CAR_Public/071030.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 30, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 215

                            Headlines

40/40 CLUB: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Firing of Pregnant Employee
ALCOHOL DRINK MAKERS: Wis. Court Affirms Nixing of “Tomberlin”
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Settles Mo. Securities Fraud Suit for $25M
AT&T CORP: Faces Ill. Consumer Fraud Suit Over “Locked” Phones
CHUBU ELECTRIC: Wins Favorable Ruling in Suit Over Hamaoka Plant

COLLEGIATE PACIFIC: Recalls Power Packs Due to Injury Hazard
DEERE & CO: Wis. Judge Refuses to Reconsider “Hecker” Decision
ETHICON INC: Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Vicryl Sutures
GLOBAL DESIGN: Recalls Game Pieces with Detachable Magnets
GLOBAL WEALTH: Multi-Million Dollar Bias Suit Deal Gets Final Ok

GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Securities Litigation in Fla.
GYMBOREE CORP: Recalls Toy Swords Due to Laceration Hazard
KANSAS CITY: Still Faces Several Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suits
LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Still Working to Implement ADA Suit Deal
MACLEAN QUALITY: Recalls Bicycle Forks with Tips that can Detach

MICHIGAN: Suit Filed Over Local Banks' Fees for Cashing Checks
MONSANTO CO: Third Circuit Mulls Appeal in American Seed Lawsuit
MONSANTO CO: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Glyphosate Suits
MONSANTO CO: No Trial Dates Set for Biotechnology Traits Suits
MONSANTO CO: Court Hears Appeal in VAVAO's Agent Orange Lawsuit

MONSANTO CO: Ill. Court Certifies Class in ERISA Violations Suit
MORTGAGE COS: OPFM-Related Suit Moved to Pa. Federal Court
ONEOK INC: Kansas Supreme Court Strikes Down $7.7M Jury Award
STATE STREET: Nashua Corp. Pension Trust Files Lawsuit in Mass.
U.S. AUTOMAKERS: Canadian Sues Over Alleged Bias in Sale of Cars
WELLS FARGO: Settles Brokerage Kickback Lawsuit for $1.15M


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Vianale & Vianale Files  Securities Suit
ERICSSON LM: Coughlin Stoia Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
NOVARTIS AG: Coughlin Stoia Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Chimicles & Tikellis Announces Securities Suit


                            *********


40/40 CLUB: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Firing of Pregnant Employee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 40/40 Club, a series of All-American sports bars and lounges
owned by hip-hop mogul Jay-Z and partners Desiree Gonzalez and
Juan Perez, faces a purported class action in New York County
Court that was filed by a former employee, Rudy West of
ALLHIPHOP.COM reports.

The lawsuit was filed by a woman who claims she was fired
because she was pregnant.  It specifically claims that she was
fired by managers who said her pregnancy didn't fit the club's
“sexy image.”  The woman seeks an unknown amount in damages.


ALCOHOL DRINK MAKERS: Wis. Court Affirms Nixing of “Tomberlin”
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has upheld a decision to dismiss
the lawsuit, "Jacquelin Tomberlin v. Adolph Coors," which  
claimed that alcohol drink makers targeted underage drinkers,
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

In affirming the suit, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled
that the plaintiff, Jacquelyn Tomberlin of Madison, Wisconsin
lacked legal standing to file the suit.

                         Case Background

The suit was filed on Feb. 23, 2005, and lists more than 100
defendants, including:

       -- Miller Brewing Co.,
       -- Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Co., a Miller unit;
       -- Anheuser-Busch Cos.;
       -- Coors Brewing Co.;
       -- Allied Domecq Plc; and
       -- Bacardi Corp.

The case is one of several that were filed nationally against
the alcohol industry.  It seeks class-action status and hopes to
recover what could amount to billions of dollars in refunds,
along with punitive damages.  Many of those suits filed in other
states have been dismissed.

In general, the suit allege that the defendants have engaged in
deceptive marketing practices and schemes targeted at underage
consumers, negligently marketed their products to the underage,
and fraudulently concealed their alleged misconduct.

Plaintiff had sought class action certification on behalf of:

      -- a guardian class consisting of all persons who were or
         are parents of children  whose funds were used to
         purchase beverage alcohol marketed by the defendants
         which were consumed without their prior knowledge by
         their children under the age of 21 during the period
         1982 to present; and

      -- an injunctive class consisting of the parents and
         guardians of all children currently under the age of
         21.

Additionally, plaintiff sought:

      -- a finding that defendants  engaged in a deceptive  
         scheme to market alcoholic beverages to underage
         persons and an injunction against such alleged  
         practices;
    
      -- disgorgement and refund to the guardian class of all
         proceeds resulting from sales to the underage since
         1982; and

      -- judgment to each guardian class member for a trebled  
         award of actual damages, punitive damages, and
         attorneys fees.

                     Dismissal & Affirmation

In 2006, Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess dismissed The
suit, ruling that Ms. Tomberlin lacked standing because she
failed to claim any injury to a legally protected right.

Ms. Tomberlin, who appealed the ruling, claimed legal standing
as a parent whose child was subjected to efforts by defendants
to market their products to underage drinkers.  She claimed a
direct loss when her child, without permission, illegally bought
alcohol with money Ms. Tomberlin provided.

However, in affirming the dismissal Judges Charles Dykman, Paul
Lundsten and Burnie Bridge in Madison pointed out in their
appellate opinion that there's no law allowing a parent to
recover damages from a company that persuades a child to spend
money on something not allowed by a parent.

Despite the opinion, the judges did not address the core of Ms.
Tomberlin's claim that alcohol drink-makers have deliberately
marketed their products to people younger than the legal
drinking age of 21.

For more details, contact:

          David Boies, Esq.
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, New York 10504 (Westchester Co.)
          Phone: 914-749-8200
          Fax: 914-749-8300
          Web site: http://www.bsfllp.com


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Settles Mo. Securities Fraud Suit for $25M
------------------------------------------------------------
American Italian Pasta Company (Pink Sheets: AITP) has entered
into a Stipulation of Settlement with lead plaintiff in the
pending securities class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Shareholders have filed lawsuits against American Italian since
August 2005 when the firm started reviewing its accounting
practices.
   
The suits accuse the company of improper inventory,
underreporting marketing allowances paid to distributors and
improperly capitalizing costs that should have been listed as
expenses.

American Italian then said it is withdrawing financial results
for the last three years because they contained errors in
accounting for product promotion and overhead costs.

Seven suits were consolidated in December 2005 (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).  In March, Judge Ortrie Smith granted
certification to the lawsuit designating three Iron
Workers' Union locals as lead plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter,
March 28, 2007).  The ironworkers' locals had used Kent T. Perry
& Co. LC of Overland Park for local counsel.  Judge Smith
accepted Perry & Co.'s motion to make the New York law firm of
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross lead counsel.

The settlement resolves federal securities law claims asserted
in the consolidated class action pending in federal court in
Kansas City, styled, “In re American Italian Pasta Company
Securities Litigation (Case No. 05-CV-0725-W-ODS).” The federal
securities law claims will be settled for approximately $25
million, comprised of $11 million in cash, all of which will be
contributed by the Company's insurers, and $14 million in the
Company's common shares.

Claims asserted against the Company's independent registered
public accounting firm, Ernst & Young, LLP, are not part of the
settlement. In addition, derivative claims asserted in separate
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its former and
current officers and directors are not part of the settlement
and remain pending.

The Company, with the approval of its Board of Directors,
determined that the settlement is in its best interests and that
of its shareholders because it halts the substantial expense,
uncertainty, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation. The settlement applies to the Company and all of the
individual defendants including several current and former
directors and officers of the Company, and involves no admission
of fault or wrongdoing by the Company or any individual
defendant.

The Stipulation must be approved by the Court before it will
become effective. The Court's approval process has several
steps. The Stipulation is first presented to the Court for
preliminary approval. If the Court grants preliminary approval
of the Stipulation, then there will follow a period in which
notice of the settlement terms and claims administration process
is provided to all potential class members of the settlement.

A fairness hearing will be held at which the Court will judge
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement,
including payment of lead plaintiff counsel's fees and expenses,
and at which any objections will be heard. If the Court then
grants final approval of the settlement, it will enter an order
dismissing the claims in the lawsuit with prejudice. The Court's
decision can be appealed. If the settlement becomes effective,
the settlement fund, less various costs of administration and
plaintiff's costs and attorney's fees, will be distributed to
class members who have filed an approved claim.

