CAR_Public/071029.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 29, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 214

                            Headlines

BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Ind. Couple Files TILA Violations Lawsuit
BOEING CO: Still Faces Employment Bias Lawsuits in Wash., Ill.
BOEING CO: Ill. Court Consolidates ERISA Violations Lawsuit
BOEING CO: Ill. Court Orders Stay for ERISA Violations Lawsuit
BOEING CO: Parties Conclude “Wheeler” ERISA Litigation in Ill.

BROADCOM CORP: Dispute in Cal. Securities Suit Now Resolved
COLUMBIA GAS: Faces W.Va. Suit Over T16 Pipeline Contamination
CROCUS INVESTMENT: No Ruling Yet on Release of Receiver's Report
DELL COMPUTER: N.M. A.G. Backs Local Man in Consumer Fraud Suit
DUNKIN’ DONUTS: Recalls Glow Sticks Due to Choking Hazards

E.I DU PONT: Faces $400M Liability in Spelter, W.Va. Lawsuit
GUIDECRAFT INC: Recalls Puppet Theaters on High Lead Content
HEELYS INC: Faces Tex. Securities Fraud Suits Over December IPO
HURRY CORP: Recalls Bicycles with Cranks that can Detach in Use
KONG MAXX: Recalls Ladder Stands that can Become Unstable

MASTEC: Agrees to Settle Legacy Wage, Hour Suit for $12.6M
MITEL NETWORKS: Faces Litigation Over Inter-Tel Merger Agreement
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Review to Delay Jan. 22 Cal. ERISA Suit Trial
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Recalls Girls’ Boots Due to Fall Hazard
PRAXAIR INC: Still Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Welding Fumes

R.L. ALBERT: Recalls Halloween Pails Due to High Lead Content
SOUTH DAKOTA: 2004 Flood Victims Have Until Jan. to Join Suit
SOUTH DAKOTA: Proposed New Strip Search Suit Plaintiffs Junked
SPRINT: Agrees to Disclose Lock Code to Settle Cal. Lawsuit
UNION PACIFIC: Panel to Decide Jurisdiction for Antitrust Suits

WELLPOINT HEALTH: CMA Added as Plaintiff in Cal. Hospitals' Suit
WELLPOINT INC: Parties Settle Calif. Insurance Policies Lawsuit

* Law Journal Names This Year's “Plaintiffs' Hot List”


                  New Securities Fraud Cases
                
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Abraham Fruchter Files Pa. Securities Lawsuit
WELLCARE HEALTH: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in Fla.


                            *********


BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Ind. Couple Files TILA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. are facing a purported class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
alleging violations of the Truth In Lending Act or TILA, The
Gary Post Tribune reports.

The suit was filed by Kerry and Susan Burke on Oct. 18, 2007
against the defendants for their alleged failure to specify that
its mortgage payments were due every month.  It was brought on
behalf of more than 50 other plaintiffs.

The Burkes seek to have their mortgages rescinded for what they
claim is a failure to disclose the proper terms of repayment for
a $126,000 home equity loan they took out in January 2007.

According to the suit, the federally required Truth-in-Lending
statement that plaintiffs received at closing, which spells out
the cost and terms of repayment, did not stipulate that the
mortgage payments were due every month.  Instead, it stated that
a certain number of payments were due by a specific date.

Though the text of the mortgage document contains numerous
references to the fact that monthly payments are required, the
lawsuit argues that the failure to disclose the schedule of
repayment is grounds to cancel the mortgage under TILA.

Canceling the mortgage would essentially negate the more than
$300,000 in interest the couple would be required to pay over
the lifetime of the loan.

In addition to asking the court to void their mortgage,
plaintiffs are also seeking compensation for their attorney
fees.

The suit is “Burke et al. v. Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00365-PPS-PRC,” filed in the U.S
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana under Judge
Philip P. Simon with referral to Judge Paul R. Cherry.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-739-4200
          Fax: 312-419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


BOEING CO: Still Faces Employment Bias Lawsuits in Wash., Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. continues to face two employment discrimination
class actions in Washington and Illinois.

                       Williams Litigation

In the Williams racial discrimination class action, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, the company prevailed in a jury trial in December
2005, but plaintiffs appealed the pre-trial dismissal of
compensation claims in November 2005.   

                       Calendar Litigation

In the Calender racial discrimination class action, which was
filed in the U.S. Northern District of Illinois -- a spin-off
from Williams – plaintiffs dropped their promotions claim on
June 6, 2006 and put their compensation claims on hold pending
the outcome of the Williams appeal.  

The company reported no development in the case at its Oct. 24,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/
-- is an aerospace company that operates in six principal
segments: Commercial Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems,
Network Systems, Support Systems, Launch and Orbital Systems,
and Boeing Capital Corp.  


BOEING CO: Ill. Court Consolidates ERISA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. remains a defendant in a consolidated class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, alleging violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed a class
action asserting allegations that Boeing is obligated to provide
vested lifetime retiree medical benefits to plaintiffs and all
class members.

Plaintiffs alleged that recently announced changes to medical
plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of
collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor-
Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA.

The lawsuit alleged that the collective bargaining agreements
and the medical plans obligate Boeing to provide vested lifetime
retiree health care benefits to the plaintiffs and to all class
members.

On Sept. 15, 2006, Boeing filed a lawsuit in the Northern
District of Illinois against the International UAW and two
retiree medical plan participants seeking a declaratory judgment
confirming that the company has the legal right to make changes
to these medical benefits.

On June 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee ordered that its case be transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.   The two
cases were consolidated on Sept. 24, 2007.

Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/
-- is an aerospace company that operates in six principal
segments: Commercial Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems,
Network Systems, Support Systems, Launch and Orbital Systems,
and Boeing Capital Corp.  


BOEING CO: Ill. Court Orders Stay for ERISA Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
stayed a purported class action that alleges violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act against The Boeing Co.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the company was named as a defendant in the
lawsuit, which was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated
participants and beneficiaries in the Boeing Company Voluntary
Investment Plan, alleged that fees and expenses incurred by the
Plan were and are unreasonable and excessive, not incurred
solely for the benefit of the Plan and its participants, and
were undisclosed to participants.

The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
sought injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.  

