---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, November 1, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 217

                            Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Denied Appeal in BankWest Customers' Suit
ALCOA CANADA: Baie Comeau Resident Files Damages Claim
AMERICAN MORTGAGE: Sued for Fraud on Adjustable-Rate Mortgages
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Puts Investor Compensation at AU$1.1 a Share
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Final Okay of $29M MDL Settlement Appealed

CASH AMERICA: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over Loans in Penn.
CITIGROUP INC: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Possible ERISA Violations
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor-Related Suits
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Appealing $5M “Marin” Labor Case Award
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Certification of “Ellis” Bias Lawsuit

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Certifies Suit Over 2% Reward
FLORIDA: School Board Settles Suit by Bus Drivers for $1.3M
HALLIBURTON CO: July 2009 Hearing Set for Tex. Securities Suit
HOME SAVINGS: Accused of Fraud in Adjustable-Rate Mortgages
LIFECELL CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Transplants

MERRILL LYNCH: Suits Expected After Record $2.24B Quarterly Loss
MIDLAND CREDIT: Cal. Court Approves $1.1M Labor Suit Settlement
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Several Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suits
ORACLE CORP: Summary Judgment Motions Hearing Set Nov. 16
ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Ky. Plant Pollution

ROYAL DUTCH: Special Master Excludes Non-U.S. Shareholders
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Court to Review Fees in Lead Pigment Case
SIRVA INC: $53M Securities Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay
STATE STREET: Nashua Corp. Sues Over Employees' Retirement Plans
UNION PACIFIC: Ark. Judge Hears Motion to Certify Injury Suit
US AIRWAYS: Settles Cal. Lawsuit Over “Lap Children” Fare

* Class Action, Management Conference Set Nov. 9 in California


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CBRE REALTY: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Fraud Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Fraud Suit
WELLCARE HEALTH: Brian Felgoise Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
                            

                          *********


ADVANCE AMERICA: Denied Appeal in BankWest Customers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision made
in the purported class action, “King and Strong v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of Georgia, Inc., et al.”

On Aug. 6, 2004, Tahisha King and James E. Strong, who were
customers of BankWest, the lending bank for whom the company,
marketed, processed and serviced payday cash advances in
Georgia, filed a putative class action against the company,
William M. Webster, IV, its chief executive officer, and other
unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders."  

The suit alleges various causes of action including that the
company's Georgia subsidiary made illegal payday loans in the
state in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia
Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and  
Corrupt Organizations Act.  

The complaint alleges that BankWest was not the "true lender" on
the advances that were marketed, processed and serviced for
BankWest in Georgia and the company, was the "de facto" lender.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.   

The company removed the state court action to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under the caption,
"Strong v. Georgia Cash America Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
02611-WSD."  

However, the action was remanded back to the State Court of Cobb
County in December 2005.  The action is thus proceeding in state
court.

The company and the other defendants denied the plaintiffs'
claims and asserted that all of the claims are subject to
mandatory and binding individual arbitration pursuant to
arbitration agreements signed by each plaintiff.  

In April 2006, the State Court of Cobb County entered a consent
order, which was jointly submitted by the parties, whereby the
parties agreed and consented to arbitration of all claims raised
by plaintiffs in this action and to stay all proceedings pending
the outcome of arbitration on plaintiffs’ claims.

The plaintiffs filed a demand for arbitration seeking to
arbitrate their claims in a class action or representative
status.

In March 2007, the appointed arbitrator issued an interim order
holding that payday loans are not subject to Georgia law, that
federal preemption applies and that the mere existence of a
contractual prohibition on class actions does not violate
Georgia public policy.

However, the arbitrator did not believe there was sufficient
evidence to determine if the arbitration agreements were
procedurally or substantively unconscionable and ordered
additional discovery on that issue.  

Both parties have filed pleadings seeking reconsideration of the
interim order.  The Company intends to continue to deny
plaintiffs’ claims and resist plaintiffs’ efforts to conduct
class arbitration.

The parties are currently in dispute over the scope of the
discovery requests made by the plaintiffs, and Cash America
appealed a State Court ruling on this issue imposing sanctions
against Cash America that included a State Court ruling striking
Cash America’s arbitration defense.

On July 6, 2007, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued its opinion
affirming the State Court’s ruling.  Cash America is seeking
certiorari to appeal this decision to the Georgia Supreme Court.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review
the decision.

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday  
cash advance services in the U.S.


ALCOA CANADA: Baie Comeau Resident Files Damages Claim
------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a pollution suit filed against Alcoa Canada,
Inc. in relation to the company's smelting operation in Baie
Comenau, Quebec has filed its claim against the original
defendants in the suit.

The suit is a purported class action filed in the Superior Court
of Quebec in the District of Baie Comeau on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all past, present and future owners, tenants
and residents of Baie Comeau's St. Georges neighborhood.

Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in Quebec, filed a motion
for authorization to institute a class action and for
designation of a class representative on Aug. 25, 2005.  The
suit was to name the following as defendants:

     * Alcoa Canada Inc.,
     * Alcoa Limitee,
     * Societe Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee, and
     * Canadian British Aluminum

Dany Lavoie alleges that defendants, as the present and past
owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, have
negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from
the smelter, specifically polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or
PAHs, that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the
St. Georges neighborhood and its environs causing damage to the
property of the putative class and causing health concerns for
those who inhabit that neighborhood.

If allowed to proceed as a class action, plaintiff seeks to
compel additional remediation to be conducted by the defendants
beyond that already undertaken by them voluntarily, seeks an
injunction against further emissions in excess of a limit to be
determined by the court in consultation with an independent
expert, and seeks money damages on behalf of all class members.

A hearing on plaintiff’s motion for class certification was held
on April 24-26, 2007.  On May 23, 2007, the court issued its
ruling which granted the motion in part and authorized a class
action to include only people who suffered property damage or
personal injury damages caused by the emission of PAHs from the
smelter.

On Sept. 13, 2007, the plaintiff filed its claim against the
original defendants, which the court had authorized in May,
according to Alcoa, Inc.'s Oct. 25, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Alcoa Inc. -- http://www.alcoa.com-- is a producer of primary  
aluminum, fabricated aluminum and alumina, and is active in all
aspects of the industry, including technology, mining, refining,
smelting, fabricating and recycling.  Alcoa is a global company
operating in 44 countries.


AMERICAN MORTGAGE: Sued for Fraud on Adjustable-Rate Mortgages
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Mortgage Network, Inc., Wachovia Corp., and Amnet
Mortgage, Inc. are facing a class-action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District Court of California
accusing it of selling adjustable-rate mortgages without
disclosing the actual interest rates or that the loans would
result in negative amortization.

This action arises out of defendants' violations of the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
and breaches of contract in connection with the maliciously
designed option adjustable rate mortgages loans (Option ARMs)
they sold to thousands of California homeowners.

