CAR_Public/071105.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 5, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 219

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settles Drivers Suit Over Medpay Coverage
ALLTRADE TOOLS: Recalls Battery Charger that can Overheat
AMSCAN INC: Recalls Halloween "Ugly Teeth" on High Lead Content
AT&T CORP: Mo. Judge Revokes Class Status of Contraceptives Suit
AWP LITIGATION: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Ordered to Pay $14M

CALIFORNIA: Parents Sue Over Bisphenol A Content in Baby Bottles
CERTEGY CHECK: Faces Litigation in Fla. Over Information Leakage
DJO INC: Cal. Shareholders' Suit Over ReAble Merger Consolidated
EBAY INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Suit Over Paypal
EBAY INC: Subsidiary Still Faces FACTA Violations Suit in Calif.

GEORGIA: City of McDonough Faces Lawsuit Over “Impact Fees”
HEALTH NET: Makes $201M Charge for McCoy, Wachtel, Scharfman
HENRY GORDY: Recalls Toy Figures on High Lead Paint Content
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Told to Pay Each Diacetyl Exposure Victim
INTERNATIONAL PROFIT: Judge Limits Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

JM FAMILY Settles Ga. Suit Over Unearned Premiums for $45M
KEYSTONE HEALTH: Lawyers Appeal Sanctions in Health-Insurer Case
MORGAN STANLEY: African-American Group Opposes $16M Settlement
NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Okla. Court Approves Royalties Suit Deal
POTLATCH CORP: Pa. Court Certifies Classes in OSB Antitrust Case

RADIOSHACK CORP: Tex. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuits
RADIOSHACK CORP: Ill. Court Approves $8.8M FLSA Suit Settlement
STAPLES INC: Settles California Wage, Hour Lawsuit for $38M
STATE STREET: Sued Over Mishandling of Retirement Accounts

* Edwards Angell to Merge with U.K.'s Kendall Freeman
* Corporate Europe Believes Class Actions Will Increase in U.K.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CBRE REALY: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn.
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Entwistle, Susman File Securities Suit
ISILON SYSTEMS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
WSB FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
                            

                          *********


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settles Drivers Suit Over Medpay Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Co. has reached a tentative agreement to
settle a suit filed by injured drivers in Washington claiming
they were shortchanged by their insurance company, Phuong Cat Le
of Seattle Post Intelligencer reports.

The suit was filed by Pamela Coffell of Snohomish County in
2005, alleging that the company arbitrarily limited payouts of
medical expenses resulting from a car accident.

The settlement will affect Allstate car insurance policyholders
who filed personal-injury protection claims or Medpay coverage
and their claims were adjusted using "the ADP or Mitchell
Medical bill review system," a computer software that computes
costs for medical bills according to geographic area.

Allstate allegedly used the billing review software and then
only paid 85% of the claim, without giving any reason to not
cover the other 15%.  As a result some insured people had to pay
their medical expenses when they thought they had full insurance
coverage.

The tentative settlement covers anyone who was injured in an
accident covered by an Allstate car insurance policy and filed
claims under personal-injury protection or Medpay coverage and
whose claims were adjusted using "the ADP or Mitchell Medical
bill review system," according to the settlement.

Those covered by the lawsuit will receive $45 and a percentage
of their out-of-pocket expenses based on their coverage,
according to the settlement.  The settlement will impact
anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000 policy holders in Washington
state, according to plaintiff attorney David Breskin.

The class action is expected to have effects in other states and
force other insurance companies to rethink this bill review
system.

A fairness hearing is set Nov. 19 before King County Superior
Judge William Downing.  

The company continues to deny wrongdoing.

For more information, contact:

          Robert B. Kornfeld, Esq.
          Robert Kornfeld Inc. P.S.
          800 Fifth Avenue Suite 4100
          Seattle, Washington  98104
          (King Co.)
          
          801 Kirkland Avenue, Suite 100
          Kirkland, WA, 98033
          Phone: 206-623-2835
          http://www.lawyers.com/kornfeldlaw

          Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC
          999 Third Avenue Suite 4000
          Seattle, Washington  98104-4009
          (King Co.)
          Phone: 206-652-8660
          Fax: 206-652-8290
          Web site: http://www.bjtlegal.com


ALLTRADE TOOLS: Recalls Battery Charger that can Overheat
---------------------------------------------------------
Alltrade Tools LLC, of Long Beach, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 800,000 battery Chargers supplied with certain
Kawasaki branded Power Tool Kits.  

The company said that when used with an incompatible charger,
the battery pack can overheat and melt during charging, or can
explode during use, posing burn, laceration and bruise hazards
to consumers.

Alltrade Tools has received 30 reports of incidents, including
eight injuries from the battery packs melting or forcefully
expelling plastic shards while in use. Injuries include minor
acid burns from handling fractured battery packs, cuts, bruises
and some temporary hearing loss from a loud noise that can occur
if an internal battery cell ruptures.

The recall includes battery chargers sold with certain model
numbers of both 19.2 and 21.6 volt NiCad battery packs. The
battery model number is located on a label on the bottom of the
battery pack. The power tool’s model number is stamped onto the
inside lid of the tool set’s plastic carrying case.

Power Tool                           Power Tool Battery Pack        
                                        Model        Model
KW Black 19.2V Cordless Drill          840128     691034
KW Black 19.2V 26 PC Drill Set    840135       691034
KW Black 4 PC Power Tool Combo    840338       691034
KW Black 2 PC Power Tool Combo    840339       691034
KW Black 19.2V 26 PC Drill Set    840135A     691240
KW Black 21.6V Cordless Drill          840266     691221
KW Black 21.6V Cordless Drill          840267       691221

To see picture of recalled battery charger:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08513c.jpg

The battery chargers were made in China and sold by national
wholesale club retailers nationwide from September 2005 through
September 2007 for between $40 and $100.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled battery
chargers immediately and register at
http://www.alltradetools.comto receive a free compatible  
battery charger. Alltrade Tools LLC is directly contacting
consumers who purchased the power tools containing the recalled
chargers. Consumers should not return the battery chargers to
the store where purchased.

For additional information, please contact Alltrade Tools LLC at
(877) 231-9239 between 8:30 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, and between 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET on Saturday, or
visit http://www.alltradetools.com.


AMSCAN INC: Recalls Halloween "Ugly Teeth" on High Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amscan Inc., of Elmsford, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling
43,000 “Ugly Teeth” Party Favors.

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

No incidents/injuries have been reported.

The fake Halloween teeth are painted white, black and orange
with brown gums. They were sold as party favors in packages of
eight. “Ugly Teeth,” “Amscan,” “Party Favors,” “Value Pack Party
Favors,” UPC 0-48419-65002-7 and UPC 0-48419-61663-4 are printed
on the packaging.

Picture of the recalled fake Halloween teeth:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08059.jpg

The fake Halloween teeth were mad in China and sold at various
retailers nationwide from January 2006 through October 2007 for
about $2.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled Halloween teeth
away from children and return them to the place where purchased
for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Amscan Inc. at (800) 335-
7585 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm’s Web site at www.amscan.com


AT&T CORP: Mo. Judge Revokes Class Status of Contraceptives Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Howard Sachs rescinded his ruling certifying
as class action a lawsuit over the refusal of the company's
health insurance plan to cover prescription contraceptives,
according to Kaisernetwork.org.

Last year, the judge granted class-action status to the suit,
"Stocking v. AT&T Corp., Case No. 03-421 CV-W-HFS" (Class Action
Reporter, July 10, 2007).

The suit was filed on May 12, 2003 by Susan Stocking and Jane  
Lund.  It challenges a corporate policy excluding coverage of  
prescription contraceptives from employee health plans that  
cover other prescription drugs and devices.   

It contends that excluding prescription contraceptives  
disproportionately harms women, and is therefore sex  
discrimination, which is barred under Title VI, the federal  
anti-discrimination law.   

In its June 7, 2006 class certification order, the court defined  
the class as, "all female employees of AT&T enrolled in the  
Occupational Medical Expense Plan who, for their own use, at any  
time between Oct. 31, 2001 and June 30, 2002 purchased  
prescription contraception solely for birth control without  
insurance reimbursement from said Plan."