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which
Boeing has opposed.

On Sept. 10, 2007, the court issued an order staying class
certification pending resolution by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit of “Lively v. Dynegy, Inc.,” according
to the company's Oct. 24, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/
-- is an aerospace company that operates in six principal
segments: Commercial Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems,
Network Systems, Support Systems, Launch and Orbital Systems,
and Boeing Capital Corp.


BOEING CO: Parties Conclude “Wheeler” ERISA Litigation in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the matter, "Wheeler et al. v. Pension Value Plan for
Employees of The Boeing Co. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00500-DRH-
PMF," filed a joint stipulation concluding the matter.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois alleging that The Boeing Co. violated
Employment Retirement Income Security Act in relation to
computations of its Pension Value Plan for Employees.

On June 23, 2006, two employees and two former employees of
Boeing filed a purported class action on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated participants in the Plan, against:

     -- Boeing Co.,
     -- McDonnell Douglas Corp., and
     -- the Pension Value Plan for Employees of The Boeing Co.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on June 23, 2006 by:

     -- Larry Wheeler of Edwardsville;
     -- David and Maral Keeton of Wildwood, Missouri; and
     -- Vincent Parisi of Bellefontaine Neighbors, Missouri.

Plaintiffs allege that as of Jan. 1, 1999 and all times
thereafter, the Plan's benefit formula used to compute the
accrued benefit violates the accrual rules of ERISA and that
plaintiffs are entitled to a recalculation of their benefits
along with other equitable relief.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that their retirement benefits
are less than the accrued benefit to which they are legally
entitled, since the plan failed to properly apply accrual and
vesting rules imposed by ERISA.  The conduct mentioned is
widespread, affecting hundreds of plan participants, according
to the complaint.

Plaintiffs also claim that the plan violates ERISA's anti-back
loading provisions by making benefits accrue very slowly over
time until the participants nears the normal retirement age so
that a participant's vested pension rights have very little
value until they complete a very long period of service.

In addition, plaintiffs argue that under ERISA a defined benefit
plan must allow a participant to accrue, i.e. earn benefits no
less that ratably over a working career so as to prevent
employers from using creative plan designs to avoid the
protection afforded by ERISA's vesting rules.

The company believes the allegations claimed by plaintiffs lack
merit and have filed a motion to dismiss all claims.

                         Relief Sought

Furthermore, plaintiffs claim they are entitled to appropriate
equitable relief to redress the plan's violations of ERISA and
to enforce provisions, and incidental monetary relief
mechanically flowing from injunctive relief in the form of a
common fund equal to the difference between what they were paid
under the alleged unlawful method of computing their pension
benefits.

The suit asked the court for a declaration that the pension
plan's method of computing benefits is unlawful, a judgment for
them and against the company and a permanent injunction
preventing the plan from calculating pension benefits in
violation of ERISA.

Plaintiffs also asked the creation of a common fund equal to the
amount of pension benefits due, pre and post judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the common fund/benefit
doctrine or any other applicable laws and any other relief the
court deems appropriate under the circumstances.

On March 13, 2007, the court granted Boeing's motion and
dismissed the suit with prejudice.  Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to vacate the judgment, which Boeing opposed.

The court denied the motion to vacate the judgment on Sept. 6,
2007 and the parties filed a joint stipulation on Sept. 14, 2007
concluding the lawsuit.

The suit is, "Wheeler et al. v. Pension Value Plan for Employees
of The Boeing Co. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00500-DRH-PMF," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
under Judge David R. Herndon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Schlichter Bogard
          Phone: 314-621-6115 and 618-632-3329
          Fax: 314-621-7151
          E-mail: marmstrong@uselaws.com
                  jschlichter@uselaws.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Lisa Demet Martin, Esq.
          Bryan Cave
          St. Louis, 211 North
          Broadway, One Metropolitan Square
          Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: 314-259-2000
          Fax: 314-259-2020

          - and -

          Christopher J. Rillo, Esq.
          Groom Law Group
          Chartered, 1701 Pennsylvania Ave.
          NW Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-857-0620
          Fax: 202-659-4503
          E-mail: crillo@groom.com


BROADCOM CORP: Dispute in Cal. Securities Suit Now Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court resolved a dispute in the appointment of
class counsel in a consolidated securities fraud class action
filed against Broadcom Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

From August through October 2006, several plaintiffs filed these
purported shareholder class actions in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Broadcom and
certain of its current or former officers and directors (Options
Class Actions) (Class Action Reporter, May 10, 2007):

      -- "Bakshi v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 06-5036 R (CWx),"

      -- "Mills v. Samueli, et al., Case No. SACV 06-9674 DOC
          R(CWx)," and

      -- "Minnesota Bakers Union Pension Fund, et al. v.
          Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. SACV 06-970 CJC R
          (CWx)."

The essence of the plaintiffs' allegations is that Broadcom
improperly backdated stock options, resulting in false or
misleading disclosures concerning, among other things,
Broadcom's business and financial condition.

Plaintiffs also allege that Broadcom failed to account for and
pay taxes on stock options properly, that the individual
defendants sold Broadcom stock while in possession of material
nonpublic information, and that the defendants' conduct caused
artificial inflation in Broadcom's stock price and damages to
the putative plaintiff class.

Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

In November 2006 the Court consolidated the Options Class
Actions and appointed the New Mexico State Investment Council as
lead class plaintiff.

In October 2007, the federal appeals court resolved a dispute
regarding the appointment of lead class counsel.  

The lead plaintiff’s consolidated class action complaint will be
due 45 days after the district judge enters a revised order
appointing lead class counsel.

The first identified complaint is "Sonam Bakshi v. Henry Samueli
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05036-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge Carla Woehrle.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group
          12400 Wilshire
          Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          - and -

          Bryan L. Crawford, Esq.
          Heins Mills & Olson
          3550 IDS Ctr., 80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-338-4605
          Fax: 612-338-4692

Representing the defendants are:

          Gordon A. Greenberg, Esq.
          McDermott Will & Emery
          2049 Century Park E, 34th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
          Phone: 310-277-4110
          Fax: 310-277-4730

          - and -

          Stephen S. Hasegawa, Esq.
          Irell & Manella
          1800 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
          Phone: 310-277-1010
          E-mail: shasegawa@irell.com


COLUMBIA GAS: Faces W.Va. Suit Over T16 Pipeline Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. faces a purported class action
in Roane Circuit Court in West Virginia concerning damages
caused by the company's T16 pipeline, Chris Dickerson of The
West Virginia Record reports.

