ext. 231      
          Fax: 519.561.6203        
               866.316.5308       
          E-mail: dayaclassaction@strosbergco.com


JC PENNEY: Recalls Ornaments for Lead Paint Standard Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney, of Plano, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,400 Breyer 2006 stirrup ornaments.

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

The recall involves a stirrup-shaped ornament with a white prancing horse
and blue ribbons. 2006 is stamped on the rim of the ornament.

These recalled stirrup ornaments were manufactured in China and are being
sold through the J.C. Penney catalog and Web site from August 2006 through
August 2007 for about $18.

Picture of recalled stirrup ornaments:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08024.jpg

Consumers are advised to keep the ornament away from young children and
return it to any J.C. Penney store for a full refund.

For further information, contact J.C. Penney toll-free at (888) 333-6063
anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.jcp.com


LEADING EDGE: $6.5M Settlement of VigRx Suit Gets Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted on Aug. 28,
2007 preliminary approval for a settlement in the class action “Horton v.
Leading Edge Marketing, Inc., et al, Case No. 04-CV-212-PSF-CBS.”

The lawsuit claimed that Leading Edge Marketing, Inc. and other companies
and persons violated federal and state law by marketing, selling, and
distributing VigRx for Men, and that persons who purchased VigRx for Men
have a legal claim against the Defendants.  

Class members are defined as: All consumers who purchased VigRx for Men from
Leading Edge Marketing, Inc., at any time during the period from October 1,
2001 through August 28, 2007, except counsel for the Class.  

Also excluded from the Class are: (a) wholesalers, i.e., persons who are
recorded in Leading Edge Marketing's business records as purchasing VigRx
for resale; (b) sales affiliates of Leading Edge who purchased VigRx; (c)
persons who received a full refund of all charges including shipping and
handling on or prior to August 28, 2007.

The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendants; instead, both
sides agreed to a settlement.  Defendants deny that they have done anything
wrong.  

The Agreement resolves and compromises Plaintiff’s claims on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated against Defendants.  Under it, Leading
Edge agreed to settle the suit for $6.5 million (Class Action Reporter,
April 11, 2007).

Under the agreement, class members are entitled to either:

     -- a $10 cash rebate;
     -- a $39.95 e-book "relating to men's sexual and
        reproductive health;" or
     -- a six-month subscription to anti-spam software worth
        $24.95.

The settlement fund includes $4.2 million for the cash rebate, with the
remaining $2.3 million to cover attorney's fees and a well-deserved
incentive award for lead plaintiff Jeffery Horton.

Mr. Horton filed a consumer fraud suit in 2004 against the
Canadian company and others involved in the manufacture and sale of the
product.

The suit was filed against:

     -- Leading Edge Marketing Inc. (British Columbia);   
     -- Leading Edge Marketing Inc. (Bahamas);
     -- Leading Edge Marketing Ltd.;
     -- Unipay Processing, Ltd.;
     -- DM Contact Management Ltd.;
     -- TechniPak, L.L.C.;
     -- Advanced Botanicals, Ltd.;
     -- Geoffrey M. MacKay;
     -- Andrew A. MacKay;
     -- Mark D. Scheidt;
     -- Douglas R. MacKay;
     -- Matthew Clayton; and
     -- Warren S. Brander.

The suit claims the VigRx products don't produce the permanent enlargement
and cure for erectile dysfunction that the company promises on its website
and elsewhere.

In May 2005, Judge Phillip Figa of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado found enough merit in the case to grant conditional class
certification (Class Action Reporter, May 30,
2005).

While an appeal of that decision was pending, the parties conducted lengthy
negotiations with a mediator that culminated in the settlement.

With the settlement, Leading Edge Marketing, avoids a jury award that would
not have been covered by insurance and could have exceeded its total assets.

Online Claims must be submitted on or before December 26, 2007. Claims filed
by mail must be sent to the address below postmarked on or before December
26, 2007.

     Leading Edge Settlement Administrator
     C/O Class Action Administration, Inc.
     P.O. Box 6848
     Broomfield, CO 80021-0015
     USA

The suit is "Horton v. Leading Edge Mkt BC, et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-00212-PSF-CBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado under Judge Phillip S. Figa with referral to Judge Craig B. Shaffer.