The court also held that the company was required under Title  
VII and/or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to cover  
prescription contraceptives for birth control under its  
Occupational Medical Expense Plans, but failed to do so.

The court's class certification order is available free of  
charge at:  

           http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d66.  

In October 2007, Judge Sachs retracted his certification order
saying he is bound by a precedent established by the 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals in St. Louis that found Union Pacific
Railroad's policy of not covering contraceptives does not
discriminate against women.

The suit is "Stocking v. AT&T Corp., Case No. 03-421 CV-W-
HFS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District  
of Missouri under Judge Howard F. Sachs.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Rick D. Holtsclaw, Esq.
          DeFeo, Holtsclaw, Kendall, LLC  
          2029 Wyandotte, Suite 100
          Kansas City, MO 64108  
          Phone: (816) 221-2555
          Fax: (816) 221-2508
          E-mail: rick@holtsclaw-kendall.com
  
          Sylvester James, Jr., Esq.
          The Sly James Firm, Trial Lawyers, PC
          802 Broadway, 7th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-472-6800
          Fax: 816-472-6805
          E-mail: sly@slyjamesfirm.com  

Representing the company are:

          Laura M. Franze, Esq.
          Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP
          1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100
          Dallas, TX  75201
          Phone: (214) 969-2779
          Fax: (214) 969-4343
          E-mail: lfranze@akingump.com; and  

          Brian N. Woolley, Esq.
          Lathrop & Gage, L.C.
          2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2500
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 292-2000
          Fax: (816) 292-2001
          E-mail: bwoolley@lathropgage.com


AWP LITIGATION: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Ordered to Pay $14M
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. district judge awarded consumers millions of dollars in
damages against drug giants AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb
for the companies' role in unfair trade practices involving the
pricing of drugs in an important state case that could have
major implications in future litigation.

On June 21, 2007, U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston
ordered AstraZeneca Plc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Schering-
Plough Corp. to pay damages for overcharging on some drugs paid
for by Medicare (Class Action Reporter, July 23, 2007).  On Nov.
2, Judge Saris ordered AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb to
pay nearly $14 million, including a doubling of some damages
against both defendants.

The ruling comes in a class action involving the pricing of
pharmaceutical drugs reimbursed by Medicate, private insurers,
and patients making coinsurance payments based on average
wholesale price between 1991 and 2001.  

For the most part, the drugs at issue are administered by
doctors for the treatment of cancer and other serious ailments.

Class plaintiffs have alleged that four pharmaceutical
companies:

     * AztraZeneca,
     * Schering-Plough,
     * Bristol-Myers Squibb, and
     * Johnson & Johnson

have engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in
violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93 A by grossly inflating the
AWPs of certain specified drugs, which are published in
commercial publications, and that these inflated prices have
caused damages to Medicare, third-party payors, and patients
making percentage co-payments.

Plaintiffs’ core claim is that the published AWPs for
defendants' drugs are fictitious because they do not reflect the
true average sales price to providers, like doctors and
pharmacists.  Because AWP is the predominant benchmark for
reimbursement by the government and third-party payors,
plaintiffs contend that manufacturers grossly inflate each
drug's AWP to create a "spread" between the doctor's real
acquisition cost and the fictitious published AWP, and that drug
manufacturers then "market the spread" in order to obtain market
share over a competitor's drug.

"We are absolutely ecstatic about Judge Saris' ruling [Fri]day,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro and lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "Judge Saris agreed
with our damage estimates and did not pull punches in her
characterization of the defendants' actions."

In her 30-page order, Judge Saris said "the defendants well
understood the devastating impact the mega-spreads had on old
and sick patients required to make co-payments they could ill
afford."

The two classes affected by the recent ruling include third-
party payors in Massachusetts that reimbursed Medicare
beneficiaries for their statutory twenty percent coinsurance,
and all third-party payors and consumers in Massachusetts who
made coinsurance payments based on AWP.

Judge Saris goes on to point out AstraZeneca's actions in
creating mega-spreads for prescription drug prices were
"clearcut" and concluded that "the damage to sick and old
beneficiaries inevitable."

"I find that BMS's conduct was willful and knowing when less
than ten percent of its sales were made within five percent of
the list price, and the spreads where huge. In these situations,
BMS knew that the published wholesale list price was not an
accurate price and was deceptive and unfair," Saris states in
her ruling.

"Justice has served, but only in part. We have more work to do,"
Berman said. "The court has invited plaintiffs to expand this
case to a nationwide class action for the next trial,
potentially giving consumers across the country the same
remedies this state case affords."

To date AWP plaintiffs have been awarded hundreds of millions of
dollars in settlements and verdicts, including a $70 million
settlement from GlaxoSmithKline, one of the major defendants,
which came in August 2006 removing them from this litigation. In
the proposed settlement agreement, 30 percent of the $70 million
settlement will go to consumers who incurred co-payments based
on AWP for a list of specific Medicare Part B covered drugs
manufactured by GSK. The remaining 70 percent will go to third-
party payers including health plans, HMOs and other
organizations who purchased certain GSK drugs.

The "Average Wholesale Price," or AWP, is a benchmark figure
reported by drug manufacturers which health plans, government
health programs such as Medicaid and other "third party payors"
use to determine co-pays and physician reimbursements, among
other uses.

The AWP class action suit was originally filed in 2002 in U.S.
District Court in Massachusetts. The original complaint names 23
pharmaceutical companies including many of the U.S.'s major drug
manufacturers, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyers Squibb,
GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson. The original suit
represents all people who have taken or paid for any one of 37
named drugs in the original filing.  

The suit is "In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale
Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456,  Civil Action No. 01-12257-PBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292                 
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com/

          - and -

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


CALIFORNIA: Parents Sue Over Bisphenol A Content in Baby Bottles
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of parents filed a class action in Los Angeles Superior
Court in California against manufacturers and sellers of baby
bottles containing bisphenol A, Elizabeth Weise and Liz Szabo of
USA Today reports.

One of those joining the case is Melissa Melendez, who says she
fears that the chemical, leaching from bottles, may have caused
her 19-month-old daughter, Lexie, to show signs of premature
puberty.

Ms. Melendez, 25, of Fallbrook, Calif. told USA Today, “It makes
me so upset.  To think I might have been harming her without
even knowing it.”

According to reports, bisphenol A is found in water bottles,
food containers, baby bottles, some dental fillings and the
coatings for the inside of food cans.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said
research has shown that 95 percent of people in the United
States have detectable levels of bisphenol A in their bodies.

A hearing for the matter is scheduled for February 28, 2008.


CERTEGY CHECK: Faces Litigation in Fla. Over Information Leakage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certegy Check Services Inc., a subsidiary of Fidelity National
Information Services Inc., faces a purported class action that
charges the company of not adequately protecting confidential
personal and financial information of its clients, The
Jacksonville Business Journal reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Middle
District of Florida by the law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP on
behalf of customers whose info was sold to direct marketers by a
former employee.

In July 2007, Certegy, which provides check verification
services to major retailers, revealed that a former senior
database administrator stole data and sold the information to
marketing firms.  The company has filed a civil suit against the
former employee.

Initially, Certegy said about 2.3 million consumer records were
at issue, but later said an ongoing investigation determined 8.5
million consumer records were stolen.  

The company reiterated though that  it has found no evidence
that the information was used for anything other than marketing
purposes.

Defendants in the suit are:  Certegy Check Services, Inc.,
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., William G.
Sullivan and S&S Computer Services, Inc.

The suit is "Sellers v. Certegy Check Services, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:2007-cv-01020" filed in the U.s. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida under Judge Timothy J. Corrigan,
and Senior Judge Howell W. Melton, with referral to Judge Thomas
E. Morris.

For more details, contact:

          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Fax: 415-981-4846
          E-mail: mail@girardgibbs.com
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/


DJO INC: Cal. Shareholders' Suit Over ReAble Merger Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
DJO, Inc. faces two purported class actions in California
Superior Court in the County of San Diego, challenging the
company’s proposed merger with ReAble Therapeutics Finance LLC,
according to the company's Oct. 29, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 29, 2007.

On July 15, 2007, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with ReAble Therapeutics Finance LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (Parent), and Reaction Acquisition
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent.  Parent is controlled by affiliates of The
Blackstone Group.