The suit was filed by attorneys Tim J. Yianne and Harry F. Bell
Jr. of Bell & Bands on Oct. 17 on behalf of Emogene Helmick, who
is seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief for
property damage caused by contamination from Columbia Gas
pipelines located, among other places, on her property in Little
Pigeon.

According to the suit, which has been assigned to Judge Thomas
Evans, Columbia Gas has operated a natural gas pipeline system
in the northeastern part of the U.S. since the 1890s. Presently,
the company now has about 12,750 miles of such pipeline and 36
natural gas storage fields.

Columbia Gas, according to the suit, no longer uses the line to
transmit gas, but it has attempted to transfer ownership of the
line for the portion of pipeline that crosses Ms. Helmick's
property.

"However, as a condition of transferring the pipeline, Columbia
has attempted to have plaintiff sign an 'Ownership Transfer of
Abandoned Pipeline' contract where plaintiff makes certain
warranties if she should remove any equipment, scrap or other
materials," the suit states.

The complaint maintains that these warranties are a violation of
the Federal Resource Conversation and Recovery Act, an actual or
threatened release of hazardous substance under the Federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act or a violation of other environmental laws, rules and
regulations.

The potential class would consist of all individuals who own
property in West Virginia that has been contaminated by the T16
pipeline.

The complaint says factors that would be considered include
whether contaminants have caused a diminution of property value
and, if so, by how much.  The amount of damages for the cost of
removal and disposal of the contaminants also would be
considered.

Ms. Helmick is seeking class action status for the case.  She is
also seeking an order creating and implementing a court-
supervised defendant-funded program to pay for the removal and
disposing of contaminants from the pipelines, attorney fees,
court costs - including medical monitoring administration – as
well as other relief.

For more details, contact:

          Tim J. Yianne, Esq.
          Harry Bell Jr., Esq.
          Bell and Bands
          30 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1723
          Charleston, West Virginia 25326  
          Phone: (304) 345-1700 and (800) 342-1701
          Fax: (304) 345-1715  
          Web site: http://www.belllaw.com


CROCUS INVESTMENT: No Ruling Yet on Release of Receiver's Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench judge has reserved her
decision as to when the result of a recent probe into the
troubled Crocus Investment Fund will be disclosed, The Winnipeg
Free Press reports.

The fund's receiver, Deloitte, has recommended previewing the
report for a limited group of individuals and companies that are
named as respondents in a class action.  Afterwards, the report
will be released to the public.

Lawyers for the shareholders want the report distributed to the
public immediately. Most of the defendants are siding with the
receiver's plan, according to Jeff Keele of CJOB.com.

The timing of the release of the report is crucial to those
involved in the class action.  A hearing to hear arguments about
certification of the class action is scheduled for January 2008.  
However, the deadline for submissions for that hearing is
November 9, according to Geoff Kirbyson and Dan Lett of the
Winnipeg Free Press.

The receiver is suggesting the parties look over the materials
and come back to court on November 7 to argue whether it should
be released publicly, according to Mr. Keele.

Norman Boudreau, one of the lawyers pursuing the class action,
told the judge he was concerned that the Deloitte report would
not be released by the court in time to be used in arguments for
the certification.

Judge Deborah McCawley said she would make a ruling very
promptly.

                      January Hearing

A Winnipeg court has set a week-long certification hearing
starting on Jan. 7, 2008 for a CAD200 million lawsuit filed on
behalf of Crocus Investment shareholders (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 13, 2007).

Investors filed the suit in 2005 after the labor sponsored fund
failed.

The suit alleges, among others, that the province "did not
properly enforce the Crocus Act," and that provincial officials
"deliberately ignored multiple warning signs regarding the
management of the Crocus Fund" (Class Action Reporter, Nov 22,
2006).

Lead plaintiffs, GrowthWorks Canadian Fund Ltd. and Bernie
Bellan, have proposed a $1 million settlement for the suit.

Defendants in the suit are:

     - Crocus Investment;
     - Manitoba Securities Commission;
     - 17 individuals that include past senior officers and
       members of the fund's board of directors; and
     - Manitoba province.

Deloitte is represented by Russell Holmes.  Ken Filkow, a
partner at D'Arcy & Deacon who is representing several former
Crocus directors.

Lead attorney for the investors is:

          David Klein, Esq.
          David Klein, Klein Lyons
          Suite 1100 - 1333 West Broadway    
          Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1
          Phone: (604) 874-7171


DELL COMPUTER: N.M. A.G. Backs Local Man in Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Attorney General's Office is supporting a local
man who is suing Dell Computer Corp. for selling him a computer
that didn't have as much storage capacity as the company had
claimed, The Associated Press reports.

In a show of support, the Attorney General's Office filed a
brief with the state Supreme Court in the case of Robert Fiser,
who filed a class action against the company in 2004.

In his suit, Mr. Fiser accused Dell of violating parts of the
New Mexico Unfair Practices Act and the New Mexico Uniform
Commercial Code.  

Plaintiff also states claims for breach of contract,
misrepresentation and violations of the covenants of good faith
and fair dealing.

Commenting on his office's recent move, Attorney General Gary
King told The Associated Press that part of his job is to
protect New Mexicans from unfair and deceptive trade practices.

In its brief, A.G. King's office is asking the high court to
overturn a decision by the state Court of Appeals that upheld
Dell's contention that Ms. Fiser was bound by an arbitration
provision displayed on the back of a packing slip attached to
the computer's shipping box.

The attorney general contends that the appellate court wrongly
determined that Texas law, not New Mexico law, should apply to
the case.

A.G. King also states in the brief, “When New Mexico consumers
enter into contracts with out-of-state merchants, particularly
adhesion contracts such as the one at issue in this case, they
deserve the protection of New Mexico law.”

He also pointed out that the court erred by holding that the
arbitration provision was not procedurally unconscionable and
that the plaintiff was precluded from filing a class action.