The Stipulation applies to a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the Company's common shares on or after January 23,
2002 and who continued to hold such shares on August 9, 2005 and
all persons who purchased the Company's common shares on or
after August 10, 2005 who continued to hold such shares as of
August 17, 2005. Under the settlement, the Company's common
shares will be part of both the proposed fee award to
plaintiff's counsel and consideration to be distributed to the
class.

The Company's settlement includes $14 million in common shares,
with the number of shares distributed in accordance with the
Stipulation. If the share price, at the time the Court
authorizes distribution is less than $9.60 but equal to or
greater than $6.50, the Company will be required to issue the
number of shares to maintain the $14 million value as adjusted
for plaintiff counsel's fee award.

If the share price at the time the Court authorizes distribution
is less than $6.50, the Company will be required to issue the
number of shares that would be needed to maintain the $14
million value based on a share price of $6.50, as adjusted for
counsel fees. However, if the share price falls below $6.50
prior to the Court's final approval, lead plaintiff has the
right to terminate the settlement, but the Company will have the
option to maintain the settlement by issuing the number of
shares to provide for the $14 million value. If after final
approval, but before the Court approves the distribution to the
class, the share price falls below $7.00 per share, lead
plaintiff has the right to demand early issuance of the shares
for the benefit of the class. Alternatively, should the share
price increase above $9.60, the Stipulation provides for an
allocation of the increase such that total value of the
securities issued could result in as much as, but not more than
$17.7 million.

At the closing share price of $9.00 on October 26, 2007, the
Company would be required to issue approximately 1,556,000
common shares to satisfy the $14 million portion of the
settlement had the Stipulation been approved and distribution
made to the class and its counsel at this time. The Company
currently has approximately 18.7 million common shares
outstanding. The Company has recorded the $25 million settlement
in its fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, which will result
in a $14 million pre-tax charge to expense, net of an $11
million recovery from insurers.

The $14 million non-cash charge represents the estimated fair
value of the common shares to be issued. The Company has
recorded a related receivable from its insurers in the amount of
$11 million, as well as a liability in the amount of $25 million
representing the aggregate value of the securities to be issued
by the Company and the cash to be paid by the insurers. The
provision for settlement costs will be adjusted to reflect
changes in the fair value of the securities until they are
issued to plaintiff's counsel and the class as provided in the
Stipulation.

"The settlement of the federal securities class action lawsuit
is an important step in the Company's continued turnaround,"
said Jim Fogarty, CEO of AIPC. "We are pleased to move this
matter toward final conclusion as we continue to focus on
serving our customers and improving our business."

The Company also addressed current durum wheat market conditions
and announced the additional retirement of debt under its credit
facility.

The suit is "In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge
Ortrie D. Smith.  

Plaintiffs' lead counsel:

          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, New York 10017-5516
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665
          URL: http://www.pomlaw.com


AT&T CORP: Faces Ill. Consumer Fraud Suit Over “Locked” Phones
--------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Corp., and Cingular Wireless face a purported class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
that accuses them of fraudulently inducing customers post merger
into buying new phones.

The suit, “Crandall et al v. AT&T Corp. et al., Case No.  3:07-
cv-00750-GPM-CJP,” was filed on Oct. 24, 2007, and specifically
names as defendants:  

       -- AT&T Corp.,
       -- AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.,
       -- Cingular Wireless Corp., and
       -- Cingular Wireless, LLC

It was brought on behalf of Marcie Crandall and Dale Fietsam,
who were former AT&T customers before the companies merged in
October 2004.

More than $5 million is being sought the case, which was filed  
by attorney David I. Cates.

Plaintiffs are claiming in the suit that they were forced into
buying new phones because their old ones were not compatible
with Cingular's wireless network under which their post merger
plans operated.  They specifically claimed that their phones
contained network-specific “locks.”

The complaint alleges that the companies entered into locking
contracts with cell phone manufacturers before they merged.  It
pointed out that these locked phone units only detect the
provider's network which paid for the lock.

According to the complaint, the 'locking' contracts ultimate
goal was to limit the cellular phone's ability to detect a
cellular network through the use of the SIM Card.

It further states, “The failure of AT&T and Cingular to inform
their consumers that the cellular phones contained 'locks' were
material omissions of fact which were designed to induce
consumers, including Marcie Crandall, to purchase a new cellular
telephone.”

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants' actions violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The proposed class includes all AT&T wireless customers who
purchased new Cingular phones after Oct. 26, 2004, because of
incompatibiity.

In addition, a proposed sub-class would consist of AT&T
customers who were charged fees for accessing the Cingular
network from Oct. 26, 2004, to the present.

The common questions of law or fact include whether defendants:

       -- Engaged in a nationwide practice of failing to inform
          consumers that their AT&T cellular phones contained
          lock codes;

       -- Engaged in a nationwide practice of representing to
          consumers that the Cingular network was compaitible
          with the AT&T network;

       -- Engaged in a nationwide practice of sending consumers
          notices informing them that the AT&T cellular
          telephones were incompatible with the Cingular
          network;

       -- Intended that plaintiffs and all other AT&T customers
          rely upon the representations that the Cingular
          network and AT&T newtork were compatible; and

       -- Engaged in a uniform practice of selling AT&T
          customers new Cingular cellular phones for the purpose
          of increasing profits to Cingular.

The suit is “Crandall et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., Case No.  
3:07-cv-00750-GPM-CJP,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy
with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David I. Cates, Esq.
          Cates Law Firm-Swansea
          Generally Admitted
          216 West Pointe Drive, Suite A
          Swansea, IL 62226
          Phone: 618-277-3644
          Fax: 618-277-7882
          E-mail: dcates@cateslaw.com


CHUBU ELECTRIC: Wins Favorable Ruling in Suit Over Hamaoka Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shizuoka (Japan) District Court dismissed a class action
demanding the shutdown of Chubu Electric Power Co. because of
seismologists' prediction that a major earthquake is likely to
occur in the future where the nuclear reactors of the plant are
located, reports say.

The court said the operator of the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant
in Omaezaki, Shizuoka Prefecture has taken sufficient safety
measures to protect the facility from any powerful earthquakes
in the region.

Twenty seven plaintiffs from Shjizuoka, Tokyo and three from the
Shizuoka Prefecture launched the suit in July 2003 and January
2004.  They demanded that operations of reactors No. 1 to 4
reactors of the company be shut down.

During hearings, the plaintiffs pointed to the possibility that
a more powerful earthquake than experts are predicting may hit
the area, and expressed fear that the plant may not withstand
such a temblor, according to The Daily Yomiuri (Japan).

They also argued that Chubu Electric Power Co. is capable of
supplying enough electric power without the Hamaoka Nuclear
Power Plant in Shizuoka Prefecture.

The court dismissed the arguments.  It also dismissed a
temporary injunction, filed separately by a group of 1,846
people in April 2002, to suspend the operation of the reactors.


COLLEGIATE PACIFIC: Recalls Power Packs Due to Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Collegiate Pacific, of Farmers Branch, Texas in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is recalling about
800 power packs for portable team hydration units.

The company said charging the battery inside the hydration
unit’s power pack box can result in excessive gas buildup which
can burst the lid of the power pack box off or rupture the box.
This poses an injury hazard to bystanders.

Collegiate Pacific has received two reports of lids bursting off
of the box, including an instance where the lid struck the back
of a bystander’s hand, causing some swelling.

This recall involves the battery operated power pack boxes for
the 20-gallon “Sports Cool Powered Team Drinker” and the 40-
gallon “Sports Cool Powered Tanker with Cart” portable team
hydration units. The units include a water tank, six hoses, a
battery operated pack box, and a cart. “Sports Cool” is printed
on the water tank.

The power packs were made in the United States and sold by
sporting goods supply distributors and direct sales nationwide
from February 2004 through June 2007 for between $700 and
$1,000.

Consumers should immediately stop charging the portable team
hydration units and contact Collegiate Pacific to receive a
repair kit.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08511a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08511b.jpg

For more information, contact Collegiate Pacific at (800) 243-
5133 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
log on to http://www.BSNCP.com/recall


DEERE & CO: Wis. Judge Refuses to Reconsider “Hecker” Decision
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John C. Shabaz of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin has refused to reconsider his earlier
ruling in the matter “Hecker, Dennis v. Deere & Company, Case
No. 06-C-0719-S,” which has cleared the defendant of fiduciary
breach allegations, Fred Schneyer of Planadviser.com reports.