Named plaintiffs Andrea and James Krumme claim that in violation
of the requirements of TILA and in violation of the UCL,
defendants sold their Option ARMs to plaintiffs without clearly
and conspicuously disclosing to plaintiffs:

     (1) the actual interest rates they would charge on the
         loans;

     (2) that the loans were designed to result in negative
         amortization (i.e., that interest would accrue at a
         rate faster than plaintiffs' payments, causing the
         principal balance to increase as payments were made,
         rather than decrease); and

     (3) that the initial, advertised interest rate reflected on
         plaintiffs' loan documents was not the interest that  
         would actually be charged to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek to represent the following classes and sub-
class:

     (a) all individuals (excluding defendants' employees,
         officers, agents and representatives) who, within the
         past 4 years, received an Option ARM loan through
         defendants on their primary residence located within
         the State of California;

     (b) all individuals (excluding defendants' employees,
         officers, agents and representatives) who, within the
         past 4 years, received an Option ARM loan through
         defendants and their primary residence located in the
         United States; and

     (c) an appropriate sub-class consisting of all individuals
         (excluding defendants' employees, officers, agents and
         representatives) who, within the past 3 years, received
         an option ARM loan through defendants on their primary
         residence located in the United States.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

      1. whether defendants' acts and practices violated the
         Truth in Lending Act;

      2. whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR Section
         226.17;

      3. whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR SEction
         226.19;

      4. whether defendants engaged in unfair business practices
         aimed at deceiving class members before and during the
         loan applications process;

      5. whether defendants, by and through their officers,
         employees, and agents failed to disclose that the
         interest rate actually charged on these loans was
         higher than the rate represented and promised to class
         members;

      6. whether defendants, by and through their officers,    
         employees and agents concealed information they were
         mandated to disclose under TILA;

      7. whether defendants failed to disclose the true variable
         nature of the interest rates applied to these loans;

      8. whether defendants failed to properly disclose the
         process by which negative amortization occurs on these
         loans, ultimately resulting in the recasting of the
         payment structure over the remaining lifetime of the  
         loans;

      9. whether defendants' conduct in immediately raising the
         interest rate on consumers' loans above the promised  
         "teaser" rate so that no payments were made to the
         principal balance constitutes a breach of contract,
         including a breach of the covenant of good faith and
         fair dealing;

     10. whether defendants' marketing plan and scheme
         misleadingly portrayed or implied that these loans were
         fixed rate loans, when defendants knew that only the
         periodic payments were fixed (for a time) but that  
         interest rates were, in fact, never "fixed;"

     11. whether the terms and conditions of defendants' Option
         ARM home loan are unconscionable;

     12. whether all class members are entitled to punitive
         damages;

     13. whether all class members are entitled to actual
         damages;

     14. whether all class members are entitled to rescission;
         and

     15. whether all class members are entitled to reformation.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

     -- for a declaration that defendants violated TILA, 15 USC
        Section 1601, et seq., and that plaintiffs and the class
        have the right to rescind;

     -- for actual damages according to proof;

     -- for statutory damages;

     -- for compensatory damages where appropriate;

     -- for consequential damages where appropriate;

     -- for punitive damages where appropriate;

     -- for rescission;

     -- for restitution of all monies paid to or collected by
        defendants in connection with the transactions
        addressed;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- for imposition of a constructive trust; and

     -- for an order certifying this case as a class action and
        appointing plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the
        class;

     -- for an order requiring defendants to disgorge all
        profits obtained as a result of their unfair
        competition;

     -- for such other relief as is just and proper.

The suit is "Andrea and James Krumme et al. v. Home Savings
Mortgage, Case No. CV07-07048GWPLAx," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Eric M. George
          Michael A. Bowse
          Browne Woods & George LLP
          450 North Roxbury Drive, SEventh Floor
          Beverly Hills, California 90210-4231
          Phone: (310) 274-7100
          Fax: (310) 275-5697

          - and -

          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          Law Offices of Jeffrey K. Berns
          19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tarzana, California 91356
          Phone: (818) 961-200
          Fax: (818) 867-4820
          E-mail: jberns@jeffbernslaw.com


ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Puts Investor Compensation at AU$1.1 a Share
----------------------------------------------------------------
The shareholder class action against Aristocrat Leisure finished
on Oct. 31 with the company conceding if any compensation is
owed, it could peak at $1.10 a share, more than three times the
figure it used when the case opened on October 4, Elisabeth
Sexton of The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

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

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

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

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

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

Proceedings began October 4.  On Oct. 22, the proceedings were
dominated by procedural issues.  Maurice Blackburn submitted a
supplementary two-page letter by forensic accountant Greg
Meredith.  Three expert reports by Mr. Meredith, who is partner
and head of forensic accounting at Ferrier Hodgson, were
tendered as evidence on behalf of Dorajay.  All four reports
were uncontested by Aristocrat.  
  
On Wednesday, Brad Cornell, from the California Institute of
Technology, testified for Aristocrat.  The New York
econometrician Fred Dunbar testified for shareholders.  

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

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

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

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

According to Ms. Sexton, Aristocrat changed its loss figure to
take account of opinions expressed during the case by its expert
witness, Professor Brad Cornell from the California Institute of
Technology. It now suggests a range between 35c and $1.10 a
share.

Both sides agree the Aristocrat share price was inflated above
its true value because Aristocrat overstated its profits from
South American contracts in February and August 2002, and should
have warned the market from December 2002 that the next result
would be below analysts' forecasts.

Justice Stone is expected to hand down her decision early next
year.  The ruling could set a precedent for other class actions
over failure to disclose material information.

Representing shareholders is:

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


ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Final Okay of $29M MDL Settlement Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A notice of appeal has been filed challenging the final approval
of a $28,000,000 settlement of a Multi-District Litigation
proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, which names Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. as one of
the defendants.

On Oct. 19, 2004, Gallagher was joined as a defendant in a
purported class action, originally filed in August 2004, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
OptiCare Health Systems Inc. against various large insurance
brokerage firms and commercial insurers.  The suit is “OptiCare
Health Systems Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04 CV 06954 (DC)).”

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants used the
contingent commission structure of placement service agreements
in a conspiracy to deprive policyholders of "independent and
unbiased brokerage services, as well as free and open
competition in the market for insurance."

Since fourth quarter 2004, nine other similar purported class
actions have been filed alleging claims similar to those alleged
by the plaintiff in the OptiCare litigation and such cases have
been included in the MDL proceeding before the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

On Dec. 29, 2006 Gallagher reached an agreement to resolve all
claims in the MDL and related matters.  Gallagher admitted no
wrongdoing, but chose to conclude its involvement, rather than
prolong what could have been a costly and burdensome lawsuit.

On April 17, 2007, the court granted preliminary approval of the
MDL Settlement.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the court granted final approval of the MDL
Settlement.