DUNKIN’ DONUTS: Recalls Glow Sticks Due to Choking Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------
Dunkin’ Donuts LLC, of Canton, Mass. in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1 million pink and orange glow sticks (free giveaway with
donuts).  Consumers are advised to stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The recalled glow sticks are not properly labeled to warn
consumers that the cap and lanyard can detach, posing a choking
hazard. Additionally, the lanyard poses a strangulation hazard
to young children.

No injuries/incidents have been reported so far.

The pink and orange glow sticks were given away free with
purchases of donuts.  They were made in China and sold at
Dunkin’ Donuts stores nationwide from September 2007 through
October 2007. They were a free giveaway with the purchase of
donuts.

Picture of the recalled glow stick:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08030.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled glow
sticks away from young children and return them to any Dunkin’
Donuts for a free donut.

For additional information, contact Dunkin’ Donuts at (800) 859-
5339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.DunkinDonuts.com.


E.I DU PONT: Faces $400M Liability in Spelter, W.Va. Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. has to pay nearly $400 million
in awards for wanton, willful and reckless conduct at its former
zinc-smelting plant, reports say.

In 2004, 10 property owners from the town of Spelter filed a
negligence suit against the companies that operated the plant in
Spelter.  Dupont bought the property in 1899.  It re-assumed
ownership of the zinc smelting plant when it was shut down by
authorities in 2001 due to health concerns.

Defendants are:

     -- Dupont;

     -- T.L. Diamond & Co. in New York and plant manager Joe
        Puashel;

     -- Nuzum Trucking Co. of Shinnston; and
        two defunct companies:
     
        * Matthiesen & Hegeler Zinc Co. Inc. of Illinois, and
        * Meadowbrook Corp. of West Virginia.

The plaintiff is Waunona Crouser.

During the first phase of the trial on Oct. 1, the jury found
Dupont liable for and negligent in creating the waste site.  In
the second and third phase, jurors ordered DuPont to provide
medical monitoring for 40 years to residents who were exposed to
arsenic, cadmium and lead; and to pay nearly $55.5 million to
clean private properties.  The plan to provide the monitoring,
estimated to cost more than $100 million, will be determined by
Judge Thomas Bedell.  He will also determine how the punitive
damages will be divided.

In the fourth and final phase of the trial, a Harrison County
jury ordered Dupont to pay $196.2 million in punitive damages,
bringing its total liability to about $400 million.  Dupont has
said it will appeal the verdict.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Mike Papantonio, Esq.
          Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner &
          Proctor, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, Florida 32502-5996
          (Escambia Co.)

          P.O. Box 12308, Pensacola, FL, 32591
          Phone: 850-435-7000; 888-435-7001
          Fax: 850-435-7020


GUIDECRAFT INC: Recalls Puppet Theaters on High Lead Content
------------------------------------------------------------
Guidecraft Inc., of Englewood, N.J. in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 5,400
tabletop puppet theaters. Consumers are advised to stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The company said the surface paints on the puppet theater’s
wooden panels contain excessive levels of lead, violating the
federal lead paint standard.

No incidents or injuries has been reported so far.

The recalled puppet theater has red panels on the front and
sides and a chalkboard signboard on top. The puppet theater
measures about 24-inches in length, 6-inches in width and about
28-inches in height.  It was made in China and sold at specialty
toy stores, gift shops, catalogs and Web sites nationwide from
June 2006 through August 2007 for about $35.

Picture of the recalled puppet theaters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08031.jpg

Consumers are adviced to immediately take the recalled puppet
theaters away from children and contact Guidecraft to receive a
replacement theater or another product of equal value.

For additional information, contact Guidecraft toll-free at
(888) 824-1308 between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or http://www.guidecraft.com.


HEELYS INC: Faces Tex. Securities Fraud Suits Over December IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heelys, Inc. faces several securities fraud class actions in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf
of all purchasers of the company's common stock, pursuant or
traceable to the company's Dec. 7, 2006 Initial Public Offering
(IPO).

According to reports, the company recently disclosed that it has
been served with five class actions related to its December 2006
IPO. Theses suits were recently  transferred to a single judge,
and Heelys  says it expects them to be combined into one case

                         Case Background

The Complaint charges Heelys and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Heelys
is engaged in the design, marketing, and distribution of action
sports-inspired products for children (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 19, 2007).

The Company's primary product is a dual-purpose footwear product
that incorporates a removable wheel in the heel.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that a significant number of severe injuries had been
         reported to the Consumer Product Safety Commission
         (CPSC) concerning injuries sustained by children
         using the Company's wheeled footwear;

     (2) that children needed to use proper protective safety
         equipment to avoid suffering potentially serious
         injuries while using the Company's wheeled footwear;

     (3) that sales of the Company's wheeled footwear would
         dramatically decline as safety concerns and injury
         reports were revealed to consumers; and

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

On Dec. 7, 2006, the Company conducted its IPO.  In connection
with the IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and
Prospectus with the SEC.

The IPO was a financial success for the Company and selling
stockholders, as they were able to sell 6.425 million shares of
the Company's stock to investors at a price of $21.00 per share,
for gross proceeds of $134.9 million.

Then in June 2007, a series of reports and articles highlighted
the unsafe nature of the Company's wheeled footwear when used
without protective safety equipment.

The June edition of Pediatrics reported on the risk and severity
of injuries sustained by children who used the Company's wheeled
footwear without such protection, and showed a high number of
injuries requiring hospital visits due to their severity.

Shortly thereafter, the CPSC reported that accidents from
wheeled footwear contributed to roughly 1,600 emergency room
visits in 2006.  

These reports and others revealed that a high percentage of
these injuries were sustained by children falling backwards
while using the wheeled footwear, and resulted in injuries such
as cracked skulls and concussions, broken bones and
dislocations, and at least one death.

On Aug. 7, 2007, the Company reported its second quarter 2007
financial results.  The Company significantly lowered its full-
year outlook, citing "challenges at retail related primarily to
an over-inventoried position of product at many of the Company's
domestic accounts."  The Company's Chief Financial Officer also
reported that retailers were reluctant to place significant
fourth-quarter orders until current inventories were reduced.