On June 20, 2007, dismissed the suit filed by Deere employees
claiming the company, and Fidelity Management Trust Co., and
Fidelity Management & Research Co., trustee and record keeper
for Deere’s $2.5 billion 401(k) plan, charged unreasonable fees
to participants (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2007).

The judge had thrown out the lawsuit, citing that Deere & Co.
was not obligated to disclose the revenue sharing arrangements
in its 401(k) plan.

Judge Shabaz's recent ruling is in response to a plea from three
employees of Deere & Co. to take another look at the June 2007
decision in which he ruled that no violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act had occurred.

The judge had also asserted in his June ruling that Deere & Co.
was protected by the safe harbor of 404(c) for its selection of
investment options.

The move by Judge Shabaz to stand behind his earlier ruling came
after employees' claim they had discovered "new evidence" of the
company's ERISA wrongdoing.  The Judge accused the plaintiffs of
merely rehashing their earlier arguments.

                        Case Background

On Dec. 8, 2006, four Deere & Co. workers, claiming that the
defendants charged them "unreasonable" fees and expenses to
manage their retirement savings (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18,
2006).   

The workers who brought the suit are:

      -- Dennis Hecker,  
      -- Jonna Duane,  
      -- William Wallace, and  
      -- Roger Bradley.  

The suit, which seeks class-action status, specifically named as
defendants Deere & Co., Fidelity Management Trust Co., and
Fidelity Management & Research Co.

Plaintiffs, represented by the law firm Schlichter, Bogard &
Denton, charge that defendants assessed plan participants
expenses that "were, or are, unreasonable and/or not incurred
solely for the benefit of Plan participants."

They also argue that administrative fees and expenses can weigh
on participants' returns and that "even seemingly small
reductions in a participant's return in one year may
substantially impair his or her accumulated savings at
retirement."

Additionally, plaintiffs charge that defendants engaged in so-
called revenue sharing where the mutual fund firm administering
the plans shares some the fees it charges with the customer.   
The Deere & Co. employees said they were not told about the
revenue sharing.

The suit is "Hecker, Dennis v. Deere & Co., Case No. 06-C-0719-
S," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin under Judge John C. Shabaz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Schlichter, Bogard & Denton
          Attorneys At Law
          100 South Fourth Street, #900
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 621-6115; and

               - and -

          Solheim, Billing & Grimmer, S.C.
          P.O. Box 1644, 1 S. Pinckney St., Ste. 301
          Madison, WI 53701-1644, Phone:
          Phone: (608) 282-1200


ETHICON INC: Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Vicryl Sutures
----------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed an order by Kanawha
Circuit Judge Charles King dismissing a class claim filed on
behalf of everyone who were applied Vicryl sutures made by
Ethicon Inc., Steve Korris of the West Virginia Record, reports.

On Oct. 12, the Supreme Court directed Judge King to let Marvin
Masters of Charleston proceed with the suit under the Medical
Professional Liability Act.  Mr. Masters' original suit against
N.J.-based Vicryl manufacturer Ethicon asserted claims of
assault, battery, product liability and fraud.  He filed the
suit in 2003, claiming contamination in Vicryl sutures harmed
patients.

Named in the suit are Ethicon, several Vicryl sellers and
distributors, Charleston Area Medical Center and Herbert J.
Thomas Memorial Hospital.

In defendant's motion to dismiss, they argued that the Medical
Professional Liability Act provided the sole remedy for the
proposed class representative Donna Blankenship.  Judge King
agreed.  Afterwards, he dismissed the suit because Mr. Masters
had not served notice before suing, as the act requires.  Mr.
Masters appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals, which sent the
case back to Judge King in 2004.

The Appeals Court told Judge King to review the case in light of
their simultaneous decision in "Boggs v. Camden-Clark Memorial
Hospital," wherein they held that a patient could sue a medical
provider outside the malpractice act if the suit involved acts
that did not relate to health care.

Judge King reviewed Ms. Blakenship's suit and again, dismissed
it.  Mr. Masters appealed, and again the Justices sent it back
to Judge King without finding any error on the judgment.  

This time, the court deemed that "dismissal appears to be a
disproportionately harsh sanction."  It affirmed that the
plaintiff made a legitimate judgment in good faith to frame the
case as assault and battery rather than malpractice.

Chief Justice Robin Jean Davis wrote that failure to plead a
claim under the malpractice act does not preclude application of
the act.  She wrote that defendants should ask for compliance
with the act and Judge King should require compliance and give
Mr. Masters 30 days to comply.

Richard Jones and Amy Humphreys, of Jackson Kelly in Charleston,
represented Charleston Area Medical Center.

Representing Thomas Memorial Hospital are:

          Thomas Hurney Jr., Esq.
          Laurie Miller, Esq.
          Flaherty, Sensabaugh and Bonasso PLLC
          200 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 3843
          Charleston, West Virginia 25301
          (Kanawha Co.)
          Phone: 304-345-0200
          Telecopier: 304-347-4208
          Web Site: http://www.fsblaw.com


GLOBAL DESIGN: Recalls Game Pieces with Detachable Magnets
----------------------------------------------------------
Global Design Concepts Inc., of New York, N.Y. in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 110,000 magnetic game pieces sold with “Cars” themed
backpacks.

The company said small magnets inside the four game pieces that
were sold with the "Cars" backpack can fall out of their plastic
enclosure. Magnets found by young children can be swallowed or
aspirated. If more than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets can
attract each other and cause intestinal perforation or blockage,
which can be fatal.

The firm has received three reports of a magnet that became
loose. No injuries have been reported.

The 12 inch "Cars" Backpack was sold with four sealed game
pieces that contain magnets. The game pieces included a red
plastic car; a blue plastic car; and two red and black plastic
disks that have “GAS,” “OIL” and “SERVICE” printed in red
letters on the black perimeter of the disks. “Warning: Choking
Hazard-Small Parts. Not for children under 3 years” is printed
on the backpack hangtag. “Disney Presents a PIXAR film” is
printed on the gray vinyl front of the backpack.

The game pieces were made in China and sold in Target stores
nationwide from February 2007 through September 2007 for about
$13.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08039.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled game
pieces away from young children and contact the Cars Backpack
Recall hotline for instructions on returning the recalled game
pieces for a free replacement "Cars" wallet or equivalent
product.

For additional information, contact the Cars Backpack Recall
hotline toll-free at (877) 848-4070 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.carsbackpackrecall.com.


GLOBAL WEALTH: Multi-Million Dollar Bias Suit Deal Gets Final Ok
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, granted final approval to a $70 million
class action settlement of gender discrimination claims asserted
against Morgan Stanley's Global Wealth Management Group.

The settlement covers female Financial Advisors and Registered
Financial Advisor Trainees employed by Morgan Stanley at any
time from August 5, 2003 through June 30, 2007.

The settlement requires the Company to pay $46 million in cash.
The parties anticipate that, in addition to the $46 million, the
changes called for in the programmatic relief will increase the
earnings of female financial advisors by at least $16 million
over five years and the Company will spend $7.5 million over the
next five years on diversity efforts and programs.

The settlement also requires the Company to make changes to
various policies affecting compensation and promotion into
branch management. The settlement calls for the appointment of
two independent outside expert Industrial Psychologists, Dr.
Kathleen Lundquist and Dr. Irv Goldstein, to develop state-of-
the-art programs to create enhanced business opportunities for
female financial advisors. The Company must also appoint a
Diversity Monitor to ensure compliance with the requirements of
the settlement.

In response to the ruling, Steve Sprenger noted, "After a long
journey, our named plaintiffs have succeeded in creating a
substantial and powerful settlement."

Cyrus Mehri said, "This is a bell-weather settlement that not
only will bring about genuine change at Morgan Stanley, but will
also influence the entire industry."

                        Case Background  

The suit was filed by a group of women, who were generally
alleging that female financial advisers and trainees were
discriminated against in compensation, promotion, work
assignments and other areas.

It was filed on June 22, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under the caption, "Joanne August-Johnson
et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW Inc.," (Class Action Reporter, July
11, 2006).

Plaintiffs, who sought damages in law and in equity, are:

      -- Cheryl Guistiniano,
      -- Debra Shaw,
      -- Joanne August-Johnson,
      -- Laurie Blackburn, and
      -- Nancy Reeves.

According to the complaint, the case arises out of the company's
alleged systematic discriminatory treatment of its female
financial advisors in violation of federal and applicable state
civil rights laws (Class Action Reporter, July 24, 2007).