Deadline to file objection or exclusion is Dec. 10, 2007.  Fairness hearing
is set Feb. 4, 2008 at 9 a.m. at the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294, in Courtroom
A602.

Representing the class is:

          Bradley Corsello
          Corsello Law P.C.
          485 Seventh Ave. 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10018

Representing the defense is:
  
          Michael S. Freeman
          Faegre & Benson LLP
          3200 Wells Fargo Center
          1700 Lincoln Street
          Denver CO 80203-4532
          

MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Settles N.J. Securities Suit for $2.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Majesco Entertainment Co. reached agreements to settle certain litigations
pending in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey: a
securities class action brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of Majesco securities, a private securities action filed by Trinad Capital
Master Fund, Ltd., and a second action filed by Trinad purportedly on behalf
of the company.

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

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

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

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

The complaint names as defendants:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Company and the Individual Defendants have been in negotiations with
Plaintiffs to resolve the matter, and have reached a tentative understanding
on settlement terms (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2007).

                        Settlement Terms

As part of the settlement process, Majesco denied it acted improperly and
stated it was settling these matters in order to eliminate the uncertainty,
expense and distraction of further protracted litigation.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement in the securities class action,
which is subject to notice to the shareholder class and court approval,
Majesco's insurance carrier will make a cash payment and the company will
contribute shares of its common stock with a market value of approximately
$2.5 million. The shares will be distributed to the settlement class if and
when the court grants final approval to the settlement and the settlement
becomes effective. As previously announced, in its second quarter ended
April 30, 2007, the company recorded a $2.5 million charge for the
settlement, representing the expected value of the securities to be paid to
the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' attorney fees will be paid from the settlement
amount.

The settlement of the private securities claim in the action brought by
Trinad on its own behalf provides that Majesco's insurance carrier will make
a cash payment to Trinad, subject to final approval of the class action
settlement by the Court.
The settlement agreement in the action filed by Trinad, purportedly on
behalf of the company, will not result in a payment to the company.
Plaintiff's attorneys will not receive any fees in connection with the
settlement. As a result of the filing of this lawsuit by Trinad, Majesco has
taken actions which it and Trinad believe will benefit Majesco shareholders
and address some of the issues raised in the lawsuit. This settlement is
also subject to notice to the company's shareholders and to court approval.

The company believes it is in its best interest to resolve these claims, in
order to enable management to focus all of its efforts on executing its
strategy and creating greater value for shareholders.

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

Representing the plaintiff is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches $16M Settlement in Calif. Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. reached a $16,000,000 settlement for a racial
discrimination class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, The Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of African-American and Latino brokers in
California.  It alleged Morgan Stanley discriminated against African-
American and Latino brokers and broker trainees in business, compensation,
and other employment opportunities based on race and ethnicity.

Originally, the case was filed as a gender discrimination case by a white
female broker, Daisy Jaffe, who claimed she was wrongfully terminated.

Ms. Jaffe's suit was later changed to a race-and-gender bias case after an
African-American broker, Denise Williams, claimed the firm discriminated
against her on the basis of color.   

Margaret Benay Curtis-Bauer, a former African-American Morgan Stanley
broker, was added as a lead plaintiff in August 2007 in the second amended
complaint.

In a document filed with the court, Morgan Stanley agreed to set up a $16
million settlement fund for more than 1,000 claimants in the class action.

In addition, as part of the proposed settlement, the retail brokerage firm
agreed to institute programs to improve employee diversity.   

The settlement covers African-American and Latino employees of the firm's
Global Wealth Management Group who have worked at Morgan Stanley any time
since Oct. 12, 2002.   

It still requires court approval, thus the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California is scheduled to rule on the terms of the
proposed settlement in late November.

The suit is “Jaffe, et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., Case No.
3:06-cv-03903-TEH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Thelton E. Henderson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James M. Finberg, Esq.
         Altshuler Berzon LLP
         177 Post Street, Suite 300
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Phone: 415-421-7151
         Fax: 415-362-8064
         E-mail: jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com

              - and -           

         Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
         Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000
         Fax: 415-956-1008
         E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Rebecca Dianne Eisen, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         One Market Plaza , Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415/442-1328
         Fax: 415-442-1001
         E-mail: reisen@morganlewis.com


NEW CENTURY: Asks Court to Establish NCWC Claims Bar Dates
----------------------------------------------------------
New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., New Century Financial Corp., and their
direct and indirect subsidiaries (Debtors) ask the Court to establish a bar
date by which all entities and governmental units may file proofs of claim
in the Chapter 11 cases of New Century Warehouse Corporation, wholly-owned
by New Century TRS.