Additionally, the Company was forced to significantly reduce its
revenue and earnings guidance for the remainder of 2007.  On
this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $10.57 per
share, or 48 percent, to close on Aug. 8, 2007 at $11.42 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The suits seek damages on behalf of investors who claim they
were misled about the health of Heelys' business in its IPO
registration statements.

The first identified complaint is “Brian Rines, et al. v.
Heelys, Inc., et al.,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Claxton & Hill
          3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103
          Dallas, TX, 75204-2471
          Phone: 214.969.9099

          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA, 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-915
          Fax: (310) 201-916
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY, 10022
          Phone: 212.687.1980
          Fax: 212.687.7714
          E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA, 19020
          Phone: 215.638.4847
          Fax: 215.638.4867


HURRY CORP: Recalls Bicycles with Cranks that can Detach in Use
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Huffy Corp. of Miamisburg, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of
about 22,000 2007 Huffy “Howler” and “Highland” Bicycles.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The bicycle crank can unexpectedly come off, causing the rider
to lose control, fall and suffer serious injuries.

Huffy has received two reports of the crank coming off,
resulting in one injury.

The recall involves 2007 model year, multi-speed bicycles with
26-inch, 24-inch or 20-inch wheels. The “Howler” was sold in
black (model K3587, boy’s model), blue (model K4587, men’s
model), and red (model K6587, men’s model). The “Highland” was
sold in white (model K4597, women’s model) and blue (model
K6597, women’s model). The name "Howler" or "Highland" is
printed on the frame of the bicycle, and the name "Huffy" is on
the front of the frame. Model numbers are located on a label on
the bottom of the frame where the crank is attached to the
bicycle.

The bicylces were made in China and distributed through Kmart
stores nationwide from May 2007 through July 2007 for between
$80 and $100.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled bicycles
immediately and contact Huffy Corp. to receive instructions on
tightening the crank.

Pictures of the recalled bicycles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08028a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08028b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08028c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08028d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08028e.jpg

For more information, contact Huffy Corp. toll-free at (888)
366-3828 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday,
or visit http://www.huffybikes.com


KONG MAXX: Recalls Ladder Stands that can Become Unstable
---------------------------------------------------------
Gorilla Inc., of Flushing, Mich., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling
about 6,000 Kong Maxx Ladder Stands.  Consumers are advised to
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The ladder stands can become unstable while in use, causing the
user to fall. The addition of one ladder section to the stand
makes the platform further away from the bracing. When the stand
is at its full height, the distance between the bracing and the
platform may result in platform instability prior to attachment
to and/or detachment from the tree.

Gorilla Inc. has received two reports of consumers who fell from
these ladder stands and suffered injuries to the back and knee.

This recall involves Gorilla Kong Maxx Ladder Stands with model
number 43032 and batch numbers G051507, G051507D, G061507D,
G071507D, and G081507D. Model numbers are printed on the box
only. Batch numbers are stamped on the vertical rail of the
first ladder section. The stand is 19-feet to the shooting rail,
or 16-foot 8-inches to the platform. The foot platform measures
17 ½ -inches wide. This is the only Gorilla, Inc. ladder stand
with these dimensions.

The ladders were made in China and sold at Gander Mountain
stores nationwide from July 2007 through September 2007 for
about $180.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the ladder
stands and contact Gorilla Inc. to receive a refund.

Picture of the recalled ladder:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08035a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08035b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08035c.jpg

For additional information, contact Gorilla Inc. at (800) 914-
4567 between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://ww.gorillatreestands.com-- consumers can also  
write the firm at Gorilla, Inc. 3475 Eastman Drive Flushing,
Mich. 48433.


MASTEC: Agrees to Settle Legacy Wage, Hour Suit for $12.6M
----------------------------------------------------------
MasTec, Inc. (MTZ) reached an agreement to settle its previously
disclosed wage and hour lawsuit regarding the Company's install
to the home employees. The lawsuit involving claims dating back
as far as 2001 and covering current and former employees from
California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, is similar
to numerous class action lawsuits filed against others
nationwide.

While the Company denies the allegations underlying the lawsuit,
it has agreed to the settlement to avoid significant legal fees,
the uncertainty of a jury trial, other expenses and management
time that would have to be devoted to protracted litigation. The
gross settlement of $12.6 million is subject to court approval
and represents the maximum payout, assuming 100% opt-in by all
potential members of the purported class.

The minimum payment under the agreement is approximately $3.8
million to the plaintiffs' attorneys and $750 thousand for the
named plaintiffs who have already joined the lawsuit. Future
opt-in rates are hard to predict, especially with the transient
nature of this workforce. While difficult to estimate, the
Company expects actual payments to be less than the gross
settlement amount, and the appropriate charge for financial
statement purposes is currently being evaluated.

As a result of this litigation, the Company has instituted a
number of procedures and safeguards to avoid being the target of
such litigation in the future.

For 2006 and 2007, the Company estimates that it will spend over
$20 million on outside legal fees and expenses, with the bulk of
the expenditures related to old, legacy issues. In many cases,
the Company has made inadequate or unsatisfactory progress. As a
result, MasTec's senior management recently announced a
significant shift in strategy regarding its older legal cases
and disputes. The shift in strategy is to accelerate closure of
many of the older legal cases and disputes while protecting the
economic interests of the Company and its shareholders. Most of
this legacy litigation relates to the years 2001 through 2005
and does not involve current customers. As a part of this change
in legal strategy, the Company expects to book significant
additional charges and reserves for the most recent quarter
ended September 30.

MasTec's current 2007 earnings guidance, which it announced in
the Company's September 5, 2007 press release, specifically
excluded the positive or negative impact of any legacy
litigation.

Jose Mas, MasTec's President and Chief Executive Officer, noted
"We have re-assessed all of our major legal cases and disputes
and decided to accelerate the closure of a number of cases. With
continued high legal costs for litigating these cases and the
related drain on management time, we have concluded that it is
in the best interest of the Company to get a number of the older
legal cases and disputes behind us."

Mr. Mas continued, "In the last few years, we have significantly
strengthened our management team, improved our portfolio of
businesses and customers and improved our financial and
operational controls. As a result, our current business
activities have generated dramatically less litigation than we
once had. Therefore, when we get these older legal cases and
disputes behind us over the next few months, we expect to enjoy
a much lower level of expense for outside legal fees."