The MDL Settlement provides for Gallagher to distribute $28.0
million to current and former clients and others that purchased
retail insurance through Gallagher or other brokers named as
defendants in the MDL during the period beginning on Aug. 26,
1994 and ending on Dec. 31, 2005.  Gallagher also agreed to pay
up to $8.9 million in attorney fees.

A notice of appeal has been filed challenging the final approval
of the MDL settlement, according to the company’s Oct. 25, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. -- http://www.ajg.com/-- is engaged  
in providing insurance brokerage, risk management, and related
services to clients in the U.S. and abroad.  Its principal
activity is the negotiation and placement of insurance for its
clients.


CASH AMERICA: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over Loans in Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc. faces a purported class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania with regards to certain loans to Pennsylvania
consumers, 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.

On Oct. 23, 2007, a federal class action Complaint was filed by
Ryan Bonner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against:

     -- Cash America International, Inc.,  
     -- Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC,
     -- Cash America Net of Pennsylvania, LLC, and
     -- Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The suit is alleging, among other things, that the Company and
three of its subsidiaries located outside Pennsylvania made
certain loans to Pennsylvania consumers in violation of
Pennsylvania law, including its usury, fair credit extension,
and unfair trade practices and consumer protection laws.

The Complaint also alleges that the arbitration clause in the
relevant loans is unenforceable and seeks a declaratory judgment
that the loan agreements issued to Pennsylvania residents are
void and unenforceable under Pennsylvania law or, in the
alternative, that the arbitration clause in those loan
agreements is void and unenforceable.

Plaintiff also seeks an injunction barring the Company and the
three named subsidiaries from offering, arranging, making or
collecting allegedly illegal loans in Pennsylvania, as well as
an award of monetary damages (including treble damages),
penalties, costs and attorneys’ fees.

The suit is “Bonner v. Cash America International, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-04444-NS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Norma L.
Shapiro.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, L.L.P.
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@sbtklaw.com


CITIGROUP INC: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Possible ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Oct. 18
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging the financial services giant committed a variety of
fiduciary breaches in improperly having its 401(k) plan do
business with its affiliates and subsidiaries, Fred Schneyer of
the Planadviser.com reports.

Also named in the suit, which alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against self-dealing and
imprudent investing, were a variety of the firm's executives
including those on the administrative and investment committees.

Named plaintiff Marya J. Leber asks that the case be declared a
class action, noting that the Citigroup 401(k) has nearly
190,000 participants.

According to the suit, the company did not comply with ERISA
that requires that defendants “act prudently and solely in the
interest of the 401(k) plan and its participants and
beneficiaries when selecting investment, products, and services
for the 401(k) plan."

According to the complaint, instead, defendants put Citigroup's
interests ahead of the 401(k) Plan's interests by choosing
investment products and pension plan services offered and
managed by Citigroup subsidiaries and affiliates, which
generated substantial revenues for Citigroup at great cost to
the 401(k) plan."

According to the complaint, specifically, the defendants chose:

     * mutual funds offered and managed by Smith Barney Fund
       Management and Salomon Brothers Asset Management

     * guaranteed investment contracts and a stable value fund
       offered and managed by Travelers Life & Annuity

     * trustee services by Citibank

     * recordkeeping and other plan services provided by
       CitiStreet.

The suit cites as an example a 2003 decision to replace four
unaffiliated Van Kampen funds with four Smith Barney funds
“effectively transferring $160 million to the control of
Citigroup affiliates.”

The suit is "Marya J. Leber et al. v. Citigroup, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 07 CIV 9329," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under  Judge Sidney H. Stein.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          David S. Preminger
          Rosen Preminger & Bloom LLP
          708 Third Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, New York 10017
          Phone: 212-682-1900
          Telecopier: 212-867-6878
          URL: http://www.lawyers.com/rp&blaw


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. still faces two cases that were
purportedly brought as class actions on behalf of certain
present and former managers in California, who principally
allege that they have not been properly compensated for overtime
work.

The suits are:

      -- “Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., U.S.
         District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-CV-2003 NAJ
         (JFS);” and

      -- “Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court
         for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-296369.’

The Randall matter is currently in the class certification-
briefing phase.  The Williams case has been stayed pending the
class certification outcome in the Randall case.

The company reported no development in the matter on it's Oct.
25, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 2, 2007.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com–- operates  
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Appealing $5M “Marin” Labor Case Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is appealing the $5.3 million judgment
handed down in favor of the plaintiffs in the case, “Anthony
Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. RG-04150447,” which
was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda.

The overtime compensation case certified as a class action on
behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in
which plaintiffs principally allege that Costco’s semi-annual
bonus formula is improper with regard to retroactive overtime
pay.

Costco has filed an appeal challenging both the entry of a $5.3
million judgment in favor of the class and the accompanying
award of attorneys’ fees.

The company reported no development in the matter on it's Oct.
25, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 2, 2007.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates  
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Certification of “Ellis” Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is appealing a decision granting class-
action status to a purported class action over alleged denial of
promotion to certain female managers of the company.

The case was brought as a class action on behalf of certain
present and former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege
denial of promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California state law.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, interest and attorneys’ fees.  Class
certification was granted on Jan. 11, 2007.

On May 11, 2007, the Ninth Circuit granted a petition to hear
Costco’s appeal of the certification.  

On May 30, 2007, the District Court ordered a stay of this case
during the pendency of the appeal.

The company reported no development in the matter on its Oct.
25, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 2, 2007.
    
The suit is "Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No.
3:04-cv-03341-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         James M. Finberg, Esq.
         Lexi Joy Hazam, Esq.
         Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000
         Fax: 415-956-1008
         E-mail: JFinberg@lchb.com
                 lhazam@lchb.com
                 blee@lchb.com

              - and -

         Jocelyn Dion Larkin, Esq.
         Brad Seligman, Esq.
         The Impact Fund, 125 University Avenue
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304
         Fax: 510-845-3654
         E-mail: jlarkin@impactfund.org
                 bs@impactfund.org

Representing defendants are:

         David D. Kadue, Esq.
         William Owen Kampf, Esq.
         Seyfarth Shaw LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-5211 or 310-277-7200 x1515
         Fax: 310-201-5219
         E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
                 wkampf@la.seyfarth.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Court Certifies Suit Over 2% Reward
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles granted class-
action status to a lawsuit brought on behalf of certain present
and former Costco Wholsale Corp. members.

The suit is “Barmak v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., Case No.
BC348857.”  It asserts that the Company violated various
provisions of the common law and California statutes in
connection with its former practice of paying Executive Members
who downgraded or terminated their memberships a 2% Reward for
less than twelve months of eligible purchases.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, prejudgment interest, and
punitive damages.

The Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint
in which the Company had asked that the challenged practice,
while it was still in effect, was appropriately disclosed to
Executive Members.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the Court certified a nationwide class in
respect of the breach of contract claim and a California class
for the remaining claims.

Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates  
membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally
branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise
categories in self-service warehouse facilities.


FLORIDA: School Board Settles Suit by Bus Drivers for $1.3M
-----------------------------------------------------------
An initial agreement has been reached to settle a suit filed by
Palm Beach County school bus drivers seeking pay for overtime
work and an end to flawed paychecks that they said did not
reflect their workload.

The agreement is still subject to the approval of the school
board, Christina DeNardo of the Palm Beach Post (Fla.) reports.

The Palm Beach County School Board was sued in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida over alleged
violation of labor laws in failing to compensate bus drivers for
overtime work (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2007).

The lawsuit cited the School Board's "willful violation" of the
federal labor law.

Boca Raton lawyer Stacey H. Cohen filed the lawsuit on behalf of
Palm Beach County school bus driver Evangeline Patterson and on
behalf of other bus drivers and attendants who allegedly worked
more than 40 hours in any week since July 2003 but were not paid
time-and-a-half wages.

Plaintiffs want a federal jury to force the School Board to pay
unspecified overtime and damages racked up since July 2003.

The suit follows recent protests by bus drivers complaining of
low pay, insufficient raises and little respect.

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of bus driver protests and
grievances over overtime and pay issues since last summer, when
the Palm Beach County School District switched to a new payroll
system and encountered problems implementing it.

                       The Settlement

The settlement will entitle about 900 drivers and attendants a
share in some $1.3 million in settlement.  It will give some
drivers as much as $1,200 in back pay and bus attendants as much
as $400.

The complaints are not aimed at PeopleSoft, a software that
caused thousands of inaccurate pachecks, said Chief Operating
Officer Joe Moore.  The district implemented the program last
year, but drivers have been complaining about not getting paid
overtime since 2005.

It is unclear how the overtime inaccuracies occurred, according
to the report.

The suit is "Patterson v. Palm Beach County School Board, Case
No. 9:07-cv-80240-DMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Stacey Hope Cohen, Esq.
          Shavitz Law Group
         1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-447-8888
         Fax: 447-8831
         E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com


HALLIBURTON CO: July 2009 Hearing Set for Tex. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A July 2009 trial is scheduled for a securities fraud lawsuit
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas against Halliburton Co.

In June 2002, a class action was filed against the company in
federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during
approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002.  

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the accounting change and disclosures involved
in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.   

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection.  In the weeks
that followed, approximately 20 similar class actions were filed
against the company.   

Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP, the company's independent accountants for the
period covered by the lawsuits, and several of the company's
present or former officers and directors: David J. Lesar,
Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore,
Jr.

The class actions were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint "Richard Moore, et al. v.
Halliburton Co., et al.," was filed and served upon the company
in April 2003.  

As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is
now styled, “Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v.
Halliburton Company, et al.”

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court.  

In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure
claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included
claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company
failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability
exposure (Dresser claims).  

                      Settlement Attempts

A memorandum of understanding contemplated settlement of the
Dresser claims as well as the original claims.

In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.  Following the transfer of the case to another
district judge, the court held that evidence of the settlement’s
fairness was inadequate, denied the motion for final approval of
the settlement, and ordered the parties to mediate.  The
mediation was unsuccessful.

                       Motion to Dismiss

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the company file a
motion to dismiss.  

The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at
which time the court took the motion under advisement.  

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted
the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to
June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting AMSF to replead some of those claims to
correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.

In April 2006, AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated
complaint.  The company filed a motion to dismiss those portions
of the complaint that had been repled.  

A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March
2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all
individual defendants other than the company's CEO.  

The court ordered that the case proceed against the company's  
CEO and Halliburton.  In response to a motion by the lead
plaintiff, on Feb. 26, 2007, the court ordered the removal and
replacement of their co-lead counsel.  

Most recently, upon becoming aware of a U.S. Supreme Court
opinion issued near the end of its most recently completed term,
the court allowed further briefing on the motion to dismiss
filed on behalf of the company's CEO.  

That briefing is complete, but the court has not yet ruled.  In
September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification. The
company's response to the motion is due on Nov. 1, 2007.  

The case is set for trial in July 2009.

The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas under Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610/667-7056

         Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
         Stanley Mandel & Iola
         3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
         Dallas, TX 75205
         Phone: 214/443-4301
         Fax: 214/443-0358
         E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com

              - and -

         Thomas Burt, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212/545-4600

Representing the company is:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/227-7720
         Fax: 713/227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com    


HOME SAVINGS: Accused of Fraud in Adjustable-Rate Mortgages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Home Savings Mortgage is facing a class-action complaint filed  
Oct. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, accusing it of selling adjustable-rate mortgages
without disclosing the actual interest rates or that the loans
would result in negative amortization.

This action arises out of defendants' violations of the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
and breaches of contract in connection with the maliciously
designed option adjustable rate mortgages loans (Option ARMs)
they sold to thousands of California homeowners.

Named plaintiff Joel Valencia claims that in violation of the
requirements of TILA and in violation of the UCL, defendants
sold their Option ARMs to plaintiffs without clearly and
conspicuously disclosing to plaintiffs:

     (1) the actual interest rates they would charge on the
         loans;

     (2) that the loans were designed to result in negative
         amortization (i.e., that interest would accrue at a
         rate faster than plaintiffs' payments, causing the
         principal balance to increase as payments were made,
         rather than decrease); and

     (3) that the initial, advertised interest rate reflected on
         plaintiffs' loan documents was not the interest that  
         would actually be charged to plaintiffs.

Plaintiff seeks to represent the following classes and sub-
class:

     (a) all individuals (excluding defendants' employees,
         officers, agents and representatives) who, within the
         past 4 years, received an Option ARM loan through
         defendants on their primary residence located within
         the State of California;

     (b) all individuals (excluding defendants' employees,
         officers, agents and representatives) who, within the
         past 4 years, received an Option ARM loan through
         defendants and their primary residence located in the
         United States; and

     (c) an appropriate sub-class consisting of all individuals
         (excluding defendants' employees, officers, agents and
         representatives) who, within the past 3 years, received
         an option ARM loan through defendants on their primary
         residence located in the United States.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

      1. whether defendants' acts and practices violated the
         Truth in Lending Act;

      2. whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR Section
         226.17;

      3. whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR SEction
         226.19;

      4. whether defendants engaged in unfair business practices
         aimed at deceiving class members before and during the
         loan applications process;

      5. whether defendants, by and through their officers,
         employees, and agents failed to disclose that the
         interest rate actually charged on these loans was
         higher than the rate represented and promised to class
         members;

      6. whether defendants, by and through their officers,    
         employees and agents concealed information they were
         mandated to disclose under TILA;

      7. whether defendants failed to disclose the true variable
         nature of the interest rates applied to these loans;

      8. whether defendants failed to properly disclose the
         process by which negative amortization occurs on these
         loans, ultimately resulting in the recasting of the
         payment structure over the remaining lifetime of the  
         loans;

      9. whether defendants' conduct in immediately raising the
         interest rate on consumers' loans above the promised  
         "teaser" rate so that no payments were made to the
         principal balance constitutes a breach of contract,
         including a breach of the covenant of good faith and
         fair dealing;

     10. whether defendants' marketing plan and scheme
         misleadingly portrayed or implied that these loans were
         fixed rate loans, when defendants knew that only the
         periodic payments were fixed (for a time) but that  
         interest rates were, in fact, never "fixed;"

     11. whether the terms and conditions of defendants' Option
         ARM home loan are unconscionable;

     12. whether all class members are entitled to punitive
         damages;

     13. whether all class members are entitled to actual
         damages;

     14. whether all class members are entitled to rescission;
         and

     15. whether all class members are entitled to reformation.

Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

     -- for a declaration that defendants violated TILA, 15 USC
        Section 1601, et seq., and that plaintiffs and the class
        have the right to rescind;

     -- for actual damages according to proof;

     -- for statutory damages;

     -- for compensatory damages where appropriate;

     -- for consequential damages where appropriate;

     -- for punitive damages where appropriate;

     -- for rescission;

     -- for restitution of all monies paid to or collected by
        defendants in connection with the transactions
        addressed;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- for imposition of a constructive trust; and

     -- for an order certifying this case as a class action and
        appointing plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the
        class;

     -- for an order requiring defendants to disgorge all
        profits obtained as a result of their unfair
        competition;

     -- for such other relief as is just and proper.

The suit is "Joel Valencia et al. v. Home Savings Mortgage, Case
No. CV07-07049 GAF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Eric M. George
          Michael A. Bowse
          Browne Woods & George LLP
          450 North Roxbury Drive, SEventh Floor
          Beverly Hills, California 90210-4231
          Phone: (310) 274-7100
          Fax: (310) 275-5697

          - and -

          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          Law Offices of Jeffrey K. Berns
          19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tarzana, California 91356
          Phone: (818) 961-200
          Fax: (818) 867-4820
          E-mail: jberns@jeffbernslaw.com


LIFECELL CORP: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Transplants
----------------------------------------------------------
LifeCell Corp. still faces purported class actions filed by
people demanding medical monitoring and/or damages for emotional
distress as a result of having received transplants that have
not been properly and adequately screened for diseases.

Initially, the company along with Biomedical Tissue Services,
Ltd. and many other defendants were named in several lawsuits,
which purport to serve as class actions for persons receiving
transplants who are not physically injured, but instead seek
medical monitoring and/or damages for emotional distress.  All
of these cases were sent to New Jersey as part of a Multi-
District Litigation.

The company has been successful in obtaining a voluntarily
dismissal of every such class action, with the exception of one
case, "Watling et al. v. Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00116-WJM-RJH," which was filed by Anita Watling on
Jan. 9, 2007.

In addition, two other class actions were filed in Federal Court
in Rochester, New York (“Kennedy-McInnis” and “Graves”) that
seek compensatory damages from BTS and all processing defendants
that received and used BTS-originated tissue, including
LifeCell.  Plaintiffs are the next-of-kin of the donors who did
not authorize BTS to remove the tissue at issue.  

Those cases have also been transferred to the MDL and are
presently the subject of motions to dismiss.

The suit is “Watling et al. v. Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00116-WJM-RJH,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge William J.
Martini with referral to Judge Ronald J. Hedges.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Brian C. Allen, Esq.
          Anderson & Horne, PLLC
          517 W. Ormsby Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40203
          Phone: 502-587-0599

Representing the defendants is:
      
          Alice B. Herrington, Esq.
          Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, LLP
          101 S. Fifth Street, 2500 National City Tower
          Louisville, KY 40202-3175
          Phone: 502-581-8111


MERRILL LYNCH: Suits Expected After Record $2.24B Quarterly Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
A leading U.S. securities lawyer is expecting an onslaught of
class actions against Merrill Lynch in the wake of the ousting
of its chief executive Stan O'Neal and its disclosure of
disappointing results, the Evening Standard reports.

"I believe class-action lawyers will be looking at Merrill's
disclosures of the last year to see if there have been
misrepresentations regarding the extent of their losses and
exposure to subprime. If it turns out that Merrill played games
in valuing their portfolio, there certainly will be lawsuits,"
lawyer Jacob Zamansky of Zamansky & Associates said.  According
to him, claims worth hundreds of millions of dollars are
possible.

Mr. O'Neal resigned on Tuesday, days after it admitted that he
had underestimated the firm's losses in the subprime mortgage
market.  The company announced its largest quarterly loss of
$2.24 billion due to a writedown of $7.9 billion.  Merill had
announced the writedown to be $4.5 billion.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Cal. Court Approves $1.1M Labor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County Superior Court gave final approval to a
$1.1 million settlement of a purported class action alleging
violations of the California Labor Code that names Midland
Credit Management, Inc.

On Feb. 9, 2007 Midland entered into a definitive joint
stipulation of settlement and release with the lead plaintiff in
a proposed class action filed against the company in the San
Diego County Superior Court.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the claims brought in the
proposed class action against Midland will be settled for a
maximum total payment (if all settlement class members submit
valid claims) of $1.1 million.

Of the amount, approximately $85,000 represents unpaid bonus
overtime compensation alleged to be owed to the approximately
400 members of the proposed class over a 4-year period,
including employer taxes and statutory interest on such amounts.

The balance represents a negotiated settlement of penalties
allegedly owed to the proposed class members under the
California law for the failure to pay the unpaid bonus overtime
compensation, plaintiff's attorney's fees, and the costs of
administering the settlement.

The balance represents a negotiated settlement of penalties
allegedly owed to the class members under California law for the
failure to pay the unpaid bonus overtime compensation,
plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, and the costs of administering the
settlement.

The Settlement received final court approval on June 7, 2007.
The final settlement payment amount, reflecting actual claims
submitted, was $0.9 million.  

Accordingly, to reflect the actual settlement, during the three
months ended June 30, 2007, the Company reversed $0.2 million of
the amount accrued for this matter.

Encore Capital Group Inc. -- http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com
-- through its subsidiaries, including Midland Credit, is a
systems-driven purchaser and manager of charged-off consumer
receivable portfolios and, through its wholly owned subsidiary
Ascension Capital Group, Inc. (Ascension), is a provider of
bankruptcy services to the finance industry.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Several Fuel Surcharges Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. along with 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.

As of Oct. 24, 2007, 26 antitrust class actions have been filed
against Norfolk Southern and the other Class 1 railroads in
various Federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges.   

These actions are expected to be consolidated in one court by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, according to the
company’s Oct. 25, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com-- controls a  
freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co.  Norfolk Southern
Railway Co. is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of
raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods
primarily in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via
interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the U.S.
and parts of Canada.  