The Debtors also ask Judge Carey to fix a date by which all entities must
file proofs of claim (i) relating to NCWC's rejection of executory contracts
or unexpired leases and (ii) arising out of NCWC's amendment of their
schedules of assets and liabilities.

NCWC, doing business as Access Holdings Corporation, is a specialty finance
company providing warehouse financing to the middle market segment of the
residential mortgage origination industry.

Specifically, the Debtors propose that the Court should fix December 14,
2007, as NCWC's General Bar Date, which would apply to all entities holding
claims against the NCWC that arose prior to its Petition Date.

Moreover, the Debtors ask Judge Carey to fix January 31, 2008, at 5:00 p.m.,
as the Governmental Bar Date.  The Debtors also ask that claims related to
the rejection of executory contracts and unexpired leases, the Rejection Bar
Date will be the later of the NCWC General Bar Date and 30 days after the
effective date of rejection.

Furthermore, the Debtors want the Schedules Bar Date fixed at (i) the later
of the NCWC General Bar Date and (ii) 30 days after the date that notice of
the applicable amendment, if any, to the NCWC Schedules is served on the
claimant.

The NCWC Bar Dates are applicable only to claims related to
NCWC's Chapter 11 Case.  Any entity asserting claims against the other
Debtors must its file proof of claim in accordance with the Bar Date for the
particular Debtor.

                   Ad Hoc Committee Objects

The Ad Hoc Committee of Beneficiaries of the New Century Deferred
Compensation Plan and Supplemental Executive Retirement Savings Plan oppose
the Debtors' request to set NCWC's Bar Dates.

Joseph H. Huston, Esq., at Stevens & Lee, P.C., in Wilmington,
Delaware, tells the Court that the Ad Hoc Committee that the
Committee may file a class proof of claim with respect to a $43,000,000
trust for employee salaries, bonuses, and commissions.

The Ad Hoc Committee is plaintiff to an adversary proceeding against the
Debtors and other parties seeking relief in the alleged violation of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Pursuant to Rule 7023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure, which provides for a class action in adversary proceedings, Mr.
Huston contends that the Ad Hoc Committee is entitled to file a proof of
claim against NCWC.

Accordingly, the Ad Hoc Committee seeks to be exempted from NCWC's Bar
Dates, and to file a class claim following a final judgment in the adversary
proceeding.

(New Century Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 24; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Services Inc. http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000)


NORBORD INC: Named with Eight Others in Pa. OSB Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norbord Inc. (TSX: NBD) and eight other North American OSB producers have
been named as defendants in several lawsuits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuits allege that these nine North American OSB producers violated
U.S. and various state antitrust and other laws by allegedly agreeing to fix
prices and reduce the supply of OSB from June 1, 2002 through the present.

During the quarter, the district court certified a class of persons and
entities that purchased OSB in the U.S. directly from any of the named North
American OSB producers between June 1, 2002 and the present. This class is
seeking injunctive relief and damages under US federal antitrust law.

The district court also certified a class of persons and entities who, as
end users, indirectly purchased for their own use and not for resale, new
OSB manufactured and sold by one or more of the named North American OSB
producers between June 1, 2002 and the present. This class is seeking
injunctive relief under US federal antitrust law.

The district court is still considering the extent to which it will certify
classes of indirect purchasers for purposes of pursuing claims under state
laws.

As of October 23, 2007, the district court has certified for purposes of
pursuing claims under state laws a class consisting of persons and entities
residing in eleven states who, as end users, indirectly purchased for their
own use, and not for resale, new OSB manufactured and sold by one or more of
the named North American OSB producers between June 1, 2002 and the present.
This class is seeking damages, injunctive, and other relief under state laws.

Norbord believes that the lawsuits are entirely without merit and intends to
defend this matter vigorously.