Mr. Mas concluded, "We have excellent opportunities with the
customers and markets that we currently serve and intend to get
our legacy litigation behind us so that we can focus on
executing and growing our good business opportunities."

MasTec -- http://www.mastec.com-- is a leading specialty  
contractor operating throughout North America across a range of
industries. The Company's core activities are the building,
installation, maintenance and upgrade of communication and
utility infrastructure systems.


MITEL NETWORKS: Faces Litigation Over Inter-Tel Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitel Networks faces a purported class action in connection to a
merger agreement with Inter-Tel (Delaware), Inc., according to
the company's Oct. 24, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2007.

Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement)
dated as of April 26, 2007 among Mitel, Inter-Tel, and Arsenal
Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mitel, Mitel
agreed to acquire Inter-Tel for $25.60 per share, in cash,
representing a total purchase price of approximately $729
million (Merger).

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Arsenal merged with and into
Inter-Tel and Mitel indirectly acquired all of the outstanding
stock of Inter-Tel such that Inter-Tel became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Mitel.  The Merger was subsequently completed on
Aug. 16, 2007.

In April 30, 2007, Mitel was made party to a class action
lawsuit related to the proposed merger.

The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Inter-
Tel in breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care
by approving the merger without regard to the fairness of the
transaction to Inter-Tel stockholders.

The plaintiff is seeking an injunction to the consummation of
the proposed merger.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Review to Delay Jan. 22 Cal. ERISA Suit Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 22, 2008 trial is slated for the consolidated class
action, “In Re Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation,“
according to the company's Oct. 24, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit was a consolidation of two separately filed the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act class actions.  The
suits were:

      -- "Grabek v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al.,
         previously styled Waldbuesser v. Northrop Grumman
         Corporation, et al.," and
      
      -- "Heidecker v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al."

Plaintiffs in "Grabek" allege breaches of fiduciary duty by the
company, certain of its administrative and Board committees, all
members of the company's Board of Directors, and certain company
officers and employees with respect to alleged excessive, hidden
and/or otherwise improper fee and expense charges to the
Northrop Grumman Savings Plan and the Northrop Grumman Financial
Security and Savings Plan (both of which are 401(k) plans).

The Heidecker litigation asserts similar claims, but has
dismissed the company's Board of Directors.  

Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, removal of individuals
acting as fiduciaries to such plans, payment of attorney fees
and costs, and an accounting.

The suits were consolidated under the caption, "In Re Northrop
Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation," for discovery and other
purposes, as each alleged similar issues of law and fact.  They
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

On May 21, 2007, the Court granted a motion to dismiss with
prejudice the company and the Board of Directors from the Grabek
litigation.

On May 25, 2007, the Court entered an order dismissing the
company with prejudice from the Heidecker lawsuit, the Directors
having been previously dismissed.

On Aug. 7, 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification.   The plaintiffs sought leave to file an appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the
issue of class certification.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the Ninth Circuit ordered that the trial
court proceedings be stayed pending its decision on whether to
grant appellate review, and on Oct. 11, 2007, the Ninth Circuit
granted such review.  

The decision to grant appellate review will delay the
commencement of trial previously scheduled to begin on Jan. 22,
2008.

Northrop Grumman Corp. -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/--   
along with its subsidiaries, provides products, services and
solutions in information and services, aerospace, electronics
and shipbuilding.


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Recalls Girls’ Boots Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Payless ShoeSource Inc., of Topeka, Kan., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, announced a
voluntary recall of about 90,000 girls’ boots.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The company said the guitar-shaped zipper pulls on each boot can
interlock while a child is walking, causing the child to trip
and fall.  Payless has received five reports of the zipper pulls
interlocking, including one report of a four-year-old girl who
fell and skinned her knees.

This recall involves black jeweled girls’ boots. The boots have
a silhouette of a guitar on the outer leg and a guitar-shaped
zipper pull on the inner leg. “Hannah Montana” is engraved on
the boot outsole and a photo of the singer and show’s character
is printed on the box. The boots were sold in girls’ sizes 10
1/2 to 4 1/2 . No other styles or models are involved in this
recall.

The boots were made in China and sold at Payless ShoeSource
stores nationwide and Payless.com from August 2007 through
September 2007 for about $27.

Picture of the recalled boots:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08034.jpg

Consumers are advised to take these boots away from children
immediately and return them to the store where purchased for a
full refund or exchange.

For additional information, contact Payless at (800) 654-0697
between 7:30 a.m. and 11:30 p.m. CT daily. Consumers can also
visit http://www.payless.com


PRAXAIR INC: Still Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Welding Fumes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Praxair, Inc. remains a co-defendant with many other companies
in 501 lawsuits (as of Sept. 30, 2007) alleging personal injury
caused by manganese contained in welding fumes, according to the
company's Oct. 24, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

There were a total of 3,057 individual claimants in these cases.  
The cases were pending in several state and federal courts.

The federal cases have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and, in most
instances, punitive damages.  

In the past, Praxair has either been dismissed from the cases
with no payment or has settled a few cases for nominal amounts.

There are seven proposed class actions seeking medical
monitoring on behalf of welders.  None of the class actions have
been certified; the judge overseeing the federal cases recently
denied a motion for a medical monitoring class action.

Praxair, Inc. -- http://www.praxair.com-- is an industrial  
gases supplier in North and South America, Asia, and has
businesses in Europe.   


R.L. ALBERT: Recalls Halloween Pails Due to High Lead Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
R.L. Albert & Son, of Greenwich, Conn., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 55,000 Skull pails filled with Halloween candy mix.
Consumers are advised to stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The company said the surface paint on the eyes, nose, and teeth
of the skull contains excessive levels of lead, violating the
federal lead paint standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported so far.

This recall involves the Albert’s Halloween skull pails filled
with candy mix. The skull-shaped pail is white with green eyes,
nose and teeth. The pail has a clear lid with a label in which
“Albert’s” and “Skull Pails Filled with Halloween Candy Mix” is
printed. The pail measures about 5 1/2 inches high.

Picture of a recalled pail:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08033.jpg

The pails were made in China and sold at retail stores
nationwide from September 2007 through October 2007 for $2.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled product
away from children and take it to the retailer where it was
purchased to receive a full refund.

For additional information, contact Albert’s toll-free at (866)
796-6110 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


SOUTH DAKOTA: 2004 Flood Victims Have Until Jan. to Join Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
About 29,000 notices are going out to people in Sioux Falls
advising them of the existence of a class action over water
damage due to heavy rains in the area during the summer of 2004,
according to Keloland.com.

The action has been given a go-ahead by a circuit court earlier
this year (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007).

Homeowners filed the suit on behalf of themselves and anyone in
the city whose property was damaged in the May 29 and June 16,
2004 storms.  

Court documents claim that the rains flooded streets and
basements and sent up to several feet of raw sewage into homes
across Sioux Falls.  It also claims that homeowners suffered
personal injury and property damage because the City of Sioux
Falls negligently designed, constructed, maintained and
inspected it's sanitary and storm sewer lines and systems.

The class includes people who live in the area of Sioux Falls
from 57th street to the South, Southeastern drive to the East,
Kiwanis Avenue to the West and Russell Street to the North.  
They must also have suffered flooding damage and have the
documentation, such as receipts for repairs, to prove it.  The
class is estimated to include between 300 and 500 people.

Residents have until January 4, 2008 to return their letters and
join the lawsuit.  To take part in the suit, residents must have
owned property or lived in the area and have at least one of the
following: (1) cleaning expenses caused by the flood, (2) repair
costs as a result of the flood, (3) personal property loss, (4)
lost income, or (5) loss in value of property.

The suit is before Minnehaha County Circuit Court Judge Stuart
Tiede.  The plaintiffs' attorney is John Hughes.  He can be
reached at 339-3939.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Proposed New Strip Search Suit Plaintiffs Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol refused a motion to name  
new plaintiffs in a strip search lawsuit against Minnehaha
County, Josh Verges of the Argus Leader reports.

A Rochester resident and two others have filed a class action
against Minnehaha County, South Dakota over alleged unreasonable
strip searches at the county’s juvenile detention center (Class
Action Reporter, July 10, 2007).

Jillian Clark was arrested for shoplifting at a department store
in Sioux Falls nearly seven years ago.  She was 17 at the time.  
She claims she was brought to a holding room and was asked to
strip naked.  Ms. Clark said she kept the humiliating experience
to herself until Jodie Smook told a similar story.  Ms. Smook
lost the case.

An appellate court ruled last year that the Minnehaha juvenile
detention center did nothing wrong by searching her while she
stood in her underwear after she was picked up for a curfew
violation.

The court said then that its ruling did not apply to juveniles
who had to get fully naked and who were charged with minor
offenses.

Judge Piersol's recent ruling said lawyers must show that the
three new proposed class representatives fit those descriptions
and were detained after October 1997.

The other two plaintiffs suing Minnehaha County are Nicole
Stauffacher, detained for shoplifting in 1997, and Ross
Engelbrecht, who was arrested at 17 for underage alcohol
consumption.

Ms. Stauffacher said the experience scarred her emotionally and
that she’s participating in the suit so no other minors would be
violated in the same manner.

The suit seeks compensatory damages.


SPRINT: Agrees to Disclose Lock Code to Settle Cal. Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sprint is agreeing to unlock its mobile phones for its
California customers to settle an unfair competition class
action filed against it in Alameda County Superior Court, David
Kravets disclosed at
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/sprint-agreeing.htm.

The suit alleged that when Sprint sold handsets (phones) to
consumers all the handsets were sold with a software lock that
prevented consumers from using the handsets to receive the
services of other providers.  This lock has never been disclosed
to consumers.  

Sprint has consistently represented that its iphones "will not
accept the services of any wireless provider other than Sprint."  
The locked phones sold by Sprint can be used on the networks of
other providers (as when a phone is on "roam"), but classmembers
cannot use a locked Sprint phone to receive the services of
another provider.  Sprint allegedly uses these locks to make it
more expensive for consumers to leave Sprint and start service
with another carrier.

According to Mr. Kravets, under the settlement: Sprint agrees to
disclose to its current and former customers, upon request, the
software programming code (the Lock Code) on their CDMA phones
(other than prepay or global phones) necessary to access the
program module of the phones, upon de-activation or after de-
activation, provided the customer is or was not in default of
any obligation to Sprint at the time of de-activation, and for
de-activated phones, the Lock Code(s) are available or can be
made reasonably available to Sprint's Customer Care personnel at
the time of the request or within a reasonable time period
thereafter. Sprint will also provide information about locking
and how to obtain the Lock Code in its Terms and Conditions of
Service.

Sprint denies any wrongdoing.  The settlement still awaits court
approval.

The suit was granted class certification on March 23, 2006.  The
class is composed of "all California residents who have
purchased handsets from Sprint" and a subclass of "all members
of the class who are consumers as defined by Civil Code 1761."

The suit is "In re: Cellphone Termination fee cases."


UNION PACIFIC: Panel to Decide Jurisdiction for Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is expected to
issue this month a decision regarding which District Court
should handle consolidated antitrust complaints filed against
Union Pacific Corp., and several others.

About 20 small rail shippers (many of whom are represented by
the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits
in various federal district courts against the company and four
other Class I railroads in the U.S.  

The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the
U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007, and the
additional plaintiffs filed claims in district courts in various
states, including Florida, Illinois, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and
the District of Columbia.

These suits allege that the railroads engaged in price-fixing by
establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

The company received additional complaints during the third
quarter of 2007, increasing the total number of complaints to
26.  

A few of these suits involve plaintiffs alleging that they are
or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation and seeking
to represent the class of indirect purchasers of rail
transportation that paid fuel surcharges.

These complaints have added allegations under state antitrust
and consumer protection laws.  

All of these “copycat” lawsuits (whether filed by direct or
indirect purchasers of rail transportation) are being filed by
various groups of plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking to become lead
counsel in a nationwide class action against the railroads.

Each of the plaintiffs requests certification of its complaint
as a class-action.

On Sept. 27, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation heard arguments regarding which District Court should
handle the consolidated complaints, and the company expects the
panel to issue a decision in November of this year.

Union Pacific Corp. -- http://www.up.com/-- operates through  
its principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Co.,
which is a Class I railroad operating in the U.S.