ORACLE CORP: Summary Judgment Motions Hearing Set Nov. 16
---------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 16 hearing is set in a federal insider trading and
shareholder fraud suit against Oracle Corp., Pamela A. Maclean
of the National Law Journal reports.

On that day, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco will hear:

     -- plaintiffs' request for default judgment as sanction for
        alleged document destruction; and

     -- motions on both sides for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs had alleged in unsealed documents obtained by the
National Law Journal that hundreds of e-mails and financial
records, and even audio interviews with Oracle Corp. CEO Larry
Ellison, vanished or were improperly withheld from plaintiffs.  
The interviews were done by British writer Matthew Symonds, who
co-authored a book about Ellison called "Softwar."  Mr. Symonds
allegedly lost or destroyed the audiotaped interviews and
transcripts of his talks with Mr. Ellison, made during the class
period in the securities suit.

Lawyers for Oracle have strongly denied the accusations.

The securities fraud class action is "Local 144 Nursing Home
Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., No. C01-988MJJ."  According to the
report, the unsealed documents detail assertions how the company
overcharged customers to boost its bottom line.  Company sales
were allegedly affected by the dot-com bubble.  The downward
trend of the company's sales coincided with the release of its
expensive but defective Suite 11i database-management system.

The suit is "Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle
Corp., No. C01-988MJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Ky. Plant Pollution
---------------------------------------------------------
Rohm & Haas Co. continues to face a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
captioned, “Donaway et al. v. Rohm and Haas Co., Louisville
Plant, case No. 3:06-cv-00575-JGH.”

In Nov. 9 2006, individuals alleging that their persons or
properties were invaded by particulate and air contaminants from
the Louisville plant filed the complaint.

The complaint seeks class action certification alleging that
there are hundreds of potential plaintiffs residing in
neighborhoods within two miles of the plant.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
25, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is the “Donaway et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company,
Louisville Plant, case No. 3:06-cv-00575-JGH,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky under Judge
John G. Heyburn, II.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Mark K. Gray, Esq.
         Gray & White
         500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 1200 PNC Plaza
         Louisville, KY 40202
         Phone: 502-585-2060
         Fax: 502-581-1933
         E-mail: mkgrayatty@aol.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Hiram Ely, III, Esq.
         Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC
         3500 National City Tower, 101 South Fifth Street
         Louisville, KY 40202-3103
         Phone: 502-587-3562
         Fax: 502-540-2159
         E-mail: he@gdm.com


ROYAL DUTCH: Special Master Excludes Non-U.S. Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------
A Special Master appointed in a suit filed against Royal Dutch
Petroleum Co. and The Shell Transport and Trading Co. plc in the
U.S. over a 2004 reserves restatement has recommended that the
lawsuit proceed purely as a U.S. Litigation, writes John Donovan
at http://www.bloggernews.net/111277.

Lead plaintiff in the suit is claiming $13.84 billion on behalf
of U.S. and non-U.S. Shell investors.  It filed the U.S. class
action against Shell, its officers and also against Shell’s
auditors, KPMG N.V. and PwC U.K. on Feb. 13, 2004.  

On June 30, 2004, all of the U.S. claims were consolidated into
a single class action.  The court appointed as lead plaintiffs
the Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System and the
Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System. Lead
Plaintiff retained Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, to
represent it in the litigation, and the Court appointed the Firm
to act as Lead Counsel.

On August 9, 2005, Chief Judge John Bissell (now retired) of the
United States District Court District of New Jersey, denied
motions to dismiss by Shell, KPMG and PwC UK.

In 2006, the case was expanded to include non-American
shareholders with Peter M. Wood, a U.K. citizen (a Petroleum
engineer) granted permission by the court to represent all non-
U.S. qualified holders of stock.

Meanwhile, Shell entered into a $359 million plus legal fees
proposed settlement agreement in all reserves related litigation
and claims with non-U.S. investor.  

As a consequence, an issue arose on whether the expanded U.S.
action can proceed with Peter M. Wood representing non-U.S.
Shell investors, or if the U.S. case would revert to being a
claim solely representing U.S. investors.

A retired Judge, Nicholas H. Politan, was appointed to make a
recommendation to the Judge Joel A. Pisano , who inherited the
case from chief Judge Bissell.  An important factor in deciding
the issue is whether any part of the fraud took place in the
United States or only in Europe.

The Special Master heard in July 2007 arguments of lawyers for
the lead Plaintiff and for Shell.  The transcript was filed with
the Court on October 16, 2007.

According to a writeup of John Donovan at
http://www.bloggernews.net/111277,on Sept. 18, 2007, the  
Special Master arrived at the conclusion that the ruling of
Judge Bissell was wrong and that the European claims should be
dealt with in Europe, not as part of the U.S. litigation.

He stated in his recommendation:

“Having carefully reviewed the parties’ voluminous submissions
concerning the issue presented to me and having held a hearing
on this matter on July 9, 2007, I find that the Plaintiffs have
not satisfied the “conduct test” under the operative analysis
and, accordingly, recommend that the District Judge decline to
exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the Non-U.S.
purchasers and exclude them from any class potentially certified
in this action.”

The Lead Plaintiffs do not accept the report or the
recommendations and filed an objection on October 11, 2007
demanding that it be rejected.

The submission filed by the Lead Plaintiff on October 11
includes a copy of the Report and Recommendation of the Special
Master.

Attorneys’ acting for Shell filed a response on October 16,
2007, arguing that the Report and Recommendation of the Special
Master was correct.

Bernstein Liebhard said the parties are now in the midst of
deposition discovery. To date, there have been approximately
seventy depositions, mostly of current and former employees of
the Companies. The parties anticipate that discovery will
continue at least through early 2008.

The suit is “Royal Dutch/Shell Transport Securities Litigation,
Civil Action no. 04-374 (JAP),” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

Representing the lead plaintiff is Bernstein Liebhard.  On the
Net: http://www.bernlieb.com.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Court to Review Fees in Lead Pigment Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal agreed to review a decision
granting defendants' motion to bar payment of contingent fees to
private attorneys in a purported class action against The
Sherwin- Williams Co. and the other defendants with regards to
lead pigment in paints.

Initiated in March 2000, the named plaintiffs in the suit are
the County of Santa Clara, County of Santa Cruz, County of
Solano, County of Alameda, County of Kern, City and County of
San Francisco, San Francisco Housing Authority, San Francisco
Unified School District, City of Oakland, Oakland Housing
Authority, Oakland Redevelopment Agency and the Oakland Unified
School District.

The case purports to be a class action on behalf of all public
entities in the State of California except the state and its
agencies.  

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint asserts claims for fraud
and concealment, strict product liability/failure to warn,
strict product liability/design defect, negligence, negligent
breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private nuisance and
violations of California's Business and Professions Code.

Various asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants
through pre-trial demurrers and motions to strike.

In October 2003, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment against the remaining counts on statute of
limitation grounds.

Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision and on March 3,
2006, the Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District, reversed in
part the demurrers and summary judgment entered in favor of the
company and the other defendants.  

The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for abatement brought by the cities of Santa
Clara and Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco, and
reversed summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' fraud claim
to the extent that the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
had made fraudulent statements or omissions minimizing the risks
of low-level exposure to lead.

The Court of Appeal further vacated the summary judgment holding
that statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims, and held that those claims had
not yet accrued because physical injury to the plaintiffs'
property had not been alleged.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for damages to the plaintiffs' properties, most
aspects of the fraud claim, the trespass claim and the unfair
business practice claim.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a fourth
amended complaint.

On April 4, 2007, the trial court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to bar payment of contingent fees to private
attorneys.

The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s order and the
California Court of Appeal has decided to review the decision.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
25, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The Sherwin-Williams Co. -- http://www.sherwin-williams.com--   
is engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of paint,
coatings and related products to professional, Industrial,
commercial and retail customers primarily in North and South
America.  


SIRVA INC: $53M Securities Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted final approval to a $53.3 million settlement of a
securities class action filed against SIRVA Inc. and certain of
its former officers and directors.  In approving the settlement,
the court concluded that the settlement was fair and that all
procedural requirements were met.

Te parties agreed to settle the securities class action for
$53.3 million. Under the terms of the settlement agreement,
SIRVA's contribution to the settlement was the waiver of its
right to reimbursement from its insurers of approximately $5.6
million of legal fees and costs incurred by SIRVA in connection
with the litigation, the majority of which had been previously
paid by SIRVA.

The settlement dismisses all pending claims with no admission of
wrongdoing by SIRVA or any of the other defendants, and the
defendants have received a full release of all claims asserted
in the litigation.

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of SIRVA through any public offering
or on the open market between Nov. 25, 2003 and Jan. 31, 2005,
inclusive.  Deadline to file claims is on Dec. 3, 2007.

                          Case Background

Initially, two securities suits were filed in November 2004
against SIRVA, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  They are:

      -- "Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. SIRVA Inc., et al.,
         No.04-CV-7644," and

      -- "Hiatt v. SIRVA,Inc., et al., No.04-CV-7532."

On March 29, 2005, the court appointed Central Laborers' Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff in the remaining case, and approved its
choice of counsel, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, as lead
plaintiff's counsel.

On May 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a "corrected" complaint,
retaining the same class period, and alleging, among other
things, that defendants had made false and misleading statements
in certain SEC filings, including the prospectuses to the
company's initial and secondary public offerings, and press
releases.

The statements subject to the complaint generally relate to the
Company's insurance claims reserves, European operations, and
restatement accounts and are said to constitute violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  

On Oct. 11, 2005, plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class
action complaint, a corrected version of which was filed on Oct.
19, 2005.

The amended complaint adds ten new defendants, including an
additional director, the seven underwriters which participated
in the initial and secondary public offerings, the company's
independent auditor and its controlling shareholder.

It also extends the class period, purporting to be brought on
behalf of all those who acquired the Company's common stock
between Nov. 25, 2003 and Jan. 31, 2005.

The amended complaint also contained allegations relating to the
following areas: the company's restatement of financial
statements and accounting errors for years 2000 through 2003 and
the first nine months of 2004, problems in the company's
European operations, insurance reserves, financial forecasting,
and internal controls.

The statements subject to the amended complaint are alleged to
violate Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, as well as Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.

On Oct. 23, 2006, plaintiff filed its consolidated second
amended class action complaint.

The company reported at its May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing that it
entered into settlement discussions to settle the suit (Class
Action Reporter, May 25, 2007).  An Oct. 3 fairness hearing was
set.  On Oct. 31, the company announced that the settlement has
been granted final approval.

The suit is "Central Lab PenFd v. Sirva Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-07644," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steven G. Schulman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: (212) 594-5300

Representing the company are:

         Tara Kocheran Charnes, Esq.
         Richard Bradshaw Kapnick, Esq.
         Matthew Brian Kilby, Esq.
         Catherine Rosen, Esq.
         Sidley Austin LLP
         One South Dearborn Street
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: (312) 853-7000
         E-mail: rkapnick@sidley.com
                 mkilby@sidley.com
                 crosen@sidley.com


STATE STREET: Nashua Corp. Sues Over Employees' Retirement Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nashua Corp. has filed a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts against financial giant State
Street Bank and Trust Co. and its investment arm, State Street
Global Advisors Inc. claiming the company took unnecessary risks
that cost its employees millions of dollars, Ashley Smith of the
Nashua Telegraph reports.

The suit accuses State Street of violating its obligations under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by putting
supposedly conservative bond funds at risk.

The case was filed on behalf of Nashua Corp. employees who
allegedly lost some $5.6 million this summer, but the number of
plaintiffs could grow by volumes if a judge approves the class
action status, Ms. Smith reports.

The suit accuses the Boston investment firm that handles Nashua
Corp.'s pension and retirement plans of taking risks far beyond
the conservative strategies they tout by investing in subprime
mortgages.

"As a result of State Street's misconduct, hundreds of millions,
if not billions, of dollars have likely been lost," the suit
says.

The company's lead attorney, Jeffrey Block of the Boston-based
firm Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, said State
Street marketed the funds as having similar risk to a benchmark
called the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index.

Nashua Corp. is asking that its employees be compensated for the
losses and awarded profits they would have made if State Street
had used low-risk strategies. The company is also requesting
attorney's fees.

The suit is “Nashua Corporation Composite Pension Trust v. State
Street Bank & Trust Company et al., Case Number: 1:2007cv12021,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, under Judge Richard G. Stearns.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey C. Block
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 542-8300 or (800) 516-9926 (Toll Free)
          Fax: (617) 1194-0322


UNION PACIFIC: Ark. Judge Hears Motion to Certify Injury Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing three named plaintiffs in injury and
wrongful death claims against Union Pacific presented arguments
on Oct. 25 and 26 during a class certification hearing before
Circuit Court Judge Jim Hudson, Lynn Larowe of Texarkana Gazette
reports.

The suit was filed early in 2005.  The suit claims Delaware-
based Union Pacific has a practice of acting hastily to meet
injury victims or family members of those killed in train
accidents to arrange settlements before they hire independent
lawyers.

The class representatives are Arkansas residents Victor Vickers,
James Freeman and Robert Udell.  Mr. Udell’s daughter was killed
in an accident involving a Union Pacific train.  Messers.
Vickers and Freeman suffered injuries in separate incidents.  
They are asking for class-action status to involve anyone
injured or lost a family member in crashes at crossings, on a
rail or near one from 1992 to February 15, 2005.  Lawyers for
the three say the class could include as many as 300 people.

The suit is pending in Lafayette County, Arkansas.


US AIRWAYS: Settles Cal. Lawsuit Over “Lap Children” Fare
---------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a purported class action filed
against U.S. Airways Group, Inc. by passengers Daphne Renard and
Todd Robins in San Francisco Superior Court on Feb. 9, 2007.

The complaint alleges that U.S. Airways breached its contract of
carriage by charging additional fares and fees, after the
purchase of tickets on the usairways.com website, for passengers
under two years of age who travel as “lap children,” meaning
that the child does not occupy his or her own seat but travels
instead on the lap of an accompanying adult.

The named plaintiffs allege that they purchased international
tickets through the website for themselves and a lap child.  

Plaintiffs allege that after initially receiving an electronic
confirmation that there would be no charge for the lap child,
they were later charged an additional $242.50.  

The complaint alleges a class period from Feb. 9, 2002 to the
present.  

The company was served with an amended complaint in early March
that continued the same allegations, but dropped plaintiff’s
wife as a class representative.

On May 1, 2007, U.S. Airways filed an Answer to the complaint
and also asked the court for a “complex case” designation, which
the court granted on May 11, 2007.  

On Sept. 25, 2007, the parties reached a settlement agreement
for an immaterial amount, according to the company’s Oct. 25,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

U.S. Airways Group, Inc. -- http://www.usairways.com-- serves  
as the holding company for its direct and indirect wholly owned
subsidiaries, US Airways, Inc. (US Airways) and America West
Airlines, Inc. (AWA).


* Class Action, Management Conference Set Nov. 9 in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Grabowski of Jones Day, Jack Yeh of Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips will hold on Nov. 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., a
Class Action Litigation & Management Conference at the Westin
South Coast Plaza Hotel in Costa Mesa, Cal.  

This seminar, designed for transactional and litigation
attorneys, in both private practice and corporate counsel,
program will cover the latest developments in the law of federal
class actions, California class actions and class actions in
hotbed states.

The class action is a unique animal in the legal world that
requires exceptional and specific skills in researching,
writing, case management, and client contact.

This workshop was designed to give the practicing attorney and
in-house counsel a comprehensive overview of each step in the
process, with an emphasis on the procedural rules. The program
will also cover Prop. 64 and its effect on the UCL and class
actions.

This tone day program is designed for attorneys and corporate
counsel as well as risk and claims managers. The Program
includes breakfast and handouts. This unique, fast-paced program
will incorporate both plaintiff and defense perspectives.   
Topics include:

          * CAFA Update
          * Class Actions Case Update
          * Preparing and Attacking the Complaint
          * Settlement or Trial
          * An Update on the Injunction Remedy
          * 17200, 17500 & CLRA
          * ediscrovery in Class Actions
          * Class-Wide Arbitration Agreements

Richard Grabowski of Jones Day, Jack Yeh of Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips - invited, Ross Hyslop of McKenna Long and Aldridge,
Ted Pintar of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
Peter B. Maretz of Shea Stokes, Harry Chamberlain of Buchalter
Nemer, Robert “Bo” Phillips of Reed Smith, Stanley Gibson of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro and more.

This course will qualify for 6 hours of CLE credits.

To register online:
http://server1.streamsend.com/streamsend/clicktracker.php?cd=279
5&ld=6&md=132&ud=3e1eeb8db1c7b4c765123d4b87bc9025&url=http://www
.reconferences.com/>http://www.reconferences.com

For additional seminar information visit:
http://server1.streamsend.com/streamsend/clicktracker.php?cd=279
5&ld=6&md=132&ud=3e1eeb8db1c7b4c765123d4b87bc9025&url=http://rec
onferences.com/upcomingprograms1.html>http://reconferences.com/u
pcomingprograms1.html
For more information, contact:

          The Customer Service Department
          13636 Ventura Blvd. #215
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
          Phone: 818-783-7156
          Fax: (818) 827-3338


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CBRE REALTY: Coughlin Stoia Announces 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 Connecticut on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased
the common stock of CBRE Realty Finance, Inc. (NYSE:CBF)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering on or about September 29, 2006 through August 6, 2007,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

This action concerns the initial public offering of CBRE common
stock which took place on or about September 29, 2006.

The complaint charges CBRE and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act. CBRE is a
commercial real estate specialty finance company. The Company
primarily focuses on originating, acquiring, investing,
financing, and managing a diversified portfolio of commercial
real estate related loans and securities in North America.

On or about September 26, 2006, CBRE filed with the SEC a Form
S-11/A Registration Statement, for the IPO. On or about
September 29, 2006, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO,
which forms part of the Registration Statement, became
effective. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
and Prospectus failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO
more than $20 million in loans on the company's books were
impaired and should have been written down but were not.

On August 6, 2007, CBRE issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the second quarter of 2007, the period
ending June 30, 2007. The Company reported that it was taking a
$7.8 million impairment charge due to a write-down on a
foreclosed asset. Following this announcement, the price of CBRE
stock declined to $4.25 per share, 70% lower than the IPO price
of $14.50, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased
the common stock of CBRE pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering on or about September 29, 2006
through August 6, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities 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


MERRILL LYNCH: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.  between February
26, 2007 and October 23, 2007 against Merrill and certain of its
officers and/or directors for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Merrill and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Exchange Act. Merrill offers a
broad range of services to private clients, small businesses,
institutions and corporations, organizing its activities into
two interrelated business segments - Global Markets & Investment
Banking Group and Global Wealth Management, which is comprised
of Global Private Client and Global Investment Management.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. Merrill had gone
heavily into Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) which
generated higher yields in the short term but which would be
devastating to the Company as the real estate market continued
to soften and the risky loans led to losses. According to the
complaint, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that:

     (i) the Company was more exposed to CDOs containing
         subprime debt than it disclosed; and

    (ii) the Company's Class Period statements were materially
         false due to their failure to inform the market of the
         ticking time bomb in the Company's CDO portfolio due to
         the deteriorating subprime mortgage market, which
         caused Merrill's portfolio to be impaired.

In early October 2007, Merrill acknowledged it would have to
take a $5 billion third quarter 2007 charge for mortgage and
credit problems. Then, on October 24, 2007, before the market
opened, Merrill issued a press release which announced the third
quarter charge would be $8 billion instead of $5 billion. On
this news, Merrill's stock dropped from $67.12 per share to as
low as $61.40 per share, closing at $63.22 per share on volume
of 52 million shares. Subsequently, on October 25, 2007, S&P
reduced Merrill's credit rating to negative after the brokerage
reported the biggest quarterly loss in its 93-year history,
causing Merrill's stock to dramatically drop to $60.90 per
share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Merrill between February
26, 2007 and October 23, 2007, 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


WELLCARE HEALTH: Brian Felgoise Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. has filed a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (NYSE: WCG) securities between May
8, 2006 and October 24, 2007, inclusive, in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The action has charged that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the class period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the company's securities. Shares of WellCare
Health Plans sank $2.74 to close at $28.62.

For more information, contact:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq.
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046
          Phone: (215) 886-1900
          E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net


                           *********


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  * * *