On Aug. 31, 2007 and Sept. 6, 2007, two purported shareholder
class actions were filed in California Superior Court, in the
County of San Diego, on behalf of the Company’s public
stockholders.

The court ordered the two lawsuits consolidated for all purposes
on September 21, 2007. The court further ordered that plaintiffs
shall file a consolidated amended complaint as soon as
practicable, and that the defendants need not respond to either
of the two original complaints.

The two original complaints named the Company, ReAble
Therapeutics, Inc., an affiliate of Parent, and the current
members of the Company’s board of directors as defendants.  One
of the original complaints also named Blackstone as a defendant.
The two substantially similar original complaints alleged, among
other things, that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of care, good faith and loyalty by approving
the proposed merger with an allegedly inadequate price, without
adequately informing themselves of the Company’s highest
transactional value, and without adequately marketing the
company to other potential buyers.

The original complaints also alleged that the individual
defendants and the Company failed to make full and adequate
disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement regarding the
proposed merger.

The original complaints pray for, among other things:

       -- class certification,

       -- declaratory relief,

       -- an injunction of the proposed merger or a rescission
          order,

       -- corrective disclosures to the proxy statement,

       -- damages,

       -- interest,

       -- attorneys’ fees,

       -- expert fees and other costs, and

       -- such other relief as the court may find just and
          proper.

DJO Inc. -- http://www.djortho.com-- is a provider of solutions  
for musculoskeletal and vascular health, specializing in
rehabilitation and regeneration products for the non-operative
orthopedic, spine and vascular markets.  


EBAY INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Suit Over Paypal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a
purported class action against eBay Inc. that alleges the
company, through its wholly owned subsidiary PayPal, used
illegal tie-in and steering practices to improperly “monopolize”
the forms of payment that sellers can use on eBay.   

Initially, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas on March 2007.  In it plaintiff
alleges claims under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as
well as related state law claims.  That suit sought treble
damages and an injunction.

In April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 07-
CV-01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action.

In June 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class
action complaint.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
29, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “In Re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
5:07-cv-01882-JF,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with
referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Michael Andrew McShane, Esq.
         Audet & Partners LLP
         221 Main Street, Suite 1460
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-568-2555
         Fax: 415-568-2556
         E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
         Phone: (415) 984-8947
         E-mail: tbrown@omm.com


EBAY INC: Subsidiary Still Faces FACTA Violations Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The StubHub subsidiary of eBay Inc. continues to face a
purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California alleging violations of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

The suit, “Liliana Vasquez-Torres v. Stubhub Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-01328-PSG-SS,” was filed on February 2007.  It is a
purported class action alleging that StubHub violated the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transaction Act by allegedly printing
receipts containing more than the last five digits of a credit
card number or the expiration date.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
attorneys fees.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
29, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Liliana Vasquez-Torres v. Stubhub Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-01328-PSG-SS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez with referral to Judge Suzanne H. Segal.

Representing the plaintiff is:
  
         Robert S. Ackley, Esq.
         Herbert Hafif Law Offices
         269 W. Bonita Ave.
         Claremont, CA 91711-4784
         Phone: 909-624-1671

Representing the defendant is:

         Peter M. Adams, Esq.
         Cooley Godward Kronish
         4401 Eastgate Mall
         San Diego, CA 92121-9109
         Phone: 858-550-6000
         E-mail: padams@cooley.com


GEORGIA: City of McDonough Faces Lawsuit Over “Impact Fees”
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Southeastern Legal Foundation filed on Oct. 25 a lawsuit
against the City of McDonough, Georgia in Henry County Superior
Court, alleging that the City illegally collected so-called
“impact fees,” which would exempt builders from the City’s
building moratorium.  The City did not have an impact fee
ordinance during the period it collected the fees, according to
a statement by SLF.

Filed on behalf of a group of individual builders and the
Greater Atlanta Home Builders Association, the lawsuit, “GAHBA,
et al. v. City of McDonough,” seeks a declaratory judgment that
the City violated state law when it enacted a $1,200 per project
fee which, when paid by builders, would exempt them from the
building moratorium enacted by the City in 2002.  

The lawsuit alleges that approximately $300,000 was collected
during the period in question, and the plaintiffs are asking for
a refund of the fees.  SLF attorneys raised the likelihood of a
legal challenge and began discussions with City officials in
2003.

State law empowering local governments to collect impact fees,
or fees designed to offset the impact of new construction on
certain public services like roads, water/sewer, and E/911
emergency services, requires a comprehensive study, a formula
for determining the specific impact of a specific project and,
therefore, the amount of the fees to be paid, and requires the
funds to be segregated and spent for those specific public
projects.  

McDonough officials, as alleged in the lawsuit, did none of
those things before collecting the fees.

“What McDonough officials did during the years in question was
nothing short of confiscation,” said Shannon L. Goessling, SLF
executive director.  “They enacted a moratorium to allegedly
slow growth, but allowed every single project to move forward –-
as long as the builder paid a flat $1,200 fee per project.  Many
builders paid the fee under protest, and we believe that City
officials were aware – and continue to be aware – that the City
acted illegally.”

According to Goessling, the explosion of impact fees programs
across the state and the nation underscores the need for
increasing accountability to check the power of local
government.  “Impact fees, like taxes and other fee structures,
are a pocketbook power of government.  Revenue-raising efforts
by local governments must be clearly authorized by state law,
closely monitored, and challenged when illegal.  If a local
government can illegally demand fees from one industry or class
of people, it can demand them from all people.”

The suit is “GAHBA, et al. v. City of McDonough,” filed in Henry
County Superior Court.


HEALTH NET: Makes $201M Charge for McCoy, Wachtel, Scharfman
------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. included in its result for the third quarter of
2007 the full effect of a $296.8 million pretax, or $216.0
million after-tax, charges incurred as a result of Health Net
reaching an agreement in principle to settle three class actions
known as the McCoy, Wachtel and Scharfman lawsuits; the proposed
resolution of regulatory issues with the New Jersey Department
of Banking and Insurance; and other litigation matters.

For the third quarter, Health Net reported a loss of $103.8
million, or $0.93 per share.

The settlement of the three class actions, the first of which
was filed in federal court in New Jersey in December 2001, is
subject to the execution of a definitive agreement and court
approval. The class actions relate to certain Health Net out-of-
network commercial claims payment practices for the period
between 1995 and July 2007. The agreement in principle calls for
Health Net to, among other things, implement certain operational
changes relating to its payment of out-of-network claims.

The regulatory issues with the New Jersey Department of Banking
and Insurance primarily relate to out-of-network claims payment
practices. Health Net expects to enter into a consent order with
the Department and make restitution relating to these issues in
the near future.

The charges include expenses for disbursements to eligible class
members, a "Prove-Up" fund to reimburse specific claims,
attorneys' fees, regulatory fines and remediations, and costs of
resolving litigation unrelated to the class action lawsuits. The
charges are accounted for in two parts:

     -- $201.5 million is included in third quarter of 2007
        health plan services expenses for claims-related
        matters, class disbursements and remediations; and

     -- $95.3 million is included in third quarter of 2007
        general and administrative (G&A) expenses related to
        attorneys' fees, regulatory fines and estimated
        liability for litigation unrelated to the class action
        lawsuits.

                 McCoy and Wachtel Lawsuits

Initially, two class actions were filed:

       -- “McCoy v. Health Net, Inc. et al,” and

       -- “Wachtel v. Guardian Life Insurance Co.”

These two lawsuits are styled as nationwide class actions and
are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of a class of subscribers in a number of the
company's large and small employer group plans.

The Wachtel complaint initially was filed as a single plaintiff
case in New Jersey State court on July 23, 2001.  Subsequently,
the company removed the Wachtel complaint to federal court, and
plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert claims on behalf of
a class of subscribers in small employer group plans in New
Jersey on Dec. 4, 2001.

The McCoy complaint was filed on April 23, 2003 and asserts
claims on behalf of a nationwide class of Health Net
subscribers.  

These two cases have been consolidated.

Plaintiffs allege that Health Net, Inc., Health Net of the
Northeast, Inc. and Health Net of New Jersey, Inc. violated
ERISA in connection with various practices related to the
reimbursement of claims for services provided by out-
of-network providers.

Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of payment of additional
benefits, injunctive and other equitable relief, and attorneys’
fees.

On April 23, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification seeking to certify nationwide classes of Health
Net subscribers.

The District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification on Aug. 5, 2004, and issued an order (Class
Certification Order) certifying two nationwide classes of Health
Net subscribers who received medical services or supplies from
an out-of-network provider and to whom the defendants paid less
than the providers’ billed charge during the period from 1995 to
Aug. 31, 2004.

Health Net appealed the Class Certification Order to the Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  

On June 30, 2006, the Third Circuit ruled in Health Net’s favor
on the appeal.  

The Third Circuit held that the District Court’s class
certification opinion failed to properly define the claims,
issues and defenses to be treated on a class basis.

The Third Circuit thus vacated the certification order and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

In September 2006, the District Court certified the same classes
but limited them to the resolution of 19 legal issues.  


                  Scharfman Lawsuit

On Jan. 13, 2005, the class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against:

       -- Health Net, Inc.,
       -- Health Net of the Northeast, Inc.,
       -- Health Net of New York, Inc., and
       -- Health Net Life Insurance Co.

The complaint alleges both Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act claims in connection with various practices related to the
reimbursement of claims for services provided by out-of-network
providers.  The alleged claims in Scharfman run from Sept. 1,
2004 until the present.

Plaintiffs in the Scharfman action seek relief in the form of
payment of additional benefits, civil penalties, restitution,
compensatory, and consequential damages, treble damages,
prejudgment interest and costs, attorneys fees and injunctive
and other equitable relief.

“Scharfman et al. v. Health Net, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
00301-FSH-PS,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with
referral Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs is:
  
          Barry M. Epstein, Esq.
          Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Phone: 732-636-8000
          E-mail: bepstein@wilentz.com

Representing the defendant is:

          James E. Del Bello, Esq.
          Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 963-5182
          E-mail: jdelbello@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Herve Gouraige, Esq.
          Epstein Becker & Green, PC
          Two Gateway Center, 12TH Floor
          Newark, New Jersey 07102-5003
          Phone: (973) 642-1900
          E-mail: hgouraige@ebglaw.com

"Wachtel, et al. v. Health Net, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-
04183-FSH-PS," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with  
referral to Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Barry M. Epstein at Sills, Esq.
          Cummis, Epstein & Gross PC
          One Riverfront Plaza
          Newark, NJ 07102-5400
          Phone: (973) 643-7000
          E-mail: bepstein@sillscummis.com

Representing the defendants are:  

         John J. Gibbons, Esq.
         Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, PC
         One Riverfront Plaza
         Newark, NJ 07102-5496
         Phone: (973) 596-4500
         E-mail: jgibbons@gibbonslaw.com

              - and -

         Herve Gouraige, Esq.
         Epstein Becker & Green, PC
         Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102-5003  
         Phone: (973) 642-1900
         E-mail: hgouraige@ebglaw.com


HENRY GORDY: Recalls Toy Figures on High Lead Paint Content
-----------------------------------------------------------
Henry Gordy International Inc., of Plainfield, N.J., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 380,000 of “Galaxy Warriors” Toy Figures

The company said the surface paints on the recalled toys contain
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported.

Description: The posable spaceman figures are about 4 1/2-inches
tall and come with two accessories. They were sold in various
colors including yellow, grey, silver, blue, green, gold, black,
and red.

Picture of the recalled toy figurine:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08060a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08060b.jpg

The toys were made in China and sold at Family Dollar Stores
nationwide from January 2006 through October 2007 for about $1.

Consumers should take the recalled toys away from children
immediately and return the toy to the firm for a full refund
plus postage.

For additional information, contact Henry Gordy International
toll-free at (888) 790-2700 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday.


INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Told to Pay Each Diacetyl Exposure Victim
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York appeals court has denied a request by International
Flavors and Fragrances to treat diacetyl-related health damage
to former Missouri popcorn plant workers as a single occurrence,
NewsInferno.com reports.

The Manhattan Supreme Court Appellate Division ruled that if
plaintiffs successfully prove their claims that diacetyl
exposure caused them to develop Popcorn Workers Lung, each
should receive a minimum $50,000 deductible payment from
International Flavors and Fragrances.

Diacetyl, which has been associated with Popcorn Workers Lung,
is used to give microwave popcorn and other snacks a buttery
flavor.  Popcorn Workers Lung, also known as bronchiolitis
obliterans, is a potentially life threatening ailment, for which
the only cure is a lung transplant.

The suit against International Flavors and Fragrances was filed
by 30 current and former employees of a Missouri popcorn plant
who are now suffering from Popcorn Workers Lung. It names
International Flavors and Fragrances as a defendant because the
company supplied the factory with diacetyl between 1992 and
1996.

International Flavors and Fragrances has asked the Manhattan
Supreme Court that it pays workers for an "occurrence" that
constituted all of the Popcorn Workers Lung injuries taken as a
whole.  Under the proposal, the company only had to pay one
deductible for each of its eight liability policies no matter
how many workers were involved in the lawsuit. Depending on the
policy, those deductibles range from $50,000 to $100,000 per
occurrence.

In a unanimous decision, the appeals court disagreed with
International Flavors and Fragrances’ arguments, and concluded
that there was no single occurrence that caused each of the
workers bronchiolitis obliterans. The judge writing the court’s
opinion asserted that the employees sustained their injuries “as
a consequence of repeated deliveries” of diacetyl to the popcorn
plant, and were exposed to the toxic chemical at different
times.


INTERNATIONAL PROFIT: Judge Limits Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall did not allow the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to seek class-based punitive
damages in a sexual harassment suit it filed against
International Profit Associates Inc., the Chicago Tribune
reports.

The suit, now involving 113 women, was filed by in 2001.  It
claims widespread sexual harassment allegations against female
employees of the marketing consultancy company.

The EEOC pursued the class action using the same approach it
successfully used for the first time in a sexual harassment case
it filed against Mitsubishi Motors plant in Illinois in 1996.  
The case resulted to each of the 486 women who sued Mitsubishi
sharing in a $34 million settlement.

According to the Chicago Tribune article, The "pattern or
practice" approach holds the employer liable for perpetuating a
hostile workplace if it regularly and systematically
discriminates.  Once proof of a pattern or practice is
established, there's a presumption that individuals were subject
to discriminatory behavior, making individual claims easier to
prove.

EEOC also used the approach in a case filed against Dial Corp.
and its soap plant in west suburban Aurora.  According to the
article, in this case, the EEOC was able to get the court to
agree on a trial for a verdict on punitive damages and another
trial to allocate the damages among the individual class members
based on proof of their injuries.  The punitive damage aspect of
the case was based on overall conduct rather than individual
instances.  Before a trial could start, Dial settled for a total
of $10 million with 100 women.

In the International Profit case, however, the judge rejected
the precedent set in the Dial and Mitsubishi cases, and declined
to allow the EEOC to seek class-based punitive damages.  In
making her Oct. 23 opinion, Judge Gottschall cited case law that
established the determination of punitive damages only after
individual liability has been proved.

She also found the EEOC's approach to trial as unfair. "The EEOC
is seeking ... an approach that will dramatically increase its
odds of prevailing in this case, particularly with respect to
its ability to recover punitive and compensatory damages," she
wrote.

The ruling means proof of an overall hostile work environment is
not enough to hold an employer liable for punitive damages.
Monetary awards, the judge said, will be awarded only on an
individual basis.  The only relief plaintiffs would receive by
proving a hostile workplace is an injunction ordering the
company to stop the discriminatory behavior.

The article cites lawyers familiar with the case saying that the
ruling could weaken the hand of the EEOC, which enforces the
nation's anti-discrimination employment laws.

The company has denied all of the allegations, said its attorney
Myron Cherry.

          Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
          Myron M. Cherry & Associates, LLC
          30 North La Salle Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, Illinois  60602-2504
          (Cook Co.)
          Phone: 312-372-2100
          Telecopier: 312-853-0279


JM FAMILY Settles Ga. Suit Over Unearned Premiums for $45M
----------------------------------------------------------
An insurance unit of JM Family Enterprises will pay $45 million
to end a class action over unearned premiums, according to     
plaintiff's lawyer, Jim Butler, The Miami Herals reports.

The settlement has obtained preliminary approval.  It is still
subject to final approval by Muscogee County Superior Judge Doug
Pullen.

The suit was filed by Ken Toole in January 2003, according to
Laywers and Settlements.  Mr. Toole claimed he was entitled to
get a refund on an unearned car insurance premium that the
company did not pay.  Generally, the suit claimed JMIC failed to
refund unearned premiums when loans were paid off early.

The suit was granted-class action status in August 2005.

Mr. Butler said that as many as 60 percent of 768,000 insured
customers paid off loans before they were due.  

JM Family is a subsidiary of JMIC Life Insurance Co., a seller
of credit insurance for car loans.


KEYSTONE HEALTH: Lawyers Appeal Sanctions in Health-Insurer Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several attorneys in the purported class action, "Grider, et al.
v. Keystone Central Inc., et al, Case No. 2:01-cv-05641-JKG,"
are appealing a sanction handed out to them by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The sanction was issued by Judge James Knoll Gardner on Oct. 2,
2007.  The lawyers are appealing the matter to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to a report by Jane M.
Von Bergen of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Specifically, Judge Gardner had accused the lawyers of evasive
conduct in producing evidence in the class action started by a
Kutztown doctor who sued Keystone Health Plan Central Inc.,
Highmark Inc. and Capital Blue Cross over reimbursement
formulas.

The lawyers sanctioned were:

       -- John S. Summers, of Hangley Aronchick, Segal & Pudlin
          in Philadelphia,
  
       -- Sandra Girifalco of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young in
          Philadelphia, and

       -- Daniel Huyett and Jeffrey Bukowski of the Reading firm
          Stevens & Lee.

Their firms and clients were also criticized, according to
reports.

                        Case Background

In 2006, Judge Gardner granted class-action status to the
matter, giving eligibility to thousands of Pennsylvania doctors
to join a lawsuit over a Blue Cross health plan's reimbursement
rates (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 28, 2006).

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Keystone Plan Central, Inc.,
     -- Highmark, Inc.,
     -- Capital Blue Cross,
     -- John S. Brouse,
     -- James M. Mead, and
     -- Joseph Pfister.

The suit charges that Keystone Health Plan Central
systematically lowered its reimbursement rates to doctors by:

     -- bundling or changing procedure codes;
     -- failing to pay legitimate claims on time; and
     -- undercounting the number of patients assigned to doctors
        in the managed-care plan and other practices.

The case involves medical claims dating from January 1996
through November 2001, when the lawsuit was filed on behalf of a
Kutztown doctor and her practice group.

The plaintiffs accuse the health maintenance organization of
fraud and racketeering, paralleling a strategy used in suits
nationwide over managed-care rates, many of which have been
consolidated in a Florida case.

According to the judge's Dec. 21 order, the two sides have since
been locked in an acrimonious battle over discovery and other
pre-trial issues.

He conducted several days of hearings in March on the question
of class certification, taking testimony from former Keystone
officials, an economist and others.

Keystone Health Plan Central, which serves central Pennsylvania
and the Lehigh Valley, was co-owned at the time by Highmark
Inc., a Blue Shield affiliate, and Capital Blue Cross.  It had
more than 6,400 participating physicians in 2001, according to
court documents.

The judge upheld class-action status on two racketeering claims
and a third involving the prompt payment for health care
services.  He rejected class certification on a breach-of-
contract claim, saying they should be tried individually.

The suit is "Grider, et al. v. Keystone Central Inc., et al,
Case No. 2:01-cv-05641-JKG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge James Knoll
Gardner.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Louis C. Bechtle, Esq.
         Conrad, O'Brien, Gellman & Rohn, P.C.
         1515 Market Street, 16th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 215-864-9600

              - and -

         Francis J. Farina, Esq.
         577 Gregory Lane
         Devon, PA 19333
         Phone: 610-695-9007

Representing defendants are:

         Sandra A. Girifalco, Esq.
         William T. Mandia, Esq.
         Lee A. Rosengard, Esq.
         Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP
         2600 One Commerce SQ
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-564-8000 or 215-564-8083 or 215-564-8032
         Fax: 215-564-8120
         E-mail: sgirifalco@stradley.com
                 mandia@stradley.com
                 lrosengard@stradley.com

              - and -

         Malcolm J. Gross, Esq.
         Gross, McGinley, Labarre & Eaton, LLP
         33 South 7th Street, P.O. Box 4060
         Allentown, PA 18105-4060
         Phone: 610-820-5450
         Fax: 610-820-6006
         E-mail: mgross@gmle.com


MORGAN STANLEY: African-American Group Opposes $16M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fifteen African-Americans are opposing the terms of a settlement
reached by Morgan Stanley with one of the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit “Jaffe et al. v. Morgan Stanley,” a gender
discrimination class action transformed into a "race and color"
discrimination class action.

The African-Americans said in a press statement they believe
Morgan Stanley took this action to avoid addressing the issues
of race discrimination that the group raised with the firm over
one year ago.

They said:

“We are deeply disappointed by both the programmatic and
monetary relief presented in the proposed settlement. We have
carefully studied the organizational changes that Morgan Stanley
has proposed and feel certain that even if they are implemented,
African-Americans working at the company will continue to suffer
from workplace discrimination.

“The proposed settlement fund is grossly inadequate to
compensate the victims of Morgan Stanley's systemic race
discrimination. The $16 million fund available to resolve the
claims of over 1,300 African-Americans and Latinos who worked at
Morgan Stanley since October of 2002 pales in comparison to the
payouts by other Wall Street firms in similar discrimination
cases brought by brokers, including the “Cremin v. Merrill
Lynch” lawsuit (over $200 million recovered by class members)
and “Martens v. Smith Barney” (over $100 million).

“Indeed, the settlement is a fraction of the settlements Morgan
Stanley has recently made in gender discrimination cases of $46
million (“Augst-Johnson v. Morgan Stanley”) and $54 million
(“Schiefflin v. Morgan Stanley”).

“We understand that one of the two African-American named
plaintiffs has decided to opt out of the settlement and not
serve as a class representative. We respect her decision. As a
result, the sole remaining class representative is a person who
worked for Morgan Stanley for only one month during the class
period, and who is not Latino. This turn of events raises
serious questions about the fairness of the settlement and
whether the class is adequately represented.

“We are also troubled by the lawsuit and settlement grouping
African-Americans and Latinos into a single class, without a
Latino class representative. It is naive and incorrect to simply
assume that the experiences of and issues facing African-
Americans and Latinos at Morgan Stanley are the same and that a
member of one group can adequately represent the interests of
the other.

“We believe that the proposed settlement's terms and the way in
which it was negotiated reveal the extent of Morgan Stanley's
disrespect and hostility towards African-Americans and Latinos,
and its lack of commitment to equal opportunity.

“We intend to oppose the settlement and ask the Court in the
Jaffe case to appear in court to address a number of our
concerns, including:

    --  At the time Morgan Stanley reached this settlement, only  
        one of the two Jaffe plaintiffs was African-American,
        and the complaint did not include any class claim of
        race or color discrimination;

    --  We do not believe the Jaffe plaintiffs received full and
        fair disclosure about our group's existence and efforts
        to address racial discrimination at Morgan Stanley,
        which may have influenced their decision to settle;

    --  The sole class representative in the lawsuit worked at
        Morgan Stanley for only about one month of the proposed
        class period, but seeks to represent a class from
        October 2002 until the present.

    --  Although the class purports to resolve the claims of all
        African-Americans and Latinos, the lone class
        representative is not Latino, nor does it appear that
        Latino class members were included in settlement
        negotiations.

“We will take appropriate action to ensure that the rights of
African-Americans are protected and that Morgan Stanley is held
accountable for its ongoing discriminatory practices.

“We stand ready, willing and able to vigorously prosecute our
case challenging Morgan Stanley's systemic discrimination
against African-Americans to a full and fair conclusion that
will result in meaningful change at Morgan Stanley and fair
compensation for those who suffered from the Firm's
discrimination. (See Moore, et al. v. Morgan Stanley complaint,
Case No. 07 C 5606 (N.D. Ill.))