  
WELLPOINT HEALTH: CMA Added as Plaintiff in Cal. Hospitals' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Medical Association (CMA) was added as a
plaintiff in a purported class action that was filed in a
California state court against WellPoint Health Networks Inc.,
Blue Cross of California, and BC Life & Health Insurance Co.

The suit was filed on behalf of hospitals over alleged wrongful
rescission of individual health insurance policies.  It seeks to
recover for payment of claims denied where the member was
rescinded.

An amended complaint was recently filed adding the California
Medical Association along with the California Hospital
Association as new plaintiffs in this suit, according to the
company's Oct. 24, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

WellPoint, Inc. -- http://www.wellpoint.com-- is a commercial  
health benefits company serving approximately 34 million medical
members as of Dec. 31, 2006.


WELLPOINT INC: Parties Settle Calif. Insurance Policies Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in one of several class actions against WellPoint Health
Networks Inc., Blue Cross of California, and BC Life & Health
Insurance Co. that is alleging the wrongful rescission of
individual insurance policies have reached a settlement in the
matter.

In various California state courts, the Company is defending a
number of individual lawsuits and several purported class
actions alleging the wrongful rescission of individual insurance
policies.

The suits name WellPoint as well as Blue Cross of California
(BCC) and BC Life & Health Insurance Company (BCL&H), both
WellPoint subsidiaries.  

The lawsuits generally allege breach of contract, bad faith and
unfair business practices in a purported practice of rescinding
new individual members following the submission of large claims.

In December 2006, the California Medical Association filed a
motion to intervene in one of the class actions.  The motion has
not been heard.  

The parties have agreed to mediate most of these lawsuits and
the mediation has resulted in the resolution of some of these
lawsuits.

A settlement of one of the class actions is pending preliminary
approval by the trial court, according to the company's Oct. 24,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

WellPoint, Inc. -- http://www.wellpoint.com-- is a commercial  
health benefits company serving approximately 34 million medical
members as of Dec. 31, 2006.


* Law Journal Names This Year's “Plaintiffs' Hot List”
----------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal has released its sixth annual
Plaintiffs' Hot List.  The journal describes the list as its
"unscientific survey of the litigation scene since the summer of
2006."  

The journal asked readers to nominate exemplary firms that
devote at least half of their resources to plaintiffs' work, and
which have achieved at least one significant win during that
period.  It said that "significant" means winning a large amount
of money through a bench or jury verdict, or otherwise defining
industry practices or the progress of related litigation.

The winners are:

     * Berger & Montague;
     * Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz;
     * Bernstein Litowitz;
     * Coughlin Stoia;
     * Grant & Eisenhofer;
     * Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro;
     * Korein Tillery;
     * Labaton Sucharow;
     * Lieff Cabraser;
     * Phillips & Cohen;
     * Schiffrin Barroway;
     * Seeger Weiss;
     * Whatley Drake & Kallas

The journal highlighted the works of Whatley Drake & Kallas in
pursuing a case against health maintenance organizations on
behalf of physicians alleging the HMOs conspired to deny or
reduce payments to doctors for covered medical services.  As a
result, the law firm permanently changed the balance of power
between the health plan providers and doctors.

It mentioned Wilmington, Del.'s Grant & Eisenhofer's work that
invoked "a new and fairly untried Dutch statute to bring a class
action against oil giant Shell on behalf of 50 European
investors." The result was a settlement totaling upward of $500
million for the plaintiffs — as well as a new model for
resolving future class actions in Europe, the journal said.

It also noted Bernstein Litowitz's victories this year in
stockholder and bondholder class actions.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Abraham Fruchter Files Pa. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased the securities of
NutriSystem, Inc. (NTRI) between February 14, 2007 and October
4, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is December 10, 2007.

For more information, contact plaintiff's counsel:

          Jack Fruchter, Esq.
          Larry Levit, Esq.
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, New York 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail at jfruchter@aftlaw.com
                    llevit@aftlaw.com

            
WELLCARE HEALTH: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has filed a class action against
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (WCG) in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Case
No. 8:07 CV 1940-T24, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
the common stock of the Company between May 8, 2006 and October
24, 2007, inclusive.  No class has yet been certified in this
action.

WellCare, along with its Chief Executive Officer, President and
Chairman of its Board of Directors Todd S. Farha, and its Chief
Financial Officer and Senior Vice President Paul L. Behrens, are
charged with making a series of materially false and misleading
statements related to the Company's business and operations in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On October 24, 2007, state and federal law-enforcement agents
armed with a federal search warrant raided WellCare's Tampa,
Florida headquarters. Agents from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Health and Human Services Department and the
Florida attorney general's Medicaid fraud unit participated in
the raid. WellCare provides managed-care plans for 2.3 million
Medicare and Medicaid participants nationwide.

The Complaint filed today alleges that at all times during the
Class Period:

     (1) it was not true that the Company was operating
         according to plan, when, in fact, throughout the Class  
         Period, defendants had propped up the Company's results
         by manipulating WellCare's accounting for revenues and
         income, and failed to report proper expenses and other
         material information about the Company;

     (2) unbeknownst to investors, defendants had materially
         overstated the Company's profitability by failing to
         properly account for the Company's health care expenses
         and results of operations and by artificially inflating
         the Company's financial results;

     (3) it was also not true that WellCare contained adequate
         systems of internal operational or financial controls,
         such that WellCare's reported financial statements were
         true, accurate or reliable;

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, it also was not true that
         the Company's financial statements and reports were
         prepared in accordance with GAAP ad SEC rules.
         
Accordingly, as a result of the aforementioned adverse
conditions which defendants failed to disclose, throughout the
Class Period, defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim
that WellCare was operating according to plan, or that WellCare
could achieve guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by defendants.

Following the news of the raid on WellCare's headquarters, the
New York Stock Exchange subsequently halted trading of shares in
WellCare. The Company's shares fell $7.10, or 5.8%, to $115.17
per share at market close on October 24, 2007. Then, on October
25, 2007, when shares resumed trading, shares opened at
approximately $64.00 per share, before reaching an intra day low
of $27.50 and closing at $42.67.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is December 26, 2007.

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq.
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.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  * * *