The suit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
on behalf of all female financial advisors at Morgan Stanley who
were employed at any time from Aug. 5, 2003 to the present.

Its filing was designed to protect the rights of the named
plaintiffs, who reside in four states, and the prospective class
members nationwide.

Early this year, Global Wealth Management Group, one of the four
main business units of Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., settled for
$46,000,000 (Class Action Reporter, May 2, 2007).

The suit is "August-Johnson et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01142-RWR," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia under Judge Richard W. Roberts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
         Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
         1300 19th Street NW
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: (202) 822-5100
         E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com
  
              - and -

         Steven M. Sprenger, Esq.
         Sprenger & Lang, PLLC
         1400 I Street, NW, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 265-8010
         Fax: (202) 332-6652
         E-mail: ssprenger@sprengerlang.com


GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Securities Litigation in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
GlobeTel Communications Corp. (Pink Sheets: GTEM) reached
settlements in principle in pending securities class action as
well as shareholder derivative action filed against certain of
its current and former officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Florida.

On April 28, 2006, the law firm of Sarraf Gentile, LLP,  
commenced a securities fraud class action on behalf of those  
investors who acquired the securities of GlobeTel Communications  
Corp. from Dec. 30, 2005 to April 11, 2006.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement in the
class action, the Company's D&O insurance carrier will make a
cash payment to the class of $2,300,000, less up to $100,000 for
potential counsel fees and expenses. All claims in the class
action will be dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the proposed settlement in the derivative action,
the Company's D&O insurance carrier will pay $60,000 in
attorneys' fees to plaintiff's counsel, the Company will
implement or maintain certain corporate governance changes, and
all claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

Settlements of both the class and derivative actions are subject
to preliminary and final approval by the court. The resolution
of these matters will enable the Company to eliminate further
expenses and distractions that protracted litigation would cause
to GlobeTel's management team as it seeks to focus all of its
efforts on executing its business strategy.

The first identified complaint is "Richard Stevens, et al. v.  
GlobeTel Communications Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-21071,"  
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of  
Florida under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.
  
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case are:  

          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, (LA)
          1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA, 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
  
          Howard G. Smith
          Attorney at Law
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA, 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847
          Fax: (215) 638-4867
  
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (Boca Raton)
          The Plaza - 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900
          Boca Raton, FL, 33486
          Phone: 561.361.5000
          Fax: 561.367.8400
          E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com
  
          - and -

          Sarraf Gentile, LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005
          New York, NY, 10018
          Phone: 212.868.3610
          Fax: 212.918.7967


GYMBOREE CORP: Recalls Toy Swords Due to Laceration Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The Gymboree Corp., of San Francisco, Calif., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 6,000 toy pirate swords.  

The company said the swords can break, creating a sharp point,
which poses a laceration hazard to consumers.  Gymboree has
received 11 reports of the sword breaking.  No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves a toy pirate sword with SKU number
140025491-GYS049. The SKU number is printed on the price tag
above the bar code. The sword is made of plastic, and has a
gold-colored handle and a gray plastic blade. The sword is about
19 inches long.

The swords were made in China and sold at Gymboree stores
nationwide and its Web site from August 2007 through September
2007 for between $12 and $15.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the swords and
return them to any Gymboree store for a full refund. Consumers
also can contact Gymboree to receive instructions on returning
the swords via mail.

For further information, contact Gymboree toll-free at (877)
449-6932 between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. PT Monday through Friday and
between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m. PT Saturday, or visit
http://www.gymboree.com.


KANSAS CITY: Still Faces Several Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas City Southern Railway Co. (KCSR), a subsidiary of the
Kansas City Southern, along with the other major U.S. railroads
continues to face a number of putative class actions alleging
that the individual railroads conspired in violation of U.S.
antitrust laws, according to the company’s Oct. 26, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, 24 putative class actions have been filed
against KCSR, along with the other Class I U.S. railroads (and,
in some cases, the Association of American Railroads), in
various Federal district courts.

A motion is presently pending before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer all of these
lawsuits to a single district court for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.  

Because plaintiffs and defendants agree that multidistrict
treatment of the lawsuits is appropriate, KCSR anticipates that
the JPML motion will be granted.

However, because the JPML has not yet ruled, the transferee
court has not yet been identified.

Kansas City Southern -- http://www.kcsouthern.com/-- is a  
holding company with principal operations in rail
transportation.


LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Still Working to Implement ADA Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc. continues to work for the settlement
of all Americans with Disabilities Act claims filed against it
in a purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee, according to the
company’s Oct. 26, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

On Jan. 12, 2001, a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee against each of the
company’s existing hospitals alleging non-compliance with the
accessibility guidelines of ADA.

On April 20, 2007, the plaintiff amended the lawsuit to add
hospitals that the company subsequently acquired, including the
former Province Facilities, Wythe County Community Hospital and
Danville Regional Medical Center and dismiss divested
facilities.

The lawsuit did not seek any monetary damages, but seeks
injunctive relief requiring facility modification, where
necessary, to meet ADA guidelines, in addition to attorneys’
fees and costs.

The company is currently unable to estimate the costs that could
be associated with modifying these facilities because these
costs are negotiated and determined on a facility-by-facility
basis and, therefore, have varied and will continue to vary
significantly among facilities.

In January 2002, the District Court certified the class action
and issued a scheduling order that requires the parties to
complete discovery and inspection for approximately six
facilities per year.

As of Oct. 11, 2007, the plaintiffs have conducted inspections
at 32 of the company's hospitals (including the now divested
Smith County and closed Guyan Valley Hospital).

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the District Court has approved settlement
agreements between the parties relating to 13 of the company's
facilities.  

On June 21, 2007, the case was reassigned to a new judge.  On
July 16, 2007, the parties filed a Notice of Partial Settlement
and Request for Fairness Hearing for five facilities.

On July 19, 2007, the District Court held a status conference to
review the procedural and substantive status of the case.

The company is moving forward in making facility modifications
in accordance with the terms of the settlements.  It has
completed corrective work on three facilities for a cost of $1.0
million.  

Currently, the company anticipate that the costs associated with
the ten other facilities that have court approved settlement
agreements will range from $5.1 million to $7.0 million.

The suit is "Access Now, Inc. v. Lifepoint Hospitals, et al.,
Case No. 4:01-cv-00002," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge James H. Jarvis.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Linda F. Burnsed and Stanley M. Chernau, Esqs.
        Chernau, Chaffin & Burnsed, PLLC
        One American Center, 3100 West End Avenue, Suite 550
        Nashville, TN 37203
        Phone: 615-460-7478
        Fax: 615-460-7484
        E-mail: schernau@ccblaw.net

             - and -

        Charles D. Ferguson, Esq.
        3001 S.W. 3rd Avenue
        Miami, FL 33129
        Phone: 305-285-2000
        Fax: 305-285-5555
        E-mail: ferguson@delao-marko.com

Representing the defendants are:

        Andrew S. Naylor and Paula D. Walker, Esqs.
        Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis
        P.O. Box 198966, 511 Union Street, Suite 2700
        Nashville, TN 37219-8966
        Phone: 615-244-6380
        Fax: 615-2446804
        Web site: http://www.wallerlaw.com


MACLEAN QUALITY: Recalls Bicycle Forks with Tips that can Detach
----------------------------------------------------------------
MacLean Quality Composites, d.b.a. Reynolds, of West Jordan,
Utah, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 330 Reynolds UL bicycle forks.

The bicycle forks are distributed by Quality Bicycle Products,
of Bloomington, Minn., and Security Bicycle Accessories, of
Hempstead, N.Y.

The company said the fork tips could separate from the fork
legs, causing the wheel to come loose from the fork while
riding. This could pose a serious fall hazard to riders.  No
injuries have been reported so far.

This recall involves the Reynolds UL bicycle fork models with 43
mm and 50 mm rakes and with serial numbers 09100 through 10403.
The serial number decal is located on the steer tube. To see the
serial number, the fork must be removed from the frame. Some
recalled forks are black, have “Reynolds” printed on them, and
have a gray and white stripe painted on the legs of the fork.
Other recalled forks were painted with a different paint scheme
and do not have “Reynolds” printed on them. To determine if a
fork is included in this recall, consumers should contact the
company.

The bicycle forks were made in the U.S. and sold at independent
bicycle retailers nationwide from October 2006 through May 2007
for about $500. The recalled forks were included in custom 2007
bicycle frame kits from the following manufacturers: Independent
Fabrication, Litespeed, Lynskey Performance Designs LLC.,
Merlin, Parlee, Rock Lobster, Spectrum Cycles, Strong Frames and
Vicious Cycles.

Consumers are advised to stop using the bicycles equipped with
the recalled forks immediately and contact Reynolds for a free
replacement fork.

Picture of the recalled bicycle fork:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08040.jpg

For additional information, contact Reynolds toll-free at (866)
798-3040 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday,
visit the company’s Web site at
http://www.reynoldscycling.com/recallor send an email to  
recall@reynoldscycling.com


MICHIGAN: Suit Filed Over Local Banks' Fees for Cashing Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
National City Bank, Chase Bank, Fifth Third Bank, and several
other banks face a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan over fees they charge
in the cashing of checks, Jon Newberry of The Business Courier
of Cincinnati reports.

The suit was filed on Oct. 10, 2007 by Carl G. Becker, an
Oxford, Mich., lawyer on behalf of Juliet M. Murphy.  It
specifically challenges the practice of charging non-customers a
fees for cashing checks written by the banks themselves against
their own credit.

The complaint states that it was filed on behalf of a nationwide
class of persons and entities who have been charged such fees
when they cashed official bank checks at a branch of one of the
defendant banks.

According to the suit, the usual fee for cashing the checks
ranges from $5 to $10.  

Among other examples, the suit cited a $10 fee charged in
October to one of the named plaintiffs by Chase and an $8 fee
charged to another named plaintiff by Fifth Third.

Mr. Becker told The Business Courier of Cincinnati that the
issue came to his attention when a paralegal in his office told
him about having been charged such a fee.

The suit is “Murphy v. National City Bank et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-14292-JF-SDP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge John Feikens with
referral to Judge Steven D. Pepe.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Carl G. Becker, Esq.
          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          Becker and Wasvary
          2301 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 318
          Troy, MI 48084
          Phone: 248-649-5667
          Fax: 248-649-5668          
          E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com


MONSANTO CO: Third Circuit Mulls Appeal in American Seed Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal regarding the decision by the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware to deny class-action status to a
suit filed against Monsanto Co. over an alleged monopoly of the
biotech corn seed market.

American Seed Co. of Spring Grove, Pennsylvania filed the suit
on July 26, 2005, supposedly on behalf of direct purchasers of
corn seed containing the company's transgenic traits.  

American Seed alleges that the company have monopolized or
attempted to monopolize markets for glyphosate-tolerant corn
seed, European corn borer-protected corn seed and foundation
corn seed.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.

On Nov. 13, 2006, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification.  On Jan. 25, 2007, the U. S. Court of
Appeal for the Third Circuit granted Plaintiffs’ motion to
review the trial court’s decision denying class certification.

The company reported no development in the case at its Oct. 26,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2007.

The suit is "American Seed Co. Inc. v. Monsanto Co. et al. Case
No. 1:05-cv-00535-SLR," filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, under Judge Sue L. Robinson.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard L. Horwitz, Esq.
         Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
         1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr.
         Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
         Phone: (302) 984-6000
         E-mail: rhorwitz@potteranderson.com

             - and -

         Joelle Eileen Polesky, Esq.
         Smith, Katzenstein, & Furlow
         The Corporate Plaza, 800 Delaware Ave., P.O. Box 410
         Wilmington, DE 19899
         Phone: (302) 652-8400
         E-mail: jpolesky@skfdelaware.com
   
Representing the defendants are:

         Steven D. De Salvo, Esq.
         Peter E. Moll, Esq.
         John J. Rosenthal, Esq.
         Pro Hac Vice
         E-mail: desalvos@howrey.com
                 Mollp@howrey.com
                 rosenthalj@howrey.com


MONSANTO CO: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Glyphosate Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in three lawsuits over Monsanto Co.'s alleged
monopoly on glyphosate have voluntarily dismissed their
complaints.

On Sept. 26, 2006, two purported class action suits were filed
against the company, supposedly on behalf of all farmers who
purchased its Roundup brand herbicides in the U.S. for
commercial agricultural purposes since Sept. 26, 2002.

Plaintiffs essentially allege that the company has monopolized
the market for glyphosate for commercial agricultural purposes,
and seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief.

In late February 2007, three additional suits were filed,
alleging similar claims.

All of these suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.  

On July 18, 2007, the court ruled that any such suit had to be
filed in federal or state court in Missouri and granted the  
company's motion to dismiss the two original cases.

On Aug. 8, 2007, plaintiffs in the remaining three cases
voluntarily dismissed their complaints, which have not been re-
filed.

Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com-- together with its  
subsidiaries, is a global provider of agricultural products for
farmers.


MONSANTO CO: No Trial Dates Set for Biotechnology Traits Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
No trial dates have been scheduled for a consolidated federal
lawsuit and a state court class action against Monsanto Co. and
its subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. over alleged
price fixing and overpricing of biotechnology traits.

Starting the week of March 7, 2004, a series of purported class
action cases were filed in 14 different state courts against
Pioneer and the company.

The suits allege that the company conspired with Pioneer to
violate various state competition and consumer protection laws
by allegedly fixing and artificially inflating the prices and
fees for Monsanto's various biotechnology traits and seeds
containing those traits and imposing certain use restrictions.

All of these cases have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and consolidated,
except for one case pending in state court in Tennessee.  

No trial dates have been set for these matters, according to the
company's Oct. 26, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 31, 2007.

Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com-- together with its  
subsidiaries, is a global provider of agricultural products for
farmers.


MONSANTO CO: Court Hears Appeal in VAVAO's Agent Orange Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has heard
plaintiffs appeal of a decision by the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York dismissing a class action filed
against Monsanto Co. and other manufacturers of the herbicide
Agent Orange.

The Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVAO) filed
the suit, styled "VAVAO, et al. v. The Dow Chemical Company, et
al.," which was assigned to Judge Jack B. Weinstein.  

The suit generally alleges that defendants conspired with the
U.S. Government to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity
in connection with the spraying of the herbicide.  

On March 10, 2005, the District Court granted the motions to
dismiss and for summary judgment filed by Monsanto and other
defendants in this case.  

Plaintiffs have appealed the District Court’s judgment to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral
argument on June 18, 2007, according to the company's Oct. 26,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent
Orange/Dioxin et al. v. Dow Chemical Company et al, Case No.
1:04-cv-00400-JBW-JMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, under Judge Jack B. Weinstein.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Constantine Peter Kokkoris, Esq.
         Abberley & Koolman, 521 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10175
         Phone: 212-349-9340
         Fax: 212-587-8115
         E-mail: cpk@kokkorislaw.com


MONSANTO CO: Ill. Court Certifies Class in ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
granted class-action status to a consolidated suit filed against
the Monsanto Company Pension Plan over alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On June 23, 2004, two former employees of Monsanto and Pharmacia
filed a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois against Monsanto and the
Monsanto Company Pension Plan, which is referred to as the
"Pension Plan."  

The suit claims that the Pension Plan has violated the age
discrimination and other rules under ERISA from Jan. 1, 1997
(when the Pension Plan was sponsored by Pharmacia, then known as
Monsanto Company) and continuing to the present.  

In January 2006, a separate group of former employees of
Pharmacia filed a similar purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against
Pharmacia, the Pharmacia Cash Balance Plan, and other
defendants.  

On July 7, 2006, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add
Monsanto and the Pension Plan as additional defendants.  On
Sept. 1, 2006, the court consolidated these lawsuits with two
purported class actions also pending in the same court against
the Solutia Company Pension Plan, under "Walker v. Monsanto,"
the first filed case.  

The court conducted a class certification hearing on Sept. 12,
2007.  Prior to the hearing, all parties agreed the case should
proceed as a class action and also agreed on a definition of the
respective classes.  The court will now set a schedule for
proceeding on the merits of the case.

The suit is "Walker et al v. Monsanto Company Pension Plan, The
et al, Case No. 3:04-cv-00436-DRH-CJP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge
David R. Herndon with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
         Stueve, Siegel et al.
         330 West 47th Street, Suite #250
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Phone: 816-714-7100
         Fax: 816-714-7101
         E-mail: dirks@sshwlaw.com

              - and -

         Michael B. Marker, Esq.
         Rex Carr Law Firm
         412 Missouri Avenue
         East St. Louis, IL 62201-3016
         Phone: 618-274-0434
         Fax: 618-274-8369
         E-mail: mmarker@rexcarr.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Gretchen Dixon, Esq.
         Arent Fox, PLLC
         1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-775-5772
         E-mail: dixon.gretchen@arentfox.com


MORTGAGE COS: OPFM-Related Suit Moved to Pa. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge James T. Giles in Philadelphia granted a
request by mortgage companies that are defendants in a suit
filed by homeowners with mortgage-debt problems caused by
mortgage broker OPFM Inc. to move the case to federal court,
reports Patrick Burns of the Lancaster Online.

OPFM filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 18.  On Sept. 25, O'Keefe &
Sher filed the suit in Berks County court on behalf of more than
800 homeowners.

O'Keefe & Sher filed the suit against the mortgage lenders,
claiming they didn't follow standard banking procedures when
they did business with OPFM.  The case seeks to void mortgages
of 25 lenders named in the suit.  The company allegedly brokered
the mortgages without the knowledge of the customers, who
thought they were signing on for lower mortgages.

Defendants in the suit are:

   -- ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc.,
      -- Chase Home Mortgage Corporation,
      -- Citimortgage, Inc.,
      -- Citicorp Home Mortgage Services, Inc.,
      -- Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
      -- Fifth Third Mortgage Company,
      -- Florida Capital Bank Mortgages,
      -- GMAC mortgage Corporation,
      -- GMAC Mortgage Asset Management, Inc.,
      -- GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc.,
      -- HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA),
      -- Indymac Financial Services Corp.,
      -- Moorequity Inc.,
      -- National City Mortgage Inc.,
      -- Nbank, NA,
      -- Provident Funding Group, Inc.,
      -- Saxon Home Mortgage,
      -- Sovereign Bank,
      -- Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.,
      -- U.S. Bank N.A., Wachovia Mortgage Corporation,
      -- Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc.,
      -- Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. and
      -- John Doe Mortgage Companies

Berks County Judge Jeffrey K. Sprecher afterwards ordered an
escrow account into which homeowners paid the original mortgage
payments they contracted for with OPFM.  

Judge Giles agreed last week to a request from the mortgage
companies to move the case to federal court on the ground that
customers named in the lawsuit are spread out in at least six
Pennsylvania counties and in other states.

He vacated the order by Sprecher that created the escrow
account.  Under a new agreement, mortgage customers may pay 75%
of the higher mortgage payments, or the original payment,
whichever is higher, and mortgage companies promised not to
foreclose if the payments are made.  The mortgage companies also
agreed not to foreclose or file negative data with collection
companies on customers who make their mortgage payments.

He rejected a dismissal motion by Sovereign bank, which claimed
it has only three loans involved in the suit and they were made
by another lender more than 12 years ago.

Judge Giles requested that plaintiff attorneys clarify the link
between each lender and mortgage holder.

The next hearing in the case is set for early December.

OPFM Inc. operated as Personal Financial Management and Image
Masters Inc.

The suit is “Jone et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Corp. Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:2007cv04328,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge James T.
Giles.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph O'Keefe, Esq.
          O'Keefe & Sher PC
          15019 Kutztown Rd.
          Kutztown, PA 19530-9276
          Phone: 610) 683-0771
          Fax: (610) 683-0777


ONEOK INC: Kansas Supreme Court Strikes Down $7.7M Jury Award
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas Supreme Court has canceled a jury verdict awarding
$7.7 million to plaintiffs in a class action against ONEOK,
Inc., arising out of the 2001 natural gas explosions outside of
Hutchinson, Kansas, The Associated Press.

The class action, which was originally filed in Reno County
but later moved by District Judge Richard Rome to Wyandotte
County, Kansas (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2004).

In his ruling to move the case, Judge Rome stated that intense
pretrial publicity would make it hard for Tulsa, Okla.-based
ONEOK to get an impartial jury in Reno County.

He also pointed out that because landowners are part of the
lawsuit and thus disqualified from being jurors, it would be
difficult to find "a fair cross-section of the community" to sit
on the jury.

In general, the suit alleges that the January 2001 gas leaks in
the company's Yaggy storage field northwest of Hutchinson is
believed to be responsible for a series of explosions that
destroyed several businesses and killed two people in
Hutchinson.

The case includes anyone who owns a business or property in the
county, with attorneys contending that a gas leak and deadly
explosions in 2001 devalued all those properties.

In late 2004, the Wyandotte County jury reached a verdict in the
matter.  In 2005,, the Company filed its notice of appeal of the
verdict.  Eventually, the was transferred to the Kansas Supreme
Court for appeal (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 11, 2005).

The $7.7 million award had been against ONEOK and two of its
subsidiaries: Kansas Gas Service and Mid-Continent Market
Center.

Experts testified a series of explosions were caused by the
escape of 143 million cubic feet of gas from the facility.

In reversing the award, the court pointed out that the property
owners did not show there was physical damage to their
individual properties.  Instead, they contended the stigma of
danger lowered property values throughout the area.


STATE STREET: Nashua Corp. Pension Trust Files Lawsuit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Bank & Trust, and State Street Global Advisors
(SSGA) face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts that was filed by The Nashua
Corp. Composite Pension Trust, Pensions & Investments reports.

The suit, filed on Oct. 24, 2007, is alleging that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in allowing the group’s core
bond strategies to take on far more risk than stated investment
objectives allowed.

In the suit, company claimed that employees covered by its $65
million composite pension trust lost roughly $5.6 million when
market turmoil in August caused SSGA’s Bond Market Fund to
decline by 12.26%, in contrast to the 1.2% gain for the fund’s
Lehman Aggregate Bond index benchmark during the same period.

Citing the fund’s leverage of roughly 6-to-1 and heavy exposure
to securitized subprime home equity loans, the complaint claims
that State Street significantly deviated “from prudent
investment decisions.”

The suit is “Nashua Corporation Composite Pension Trust v. State
Street Bank & Trust Company et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-12021-RGS,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Richard G. Stearns.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-542-8300
          Fax: 617-542-1194
          E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com


U.S. AUTOMAKERS: Canadian Sues Over Alleged Bias in Sale of Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian woman filed a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine against American car
companies and dealers, claiming that they illegally
discriminated against her because of her nationality.

Rhonda Chancey, 43, of Newfoundland was told repeatedly as she
shopped over the Internet that she couldn't buy the car of her
dreams -– a Pontiac Torrent -– from U.S. dealers because she was
Canadian.

She along with Allan Coombs, launched the human rights complaint
as well as a class-action claim on Oct. 24, 2007 with the help
of attorney Stephanie Jazlowiecki.  Earlier, they also filed a
discrimination complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission.

In general, the suit claims that General Motors, Ford, Chrysler,
Honda and Toyota have forbidden U.S. dealers from selling to
people from Canada, where prices are much higher.  They are
colluding to force those north of the border to pay a higher
price, according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs specifically claim that more than 80 car dealerships
in New England, including 61 in Maine, refused to entertain them
when the tried to buy a new car.

However, they finally got a new vehicle when a relative in New
Hampshire purchased it at a local dealership and then sold it to
them.  

According to reports, even after paying a transfer tax and a
sales tax twice, the vehicle was still cheaper than it would
have been in Canada.

Commenting on the case, Ms. Jazlowiecki told reporters that
denying Canadians the right to buy cars in the U.S. is a blatant
form of discrimination based on their country of origin.

The suit is “CHANCEY et al v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-00166-JAW,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine under Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. with
referral to Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stephanie E. F. Jazlowiecki, Esq.
          McTeague, Higbee, Case, Cohen, Whitney & Toker, P.A.
          Four Union Park, PO Box 5000
          Topsham, ME 04086-5000
          Phone: (207) 725-5581
          E-mail: stephaniej@me-law.com


WELLS FARGO: Settles Brokerage Kickback Lawsuit for $1.15M
----------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 31, 2008 fairness hearing is set in the settlement of a
suit filed on behalf of:

      Group 1: Class Members
    
All purchasers of shares (of any share class) bought between
November 4, 2000, and June 8, 2005, in either the Wells Fargo
Advantage Small Cap Growth Fund (MNSCX) (WMNIX) (WMNBX) (WMNCX)
(WFSIX) (WFSZX), or Wells Fargo Diversified Equity Fund (NVDAX)
(NVDEX) (NVDBX) (WFDEX) and all purchasers of shares (of any
share class) bought between June 9, 2003, and June 8, 2005 of
the Wells Fargo Montgomery Emerging Markets Focus Fund (MFFAX)
(MNEFX) (MFFBX) (MFFCX).