     About “Moore et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.”

The named plaintiffs of Moore et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co.,
Inc. are 15 African-Americans, including current and former
Morgan Stanley Financial Advisors and managers of varying levels
of seniority and production, who were denied business and
management opportunities, and an applicant denied a position on
account of race. The Moore plaintiffs worked at over ten
different Morgan Stanley offices across the country for a number
of different managers, but all were subjected to the same
systemic race discrimination by Morgan Stanley.

         “Jaffe, et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -           

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

Representing the defendants is:

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


NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Okla. Court Approves Royalties Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Beaver County, Oklahoma has approved a proposed
settlement of a class action over royalty payments that was
filed against a subsidiary of Newfield Exploration Co.

In December 2002, a lawsuit against the company's Mid-Continent
subsidiary was filed in Beaver County, Oklahoma and was later
certified as a class action.

The complaint alleges that the company improperly reduced
royalty payments for certain expenses and charges, and also
claims breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties, among
other claims.

In April 2007, the company entered into a non-binding settlement
agreement that has recently received court approval, according
to the company's Oct. 29, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Newfield Exploration Co. -- http://www.newfld.com/-- is an  
independent oil and gas company engaged in the exploration,
development and acquisition of crude oil and natural gas
properties.


POTLATCH CORP: Pa. Court Certifies Classes in OSB Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
certified classes in two Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaints captioned, “In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation,” which
names Potlatch Corp. as a defendant.

Beginning in March 2006, a series of private antitrust lawsuits
were filed against the company and certain other manufacturers
of oriented strand board (OSB) by plaintiffs who claim they
purchased OSB at artificially high prices.

The cases generally have been consolidated into two Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaints in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the caption, “In Re
OSB Antitrust Litigation,” one on behalf of direct purchasers of
OSB and the other on behalf of indirect purchasers.

The complaints allege that the defendant OSB manufacturers
violated federal and state antitrust laws by purportedly
conspiring from mid-2002 to the present to drive up the price of
OSB.

The indirect purchaser complaints also allege that defendants
violated various states’ unfair competition laws and common law.

Each consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
monetary damages to be trebled as provided under the antitrust
laws and other relief.

In August 2007, the court ordered that the cases may proceed as
class actions.  

The court certified a nationwide class of direct purchasers who
bought OSB structural panel products directly from one of the
defendants during the period from June 1, 2002 to the present.

It also certified a nationwide class of indirect purchaser end
users who purchased new OSB manufactured or sold by one of the
defendants during the same time period; this class excludes
persons who bought OSB that was incorporated into a house or
other structure.

The claims of the nationwide indirect purchaser class are
limited to injunctive relief.  

However, the court also certified a multistate class of indirect
purchasers in eleven states whose members may recover
compensation as allowed by state law.  

The court refused to certify the claims of indirect purchaser
plaintiffs from six other states for class action treatment.

However, the court allowed plaintiffs to designate substitute
class representatives from those states, and discovery is
underway to determine whether they may represent state indirect
purchaser classes.

Plaintiffs’ expert in the direct purchaser case has estimated
total damages of $1.952 billion, before trebling.  

Indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ expert estimates the damages for
all seventeen indirect purchaser states in the range of $186 to
$213 million, before trebling.

The suit is "In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-
CV-00826 (PSD)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mary Kay Christodoulou, Esq.
          David L. Comerford, Esq.
          Edward F. Mannino, Esq.
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
          One Commerce Square, 2005 Market St., Suite 2200,
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-965-1200
          E-mail: mchristodoulou@akingump.com

Representing the defendants are:

          William P. Butterfield, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500,
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          E-mail: wbutterfield@cmht.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
          Spector Roseman and Kodroff
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-496-0300
          E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: Tex. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
dismissed two securities fraud class actions filed against
RadioShack Corp. and certain of its former and current directors
and officers.

The suits, filed on March 16, 2007, and March 27, 2007,
respectively, are:

       -- "Damore v. RadioShack et al.," and
       -- "Hawana v. RadioShack et al."

These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased RadioShack's common stock between Jan. 14, 2003, and
June 7, 2006.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
failed to disclose material adverse facts about its financial
well-being, business relationships, and prospects.

The complaints seek, among other things, a declaration that the
actions are a proper class action, as well as awards for damages
and interest, reasonable costs and expenses (including
attorneys' and experts' fees).

The suit suits were dismissed without prejudice on May 23, 2007,
and May 22, 2007, respectively, 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.

The first identified complaint is "Richard Damore, et al. v.
RadioShack Corporation, et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA, 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

              - and -

         Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP
         3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
         Dallas, TX 75204
         Phone: 214-744-3000
         Fax: 214-744-3015
         E-mail: info@provostumphrey.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: Ill. Court Approves $8.8M FLSA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted final approval to an $8.8 million settlement of a
purported class action filed against Radioshack Corp. over
allegations that the company misclassified certain RadioShack
store managers as exempt from overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act or similar state laws.

The suit is "Alphonse L. Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp.,"
filed on Oct. 31, 2002.

The company has reached a class-wide settlement with counsel for
the Perez plaintiffs and four other wage-hour lawsuits pending
against it.

This global settlement resulted in a maximum payment by us of
approximately $8.8 million, in the aggregate, to resolve all of
these pending lawsuits, which we recorded in the second and
third quarters of 2006.

The respective courts have granted final approval of the
settlement, 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.

The suit is "Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp., Case No. 02 C  
7884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois
under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Timothy J. Touhy, Esq.
         Daniel K. Touhy, Esq.
         James B. Zouras, Esq.
         Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
         Touhy & Touhy, Ltd.
         161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210
         Chicago, Illinois 60601
         Phone: (877) 372-2209
         Fax: (312) 456-3838
         E-mail: lawyers@touhylaw.com
         Web site: http://www.radioshackclassaction.com

              - and -

         Peter M. Callahan, Esq.
         Robert W. Thompson, Esq.
         Lee A. Sherman, Esq.
         Callahan, McCune & Willis
         111 Fashion Lane
         Tustin, California 92780
         Phone: (714) 730-5700
         Fax: (714) 730-1642
         E-mail: classaction@cmwlaw.net

Representing the company are:  

         Edward W. Bergmann, Esq.
         Justin M. Crawford, Esq.
         Brian J. Hipp, Esq.
         Seyfarth Shaw
         55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200
         Chicago, Illinois 60603
         Phone: (312) 346-8000
         Fax: (312) 269-8869

              - and -

         Robert S. Brewer, Jr., Esq.
         Ross H. Hyslop, Esq.,
         Robert A. Cocchia, Esq.
         McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP
         750 B Street, Suite 3300
         San Diego, California 92101
         Phone: (619) 595-5400
         Fax: (619) 595-5450
         E-mail: rsattorneys@mckennalong.com


STAPLES INC: Settles California Wage, Hour Lawsuit for $38M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Staples, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPLS) reached a settlement in a wage and
hour class action concerning the alleged misclassification of
its California-based assistant store managers. The settlement of
$38 million, which is subject to court approval, resolves the
allegations and allows Staples to avoid further expense and
distraction from litigation that has been ongoing for the past
eight years.

The company first reported this litigation in its Form 10-Q
filing on May 20, 2003 and subsequently reported claims for up
to $150 million. The settlement amount includes interest and
class counsel's attorney fees. Settlement documentation is
expected to be filed with the Court on November 7, 2007.

Staples believes that its store labor model, which is based on a
commitment to fair and respectful treatment of its associates,
is fully compliant with applicable California law. Staples
admits no wrongdoing in connection with the allegations, which
claim that assistant store managers in California were
misclassified as exempt from overtime pay. The settlement amount
resolves claims for damages spanning a twelve-year period made
by attorneys representing a class of more than 1,700 current and
former associates.

                        About Staples

Staples, Inc. -- http://www.staples.com-- invented the office  
superstore concept in 1986 and today is the world's largest
office products company. With 74,000 talented associates, the
company is committed to making it easy to buy a wide range of
office products, including supplies, technology, furniture, and
business services. With 2006 sales of $18.2 billion, Staples
serves consumers and businesses ranging from home-based
businesses to Fortune 500 companies in 22 countries throughout
North and South America, Europe and Asia. Headquartered outside
of Boston, Staples operates more than 1,900 office superstores
and also serves its customers through mail order catalog, e-
commerce and contract businesses.


STATE STREET: Sued Over Mishandling of Retirement Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman announce the filing of a class action against
State Street Bank & Trust Company and State Street Global
Advisors.

The Plaintiff, The Companies Employee Savings and Profit Sharing
Plan, seeks to recover the losses State Street caused to
Plaintiff, and to ERISA retirement plans throughout the country
by investing purportedly conservative, risk-averse bond funds in
high risk mortgage backed securities and exotic financial
instruments. Certain bond funds managed by State Street
increased their holdings of mortgage-backed securities from just
8% in September 2006 to 25% in March 2007, despite the fact that
the indices those funds were supposed to track are comprised 60%
of Government bonds, with the remainder comprised largely of
Corporate bonds.

In addition, State Street highly leveraged those investments by
purchasing mortgage-backed securities using borrowed money, thus
compounding the risk to investors. As a result of those
imprudent investments, bond funds managed by State Street --
which were supposed to track a well-defined index of investment-
grade U.S. Government and Corporate bonds -- lost up to 40% of
their value when the market for mortgage-backed securities
collapsed in August 2007.

As the Investment Manager for the bond funds, the action seeks
to hold State Street liable under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 for the losses caused by its imprudent
management of those funds.

The complaint filed by Keller Rohrback and Bernstein Litowitz
asserts that State Street breached its fiduciary duties under
ERISA, and seeks to recover losses to ERISA plans caused by
State Street's actions. The claim is asserted on behalf of all
ERISA plans, and the participants therein, that were invested in
bond funds managed by State Street between January and October
2007.

For more information, contact:

          Derek W. Loeser                          
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.                   
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          10019 Seattle, WA 98101
          Tel: 206-623-1900
          Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
          Website: http://www.kellerrohrback.com

          - and -   

          Gerald H. Silk
          Bernstein Litowitz
          Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, New York
          Tel: 212-554-1400
          Email: jerry@blbglaw.com
          Website: http://www.blbglaw.com



* Edwards Angell to Merge with U.K.'s Kendall Freeman
-----------------------------------------------------
U.S. law firm Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge (EAPD) and Kendall
Freeman of London announced a plan to merge effective January 1,
2008.

In a press release, Edwards Angell said the merger will
significantly enhance the capabilities of the firms' insurance
and reinsurance practices and offers synergies in their
commercial litigation and corporate practices by providing an
international platform to serve clients on both sides of the
Atlantic. The combined firm will have more than 600 attorneys
and solicitors practicing in 11 offices.

"This is a fantastic opportunity that will add value to many of
the services our firms provide to clients in the financial
services sector, in particular in the insurance and reinsurance
industries," said Terrence M. Finn, Co-Managing Partner of EAPD.
"This merger fits within the firm's overall plan, and is a
natural step in the continued development of the firm's
international footprint," he added.

Both EAPD and Kendall Freeman are internationally recognized,
particularly in the United States, Europe, Bermuda and Hong
Kong, for their work in the insurance and reinsurance industry.
Uniting the two legal teams will enable both firms to enhance
their service to this industry and will provide a competitive
advantage. EAPD Partner, Alan J. Levin and Kendall Freeman
Senior Partner, David Kendall, will chair the firm's 100-
attorney Insurance & Reinsurance Department.

"We are very excited about this merger," said David Kendall.
"This combination will give our clients an unparalleled depth
and breadth of experience in the global insurance market. EAPD
has a highly regarded insurance and reinsurance practice with
strengths in coverage, reinsurance, regulatory and corporate law
that is supported by a strong corporate and securities practice.
In addition, the combined experience and expertise of the merged
firm's litigation department will provide a powerful global
dispute resolution practice."

"Since we started talking about a merger, we have all been
struck by how similar our approaches and cultures are," said
Laurence Harris, Managing Partner of Kendall Freeman. "Over the
years our size and specialisms have made us a natural target for
other firms to talk to. None were as good a business fit as
EAPD; none offered the opportunity to build leading
international insurance and reinsurance practices and first
class international litigation and corporate practices. EAPD is
a firm where we can maintain the valued culture of collegiality
and support that we have in London. We are very excited about
the merger and about the international capability it offers our
clients."

Terrence Finn and Charles E. DeWitt will continue to serve as
Co-Managing Partners of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge. Laurence
Harris will serve as Partner-in-Charge of the firm's London
office and will join EAPD's Executive Committee along with David
Kendall.

About the Firms

Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP offers a full array of legal
services to clients worldwide with offices in Boston, MA; New
York City, NY; Providence, RI; Hartford and Stamford, CT;
Madison, NJ; Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, FL;
Washington, DC; and Wilmington, DE. EAPD's mission is to create
value by providing superior legal advice and business counsel to
protect and advance the interests of its clients. For additional
information visit http://www.eapdlaw.com/.

Kendall Freeman is a London-based law firm focused on handling
high value and complex transactions and disputes for clients in
the insurance and reinsurance markets, banks, corporations and
the public sector. http://www.kendallfreeman.com/.


* Corporate Europe Believes Class Actions Will Increase in U.K.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.K. is the most fertile ground in Europe for class actions,
according to “Collective Litigation in Europe: a survey,”
sponsored by Bryan Cave LLP, carried out by the Economist
Intelligence Unit.

Fifty-nine per cent of the potential corporate defendants
surveyed in Europe expect collective litigation (also known as
class actions) to emerge in the U.K. within the next three
years.

More than 240 company executives and lawyers were surveyed in
September to examine the actual -- and expected -- rise in class
actions in Europe, and to discover what steps businesses were
taking.

“We know there is a growing appetite among European consumers
for redress,” said Mr. Bryan Cave partner Lawrence Scarborough.
“What we didn't know is whether corporate Europe is aware of
this significant shift and how it might affect their operations.
The results of this research paint a sobering picture for
European companies, especially in the UK.”

In the U.K., the Office of Fair Trading has made it clear that
class actions should be more broadly available and the National
Association of Pension Funds has publicly encouraged its members
to pursue class action claims.

Mr. Scarborough said, “Businesses that have not examined their
contingency plans for such legal action could be placing
themselves at great risk, especially as plaintiffs' lawyers are
getting better at deploying evidence across jurisdictions.”

Nearly half (49%) of respondents expect courts in their
countries to expand access for individuals acting collectively
within the next three years, with the main impetus coming from
consumer groups. Nearly 59% of respondents expect consumer goods
companies to be targeted, followed by the pharmaceuticals (50%)
and financial services (42%) industries.

Litigation is expected to arise from product liability (67%),
cartel and price-fixing (38%) and shareholder rights disputes
(28%).

Europeans are far from eager to adopt US class action
procedures, and reject many features of the American system.
However, 60% of respondents expect that legal fees will become
linked in some way to the outcome of cases in Europe, and 43%
expect to see the introduction of contingency fees for lawyers
as a percentage of court judgments.

More than 87% of respondents expect court awards in European
class-action cases to be lower than those in the U.S.

To reduce the potential risk of litigation, some European
companies are already taking such steps as implementing systems
to monitor customer complaints (38%), training employers in
changing safety rules and directives (36%), seeking early
settlement of cases that could escalate (33%), ensuring that
insurance policies cover collective claims (29%), implementing
corporate early-warning systems (26%) and keeping detailed
records on product development and testing (25%).


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CBRE REALY: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. filed a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired 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.

The Complaint charges that CBRE, a commercial real estate
specialty finance company, and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws. 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. On this news, the price of CBRE stock declined
to $4.25 per share, 70% lower than the IPO price of $14.50.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is December 31, 2007.

For more information, contact:

           Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
           Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
           Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
           Phone: (800) 797-5499
           E-mail: firm@snilaw.com
           Web site: http://www.snilaw.com


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Entwistle, Susman File Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP filed a class
action complaint for violations of the federal securities laws
and California state law against Countrywide Financial Corp.
(NYSE:CFC), Angelo R. Mozilo, David Sambol and Eric P. Sieracki
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Countrywide Financial Corporation Series A Floating
Rate Convertible Senior Debentures Due 2037 (the Series A
Debentures) and/or Countrywide Financial Corporation Series B
Floating Rate Convertible Senior Debentures Due 2037 (the Series
B Debentures) (collectively, the Debentures) from May 17, 2007
through and including August 9, 2007. No class has yet been
certified in this action.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements and omitted material
facts concerning the Company’s lending practices and internal
controls. In this regard, Countrywide allegedly misrepresented
its position in the mortgage market by stating that the current
downcycle in the housing market would actually place the Company
in a “superior competitive position” based on the strength of
its “capital liquidity positions, superior business model, and
best in class workforce.”

The complaint further alleges that the Defendants falsely
assured investors that Countrywide employed exacting loan
underwriting and origination practices to ensure
creditworthiness of loan applicants; implemented internal
controls to anticipate appropriate loan loss reserves for any
negative changes in the credit and housing markets; and
maintained actual reserves to adequately meet such market
downturns. Moreover, the complaint alleges that the Company’s
statements were materially false and misleading because
Defendants, in fact:

     (i) did not follow Countrywide’s reportedly strict  
         underwriting and loan-origination practices;

    (ii) made a material portion of the Company’s loans with
         little, if any, supporting documentation, such that  
         Countrywide had no way of confirming the
         creditworthiness of many loan applicants;

   (iii) mischaracterized “low documentation” and “no
         documentation” loans as “prime loans;” (iv) failed to
         maintain adequate loan loss reserves; and

    (v) improperly attributed the Company’s growth to sound risk
        management programs, rather than the Company’s
        aggressive and risky loan origination practices.

Thus, Countrywide’s actual lending practices and internal
controls differed materially from the description of those
practices in the Company’s Securities and Exchange Commission  
filings, press releases and other public statements. The
Defendants’ fraudulent statements and omissions concealed the
Company’s deteriorating financial condition as a result of
increased delinquencies and defaults on subprime loans, and
allowed the Defendants to artificially inflate the price of its
Debentures. Accordingly, the complaint alleges that the
Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
as well as California state law.

Beginning on July 24, 2007, investors began to learn the truth
about Countrywide’s actual financial condition through a series
of partial disclosures. Specifically, on July 24, 2007,
Countrywide reported that as a result of “softening home prices
. . . and [rising] delinquencies and defaults,” the Company was
taking a $417 million impairment on its investments in “credit-
sensitive retained interest. . . . attributable to accelerated
increases in delinquency levels and increases in the estimates
of future defaults and loss severities on the underlying loans.”

In addition, Countrywide reported that the Company took a $181
million charge to its loan loss reserves in its “held-for-
investment” portfolio as a result of increased loan defaults in
the prime market, setting aside in total $292.9 million for loan
losses for the quarter, compared to $61.9 million a year
earlier. As a result of these disclosures, the Series A
Debentures fell $1.06 per debenture, or 1.10%, to close at
$95.31 per debenture on July 24, 2007. The Series B Debentures
fell $1.07 per debenture, or 1.11%, to close at $95.31 per
debenture on July 24, 2007.

On August 9, 2007, Countrywide issued an additional press
release disclosing the Company’s potential-short-term liquidity
issues, directly contradicting the Company’s earlier assurances.
Specifically, the Company warned of disruptions in the debt and
secondary mortgage market that would likely affect the Company’s
short-term financial condition and earnings. Upon this
disclosure, the Series A Debentures fell another $1.37 per
debenture, or 1.48%, to close at $91.00 per debenture on August
10, 2007.

The Series A Debentures continued to decline steadily to close
at $84.81 per debenture on August 15, 2007, just one week after
the August 9, 2007 disclosure, representing a total drop that
week of $7.56 per debenture, or 8.18%. The Series B Debentures
fell another $0.98 per debenture, or 1.08%, to close at $90.02
per debenture on August 10, 2007. The Series B Debentures
continued to decline steadily to close at $81.94 per debenture
on August 16, 2007, just one week after the August 9, 2007
disclosure, representing a total drop that week of $9.06 per
debenture, or 9.96%.

In connection with the Company’s recent corrective disclosures,
on October 17, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
SEC has commenced an inquiry into millions of dollars in stock
sales by Defendant Mozilo, the Company’s Chief Executive
Officer. In particular, the SEC is investigating the timing of
such sales by Mozilo and changes Mozilo made to his arranged
stock selling program.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by the law firms of Entwistle & Cappucci and
Susman Godfrey, which have significant experience in both
prosecuting and defending complex business, securities and
antitrust actions. The attorneys at Entwistle & Cappucci and
Susman Godfrey have personally handled numerous private as well
as class action cases resulting in highly significant recoveries
to defrauded investors. Entwistle & Cappucci currently serves as
Lead Counsel and/or as a member of Plaintiffs’ Executive
Committee in many high profile securities class actions
currently pending throughout the country. Entwistle & Cappucci’s
work in representing financial institutions, venture capital and
asset management funds in a variety of complex commercial
disputes and transactions, further positions it to bring a
unique perspective to the prosecution of complex litigation.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is December 31, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
          Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
          280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
          New York, New York 10017
          Phone: (212) 894-7200
          Fax: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.com

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Susman Godfrey LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, California 90067-6029
          Phone: (310) 789-3100
          Fax: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com


ISILON SYSTEMS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of
purchasers of Isilon Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:ISLN) common stock
during the period between December 14, 2006 and October 3, 2007,
and on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired the common
stock of Isilon pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s false
and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its December 14, 2006 initial public offering.

The complaint charges Isilon and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the Securities Act of 1933. Isilon is a provider of
clustered storage systems for digital content.

The complaint alleges that on December 14, 2006, Isilon
completed its IPO of 8.9 million shares at $13.00 per share
(including 590,717 shares sold as part of an over-allotment) for
net proceeds of approximately $105.7 million, pursuant to the
Registration Statement. The Registration Statement failed to
disclose the truth about Isilon’s business operations, finances,
business metrics, and future business and financial prospects.

Due to defendants’ positive, but false statements in the
Registration Statement, Isilon’s stock immediately soared – its
shares closing up over 77% on its first day of trading in the
best debut of a technology IPO in more than six years. Isilon’s
stock continued to climb, closing as high as $27.37 per share on
December 29, 2006.

Then on October 3, 2007, after the market closed, Isilon
announced disappointing preliminary results for its third
quarter 2007. On this news, Isilon’s stock price collapsed from
$7 per share on October 3, 2007 to close at $5.66 per share on
October 4, 2007 – a decline of over 19% on volume of 3 million
shares (over five times the average previous trading volume for
the stock). This closing price represented an all-time trading
low for Isilon.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were omitted
from the Registration Statement or were known by certain of the
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were:

     (a) the Company was not on track, nor would it be able, to
         reach profitability by the second half of 2007;

     (b) the Company’s clustered storage solutions did not
         provide a competitively differentiated business model
         which would enable the Company to effectively compete
         against the dominant players in the traditional storage
         market;

     (c) the Company’s past results were not indicative of its
         future operations, including the amount of revenue it
       derived from its large customers, such as the Eastman
       Kodak Company, the Company’s ability to continue to
       sustain quarter over quarter revenue growth, and its
       ability to manage its cost structure; and

     (d) despite being able to grow and significantly diversify
         its overall customer base, the Company would remain
         highly dependent upon Kodak. Given that the clustered
         network attached storage market in which the Company
         operates is a highly competitive, high-growth emerging
         market, the Company had no reasonable basis to make
         projections about its 2007 results.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Isilon common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”).
The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is 60 days from Nov. 1.

For more information, contact:

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


WSB FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm announced that a class action for violations
of the federal securities laws has been filed on behalf of
purchasers of the WSB Financial Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:WSFG) stock
from the date of the Company's Initial Public Offering on
December 14, 2006 to October 23, 2007.

The complaint charges that WSB, certain officers, directors and
the Company's underwriter violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively the
"Registration Statement") in connection with the Company's IPO.

In particular, the Complaint asserts that WSB's Registration
Statement was inaccurate because it failed to reveal that the
Company had been violating certain banking laws and regulations
relating to the origination, administration and monitoring of
mortgage and construction loans. The Complaint asserts that when
the market learned of this adverse information, the price of
WSB's stock declined dramatically.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 31,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


                           *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *