CAR_Public/071031.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, October 31, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 216

                            Headlines

CEPHALON INC: Faces Pennsylvania Suit Over “Actiq” Cancer Drug
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Tenn. FLSA Suit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Discovery Ongoing in “Guardado” Labor Suit
COCA-COLA: Ga. Court Junks “Argento” Securities Fraud Lawsuit
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Workers File Ill. Suit Over Unpaid Wages

HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Four Vie as Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff
IOWA: Suit Planned Over Discrimination in Hiring Practices
IRON MOUNTAIN: Students File La. Suit Over Personal Record Loss
JABIL CIRCUIT: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal Motion in Fla. Case
KIA MOTORS: Superior Court Upholds $5.6M Award in Sephia Suit

MERCK & CO: Physical Injury Evidence at Issue in Vioxx Trial  
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face DRAM Antitrust Complaints
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Multiple SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Flash Memory Antitrust Lawsuits
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Ida. Consolidated Securities Suit

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Cal. Court Junks Complaint Over Lexar Merger
MONSANTO CO: Faces Glyphosate-Related Litigation in Texas
MONSANTO CO: Appeal Against Dioxin Suit Certification Allowed
NORTHERN STATES: Appeals Certain Rulings in “Hoffman” Litigation
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Employees' Suit Granted Certification

RATING AGENCIES: Could Face Suit in Relation to Basis Capital
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Continues in K-DUR Antitrust Lawsuits
UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Wash. Suit Over Delays on Citizenship
TVIA INC: Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 18
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Limited Discovery Continues in Ill. Litigation

WD-40 CO: “Drimmer” Plaintiff to Appeal Class Status Denial
XCEL ENERGY: Court Reverses Dismissal of Nev. Natural Gas Suits
XCEL ENERGY: Kans. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss “Learjet” Case
XCEL ENERGY: “Comer” Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Litigation

* William Lerach Admits Guilt in Class Action Bribery Scheme


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                            *********


CEPHALON INC: Faces Pennsylvania Suit Over “Actiq” Cancer Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania claiming
it pushes its  Actiq cancer drug for other uses, the CourtHouse
Service News Service reports.

Cephalon markets and sells Actiq, the only appropriate medical
use of which is the management of breakthrough cancer in
patients with malignancies who are already receiving and who are
tolerant to opoid therapy for their underlying persistent cancer
pain. In other words, the FDA approved ACtiq for a narrow class
of patients: cancer patients whose pain could not be managed
with other narcotic based drugs.

Plaintiffs bring this action to recover the hundreds of millions
of dollars paid to defendant as a result of defendant's unlawful
scheme to market and sell the drug Actiq for the inappropriate
and medically unnecessary treatment of pain in non-terminal
cancer patients.

Insurance companies -- Employers Mutual Casualty Co., Emcasco
Insurance Co. and Union Insurance -- claim that only 1 percent
of the prescriptions for its addictive drug Actiq, prescribed
for "breakthrough pain" in cancer patients, were medically
necessary. The insurers demand "hundreds of millions of dollars
... for the inappropriate and medically unnecessary treatment of
pain in non-terminal cancer patients."

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all entities that
paid, in whole or in part, for the purchase of Actiq by non-
cancer patients for the period 2000 and up to and including the
present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Cephalon targeted physician specialties outside
         of oncologists and pain specialists knowledgeable in
         the treatment of cancer pain with its fraudulent and
         deceptive marketing scheme;

     (b) whether Cephalon engaged in marketing practices
         intended to deceive physician specialties outside of
         oncologists and pain specialists knowledgeable in the
         treatment of cancer pain into prescribing Actiq for
         non-cancer pain;

     (c) whether Cephalon gave away coupons for free samples of
         Actiq to physician specialties outside of oncologists
         and pain specialists knowledgeable in the treatment of
         cancer pain in order to induce them to prescribe Actiq
         for non-cancer pain;

     (d) whether defendant violated consumer protection statutes
         and/or false advertising statutes an/or state deceptive
         business practices statutes;

     (e) whether defendant violated the common law of unjust
         enrichment; and

     (f) the nature and extent of damages and other remedies to
         which the conduct of defendant entitles the class
         members.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter an order of judgment
against defendant including the following:

     -- certification of the action as a class action pursuant
        to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
        with respect to plaintiffs' claims for injunctive
        relief, and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure with respect to the claims for damages, and
        appointment of plaintiffs as class representatives and
        their counsel of record as class counsel;

     -- damages in the amount of monies paid for Actiq;

     -- actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble
        damages, and such other relief as provided by the
        statutes cited;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary
        relief;

     -- equitable relief in the form of restitution, including  
        restitutionary disgorgement into a fluid recovery fund,
        to restore monies received by defendant as a result of
        the unfair, unlawful and/or deceptive conduct alleged;

     -- other appropriate injunctive relief;

     -- the costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees; and

     -- all other relief to which plaintiffs and members of the
        class may be entitled at law or equity.

The suit is "Employers Mutual Casualty Company et al. v.
Cephalon, Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 496-8282
          Fax: (215) 496-0999

          Steve W. Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Fax: (206) 623-0594

          Elizabeth A. Fegan
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          820 North Blvd, Suite 60301
          Phone: (708) 776-5604
          Fax: (708) 776-5601

          - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud
          Hudson Mallaney & Shindler P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Dr., Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Phone: (515) 223-4567
          Fax: (515) 223-8887


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Tenn. FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the purported class action, "Smith v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al, Case No. 3 06 0829,"
which is alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On Aug. 29, 2006, five present and former hourly restaurant
employees in the states of Tennessee, Texas and Arizona filed
the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee against the company, alleging violations of FLSA
with respect to alleged minimum wage violations, improper
payroll deductions and requiring work "off the clock," among
others claims.  

The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiffs and other
purported class members.  The plaintiffs also seek attorneys'
fees for themselves.  

Discovery is currently continuing in this matter, according to
the company's Oct. 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Oct. 2, 2007.

The suit is "Smith et al. v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants,
Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-00829," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge William J.
Haynes.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
         2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
         Nashville, TN 37215
         Phone: (615) 250-2000
         Fax: (615) 250-2020
         E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Wendy V. Bartholomew, Esq.
         Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, L.L.P.
         Suntrust Center, 424 Church Street, Suite 800
         Nashville, TN 37219
         Phone: (615) 254-1900
         E-mail: wendy.bartholomew@odnss.com


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Discovery Ongoing in “Guardado” Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against
The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. over alleged violations
of California's wage and hour laws.

Two former hourly restaurant employees filed the suit on Jan. 9,
2007 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, under the
caption, "Guardado v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.
et al., Case No. BC360426."

The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiffs and other
purported class members.  

The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees for themselves.

Discovery is currently continuing in this matter, according to
the company's Oct. 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Oct. 2, 2007.

Cheesecake Factory, Inc. -- http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com
-- operates full-service, casual dining restaurants.


COCA-COLA: Ga. Court Junks “Argento” Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
dismissed with prejudice a purported securities fraud class
action filed against Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., and several
current and former officers and directors.

The suit, "In re Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action File No. 1:06-CV-0275-TWT," was
originally filed as "Argento Trading Co., et al., vs. Coca-Cola
Enterprises Inc. et al." on Feb. 7, 2006.

It alleges that the company engaged in "channel stuffing" with
customers.  In addition, the suit raises certain insider trading
claims.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the court dismissed the case, but with the
plaintiffs being given the right to file an amended complaint.  
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 12, 2007.  

On April 16, 2007, the company filed a renewed motion to dismiss
this lawsuit.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the court ordered the case dismissed, this time
with prejudice.

The suit is "Argento Trading Co. L.P. v. Coca-Cola Enterprises,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00275-TWT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lauren S. Antonino, Esq.
          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          Stuart Jay Guber, Esq.
          Motley Rice, LLC
          Phone: 404-664-9168 and 404-881-9199
          E-mail: lantonino@motleyrice.com
                  jevangelista@motleyrice.com
                  sguber@motleyrice.com


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Workers File Ill. Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Home Loans is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois accusing it of  
failing to pay wages, commissions and bonuses to 20 percent of
its workforce who will soon be fired, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

On Sept. 7, Countrywide and its corporate parent, Countrywide
Financial Corp. announced that they will fire 12,000 workers in
the succeeding three months because Countrywide is having
problems with its subprime mortgage loans.

Lead plaintiff Kimberly Musgrave claims Countrywide has
"embarked on a scheme to cheat its former employees out of
earned wages, commissions, and bonuses by failing to pay such
compensation and then actively camouflaging the fact that it was
solving its financial problems by fleecing its former employees.

Plaintiffs allege violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act and various common-law.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf all former Countrywide
employees who:

     (a) were terminated between Sept. 7, 2007 and the date of  
         judgment in this case;

     (b) did not receive from Countrywide all wages, bonuses,                 
         and commissions to which they entitled to; and

     (c) were residentrs of the State of Illinois at the time
         such wages were earned.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (1) whether Countrywide's non-payment of earned commissions
         to terminated employees for loans in Countrywide's
         internal "Phase 3" status constitutes a failure to pay
         "final compensation" as defined by the Illinois Wage
         Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/5, et seq (the
         Wage Payment Act) and whether retention of those funds
         unjustly enriches Countrywide and/or is a conversion;

     (2) whether Countrywide's non-payment of earned commissions
         to terminated employees for loans in Countrywide's
         internal "Phase 4" status constitutes a failure to pay
         "final compensation" as defined by the Illinois Wage
         Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/5, et seq (the
         Wage Payment Act) and whether retention of those funds
         unjustly enriches Countrywide and/or is a conversion;

     (3) whether Countrywide's non-payment of the monthly
         minimum commission for the last full month immediately
         preceding the class members' termination constitutes a
         failure to pay "final compensation" as defined by the
         Wage Payment Act and whether retention of those funds
         unjustly enriches Countrywide and/or is a conversion;

     (4) whether Countrywide's non-payment of class members'
         base salary and/or overtime for periods of time
         immediately preceding the date of the class members'
         termination constitutes a failure to pay "final
         compensation" as defined by the Wage Payment Act and
         whether retention of those funds unjustly enriches
         Countrywide and/or is conversion;

     (5) whether Countrywide's non-payment of class members'
         referral bonuses constitutes a failure to pay "final
         compensation" as defined by the Wage Payment Act and
         whether retention of those funds unjustly enriches
         Countrywide and/or is a conversion; and

     (6) the appropriate amount of damages and other relief,
         including injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs demand for the following relief:

      -- determine that this cause may proceed as a class
         action, that plaintiffs be appointed as a class
         representatives, and that plaintiffs' current counsel
         be appointed as counsel for the class;

      -- compensatory damages including payment of all amounts
         retained as a result of the non-payment of owed wages;

      -- compensatory damages including payment of all amounts
         retained as a result of the non-payment of owed wages;

      -- punitive damages in an amount to be determined
         sufficient to punish Countrywide for its willful and
         wanton misconduct;

      -- attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs as
         provided by the Attorneys Fees in Wage Actions Act, 705
         ILCS 225/0.01, et seq.; and

      -- such other relief as the court may deem equitable and
         appropriate.

The suit is "Kimberly Musgrave et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc. et al, Case No. 07CH31032," filed in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stephen J. Rosenfeld
          John D. Fitzpatrick
          Mandell & Menkes LLC
          333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 251-1000


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Four Vie as Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Four attorneys have filed motions in the Middle District of
Florida asking that their clients become the lead plaintiff
against Health Management Associates Inc. in a consolidated
securities case, Laura Layden of Naples Daily News reports.

The plaintiffs/attorneys are:

     (1) Boca Raton attorney Kenneth Vianale

         He represents Gerardo Obando, who says he lost $26,640  
         on 2,000 shares that he purchased in February.  It
         appears that Mr. Obando have had the greatest losses of  
         any single investor, according to the report.

     (2) Florence Cole, who leads a group of five shareholders

         The shareholders say they lost $20,000.

     (3) Gopal Gosh, another investor

         Mr. Gosh says his losses is about $22,969.49.  He  
         purchased 1,775 shares in HMA between Jan. 23 and Feb.
         22.

     (4) City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Retirement System

         The Retirement puts its losses at more than $36,250 on
         shares purchased between May 18 and June 8. The
         institutional investor could become the lead plaintiff
         because it appears to have the greatest losses,
         according to the report.

The suit against Health Management alleges the company violated
federal securities laws by making misrepresentations that
artificially inflated its stock price.  It came after the
company reported its second quarter financial results on July 31
that its net income had dropped 85 percent due to bad debt and
more uninsured patients.

The lawsuits allege that Health Management and its officers
manipulated the policies for dealing with nonpaying patients to
make it appear that the company was healthy so it could borrow
some $3.25 billion additional money for recapitalization and pay
a onetime dividend that significantly benefited its own
officers.

Health Management hasn’t yet filed a response to the lawsuits.
I6 believes the suits are without merit because dealing with bad
debt reserves for uninsured patients is an industrywide problem
and increasing bad debt is not immediately recognizable, said
Timothy Parry, senior vice president and general counsel for
Health Management.

The Coles suit is “Cole v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00484-MMH-SPC,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Marcia
Morales Howard with referral to Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212/867-1156
          Fax: 212/504-8343

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Abbey & Gardy, LLP
          2l2 E. 39th St.
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212/889-3700

          Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
          Paskowitz & Associates
          60 E. 42 nd St., 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212/685-0969

               - and -

          Maya S. Saxena, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431-7781
          Phone: 561/394-3399
          Fax: 561/394-3382
          E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com


IOWA: Suit Planned Over Discrimination in Hiring Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
A civil rights attorney for more than a dozen clients is
planning to file a class action against the state alleging past
discrimination in hiring, Jason Clayworth of
DesDesMoinesRegister.com reports.

Thomas Newkirk of Johnston is preparing a suit against the state
for an alleged long-time failure to address problems in hiring
practices even after being notified of racial disparities on
multiple occasions.  He will seek an unspecified amount of
damages that includes back pay, benefits and payment for loss of
opportunities.

Last year, the Des Moines Register discovered claims of
discrimination at Iowa Workforce Development and the Iowa
Department of Human Services.  The state subsequently
commissioned two reports.  The results of the reports came out
earlier this year.  

According to the Des Moines Register:

"One report found that at least three former state managers told
investigators they believed blacks don't interview as well for
jobs as white applicants. The report linked those remarks with
illegal discriminatory hiring practices.

"The other report showed that qualified minority applicants for
state jobs were one-third less likely to be interviewed than
whites over a three-year period."

Last week, Gov. Chet Culver ordered all state agencies to fix
hiring practices that have been the target of racial
discrimination complaints.


IRON MOUNTAIN: Students File La. Suit Over Personal Record Loss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iron Mountain Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Oct.
25 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana accusing it of exposing students at Louisiana colleges
to identification theft by losing back-up records containing
sensitive financial information.

Named plaintiff Jennifer R. Toups alleges that on or about Sept.
20, Iron Mountain informed Louisiana Office of Student Financial
Assistance (LOSFA) that it had lost some of LOSFA's back-up
media on Sept. 19. The lost media includes personal date on
residents of Louisiana, many of whom are past and present
students at Louisiana postsecondary institutions. This sensitive
data includes loan extract data for all loans guaranteed by
LOSFA, START Saving Program data on account owners and
beneficiaries, scholarship and state grant data that includes
FAFSA and ACT records, and Social Security numbers for students
and their parents.

She brings this class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of all Louisiana residents who
possessed LOSFA accounts, START Savings Accounts, Scholarship
and State Grants, and whose personal financial information was
lost on or before Sept. 19 by defendant.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant owed a duty to the class members
         under the applicable statutes and law;

     (b) whether the defendant properly maintained the personal
         financial information of the class members;

     (c) whether defendant breached a duty and was negligent in
         failing to keep class members' personal financial  
         information secure;

     (d) whether the defendant was negligent in failing to  
         immediately inform the class members, either directly
         or indirectly, in a timely fashion of the loss of the
         information;

     (e) whether the class is entitled to notice as to whether
         the security of their account and financial information
         was lost;

     (f) whether the class is entitled to remedies such as
         credit monitoring;

     (g) whether the personal financial information, account
         information, and payment history information was
         encrypted before it was lost;

     (h) the policies and procedures developed by the defendant
         regarding the transportation of personal financial
         information, account information, and payment history
         information; and

     (i) what instructions, if any, were given prior to the
         transportation of this personal financial information,
         account information, and payment history information.

Plaintiff pray for judgment against defendant as follows:

      -- an order certifying the class under the appropriate
         provisions of FRCP Rule 23, and appointing the
         plaintiff and her counsel to represent the class;

      -- for damages as alleged;

      -- for pre-judgment interest from the date of filing this
         suit;

      -- for reasonable attorney's fees;

      -- for all costs of this or proceeding; and

      -- for all general, special, and equitable relief to which
         the plaintiffs and the members of the class are
         entitled by law.

The suit is "Jennifer R. Toups et al. v. Iron Mountain, Inc.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Richard Arsenault
          John Randall Whaley
          Neblett, Beard Arsenault
          2220 Bonaventure Court
          P.O. Box 1190
          Alexandria, LA 71309-110-90

          - and -

          Paul G. Moresi, III
          The Moresi Firm, LLC
          P.O. Box 1140
          Abbeville, LA 70511-1140


JABIL CIRCUIT: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal Motion in Fla. Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are opposing a motion by Jabil Circuit, Inc. that
seeks for the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud
complaint they filed against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned, “Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil
Circuit, Inc., et al., No. 8:06-cv-01716” against the Company
and various present and former officers and directors,
including:

     -- Forbes I.J. Alexander,
     -- Scott D. Brown,
     -- Laurence S. Grafstein,
     -- Mel S. Lavitt,
     -- Chris Lewis,
     -- Timothy Main,
     -- Mark T. Mondello,
     -- William D. Morean,
     -- Lawrence J. Murphy,
     -- Frank A. Newman,
     -- Steven A. Raymund,
     -- Thomas A. Sansone, and
     -- Kathleen Walters

on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised of persons
that purchased shares of the Company between Sept. 19, 2001 and
June 21, 2006.

The complaint asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as under Section 20(a) of that Act.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in a
scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant dates of options for
various senior officers and directors, causing the Company’s
financial statements to understate management compensation and
overstate net earnings, thereby inflating the Company’s stock
price.

In addition, the complaint alleged that the Company’s proxy
statements falsely stated that the Company had adhered to its
option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of
the Company’s shares on the trading date immediately prior to
the date of the grant.

A second putative class action, containing virtually identical
legal claims and allegations of fact, captioned, “Steven M. Noe
v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No., 8:06-cv-01883,” was filed
on Oct. 12, 2006.

The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and
on Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust
Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action.

On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
the Company’s publicly traded securities between Sept. 19, 2001
and Dec. 21, 2006, and names the Company and certain of its
current and former officers, including:

     -- Forbes I.J. Alexander,
     -- Scott D. Brown,
     -- Wesley B. Edwards,
     -- Chris A. Lewis,
     -- Mark T. Mondello,
     -- Robert L. Paver, and
     -- Ronald J. Rapp

as well as certain of the Company’s Directors:

     -- Mel S. Lavitt,
     -- William D. Morean,
     -- Frank A. Newman,
     -- Laurence S. Grafstein,
     -- Steven A. Raymund,
     -- Lawrence J. Murphy,
     -- Kathleen A. Walters, and
     -- Thomas A. Sansone

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.

It contained allegations of fact and legal claims similar to the
original putative class actions and, in addition, alleged that
the defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and
circumstances that led the Company, on June 12, 2006, to
announce that it was lowering its prior guidance for net
earnings for the third quarter of fiscal year 2006.

On April 30, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint asserting claims substantially similar to
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint it replaced but adding
additional allegations relating to the restatement of earnings
previously announced in connection with the correction of errors
in the calculation of compensation expense for certain stock
option grants.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 29, 2007.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's motion to
dismiss, and it then filed a reply memorandum in further support
of the company's motion to dismiss on Sept. 28, 2007, according
to the company's Oct. 25, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 31, 2007.

The suit is “Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil
Circuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-01716-SDM-EAJ,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under
Judge Steven D. Merryday with referral to Judge Elizabeth A.
Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William E. Hoese
         Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
         1101 Market St., Suite 2400
         Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
         Phone: 215/238-1700
         E-mail: whoese@kohnswift.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Chapman, Esq.
         Holland & Knight, LLP
         100 N. Tampa St. – Ste. 4100
         PO Box 1288
         Tampa, FL 33601-1288
         Phone: 813/227-8500
         Fax: 813/229-0134
         E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com


KIA MOTORS: Superior Court Upholds $5.6M Award in Sephia Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld, in a memorandum
opinion, a $5.6 million verdict in a suit over Kia Motors
America, Inc. sedans with defective braking systems, Amaris
Elliott-Engel of Law.com reports.

                       Case Background

In 2004, the Philadelphia law firm Donovan Searles revealed that
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, in the case of “Samuel-
Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., No. 2199, Jan. Term 2001,”
ordered that Notice of Pendency of Class Action be provided to
all residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who purchased
or leased a model year 1997, 1998, 1999 or 2000 Kia Sephia
between January 17, 1997 and January 17, 2001 (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 22, 2004).

In the suit, plaintiff claimed the Sephia 1997, 1998, 1999, and
2000 model automobiles have defects in their braking system.
Plaintiff claims this is a breach of warranty and a violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act.  

Plaintiff had sought to recover money damages from defendant,
which may include the costs of repairs and compensation for the
reduction in vehicle value.

In May 2005, a jury awarded $5,641,200 or $600 a piece, to 9,402
class members (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2005).  The
verdict was rendered following a two-week trial in which the
jurors found that there was a common defective design of the
brake system of the 1995-2001 Kia Sephia.

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas then confirmed the jury's
verdict on behalf of a class of 9,402 Pennsylvania consumers
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2007).  The case then proceeded
to the appellate court.

                    Superior Court's Ruling

This month, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the
verdict in a nonprecedential decision.  According to the report,
the court made these opinions in response to Kia Motors'
arguments:

(1) Kia argued that some of the class members might not be
    individually entitled to an award and that it was in error
    to assess $600 for each class member.

The court said class representative Shamell Samuel-Bassett's
total cost for brake repairs during the warranty was $596.16,
and it was reasonable to multiply $600 for the 9,402 class
members to reach the verdict of $5,641,200.

"Regardless of whether an individual class member had his or her
brakes repaired under warranty by Kia, all class members were
entitled to have good brakes on their cars that did not require
repeated trips to the dealership for replacement in order to
avoid brake failure," the opinion said.

(2) Kia argued that the class was improperly certified because   
    it was not certain that each class member relied upon the    
    warranty or that Kia refused to conduct repairs, the opinion
    said.

The Superior Court said the class was properly certified because
trial evidence demonstrated that the 1995-2001 Kia Sephias had a
defective brake system design, that expert testimony would be
needed to prove each claim and that it would strain the court
system to litigate each claim individually.

(3) Kia also argued that Judge Mark I. Bernstein erred in his
    jury instructions, but the Superior Court noted that Kia
    either "won on the issue or failed to object to the charge."

(4) The Superior Court also ruled that Judge Bernstein must  
    issue a supplemental 1925(a) opinion to support why he
    awarded $4.125 million in counsel fees and $267,513 in
    expenses in January 2006.

The Superior Court said both parties would have 30 days after
Judge Bernstein issues his 1925(a) opinion to file supplemental
briefs in the appellate court.  

(5) The appellate court also rejected the plaintiff cross-appeal
    of Judge Bernstein's order denying class certification under
    the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Judge Bernstein ruled that Samuel-Bassett met the requirement
for class certification under the commonwealth's rules of civil
procedure for her breach of warranty claims but not her consumer
protection claim.

He found that Samuel-Bassett had met all the requirements of
class certification under Pennsylvania's rules of civil
procedure for the breach of warranty claims but not consumer
protection claims because the commonality requirement was not
met and there were not questions of law or fact common to the
individual class members.

The Superior Court panel was comprised of Judges John T. Bender,
Susan Peikes Gantman and Richard B. Klein.

The suit is “Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America Inc.”

Trial counsel for plaintiffs and the class of Pennsylvania
consumers are:

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          Donovan Searles, LLC
          Phone: +1-215-732-6067 or
          Toll- +1-800-619-1677
          Fax: +1-215-732-8060
          E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com

         Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
         Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock,
         1845 Walnut Street, 25th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215.567.8300 or 1.888.275.0296
         Fax: 215.567.8333
         E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com

         James A. Francis, Esq.
         Francis & Mailman, P.C.
         19th Floor Land Title
         Building, 100 South Broad St.
         Philadelphia, PA 19110,
         Phone: (215) 735-8600
         Fax: (215) 940-8000
         E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


MERCK & CO: Physical Injury Evidence at Issue in Vioxx Trial  
------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court is reviewing a decision by an
appeals court that revived a medical-monitoring claim in the
suit, “Sinclair v. Merck & Co.”  The case will decide whether
Merck must pay a projected $35 million for medical monitoring of
people who may have suffered "silent heart attacks" from use of
its drug Vioxx.

                   Case Background

The case was originally filed in December 2004 and sought the
creation of a medical monitoring fund.  It is a purported class
action against Merck & Co., Inc., the manufacturer of Vioxx, on
behalf of Vioxx users who had taken the drug for at least six
consecutive weeks.  

The plaintiffs brought claims based on negligence, the New
Jersey Product Liability Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
and breach of warranty.  

They did not claim that they had been injured by taking Vioxx,
but rather, alleged that as a result of “direct and prolonged
exposure to Vioxx,” they “have an enhanced risk of sustaining
serious, undiagnosed and unrecognized myocardial infarctions
(UMIs) that . . . would subject them to the risk of
further, significant, long-term cardiovascular harm.”  

As a remedy, the plaintiffs asked that Merck be ordered to pay
for a medical-screening program to detect UMIs and other “latent
or unrecognized injuries.”  

Judge Carol E. Higbee of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Atlantic County, dismissed the medical-monitoring claim, finding
that although claims had been recognized in the toxic tort
context, they were not sustainable in the products liability
context.

On Sept. 28, 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate
Division, heard argument on plaintiffs’ appeal of Judge Higbee’s
dismissal of the claim.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Appellate Division reversed the decision
and remanded the case back to Judge Higbee for further factual
inquiry.

On April 4, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the
Company’s petition for review of the Appellate Division’s
decision.

                        Recent Hearing

According to Michael Booth of New Jersey Law Journal, during
oral arguments before the court last week, Merck lawyer John
Beisner said saddling the company with a duty to pay before
establishing proof of injury and causation "would dangerously
expand products liability law."

Whereas, plaintiffs' lawyer, Elizabeth Cabraser, told the court
that requiring manifest injury in these circumstances would be
inconsistent with the court's general policy that the Products
Liability Act be construed as broadly as possible.

Arguments tackled the issue of whether a claim of a heart attack
should be supported by evidence of physical injury.

Mr. Beisner, of O'Melveny & Myers in Washington, D.C., said
there should be no right to medical-monitoring costs without
evidence that a heart attack occurred.  

"A latent injury is not observable, but it is sufferable," said
Ms. Cabraser.  According to her, the costs of the medical
monitoring in this case, which would apply only to New Jersey
residents who took the drug, would be a small cost. Statistical
evidence suggests that out of the 233,000 people who would
benefit from a favorable ruling, at least 1,800 would have
suffered a heart attack without knowing it.

For more information, contact:

          John H. Beisner, Esq.
          O'Melveny & Myers LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, District of Columbia 20006-4001
          Phone: 202-383-5300
          Fax: 202-383-5414

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          Embarcadero Center West, 30th Floor
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, California 94111-3339
          (San Francisco Co.)
          Phone: 415-956-1000
          Fax: 415-956-1008
  

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face DRAM Antitrust Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
partially denied a motion by Micron Technology, Inc. that sought
for the dismissal of a consolidated complaint filed against it
and other suppliers of dynamic random access memories.

Four cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California asserting claims on behalf of a
purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly
purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM from various DRAM
suppliers during the time period from April 1, 1999 through at
least June 30, 2002.  

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair
competition laws and seek treble monetary damages, restitution,
costs, interest and attorneys' fees.  

In addition, at least 64 cases have been filed in various state
and federal courts (five of which have been dismissed) asserting
claims on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers of
DRAM.  

Cases have been filed in the following states:

       -- Arkansas,
       -- Arizona,
       -- California,
       -- Florida,
       -- Hawaii,
       -- Iowa,
       -- Kansas,
       -- Massachusetts,
       -- Maine,
       -- Michigan,
       -- Minnesota,
       -- Mississippi,
       -- Montana,
       -- North Carolina,
       -- North Dakota,
       -- Nebraska,
       -- New Hampshire,
       -- New Jersey,
       -- New Mexico,
       -- Nevada,
       -- New York,
       -- Ohio,
       -- Pennsylvania,
       -- South Dakota,
       -- Tennessee,
       -- Utah,
       -- Vermont,
       -- Virginia,
       -- Wisconsin, and
       -- West Virginia, and
       -- also in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  

The complaints purport to be on behalf of individuals and
entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products
containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various
time periods ranging from April 1999 through at least June 2002.

They allege violations of various jurisdictions' antitrust,
consumer protection and/or unfair competition laws relating to
the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble monetary
damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees.  

A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) for consolidated proceedings.

On June 1, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part  
the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
26, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 12, 2007.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Multiple SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) suppliers, continues to face a number of purported
antitrust class actions over the sale of SRAM.

A number of purported class actions have been filed against the
company and other SRAM suppliers.  Six cases have been filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals
and entities that purchased SRAM directly from various SRAM
suppliers during the period from Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31,
2005.

Additionally, at least 74 cases have been filed in various U.S.
District Courts asserting claims on behalf of a purported class
of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased SRAM
and/or products containing SRAM from various SRAM suppliers
during the time period from Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2005.

The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal
antitrust laws and state antitrust and unfair competition laws
and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest
and attorneys' fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
26, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 12, 2007.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Flash Memory Antitrust Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face several purported
antitrust class actions in relation to the sale of flash memory
products.

At least 34 purported class actions have been filed against the
Company and other suppliers of flash memory products in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and other
federal district courts.  

These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly or
indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers during the period
from Jan. 1, 1999 through the date the various cases were filed.

The complaints generally allege price fixing in violation of
federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair
competition laws and seek monetary damages, restitution, costs,
interest, and attorneys’ fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
26, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 12, 2007.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Ida. Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Four
substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the
same court.

The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001 to Feb. 13,
2003.

The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006.

The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or
omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct.  It
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
26, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 12, 2007.

The suit is "City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00085-BLW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho under Judge B. Lynn
Winmill.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
         Gordon Law Offices
         623 W. Hays
         Boise, ID 83702-5512
         Phone: (208) 345-7100
         Fax: 1-208-345-0050
         E-mail: bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com

              - and -

         Mary Blasy, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine St., Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: maryb@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Douglas W. Greene, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-883-2529
         Fax: 208-883-2699
         E-mail: dgreene@wsgr.com

              - and -

         Richard H. Greener Esq.
         Greener Banducci Shoemaker, P.A.
         950 W. Bannock St. 900
         Boise, ID 83702
         Phone: (208) 319-2600
         E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Cal. Court Junks Complaint Over Lexar Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, Alameda County
granted a motion by Micron Technology, Inc. and Lexar Media,
Inc. to dismiss an amended class action complaint in relation to
their merger agreement.

Filed starting March 2006, the complaints allege that the
defendants breached, or aided and abetted the breach of,
fiduciary duties owed to Lexar shareholders by, among other
things, engaging in self-dealing, failing to engage in efforts
to obtain the highest price reasonably available, and failing to
properly value Lexar in a merger transaction.   

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing, or an order of rescission reversing, the merger,
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.   

On May 19, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to block the merger.  On May 31, 2006, the
Court denied the motion.  An amended consolidated complaint was
filed on Oct. 10, 2006.  

On June 14, 2007, the Court granted Lexar's and the company's
motions to dismiss the amended complaint but allowed plaintiffs
leave to file a further amended complaint.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
26, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 12, 2007.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MONSANTO CO: Faces Glyphosate-Related Litigation in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas with regards to
glyphosate.

On Aug. 10, 2007, Texas Grain Storage, Inc. filed a lawsuit in
federal court in San Antonio, Texas, on behalf of a retailer of
glyphosate.

Plaintiffs in the suit, “Texas Grain Storage, Inc. v. Monsanto
Company, case No. 5:07-cv-00673-OLG,” seek to certify a national
class of all entities that purchased glyphosate directly from
the company since August 2003.

The suit is “Texas Grain Storage, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, case
No. 5:07-cv-00673-OLG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas under Judge Orlando L. Garcia.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Douglas A. Abrahams
          Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-238-1700
          E-mail: dabrahams@kohnswift.com

          Daniel Berger, Esq.
          Berger & Montague
          1622 Locus Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000

               - and -

          David Marc Buckner, Esq.
          Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: 305-728-2977
          E-mail: dmb@kttlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Sean P. Beaty, Esq.
          Howrey LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 783-0800
          Fax: (202) 383-6610
          E-mail: BeatyS@Howrey.com


MONSANTO CO: Appeal Against Dioxin Suit Certification Allowed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian Court of Appeal has allowed Monsanto Co. and other
defendants in the purported class action “Dobbie, et al. v. The
Attorney General of Canada,” which is pending in the Federal
Court of Canada in Ottawa, Canada, to appeal a ruling that
certified a class in the matter.

In the suit, individuals who either served at or live by a
Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown, New Brunswick, brought an
action against the Canadian government for injuries supposedly
suffered as the result of exposure to a variety of chemicals
used by it during the course of a 30-year program to control
weeds and vegetation at the facility.

Thereafter, purported class actions have been filed by
plaintiffs against the Canadian government in at least four
provinces, including Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and
Ontario.

On Jan. 12, 2007, in the New Brunswick action, the Canadian
government filed a third party action against Dow Chemical and
the company, as manufacturers of Agent Orange, seeking
contribution for any injuries plaintiffs may have suffered as
the result of the spraying of Agent Orange chemicals in 1967 and
1968.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the trial court in the case pending in
Newfoundland certified a class of all individuals who were at
CFB Gagetown between 1956 and the present and who claim they
were exposed to dangerous levels of dioxin or hexachlorobenzene
while on the base.

On Sept. 18, 2007, the Court of Appeal granted the application
of the Canadian government, Dow, and Monsanto for leave to
appeal the trial court’s class certification decision.

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


NORTHERN STATES: Appeals Certain Rulings in “Hoffman” Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern States Power Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel
Energy, Inc., is appealing certain rulings made in the purported
consumer class action, “Hoffman vs. Northern States Power Co.”

Filed on March 15, 2006, the complaint was brought on behalf of
NSP-Minnesota's residential customers in Minnesota, North Dakota
and South Dakota for alleged breach of a contractual obligation
to maintain and inspect the points of connection between NSP-
Minnesota's wires and customers' homes within the meter box.

Plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota's breach results in an increased
risk of fire and that it is in violation of tariffs on file with
the Minnesota Power Utilities Commission.  

They thus seek injunctive relief and damages in an amount equal
to the value of inspections plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota was
required to perform over the past six years.  

NSP-Minnesota filed a motion for dismissal on the pleadings.  In
November 2006, the court issued an order denying NSP-Minnesota's
motion.

On Nov. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by NSP-Minnesota, the
court certified the issues raised in NSP-Minnesota's original
motion as important and doubtful.  

This certification permits NSP-Minnesota to file an appeal, and
it has done so.  Briefs have been filed, and oral arguments were
heard Oct. 24, 2007.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/
-- is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the
U.S.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Employees' Suit Granted Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed
against PricewaterhouseCoopers for denying its unlicensed
associates overtime pay and other benefits mandated by US labor
laws, the Accountancy Age reports.

The lawsuit alleges that PwC's associates and senior associates
were improperly denied overtime pay and other benefits during
their employment with PwC. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend
that under California law, only certified public accountants can
properly be classified as exempt from receiving overtime.

PwC will defend the lawsuit 'vigorously', spokesman David Nestor
told CFO.com, noting 'associates and senior associates are
appropriately classified as exempt employees under California
law and are provided with the beneficial treatment associated
with their exempt status'.

The lawsuit, which has now been pending for more than a year, is
the first to reach the class certification stage against one of
the Big 4 Accounting firms.  The Big 4 include Pricewaterhouse
Coopers, KPMG, Ernst & Young
and Deloitte Touche.

The suit “could have a significant impact on the way accounting
firms do business throughout the country," plaintiffs' attorney,
Bill Kershaw, of the firm Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinof had said.

The suit is "Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Case No. 06-CV-
02376," filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          William A. Kershaw
          Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP
          980 9th Street 19th Floor
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: 866-798-2940
          Fax: 916-669-4499


RATING AGENCIES: Could Face Suit in Relation to Basis Capital
-------------------------------------------------------------  
The Association of Independently Owned Financial Planners
(AIOFP) is planning to file a class action against four major
research houses in relation to their rating of two defunct Basis
Capital funds, Liam Egan of Money Management.com.au reports.

AIOFP is to appoint a Queen’s Counsel to advise it on whether to
proceed with a class action against van Eyk, Lonsec, Morningstar
and Standard & Poor’s over the investment grade ratings they
gave to Basis Yield Alpha Fund and another Basis Capital fund.  
Basis Uield was placed into provisional liquidation in
September, while another fund has remained frozen since the
middle of this year.

According to Mr. Egan, AIOFP chief executive Peter Johnston said
the decision to appoint a Queen’s Counsel had been taken by the
AIOFP board of directors during the association’s annual
conference in Vietnam earlier this month.

Previously, lawyer Arwed Turon of Adelaide-based litigation firm
Lindquist Partners, who was appointed to research the
feasibility of a class action, determined that “the research
houses have put so many disclaimers in place that it would be
difficult at this stage to take action against them.”


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Continues in K-DUR Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in several purported antitrust class
actions filed in the federal and state courts against Schering-
Plough Corp. with regards to the drug, K-DUR.

Schering-Plough had settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith,
Inc. and ESI Lederle, Inc. relating to generic versions of K-
DUR, Schering-Plough's long-acting potassium chloride product
supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and
Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications.

Following the commencement of a Federal Trade Commission
administrative proceeding alleging anti-competitive effects from
those settlements, alleged class actions were filed in federal
and state courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
K-DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle.

These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of
action.  These suits seek unspecified damages.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period Sept. 30, 2007.

Kenilworth, New Jersey-based Schering-Plough Corp. --
http://www.schering-plough.com-- is a global science-based  
healthcare company with prescription, consumer and animal health
products.  


UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Wash. Suit Over Delays on Citizenship
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four people in the Seattle area are challenging in a class
action, the federal government's alleged unlawful and
unreasonable delays in handling their applications to become
U.S. citizens.

All are legal permanent residents who have waited years for the
government to make a decision on their requests to become
citizens.  The processing should have only taken 120 days under
federal law.

Representing them are the American Civil Liberties Union of
Washington, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), and
Rita Latsinova and Alfred Day from the law firm of Stoel Rives
LLP. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle.

"The government's failure to act leaves these individuals in
limbo. Many of them have spouses and children who are U.S.
citizens, and they worry that when traveling, they might be
prevented from returning to their homes in America. They also
want to be able to vote and participate fully in civic life,"
said Sarah Dunne, Legal Director of the ACLU of Washington.

"Our clients are already lawful permanent residents who have put
down roots in the community. Denying their rights to become
citizens when they have fulfilled all legal requirements doesn't
make us safer, it just undermines democracy," said Matt Adams,
interim Executive Director of NWIRP.

Federal law says that the government must make a determination
on naturalization applications within 120 days for individuals
who have successfully completed their citizenship examinations.
In recent years, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has
routinely disregarded this deadline in order for the FBI to
conduct "name checks," which are not required by regulation or
statute, even though the applicants have already been cleared
through separate FBI criminal background checks. As a result,
many applicants have been waiting needlessly for years to become
citizens.

The lawsuit seeks to have the government complete name checks
for plaintiffs and issue a decision on their naturalization
applications within 90 days.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit
to cover the numerous people affected by the government's
inaction.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are:

    * Dr. Vafa Ghazi-Moghaddam, an electrical engineer for a
      software company developing wireless technologies and a
      resident of Seattle. He came to the U.S. from Iran on a
      student visa in 1991 to pursue a doctoral degree at the
      University of Minnesota and has been a lawful permanent
      resident of the U.S. Since 1999.

    * Lin Huang, a resident of Renton who lives with her husband      
      and their two children. She came to the U.S. from China
      based on a visa petition that her husband, who is a
      naturalized U.S. citizen, filed on her behalf. She has
      been a lawful permanent resident since 1996. Her two
      children were born here and are U.S. Citizens.

    * Dr. Roshanak Roshandel, an assistant professor in the
      Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering at
      Seattle University and a resident of Bellevue. She came to
      the U.S. from Iran on a student visa in 1996, earned her
      undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees in this
      country, and has been a lawful permanent resident since
      2001. Her husband is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and their
      daughter, who was born in the U.S., is also a citizen.

    * Hawo Ahmed, a student at Highline Community College in Des  
      Moines and a resident of SeaTac. She and her family came
      to the U.S. as refugees from Somalia, and she has been a
      lawful permanent resident since 2000. Her mother and
      sisters are naturalized citizens.

Plaintiffs' counsel are:

          Rita Latsinova
          Alfred Day
          Stoel Rives LLP
          900 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 2600
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: 503.224.3380
          Facsimile: 503.220.2480


TVIA INC: Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has set a settlement hearing on January 18, 2008, at
9:00 a.m. for the securities fraud class action  filed against
Tvia, Inc. (Pink Sheets:TVIA).

On Oct. 6, 2006, a securities complaint was filed against the  
company and three of its officers, entitled, "Richardson v.  
Tvia, Inc., et al" (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 8, 2006).

The Richardson complaint is alleging that defendants violated  
the federal securities laws by misrepresenting and failing to  
disclose certain material information about the company's  
business and forecasted revenues. Thus, it seeks unspecified  
amounts of compensatory damages and disgorgement.

The proposed class consists of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Tvia during the period
Feb. 2, 2005 through Jan. 30, 2007, inclusive.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on  December 17,
2007. Deadline to file claims is on Jan. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Richardson v. TVIA, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
06304-RMW," filed before Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to  
Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Plaintiffs' counsel is:

          Laurence M. Rosen
          Phillip Kim
          The Rosen Law Firm, PA
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118

Counsel for Defendant TVIA, Inc.

          Walter J. Robinson
          Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP   
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Limited Discovery Continues in Ill. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery continues in a stockholder class action filed
against Waste Management Holdings, Inc. (WM Holdings) in
Illinois State Court.

In December 1999, an individual brought an action against Waste
Management Inc., five former officers of WM Holdings, and WM
Holdings' former independent auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, in
Illinois state court on behalf of a proposed class of
individuals who purchased WM Holdings common stock before Nov.
3, 1994, and who held that stock through Feb. 24, 1998.

The action is for alleged acts of common law fraud, negligence
and breach of fiduciary duty.  This case has remained in the
pleadings stage for the last several years due to numerous
motions and rulings by the court related to the viability of
these claims.

The defendants had removed the case to federal court in
Illinois, but in 2006 agreed to the matter being held in state
court as originally filed.

The Company believes that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in
other cases require the Illinois trial court to rule this matter
cannot proceed as a class action.  

Only limited discovery has occurred.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period Sept. 30, 2007.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com-- is a provider of  
integrated waste services in North America.  Through its
subsidiaries, the Company provides collection, transfer,
recycling, disposal and waste-to-energy services.


WD-40 CO: “Drimmer” Plaintiff to Appeal Class Status Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against WD-40 Co. are appealing a
decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California to deny class-action status for their case.

James Drimmer filed the suit on April 19, 2006, alleging fraud
in the company's marketing of automatic toilet bowl cleaners.
After several of the plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed
by way of motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
Sept. 20, 2006.

The amended complaint is seeking class-action status.  It
alleges that the company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes
Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl
cleaners (ATBCs) are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully
omitted to advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging
effect the use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic
and rubber.

On Aug. 24, 2007 the Company successfully defeated the
plaintiff’s attempt to have the case certified as a class
action.

The plaintiff has petitioned for permission to appeal the
District Court’s decision and the Company has opposed the
petition, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2007

The suit is "Drimmer v. WD-40 Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00900-W-
AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California under Judge Thomas J. Whelan with referral to
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert L. Kenny, Esq.
         The Law Offices of Robert L. Kenny
         401 West A Street, Suite 2300
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 234-1616
         Fax: (619) 234-1650

Representing the company is:

         Shannon Sweeney, Esq.
         Baker and McKenzie
         101 West Broadway, Suite 1200
         San Diego, CA 92101-8213
         Phone: (619) 236-1441
         Fax: (619) 236-0429


XCEL ENERGY: Court Reverses Dismissal of Nev. Natural Gas Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed an order
by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that
dismisses certain lawsuits against Xcel Energy, Inc., in
relation to the sale of natural gas in the U.S.

                  Texas-Ohio Energy Litigation

On Nov. 19, 2003, a class-action complaint, "Texas-Ohio Energy,
Inc. vs. Centerpoint Energy et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California by Texas-Ohio
Energy, Inc. was served on Xcel Energy naming e prime as a
defendant.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of large
wholesale natural gas purchasers, alleges that e prime falsely
reported natural gas trades to market trade publications in an
effort to artificially raise natural gas prices in California.

The Multi-District Litigation Panel has conditionally
transferred the case to U.S. District Court of the District of
Nevada.

In an order entered April 8, 2005, the Nevada judge handling the
case granted the defendants' motion to dismiss based on the
filed rate doctrine.  

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision to
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments on the
appeal were heard on Feb. 13, 2007.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal and remanded to Judge Pro for consideration of whether
any of plaintiffs’ claims are based on retail rates not directly
barred by the filed rate doctrine.

                    Fairhaven Power Litigation

On Sept. 14, 2004, a class-action complaint, "Fairhaven Power
Co. v. Encana Corp. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California by Fairhaven Power
Co. and subsequently served on Xcel Energy.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas
purchasers, alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural
gas trades to market trade publications in an effort to
artificially raise natural gas prices in California and engaged
in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to inflate
prices.  

This case has been consolidated with "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. v.
Centerpoint Energy et al.," and assigned to U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on Dec.
19, 2005.  Plaintiffs subsequently appealed.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal and remanded to Judge Pro for consideration of whether
any of plaintiffs’ claims are based on retail rates not directly
barred by the filed rate doctrine.

                   Utility Savings Litigation

On Nov. 29, 2004, a class-action complaint, "Utility Savings and
Refund Services LLP v. Reliant Energy Services Inc.," was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California by Utility Savings and Refund Services LLP and
subsequently served on Xcel Energy.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas
purchasers, alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural
gas trades to market trade publications in an effort to
artificially raise natural gas prices in California and engaged
in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to inflate
prices.

The case has been consolidated with "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. v.
Centerpoint Energy et al.," and assigned to U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on Dec.
19, 2005.  Plaintiffs subsequently appealed.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal and remanded to Judge Pro for consideration of whether
any of plaintiffs’ claims are based on retail rates not directly
barred by the filed rate doctrine.

                      Abelman Art Litigation

On Dec. 13, 2004, a class-action complaint, "Abelman Art Glass
v. Ercana Corp. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California by Abelman Art Glass and
subsequently served on Xcel Energy.  

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a purported class of natural gas
purchasers, alleges that Xcel Energy falsely reported natural
gas trades to market trade publications in an effort to
artificially raise natural gas prices in California and engaged
in a conspiracy with other sellers of natural gas to inflate
prices.

The case has been consolidated with "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. v.
Centerpoint Energy et al.," and assigned to U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted on Dec.
19, 2005.  Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals and oral arguments on the appeal were heard on
Feb. 13, 2007.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal and remanded to Judge Pro for consideration of whether
any of plaintiffs’ claims are based on retail rates not directly
barred by the filed rate doctrine.

Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com-- is a holding  
company engaged primarily in the utility business.


XCEL ENERGY: Kans. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss “Learjet” Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a
motion seeking for the dismissal of the class action, "Learjet,
Inc. v. e prime and Xcel Energy et al."

The suit was filed in state court for Wyandotte County of Kansas
on behalf of all natural gas producers in Kansas on Nov. 4,
2005.

The lawsuit alleges that e prime, Inc., Xcel Energy, Inc. and
other named defendants conspired to raise the market price of
natural gas in Kansas by, among other things, inaccurately
reporting price and volume information to the market trade
publications.  

On Dec. 7, 2005, the state court granted the defendants motion
to remove this matter to the U.S. District Court in Kansas.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for remand, which was denied on
Aug. 3, 2006.

Plaintiffs in this matter have moved the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation (MDL) for a separate MDL docket to be
set up in Kansas Federal Court.

Xcel Energy’s and e prime’s motion to dismiss the complaint was
denied in July 2007, and in September 2007 both entities filed
an answer to the complaint.

The suit is "Learjet, Inc., et al. v. ONEOK, Inc et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-02513-CM-JPO," filed in the U.S. District of
District of Kansas under Judge Carlos Murguia with referral to
Judge James P. O'Hara.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jennifer Gille Bacon, Esq.
         Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC
         Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, 120 West 12th Street
         Kansas City, MO 64105
         Phone: 816-421-3355
         Fax: 816-374-0509
         E-mail: jbacon@stklaw.com

              - and -

         Donald D. Barry, Esq.
         Barry Law Offices, L.L.C.
         5340 West 17th Street, P.O. Box 4816
         Topeka, KS 66604
         Phone: 785-273-3153
         Fax: 785-273-3159
         E-mail: dbarry@inlandnet.net


XCEL ENERGY: “Comer” Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of a purported class
action over carbon dioxide emission, which names Xcel Energy
Inc. as a defendant.

On April 25, 2006, Xcel Energy received notice of the lawsuit,
"Comer v. Xcel Energy Inc. et al.," which named as defendants
more than 45 oil, chemical and utility companies, including the
company.  The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi.

The suit alleges that defendants' carbon dioxide emissions "were
a proximate and direct cause of the increase in the destructive
capacity of Hurricane Katrina."  

Plaintiffs allege in support of their claim, several legal
theories, including negligence, and public and private nuisance
and seek damages related to the hurricane.  

On July 19, 2006, Xcel Energy filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit in its entirety.  

On Aug. 30, 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its
entirety against all defendants on constitutional grounds.  On
Sept. 17, 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth
Circuit.

The suit is “Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under
Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Carlos A. Zelaya, Esq.
         Maples & Kirwan, LLC
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504/569-8732
         Fax: 504/525-6932

         Stephen M. Wiles, Esq.
         Randall Allan Smith, Esq.
         Smith & Fawer
         201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Phone: 504/525-2200
         Fax: 504/525-2205
         E-mail: smwiles@smithfawer.com
                 rasmith3@bellsouth.net

              - and –

         F. Gerald Maples, Esq.
         F. Gerald Maples, PA
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504/569-8732
         E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com

Representing the company are:

         John G. Corlew, Esq.
         Katherine K. Smith, Esq.
         Watkins & Eager
         P.O. Box 650
         Jackson, MS 39205-0650
         Phone: (601) 948-6470
         E-mail: jcorlew@watkinseager.com
                 ksmith@watkinseager.com


* William Lerach Admits Guilt in Class Action Bribery Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
William S. Lerach, who recently retired from the now re-named
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, has pleaded guilty
to conspiracy over his role in a scheme of bribing claimants to
sign up to class actions, reports say.

For the past seven years, Mr. Lerach’s name has been associated
with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office into
allegations of improper payments to clients by Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 30,
2007).  Milberg Weiss is accused of reaping $250 million in a
scheme in which it paid clients to act as plaintiffs in
securities lawsuits.

Mr. Lerach entered his plea of one count of conspiracy to
obstruct justice and make false statements.  Under the plea
deal, Mr. Lerach, who left Milberg Weiss in 2004 and formed his
own firm in California, agreed to forfeit $7.75 million, pay a
$250,000 fine and accept a sentence of one or two years in
prison.  His plea deal protects that firm, Coughlin Stoia, from
being charged in the Milberg Weiss case.

Sentencing for Mr. Lerach, who resigned from Coughlin Stoia in
August, was scheduled for Jan. 14, 2008.

Melvyn Weiss, the co-founder of Milberg Weiss, and two co-
defendants had pleaded not guilty to the kickback scheme (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2007.  Mr. Weiss entered not guilty
pleas to two counts of conspiracy and one count each of
obstruction of justice and making false statements in relation
to documents that were the subject of a grand jury subpoena.  If
found guilty, he faces a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison.

Investigation in the issue has led to the indictment of Milberg
Weiss partners David J. Bershad and Steven G. Schulman in 2006.  
The indictment had indicated they had paid people to act as
injured shareholders in class actions against companies.

Mr. Schulman pleaded guilty on Oct. 9 to a federal racketeering
conspiracy charge against him.  He admitted arranging secret
payments to Howard Vogel, a client and former real estate broker
from Florida, in 2005 at the instructions of Weiss.  

Not guilty pleas were also entered by plaintiff Seymour M.
Lazar, who appeared in court, and attorney Paul T. Selzer, who
was represented by his attorney, to charges contained in a
superseding indictment filed last month.

Mr. Lazar, who allegedly received kickbacks, and Mr. Selzer are
each charged with four counts of money laundering.  Mr. Selzer
also is charged with one count of conspiracy to launder money
and a count of criminal forfeiture.

The firm also has been charged in the case and pleaded not
guilty to charges in the superceding indictment.

Mr. Schulman will forfeit $1.85 million and pay a $250,000 fine.  
He agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and they have agreed to
recommend a sentence range of 27 to 33 months.  


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

November 6, 2007
MEALEY'S BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE THE RITZ-CARLTON, PHOENIX
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 6 - 7, 2007
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Chicago
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

November 7-8, 2007
BAD FAITH LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

November 7-9, 2007
MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION DEFECT SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Casuarina Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8-9, 2007
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

November 8-9, 2007
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE

ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 9, 2007
2007 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION & MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel
Costa Mesa, CA    
Contact: 818-783-7156

November 14-15, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL REINSURANCE FORUM
Mealeys Seminars
Elbow Beach, Bermuda
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 29 - 30, 2007
PREPARING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LIABILITY
American Conference Institute
New Orleans
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

December 10-11, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TRIAL STRATEGIES SEMINAR & EXPO
PREPARING AND DEFENDING THE ULTIMATE CATASTROPHIC PERSONAL
INJURY CASE
Mealeys Seminars
Sheraton City Center, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 10, 2007
MEALEY'S SECURITIZATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Marriott Financial Center, NYC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 10-11, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Madison, Washington, D.C.
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-12, 2007
MEALEY'S VIATICAL SETTLEMENTS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12-14, 2007
DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Waldorf Astoria, New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480


February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 10-11, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

October 23-24, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

November 8, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 101 TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
COPYRIGHTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 13, 2007
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org          


                           *********


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  * * *