     Group 2: Current Holders
  
All holders of shares of the Wells Fargo Advantage Small Cap
Growth Fund (MNSCX) (WMNIX) (WMNBX) (WMNCX) (WFSIX) (WFSZX) as
of January 31, 2008.

Deadline to file a claim form is no later than 60 days after the
Court enters an order granting final approval of the Settlement.
This deadline could be as early as March 31, 2008.  Deadline to
object or ask for exclusion is Jan. 7, 2008.  

On the Net : http://www.MutualFundFeeSettlement.com

The settlement resolves class action arising out of certain
alleged business practices of:

     -- Wells Fargo & Company,
     -- Wells Fargo Investments, LLC,
     -- H.D. Vest Investment Services, LLC,
     -- Wells Fargo Funds Trust,
     -- Wells Fargo Funds Management, LLC,
     -- Wells Capital Management Incorporated,
     -- Wells Fargo Funds Distributor, LLC, and
     -- Stephens Inc.

The class claim alleges that Defendants failed to adequately
disclose that they paid brokerage houses to promote Wells Fargo
mutual funds. The case further alleges that these payments were
financed by alleged excessive fees charged to the mutual funds.
It alleges violations of section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

The Court has made no factual findings in the case, and
Plaintiff must prove his allegations. Defendants deny the
allegations and believe that all their actions were entirely
lawful. Defendants contend that the payments made to the
brokerage houses were entirely lawful and properly disclosed.
Defendants further contend that all fees charged to the mutual
funds were fair and reasonable, consistent with fees paid by
comparable funds, and were properly approved by independent fund
trustees relying on independent data. Defendants also deny that
any registered representatives were biased or that unsuitable
investments were recommended as a result of the alleged
payments.

                        Settlement Terms

A settlement has been reached. If the settlement is approved,
Defendants will pay $1.15 million into a fund. The fund will be
used to pay certain costs of giving notice of the settlement and
administering it; the attorneys’ fees, expenses, and
compensation to the Lead Plaintiff approved by the Court
(collectively not to exceed $400,000); compensation to the Lead
Plaintiff for releasing other claims ($1,500) and a payment to
the Small Cap Growth Fund (not to exceed $50,000); with the
balance to Class Members who file Claim Forms.

In connection with the settlement, unless Class Members take
certain actions described below, the Class Members will release
all claims against Defendants and others regarding the Wells
Fargo mutual funds listed above and the allegations in this
lawsuit.

Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel state the principal reason for the
settlement is that it represents a favorable outcome for the
class, arrived at after comprehensive investigation and analysis
of the factual and legal issues surrounding Class Members’
claims.

Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel further state that the proposed
settlement is in the best interests of the Class as a whole
given Defendants’ willingness to settle now for a cash payment
of $1.15 million, including the Derivative Payment, and adoption
of measures to address the alleged problems giving rise to the
lawsuit, balanced against the risks presented by the unresolved
issues that might have been decided in Defendants’ favor, the
expense and delay of continued litigation, the risks of taking
the case to trial, and the risks and delay presented by an
appeal in the event of a favorable outcome at trial.

The proposed Class Action Settlement provides the class with
$1,098,500, and also requires Defendants to amend the
disclosures in their prospectuses and statements of additional
information for the Three Wells Fargo Mutual Funds. If the
$1,098,500 were allocated in accordance with the relative
proportion of revenue sharing payments attributable to each of
the Three Wells Fargo Mutual Funds and distributed pro rata to
Class Members based on all shares purchased during the Class
Period (without regard to whether a shareholder submitted a
Claim Form), the average distribution would be approximately
$0.039 per share for the Wells Fargo Advantage Diversified
Equity Fund, $0.013 per share for the Wells Fargo Advantage
Emerging Markets Focus Fund, and $0.008 per share for the Wells
Fargo Advantage Small Cap Growth Fund (before deduction of any
fees or expenses incurred by Class Counsel and awarded by the
Court).

However, the settlement will be distributed not pro rata by
share, but rather according to the Plan of Allocation.
Accordingly, Lead Plaintiff cannot determine or estimate with
any degree of precision how much money each Class Member will
actually receive in the settlement, until it is known how many
Class Members make claims, the average dollar value of their
holdings, administrative expenses, and any award of fees and
expenses to Class Counsel. On the basis of the information
available to him, Lead Plaintiff believes that each Class
Member's recovery in the settlement will be at least 35% of what
he or she would receive in the best case scenario if the case
went to trial and Lead Plaintiff prevailed.

Lead Plaintiff has estimated that his best case for dollar
recovery on behalf of the class is $3,195,695. Defendants do not
believe that Lead Plaintiff would recover any money on behalf of
the class if this case proceeded to trial. If the $3,195,695
estimated by Lead Plaintiff to be his best case for a dollar
recovery on behalf of the class were allocated in accordance
with the relative proportion of revenue sharing payments
attributable to each of the Three Wells Fargo Mutual Funds and
distributed pro rata to Class Members based on all shares
purchased during the Class Period (without regard to whether a
shareholder submitted a Claim Form), the average distribution
would be approximately $0.114 per share for the Wells Fargo
Advantage Diversified Equity Fund, $0.038 per share for the
Wells Fargo Advantage Emerging Markets Focus Fund, and $0.024
per share for the Wells Fargo Advantage Small Cap Growth Fund
(before deduction of any fees or expenses incurred by Class
Counsel and awarded by the Court).

Lead Plaintiff notes, however, that at trial he would seek
distribution based on a number of other factors, such as the
value of the shares and the length of time they were held. Lead
Plaintiff also cannot guarantee that damages would be awarded as
to all Three Wells Fargo Mutual Funds or all share classes in
each fund even if he prevailed on his claim.

Lead Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel will submit an
application for an award of compensation for time spent,
attorneys’ fees and for reimbursement of expenses incurred in
connection with the prosecution of this litigation from the
Settlement Fund, in an amount not to exceed $400,000
(approximately $0.014 per share for the Wells Fargo Advantage
Diversified Equity Fund, $0.005 per share for the Wells Fargo
Advantage Emerging Markets Focus Fund, and $0.003 per share for
the Wells Fargo Advantage Small Cap Growth Fund, assuming
allocation in accordance with the relative proportion of revenue
sharing payments attributable to each of the Three Wells Fargo
Mutual Funds and a pro rata distribution by fund based on all
shares purchased during the Class Period (without regard to
whether a shareholder submitted a Claim Form)). Any award of
compensation to Lead Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel is
subject to judicial review and approval.

For more information, contact:

          Gutride Safier Reese LLP
          P.O. Box 940046
          San Francisco, CA 94146
          Phone: 415-946-7434
          Web site: http://www.gutridesafier.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Vianale & Vianale Files  Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vianale & Vianale LLP  filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.
between November 9, 2005 and October 25, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that BankAtlantic, and certain of its
officers and directors, violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. At the start of the Class Period, BankAtlantic touted its
"negative provision for loan losses." Nevertheless, BankAtlantic
materially understated reserves for real estate loan losses on
its financial statements, and thus materially overstated net
income. BankAtlantic gave a $27.8 million real estate loan
without obtaining an independent appraisal of the real estate.

The loan was granted to Michael Tringali, who worked together
with Neil Mohamed Husani. The two men inflated land values and
then flipped a series of properties in Florida to obtain higher
real estate loans from several banks, including BankAtlantic.
Husani and Tringali have been under FBI investigation for this
scheme, which the Company either knew at the time or recklessly
ignored.

BankAtlantic knew or recklessly ignored that the collateral
underlying this $27.8 million loan -- vacant land in Manatee
County, Florida -- was worth no more than $17.1 million.

BankAtlantic deflected questions about the adequacy of its loan
loss reserves for this property. BankAtlantic said it
commissioned an "appraisal" of the property, but real estate
experts questioned whether this appraisal had any basis. In
April 2007, BankAtlantic announced that it was having difficulty
with its Florida real estate portfolio but hid the true extent
of the inadequacy of its loan loss reserves. On October 25,
2007, the Company announced that it had to increase its loan
loss reserves substantially. The news sent BankAtlantic's shares
down nearly 40%, from $7.45 to $4.72 on heavy trading volumes.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 28,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


ERICSSON LM: Coughlin Stoia Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Ericsson LM
Telephone Co. between September 11, 2007 and October 15, 2007,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint charges Ericsson and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Exchange Act. Ericsson is a
Sweden-based company that offers a portfolio of
telecommunication and data communication systems and services
covering a range of technologies.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. The complaint alleges
that Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that:

     (i) the Company was experiencing declining sales in its
         networks due to lower sales of expansions and upgrades
         of mobile networks;

    (ii) sales in Western Europe were declining due to operator
         consolidation in several markets; and

   (iii) as a result, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
         their positive statements about the Company's business.