For further information, contact:

          Anita Veel
          Director, Corporate Affairs
          Norbord Inc.
          Phone: (416) 643-8838
          E-mail: anita.veel@norbord.com


PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Securities Suit Settlement Approval Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mikohn Gaming Corp., d/b/a Progressive Gaming International Corp., has yet
to report that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has
granted final approval to a settlement of a purported class action filed
against it.

                         Case Background

The case, “In re Mikohn Gaming Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 2:05-cv-01410-PMP-RJJ,” has been pending since 2005.

Commencing on Nov. 28, 2005, four similar purported class action complaints
were filed, naming the company and two of its officers as defendants, and
seeking unspecified money damages under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints all alleged that during a “class period” beginning in early
2005 and ending on Oct. 19, 2005, the defendants misled the Company’s
investors concerning the prospective application of SFAS No. 153 to the
Company’s financial statements for the third quarter of 2005.

The complaints were consolidated into a single action, and plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint on April 13, 2006, which also asserted claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On Aug. 31,
2006, the court denied the motions with regard to the Sections 11 and 15
claims, but dismissed the other claims, with leave to amend.  

The parties have reached a tentative settlement, subject to the completion
of confirmatory discovery and court approval, and as a result, the court has
stayed plaintiffs’ filing of a second amended complaint.

The court ordered the parties to submit settlement documentation for
preliminary approval by March 2, 2007.  On March 7, 2007, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement between the parties.

Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs agree to dismiss with
prejudice all claims against all defendants, including the Company and its
current and former officers and directors, in exchange for a payment in the
amount of $2.8 million, virtually all of which is being provided pursuant to
the Company’s insurance coverage.

A June 6, 2007 fairness hearing was set.  The company reported no
development in the matter in its Oct. 19, 2007 Form 10-K/A Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31,
2006.

The suit is “In re Mikohn Gaming Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:05-
cv-01410-PMP-RJJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada under Judge Philip M. Pro with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mark Albright, Esq.
         Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright
         801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4
         Las Vegas, NV 89106
         Phone: (702) 384-7111
         Fax: (702) 384-0605
         E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com

         Ike L. Epstein, Esq.
         Beckley Singleton, Chtd.
         530 Las Vegas Blvd. South
         Las Vegas, NV 89101
         E-mail: ecf@beckleylaw.com

         Joni S. Jacobs, Esq.
         McCracken, Stemerman, Bowen & Holsberry
         1630 S. Commerce St., Suite A-1
         Las Vegas, NV 89102
         E-mail: jjacobs@dcbwash.com

              - and -  

         Maya Saxena, Esq.
         Saxena White, P.A.
         5200 Town Center Circle, Tower One, Suite 600
         Boca Raton, FL 33486
         Phone: (954) 701-3965
         Fax: (888) 782-3081
         E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com


RAYMOND JAMES: Former Employees File Gender Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three former employees of Raymond James Financial of St. Petersburg, Florida
filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
claiming the brokerage is “biased against women," particularly those older
than 40, the Times Wires reports.

According to a St. Petersburg Times report named plaintiffs in the suit are:

          -- Pahoua Lee, 33
          -- Bernadette Seprish, 58 and
          -- Beverly Beren, who gives her age as "over 50."

All three of the women worked in Raymond James' St. Petersburg headquarters.

The suit accuses the firm of denying the women promotions they earned, based
on their age, gender and, in one case, race.  The suit seeks class-action
status to represent other current and former female employees.

The women filed their complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, but then asked for the right to sue, which the EEOC granted. The
commission did not investigate or rule on the merits of their complaints.

Raymond James notified employees of the lawsuit with a posting on the
company intranet that has raised the ire of lawyers for the women.

The company said it responded to the EEOC complaint "with detailed answers
refuting the allegations and demonstrating that all employment decisions
were proper and appropriate." It said the company showed the complaints
were "without merit" and said it expects the charges to be dismissed.
Raymond James instructed employees not to talk to the press about the suit
and said those who have questions should call the company's legal department.

The statements were improper, misleading and potentially intimidating, said
Ethan Zelizer of Stowell & Friedman, the Chicago law firm representing the
women. He asked the judge to require Raymond James to correct the notice and
to get court approval for future notices sent to female employees as a group.

Raymond James agreed to remove the notice from the company intranet.

Raymond James -- http://www.raymondjames.com-- is a diversified financial  
services holding company with subsidiaries engaged primarily in investment
and financial planning, in addition to investment banking and asset
management.

To contact Mr. Zelizer:

          Ethan Zelizer
          Stowell & Friedman , Ltd.
          Suite 1400, 321 South Plymouth Court
          Chicago, IL 60604-3912
          Phone: (312) 431-0888
          Fax: (312) 431-0228


ROSS STORES: Recalls Turtle Sprinklers Due to Laceration Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores Inc., Pleasanton, California, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,800 turtle
sprinklers.

The company said the turtle’s body can fill with water, causing it to crack
or explode, posing a laceration hazard to consumers.

The firm has received one report of the turtle sprinkler cracking. No
injuries have been reported.

The turtle sprinkler is made of plastic resin and measures about 6-inches
tall. The SKU number 400022708494 is printed on a label located on the
underside of the sprinkler.

These recalled turtle sprinklers were made in China and are being sold at
Ross Stores and dd’s Discounts nationwide from March 2007 through September
2007 for about $9.

Pictures of recalled turtle sprinklers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08026.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the sprinkler immediately, and return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund.

For further information, contact Ross toll-free at (877) 455-7677 anytime
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site:
http://www.rossstores.com


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Eleventh Circuit Denies Re-hearing Petitions
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied plaintiff’s petition
for re-hearing and petition for re-hearing enbanc in connection with the
affirmation of the dismissal of a purported class action against Royal
Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and one of its cruise brands.

Filed in April 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, the suit alleges that the company's Celebrity Cruises Lines
improperly requires its cabin stewards to share guest gratuities with
assistant cabin stewards.   

The suit seeks payment of damages including penalty wages under 46 U.S.C.
Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest.

In March 2006, the Southern District of Florida dismissed the suit and held
that the case should be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in
Celebrity’s collective bargaining agreement.

In June 2007, following an appeal by the plaintiff to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the appellate court affirmed the District
Court’s order dismissing the suit.

In August 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff’s petition for re-
hearing and petition for re-hearing enbanc, according to the company’s Oct.
22, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. -- http://www.royalcaribbean.com-- is a  
cruise company with 34 cruise ships and 67,550 berths. The Company operates
three brands: Royal Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruises and
Pullmantur Cruises in the cruise vacation industry.  The cruise vacation
industry comprises the budget, contemporary, premium and luxury segments.


SEATTLE SUPERSONICS: Faces Suit for “Misleading” Ticket Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Another Seattle SuperSonics season ticket holder filed a purported consumer
fraud class action in King County Superior Court against the team, claiming
that the new ownership group misled ticket buyers, Percy Allen of The
Seattle Times reports.

The suit, filed by Robert Brotherson, came just two days after Carolyn
Bechtel, a 58-year-old Kirkland, Wash. resident, and Patrick Sheehy, a 36-
year-old Seattle resident, two Sonics season-ticket holders filed a lawsuit
against the team on Oct. 1, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2007).

The earlier suit accused the team of false advertising to ticket buyers who
purchased tickets so that as a result, they are under the impression that
the Sonics would play in Seattle through 2010.

Meanwhile, Mr. Brotherson's suit charges the Sonics “sent a letter to
potential season-ticket holders guaranteeing that season ticket prices would
be frozen at their current levels through the 2009-10 season.”

The suit states the team “knew or should have known that the Sonics future
in Seattle for the next three seasons was at best uncertain and more likely
than not the team was going to be moved.”

It is seeking class-action status on behalf of ticket buyers who purchased
season tickets between July 2006, when the Oklahoma City-based Professional
Basketball Club purchased the Sonics and Storm, and Sept. 21, 2007, when
chairman Clay Bennett filed a demand for arbitration to escape the final two
years of the team's KeyArena lease.

For more details, contact:

         Michael David Myers, Esq.
         Thomas Baisch, Esq.
         MYERS & COMPANY, P.L.L.C.
         1809 Seventh Avenue, Suite 700
         Seattle, Washington 98101
         Phone: (206) 398-1188
         Fax: (206) 398-1189
         E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com
                 tbaisch@myers-company.com


TOP TANKERS: Moves to Junk Suit Over Alleged Accounting Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grecian oil shipping company Top Tankers Inc. asked the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against it, Elaine Chow of the Securities Law360
reports.

Initially, the company and certain of its executive officers and directors
were named as defendants in a putative securities fraud class action.  The
suit is alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The shareholders accused Top Tankers and its top executives of omitting key
financial data in order to boost the company’s stock price. Questions about
the shipping company’s accounting practices emerged when the company
announced in June 2006 that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was
investigating the company’s acquisitions dating back to 2004 and events
before the company announced the $550 million sale and leaseback of 13
vessels on March 13, 2006. The company announced on Nov. 29, 2006, that its
auditors, Ernst & Young, had resigned over the accounting for the sale and
leaseback of the vessels.

As of the company's April 20, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, none of the
defendants has been served in this action, which has been consolidated with
nine additional putative class actions (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007).

Top Tankers said that after its motion to dismiss the first consolidated
complaint in the case, plaintiffs were “forced to take the unusual step of
abandoning a large portion of their case, including their major theory of
fraud,” related to Top Tankers mis-characterizing a distribution as
a “special dividend” and thereby overstating its financial condition. “What
remains, after plaintiffs were compelled to concede these allegations, is a
bare skeleton of a complaint,” Top Tankers said.

In the new complaint, there was not one specifically pleaded allegation
suggesting that Top Tankers had meant to commit fraud. Nor did the complaint
identify a single stock sale, or anything else, that could explain why Top
Tankers would have done anything fraudulent.

Top Tankers asked for the complaint to be dismissed with prejudice and
without leave to replead since there is “no basis whatsoever for the claim
of fraud...”

The first identified complaint is "Bhojwani v. Pistiolis et al.
Case No. 1:06-cv-13761-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Richard C.
Casey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 983-9330
         Fax: (212) 983-9331
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

         Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
         Gardy & Notis, LLP
         440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
         Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
         Phone: (201) 567-7377

              - and -

         Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq.
         Kahn, Gauthier Swick, LLC
         650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Phone: (504) 455-1400

Representing the defendants is:

         Justina Louise Geraci, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P.
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 295-6380
         Fax: (212) 230-8888
         E-mail: justina.geraci@wilmerhale.com


T ROWE PRICE: Investors Sue on Failure to Timely Adjust Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc. and its affiliates are facing a
class-action complaint filed Oct. 3 in the Circuit Court for the Third
Judicial Circuit of Madison County, Illinois over its failure to use the
latest prices from international markets.

Also named in the complaint are:

          -- T. Rowe Price International, Inc.;
          -- Artisan Funds, Inc.;
          -- Artisan Partners Limited Partnership;
          -- AIM International Funds, Inc.; and
          -- AIM Advisors

Named plaintiffs -- T.K. Parthasarathy, Edmund Woodbury, Stuart Allen Smith
and Sharon Smith -- bring this complaint as a class action pursuant to
Section 5/2-801 et seq. of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure individually
and on behalf of all persons in the United States who have owned shares of
T. Rowe Price International, Artisan International and Aim European Growth
for more than 14 days from the date of purchase to the date of sale
(redemption) or exchange (long term shareholders).

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants failed to properly evaluate on a
         daily basis whether a significant event affecting the
         value of T. Rowe Price International, Artisan
         International and AIM European Growth's portfolios of
         securities had occurred after the foreign home markets
         for such securities had closed but before the fund's
         NAV calculation and share price setting;

     (b) whether defendants failed to properly implement T. Rowe
         Price International, Artisan International and AIM
         European Growth's portfolios valuation and share
         pricing policies and procedures making daily
         adjustments based upon United States market results and
         recognized positive correlations between upward
         movements in United States and foreign markets in the
         valuation of the fund's portfolio securities prior to
         the calculation of the fund NAV and setting of the
         share price;

     (c) whether defendants failed to properly implement T. Rowe
         Price International, Artisan International and AIM
         European Growth's portfolios valuation and share
         pricing policies and procedures making daily
         adjustments to stale closing prices of the underlying
         portfolio securities before the fund's NAV calculation
         and share price setting;

     (d) whether defendants failed to properly implement T. Rowe
         Price International, Artisan International and AIM
         European Growth's portfolios valuation and share
         pricing policies so as to require the use of fair value
         pricing on a daily basis to value portfolio securities
         and fund NAV and share prices when closing prices of
         portfolio securities did not reflect their market
         values;

     (e) whether defendants failed to protect T. Rowe Price
         International, Artisan International and AIM European
         Growth's long term shareholders from market timing
         traders of fund shares who use T. Rowe Price
         International, Artisan International and AIM European
         Growth's shares as a trading vehicle to earn profits at
         the expense of long term shareholders because of the
         failure of T. Rowe price Funds, T. Rowe Price Fund
         Manager, Artisan Funds, Artisan Fund Manager, AIM
         Funds, and AIM Fund Manager to make daily adjustments,
         based upon known United States market results and
         recognized positive correlations between upward
         movements in United States and foreign markets, prior
         to the daily use of stale prices in the valuation of
         the fund's portfolio securities prior to the daily
         calculation of the fund NAV and the setting of share
         prices;

     (f) whether defendants breached the duties they owed to
         plaintiffs and the class;

     (g) whether plaintiffs and the class have been damaged and,
         if so,

     (h) the extent of such damages.

Plaintiffs pray that the court enter judgment in their favor as follows:

      -- ordering that this action be maintained as a class
         action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 801 and the following
         class be certified:

         all persons in the United States who held shares in the
         T. Rowe Price International Stock Fund, Artisan
         International Fund, or AIM European Growth, for a
         period of more than 14 days before redeeming or
         exchanging them during the period beginning from five
         years prior to and through the date of the filing of
         this complaint;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory damages,
        prejudgment interest, costs of suits, punitive damages
        and attorneys' fees for an amount representing the
        damages caused by defendants' breach of their duties not
        to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or class member.

The suit is "TK Parthasarathy et al. v. T. Rowe Price International Funds,
Inc. et al., Case No. 05-CV-302-DRH," filed in the Circuit Court for the
Third Judicial Circuit in Madison County, Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stephen M. Tillery
          10 Executive Woods Court
          Swansea, IL 62226
          Phone: (618) 277-1180
          Fax: (618) 241-3525

          George A. Zelcs
          Three First National Plaza
          70 West Madison, Suite 660
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 641-9750
          Fax: (312) 641-9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com

          - and -

          Law Offices of Klint Bruno
          Klint Bruno #6257742
          Oak Park, Illinois 60301
          Phone: (312) 286-4915


VALENTINO USA: Card Holders Suit Settlement Hearing Set Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 25 fairness hearing is set in a suit that alleges Valentino U.S.A.,
Inc. violated California Civil Code SS 1747.08 by requesting or requiring
that credit card customers provide personal information, such as address,
phone number, or e-mail address, in situations where doing so was prohibited
by statute.

The suit was filed by Maryann Shafie et al. in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 06CC00151.  The class is
composed of persons who:

      (i) purchased merchandise with a credit card from a
          Valentino store in California between August 3, 2005
          and August 31, 2006 and whose purchase did not involve
          Shipping or Delivery of the merchandise, an Alteration
          or Repair, a Special Order, or a Customer Contact
          Request; and

    (ii) for whom Valentino U.S.A., Inc. has a database entry
         containing the person's address or phone number.

Class Members who do not opt out and who return a valid claim form
establishing their class membership will receive a Credit Certificate for
forty dollars ($40.00) off of a purchase at a Valentino store in California.
Credit Certificates are valid only for in-store purchases (not online or
phone purchases) of full price merchandise (not services) at the Valentino
stores in Costa Mesa and Beverly Hills only, and may not be redeemed for
cash or a gift card. Credit Certificates cannot be used in conjunction with
any other offer, sale, or discount. Credit Certificates expire six months
after date of mailing, are not transferable, and are limited to one per
transaction and one per customer. The Credit Certificate must be used in one
transaction; no change will be given.

The fairness hearing will be at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX101 of the
Superior Court of California for the County of Orange , Complex Civil
Center , 751 West Santa Ana Boulevard , Santa Ana, CA 92701.


WORKING FOREX: Faces Penna. Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Working Forex Investment is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania accusing it of
running a Ponzi scheme on the Internet.

The scheme was allegedly conducted over the internet from approximately
January 2007 through the present. Under the guise of operating a legitimate
high-yield investment program trading under the name "Working Forex
Investment", the John Doe defendant defrauded thousands of victims with the
promise that their "investments" would be secure and would provide a
substantial guaranteed return. As ultimately happens with all Ponzi schemes,
however, Working Forex Investment ceased to make payments and is no longer
honoring their existing obligations to investors and the operators are
threatening to abscond with all of their victims' investments.

Named plaintiff Olusola Oluyemi seeks immediate and permanent injunctive
relief to prevent such irreparable harm and an award of damages for fraud,
conversion, unjust enrichment and breach of contract and violations of the
Pennsylvania Securities Act and the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer
Act.

This action is brought as a class action on behalf of all investors who
invested value using E-Gold and/or Liberty Reserve with Working Forex
Investment and suffered losses as a result of the defendants' conduct
complained of.

Plaintiff requests the court to enter judgment in the his favor and against
defendants jointly and severally, and to award damages in an amount not less
than $500,00, plus punitive damages in an amount not less than $1,500,000,
for a total judgment in an amount not less than $2,000,000, together with
interest thereon, plus the plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees herein and
any other relief that is proper; however, the total amount of such monetary
relief for the class as a whole and for all counts and claims in this
complaint combined shall not exceed $5 million in sum or value.

The suit is "Olusola Oluyemi et al. v. Working Forex Investment et al. Case
No. GD07-22760," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Michael J. Bruzzese
          The Bank Tower, Suite 1008
          307 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 281-8676

          - and -

          Scott M. Hare
          Bartony & Hare, LLP
          The Frick Building, Suite 1806
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 338-8632


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


AETNA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on behalf of all securities purchasers of Aetna Inc. from October 27, 2005
through April 27, 2006, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Aetna and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of sections 10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that during the second half of 2005, Aetna touted its expanding
membership rolls as a primary reason for a growth in operating income.

The Company's Medical Cost Ratio ("MCR") is the percentage of dollars a
company spends on health care, including physician reimbursement, and is the
key number for health plans in terms of their level of profitability. For
six months, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the rise in
Aetna's MCR. Unbeknownst to investors, however, from at least as early as
September 2005, defendants had in their possession information that
contradicted or rendered statements made by the defendants throughout the
Class Period false.

On April 27, 2006, the Company shocked the market when it disclosed a rise
in its MCR relative to the prior year. This higher MCR, coupled with large
membership growth, meant that the Company was under-pricing its health plans
in order to speed up enrollment. This fact, which the defendants knew by
September 2005, was conspicuously absent from defendants' public disclosures
between October 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006. From April 26, 2006 to April
27, 2006, Aetna's shares fell from $46.43 per share to $37.00 per share, a
decline of $9.43 per share, or over 20 percent, representing a loss in
market capitalization of $5.4 billion.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 24, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

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


FIRST HOME: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed in Fla. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. announced that a federal securities
class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Fort Myers Division), on behalf of all persons
who purchased one or more real properties for investment purposes from First
Home Builders of Florida, a Florida general partnership in Cape Coral,
Florida or Lehigh Acres, Florida between September 1, 2003 and December 31,
2005, based upon representations made by First Home and/or its agents,
including the real estate brokerage firm of D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc.
(D&W), that:

     (a) investors would receive a fourteen percent (14%) or
         greater return on their investment based upon a tenant
         occupying, and then purchasing, each property;

     (b) the tenants for each property would be procured solely
         through the efforts and expertise of First Home and/or
         D&W (and/or their respective affiliates or co-brokers);
         and

     (c) no further cash outlay would be required from investors
         other than the initial contract deposit.

The Complaint alleges that First Home, D&W, and several of its officers and
directors, violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading statements to prospective investors in order to induce them
to purchase real estate investment properties from First Home.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
fraudulently induced investors to purchase real estate investment properties
in Lee County, Florida by promising that:

     (a) defendants would procure tenants for all properties
         purchased by investors;

     (b) the rental income generated from these tenants would
         cover all of the investor's mortgage expenses: and

     (c) investors would receive a guaranteed 14% return on
         their investment after the first year.

These representations were knowingly false and misleading at the time that
they were made.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf all those who purchased real
estate investment properties from First Home during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Daniel L. Wallach, Esq.
          3111 Stirling Road
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
          Phone: (954) 965-5049
          E-mail: dwallach@becker-poliakoff.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  * * *