On October 16, 2007, before the market opened, Ericsson issued a
release entitled "Lower than expected result for Ericsson in
third quarter 2007". That same day, after these results were
issued, Ericsson's stock collapsed to close at $31.33 per share,
a decline of 24%, on volume of 42.7 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Ericsson
between September 11, 2007 and October 15, 2007, against
Ericsson seeking to pursue remedies under the Exchange Act.

For more information, contact:

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


NOVARTIS AG: Coughlin Stoia Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of
Novartis AG publicly traded securities during the period between
June 14, 2006 and July 17, 2007.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Novartis
failed to disclose adverse information regarding the Company's
research into a potential new cancer drug, Tasigna, which caused
the Company's shares to trade at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period. On July 17, 2007, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the FDA had requested a three-
month extension in the regulatory review period for Tasigna.
Following the FDA disclosure of the safety data for Tasigna,
which defendants had known for several months, Novartis's share
price declined from $55.45 to $53.36 in two days.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Novartis publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com
          Website: http://www.csgrr.com


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Chimicles & Tikellis Announces Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Labaton Sucharow LLP
and Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP announce that a securities class
action was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia against nominal defendant:

     -- Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. (f/k/a Wells Real
        Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (Wells REIT)), and
     -- W. Wayne Woody,
     -- Michael R. Buchanan,
     -- Wesley E. Cantrell,
     -- William H. Keogler, Jr.,
     -- Donald S. Moss, and
     -- Donald A. Miller, on behalf of:

     (a) a Class of all persons who were entitled to tender
         their shares pursuant to the Tender Offer Statement on
         Schedule TO under Section 14(d)(1) or 13(e)(1) of the
         Exchange Act, filed by Lex-Win Acquisition, LLC on May
         25, 2007, as Amended or Supplemented, and who suffered
         harm as a result of the actions complained of herein;
         and

     (b) on behalf of a Class of all persons who are entitled to
         vote on the Final Proxy that was disseminated to
         investors, pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange
         Act on October 16, 2007.

Plaintiff is filing this action as a companion to its case
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia captioned “In Re Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-
00862-CAP (N.D. Ga.),” which alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty by Wells REIT and
certain of its affiliates, officers and directors in connection
with Wells REIT's proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on
February 26, 2007 seeking shareholder approval to merge
affiliates of the Company into Wells REIT for $175 million worth
of the Company's stock.

Plaintiff was appointed Lead Plaintiff in the already pending
litigation, and the law firms of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP,
Labaton Sucharow LLP and Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP were
appointed as Lead Counsel.

The Complaint in this companion suit charges defendants with
violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections
14(a) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules
14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder. In addition, by
virtue of the defendants' conduct, the Complaint alleges that
defendants have also breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
proposed Classes.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that:

      (1) On May 23, 2007, Piedmont filed a Form S-11  
          Registration Statement with the SEC announcing the  
          Company's intention to apply to list its stock on the
          New York Stock Exchange and to conduct an underwritten
          offering of up to $345 million of its stock  
          (Underwritten Offering).  The Listing and Underwritten
          Offering have not yet occurred.

     (2) In response to a Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO
         under Section 14(d)(1) or 13(e)(1) of the Exchange Act
         filed on May 25, 2007 by Lex-Win, an unaffiliated third
         party seeking to purchase approximately 5.2% of the
         outstanding shares of Piedmont at $9.00 net per share,
         on June 8, 2007 (May 25 Lex-Win Tender Offer), Piedmont
         filed a Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation
         Statement under Section 14(d)(4) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934 ("Schedule 14D-9") responding to
         the Lex-Win Tender Offer and recommending that the
         Company's stockholders reject the May 25 Lex-Win Tender
         Offer and not tender their shares to the offerors.

         The recommendation to reject the May 25 Lex-Win Tender
         Offer was largely based on "the current business plan
         in effect for the future of the Company as disclosed in
         the May 23 Registration, including a potential listing
         of its shares of common stock on a national exchange"
         and "the Board's belief that the timing of the Offer is
         intended to take advantage of any potential increase in
         the value of the Company's shares associated with a
         possible listing and trading of the Company's shares on
         a national exchange."

     (3) In response to Lex-Win's supplement to its May 25
         Tender Offer increasing the offer price to $9.30 per
         share and increasing the number of shares sought to
         9.3% of the outstanding shares of the Company (Revised
         Tender Offer), on June 18, 2007 Piedmont filed with the  
         SEC its Amendment No. 1 to its Schedule 14D-9,
         responding to the Revised Offer and recommending to  
         Piedmont shareholders that they reject the Revised
         Offer (Amended Response). The Amended Response omitted  
         any reference to the May 23 Registration Statement or
         the potential listing as reasons for recommending
         against the Revised Tender Offer.

     (4) On July 20, 2007, the Lex-Win Tender Offer  
         (collectively, the May 25 Lex-Win Tender Offer and
         Revised Tender Offer are referred to as "Lex-Win
         Tender Offer") expired. During the time that the Lex-
         Win Tender Offer was open and pending, the Individual
         Defendants knew or wrongfully disregarded that the
         listing of Piedmont's stock on a national securities
         exchange was highly unlikely. As of June 18, when the
         Company filed its Amended Response to the Revised
         Tender Offer, completely eliminating any reference to
         the May 23 Registration Statement or the prospective
         listing in providing the reasons for its recommendation
         against tendering, the Board had already determined
         that the Underwritten Offering and listing were not
         likely to occur. The Board failed to supplement or  
         amend its 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement  
         to disclose this material fact that would have been
         important to an investor in determining whether to
         tender his shares.

     (5) On October 16, 2007, Piedmont filed a Schedule 14A
         Proxy Statement pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
         Exchange Act (Final Proxy), stating that it was
         delaying the listing and seeking shareholder approval
         of an extension of the Charter-mandated Liquidity
         Deadline from January 30, 2008 to July 30, 2009, and to
         provide the board of directors with the discretionary
         authority to extend the Liquidity Deadline further from
         July 30, 2009 to January 30, 2011, without further
         shareholder action. The Complaint asserts that the
         Final Proxy is false and misleading because, among
         other things, it states that a recent decline in the
         REIT market and the so-called credit crunch were the
         reasons for the proposed extension. In fact, these
         economic conditions are not only misrepresented, but
         they are nothing but a subterfuge since the Director
         Defendants had abandoned the idea of a 2007 listing by
         the time they filed their June 18 Amended Response to
         the Lex-Win Tender Offer.

     (6) The Individual Defendants owe fiduciary duties to the
         Classes, which were breached by:

         (a) failing to recommend that in light of the
             unlikelihood of a timely listing and the absence of
             other viable liquidity options, the Lex-Win Tender
             Offer constituted a reasonable and prudent exit
             strategy that shareholders should seriously
             consider as a liquidity option;

        (b) failing, in the Schedule 14D-9, to fully inform the
            stockholders about the likelihood of a liquidity
            event and utilizing their fiduciary position to
            recommend against tendering shares in order to
            retain control over the Company;

        (c) failing to determine whether the extension of the
            Liquidity Deadline is in the best interest of the
            shareholders;

        (d) placing their own personal self-interests above the
            Class members' best interests, and by seeking to
            conceal their fiduciary failures by means of a false
            and misleading Final Proxy and related proxy
            materials; and

       (e) by disseminating materially false and misleading
           proxy materials.

This suit seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class of all
persons who were entitled to tender their shares pursuant to the
Lex-Win Tender Offer and seeks damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of a Class of all persons who are entitled to vote on the
false and misleading Final Proxy that was disseminated to
investors on October 16, 2007.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is December 26, 2007.

For more information, contract:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          Kimberly M. Donaldson, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          Web site: http://www.chimicles.com
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: 610-642-8500
          Fax: 610-649-3633
          E-Mail: kimdonaldson@chimicles.com
          
          Lawrence A. Sucharow, Esq.
          Joseph Sternberg, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, New York 10005
          Phone: 212- 907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          Website: http://www.labaton.com
          E-Mail: info@labaton.com

          Robert W. Killorin, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 873-3900
          Fax: (404) 876-4476
          Website: www.chitwoodlaw.com
          E-mail: rkillorin@chitwoodlaw.com


                           *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *