CAR_Public/071106.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, November 6, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 220

                            Headlines

ADOLOR CORP: Penn. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
ALPHARMA INC: Still Faces N.J. Suit Over Non-payment of Overtime
AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Suit in N.Y.
AVON PRODUCTS: Sales Reps Seek Class-Status for Suit in Cal.
AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Securities Suit Nixing

AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Snowmobiles for Crash Hazards
CANADA: No Class for Noise Suit Against Aeroports de Montreal
CERADYNE INC: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime
CREDIT CARD COS: Quebec Court Allows Suit Over Credit Card Fees

DELL INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Litigation in Tex.
DELL INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tex.
FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Pails for Lead Paint Standard Breach
FLORIDA: County Sued Over $24 Toll for Venetian Causeway Access
HAWAII: Circuit Judge Denies Pay Increase to Substitute Teachers

ILLINOIS: Chicago Police Faces Suit Over Illegal DUI Arrest
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Told to Pay Each Diacetyl Exposure Victim
LCA-VISION: Faces Two Purported Securities Fraud Suits in Ohio
MINNESOTA: MAC Plans to Extend Noise Suit Settlement to Class
MOTIVE INC: Agrees to Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $7M

PFIZER INC: Pa. Court Certifies Class in Neurontin-Related Suit
QWEST COMMS: Still Faces Colo. Suit Over Insurance Benefit Cut
QWEST COMMS: Continues to Face Multiple Rights-of-Way Lawsuits
REABLE THERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Tex. Suit Over Blackstone Deal
SEARS ROEBUCK: Lawsuit Over Kenmore Dryers Granted Certification

TOYS R US: Recalls Elite Ops Toys for Lead Paint Standard Breach
YKK CORP: Harris Mfg. Files Penna. Lawsuit Over Zipper Cartel
ZURN-PEX INC: Plumbing Parts Co. Sued Over Faulty Tubing Systems


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

XM SATELLITE: Trial Court Told to Rule on Arbitration Objections
WELLCARE HEALTH: Coughlin Stoia Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit


                          *********


ADOLOR CORP: Penn. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a motion by Adolor Corp. to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action filed against it, its
director and certain officers.

On April 21, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the
company, one of its directors and certain of its officers,
seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased common stock between Sept. 23, 2003 and
Jan. 14, 2004.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and section
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the announcement of the results of certain studies in the
company's Phase III clinical trials for Entereg(R), which
allegedly had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
the company's common stock.

This suit has been consolidated with three subsequent actions
asserting similar claims under the caption, "In re Adolor
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 2:04-cv-01728."

On Dec. 29, 2004, the district court issued an order appointing
the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.  The appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 28, 2005.

The complaint purported to extend the class period, so as to
bring claims on behalf of a putative class of Adolor
shareholders who purchased stock between Sept. 23, 2003 and Dec.
22, 2004.

The complaint also adds as defendants the board of directors,
asserting claims against them and the other defendants for
violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 in connection with the company's public offering of stock
in November 2003.

The company and its management and director defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on April 29, 2005.  The plaintiffs
responded to the motion to dismiss on June 28, 2005, and the
defendants' reply was filed on Aug. 12, 2005.

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

The suit is "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund v.
Adolor Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01728-RBS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.  The consolidated suit is "In re
Adolor Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 2:04-cv-01728."

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Laura Andracchio, Esq.
         Nicholas J. Licato, Esq.
         Scott Saham, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP
         401 B St., Ste. 1700
         San Diego CA, 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         E-mail: ramzia@lcsr.com

              - and -

         Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
         Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel
         273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202
         Bala Cynwyd PA 19004
         Phone: 610-660-8000
         E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael S. Doluisio, Esq.
         Jeffrey G. Weil, Esq.
         Dechert, Price & Rhoads
         1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
         Phone: 215-994-2749
         Fax: 215-994-2222
         E-mail: michael.doluisio@dechert.com

              - and -

         John A. Ducoff, Esq.
         Allan E. Kraus, Esq.
         Jason Rockwell, Esq.
         Laurie B. Smilan, Esq.
         Latham & Watkins LLP
         One Newark Center 16th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07101-3174
         Phone: 973-639-1234


ALPHARMA INC: Still Faces N.J. Suit Over Non-payment of Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpharma, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which is
alleging that more than 200 pharmaceutical sales representatives
were denied overtime pay, in violation of state and federal
labor laws.

The complaint alleges that the company's pharmaceutical
representatives have been paid for only forty hours a week even
though they often work in excess of 55 hours per week (Class
Action Reporter, July 16, 2007).  

It claims that in addition to not paying workers’ overtime the
company violated federal record keeping requirements.

The named plaintiff in the matter is Tito Jackson (Class Action
Reporter, July 23, 2007).

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

The suit is “Jackson v. Alpharma, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-03250-
GEB-JJH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, under Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr., with referral to
Judge John J. Hughes.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Arthur L. Bugay
          Galfund Berger, LLP
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 665-6810
          E-mail: abugay@galgandberger.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “Kendall v. Employees'
Retirement Plan of Avon Products and the Retirement Board,” are
appealing the dismissal of the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

The suit was filed by retired employee of Avon Products Inc.
who, before retirement, had been on paid disability leave for
approximately 19 years.  It was commenced in April 2003 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

The initial complaint alleged that the Employees' Retirement
Plan of Avon Products violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and, as a consequence, unlawfully reduced the
amount of plaintiff's pension.

Plaintiff sought a reformation of the Retirement Plan and
recalculation of benefits under the terms of the Retirement
Plan, as reformed for plaintiff and for the purported class.  

In November 2003, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
additional Retirement Plan violations of ERISA and seeking,
among other things, elimination of a social security offset in
the Retirement Plan.

The purported class includes "all Plan participants, whether
active, inactive or retired, and their beneficiaries and/or
Estates, with one hour of service on or after Jan. 1, 1976,
whose accrued benefits, pensions or survivor's benefits have
been or will be calculated and paid based on the Plan's unlawful
provisions."

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

In September 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion
to dismiss and plaintiff thereafter filed a notice of appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according
to the company's Oct. 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Avon Products, Inc. -- http://www.avoncompany.com-- is a global  
manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products.  Its
products fall into three product categories: Beauty, which
consists of cosmetics, fragrances, skin care and toiletries
(CFT); Beauty Plus, which consists of fashion jewelry, watches,
apparel and accessories, and Beyond Beauty, which consists of
home products and gift and decorative products.


AVON PRODUCTS: Sales Reps Seek Class-Status for Suit in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, “Blakemore, et al. v. Avon Products,
Inc., et al.,” which is pending in the Superior Court of the
state of California, Los Angeles County, are seeking to certify
the case as a class action, according to the company's Oct. 30,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Commenced in March 2003, the purported class action was filed on
behalf of Avon sales representatives who, "since March 24, 1999,
received products from Avon they did not order, thereafter
returned the unordered products to Avon, and did not receive
credit for those returned products."   

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, restitution and injunctive relief for alleged unjust
enrichment and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code.  

The company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three
subsequent amended complaints, asserting that they failed to
state a cause of action.   

The Superior Court sustained the company demurrers and dismissed
plaintiffs' causes of action except for the unjust enrichment
claim of one plaintiff.  

The court also struck plaintiffs' class allegations.  Plaintiffs
sought review of these decisions by the Court of Appeal of the
State of California and, in May 2005, the Court of Appeal
reinstated the dismissed causes of action and the class
allegations.  

In January 2006, the company filed a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' asserted nationwide class.  In February 2006, the
trial court declined to grant the motion, but instead certified
the issue to the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory basis.  

In April 2006, the Court of Appeal denied the company's motion
and instructed the trial court to consider the issue at a
subsequent point in the proceedings.

In September 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification on behalf of “all Avon Sales Representatives who,
since March 24, 1999, and while residing in California, received
products from Avon they did not order, returned the unordered
products to Avon, paid for the unordered products, and/or paid
shipping costs for their return and did not receive
reimbursement therefore by Avon or Avon initially made
reimbursement therefore by means of a credit and later reversed
the credit.”

The suit is "Blakemore et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., B174825,
B175973" filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County under Judge Wendell Mortimer.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jeffrey Huron, Esq.
         Huron Law Group
         1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-284-3400
         Fax: 310-772-0037
         Web site: http://www.huronlaw.com

    
AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Securities Suit Nixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against
Avon Products Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York is opposing a motion by the company to
dismiss the suit.

In August 2005, the company reported the filing of class action
complaints for alleged violations of the federal securities
laws.  These actions are:

     -- "Nilesh Patel v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.," and

     -- "Michael Cascio v. Avon Products, Inc. et al."         

The actions were subsequently consolidated.  A consolidated
amended class action complaint for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws was filed in December 2005 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Master
File Number 05-CV- 06803) under the caption "In re Avon
Products, Inc. Securities Litigation,” naming Avon, an officer
and two officer/directors.

The consolidated action, brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 3, 2004 and Sept. 20, 2005,
seeks damages for alleged false and misleading statements
"concerning Avon's operations and performance in China, the U.S.
. . . and Mexico."

The consolidated amended complaint also asserts that during the
class period certain officers and directors sold shares of the
company's common stock.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint, asserting, among
other things, that it failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, and the plaintiffs have opposed that motion.

The company provided no development in the matter in its Oct.
30, 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 Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Case No. 1:05-cv-06803-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A.  
Kaplan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Brian Philip Murray, Esq.
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892
         E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com

              - and -

         Joel P. Laitman, Esq.
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: (212) 964-0046

Representing the defendants is:

         Peter C. Hein, Esq.
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: (212) 403-2000
         E-mail: PCHein@wlrk.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated class action filed against the company and certain
other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District Court of New York over alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In October 2005, the company reported the filing of class
actions for alleged violations of ERISA in actions entitled:

      -- "John Rogati v. Andrea Jung, et al.;" and

      -- "Carolyn Jane Perry v. Andrea Jung, et al."  

The cases were subsequently consolidated and a consolidated
complaint for alleged violations of ERISA was filed in December
2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York under the caption, “In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA
Litigation, Master File Number 05-CV- 06803,” naming the
company, certain officers, its Retirement Board and others.  

The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
Avon Products, Inc. Personal Savings Account Plan and the Avon
Products, Inc. Personal Retirement Account Plan and on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan "for whose individual
accounts the Plan purchased or held an interest in Avon
Products, Inc. . . . common stock from Feb. 20, 2004 to the
present."  

The consolidated complaint asserts breaches of fiduciary duties
and prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA arising out
of, inter alia, alleged false and misleading public statements
regarding the company's business made during the class period
and investments in company stock by the Plan and Plan
participants.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, asserting that it failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, and the plaintiffs have
opposed that motion.

The company provided no development in the matter in its Oct.
30, 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 Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master  
File Number 05-CV-06803," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joel P. Laitman, Esq.
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: (212) 964-0046

              - and -

         Brian Philip Murray, Esq.
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892
         E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com

Representing the defendants are:  

         Peter C. Hein Wachtell, Esq.
         Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: (212) 403-2000
         E-mail: PCHein@wlrk.com

              - and -

         Melissa C. Rodriguez, Esq.
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         101 Park Avenue, 37th Floor
         New York, NY 10178
         Phone: 212 309-6394
         Fax: 212 309-6273
         E-mail: mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com


BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Snowmobiles for Crash Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (BRP), of Quebec, Canada,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,   
is recalling about 2,700 Ski-Doo Model Year 2008 snowmobiles.

The company said the snowmobiles' fuel tanks can crack allowing
liquid fuel and fuel vapor to leak, posing a fire and burn
hazard to consumers. In addition, a problem with the throttle
cable can lead to loss of speed control, posing a crash hazard.  
No injuries have been reported.

Ski-Doo Model Year 2008 MXZ Adrenaline 800R, MXZ X 800R, MXZ TNT
500SS, MXZ Trail 500SS, Summit Everest 154 800R snowmobiles are
included in this recall. The model name is located on the side
panels. They were sold in black/yellow, yellow, or black/slate.

These recalled snowmobiles were manufactured in Canada, and were
being sold by Ski-Doo dealers nationwide from August 2007
through October 2007 for between $9,700 and $11,200.

Pictures of the recalled snowmobiles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08515a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08515b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08515c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08515d.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these snowmobiles
immediately and contact a local Ski-Doo dealer to schedule a
free repair.

For additional information, contact BRP at (888) 638-5397
between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.ski-doo.com


CANADA: No Class for Noise Suit Against Aeroports de Montreal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Appeals Court denied a request by Montreal residents
to file a class action against Aeroports de Montreal over the
noise caused by airplanes flying over their homes, Anna Bratulic
of the (Canada) Gazette reports.

The suit was filed by Citizens for a Quality of Life, an
association for people complaining against the noise coming from
Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport.  The suit initially included a
large part of the people of the island, about 100,000.  

A Superior Court denied the suit class-action status upon
finding that it would be too complicated to define who the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit should be because not everyone is
affected by noise the same way.

On Sept. 26, the appeals court upheld the ruling.  The group's
lawyer, Louis Beauregard, agreed with the proposal of the
dissenting judge in the Appeals Court decision to limit the
plaintiffs to residents of Pointe Claire, Dorval and the borough
of St. Laurent.


CERADYNE INC: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ceradyne, Inc. faces a purported class action in the California
Superior Court for Orange County in which it is asserted that
the representative plaintiff, a former Ceradyne employee, and
the putative class members, were not paid overtime at an
appropriate overtime rate.

The suit, “Daniel Vargas, Jr. v. Ceradyne, Inc., Orange County
Superior Court, Civil Action No. 07CC01232,” was filed on March
23, 2007.

It alleges that the purportedly affected employees should have
had their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating
overtime, adjusted to reflect the payment of a bonus to them for
the four years preceding the filing of the complaint.

The complaint further alleges that a waiting time penalty should
be assessed for the failure to timely pay the correct overtime
payment.  

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


CREDIT CARD COS: Quebec Court Allows Suit Over Credit Card Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec Superior Judge Clement Gascon has allowed three class
actions to proceed against a dozen financial institutions that
charge what Option Consommateurs calls illegal and abusive
credit card fees, The (Canada) Gazette reports.

The suits were filed by the local consumer group in 2004 and
2006.  They cover anyone who has owned a credit card since 2000
and was charged the fees.  They claim the practices violate the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act.  These practices include:

      -- cash advance fixed fees of $1.50 to $5 per transaction;

      -- over the limit charges from $10 to $35;

      -- raising credit limits without notice; and

      -- 21-one-day grace period for paying off accounts not
         respected.

Defendants in the suit are:

     * Amex Bank of Canada,
     * Canadian Tire Bank,
     * Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
     * President's Choice Bank,
     * Citibank Canada,
     * Laurentian Bank of Canada,
     * MBNA Canada,
     * Bank of Montreal,
     * National Bank of Canada,
     * Bank of Nova Scotia,
     * Royal Bank of Canada,
     * Toronto-Dominion Bank,
     * Federation des Caisses,
     * Desjardins du Quebec

Option Consommateurs is asking reimbursement of those fees and
exemplary damages for each claimant, which the group estimates
at thousands.

The lawyer leading the class actions is:

          Jean Pierre Fafard
          Sylvestre Charbonneau Fafard
          740 Av Atwater
          Montreal, PQ H4C 2G9, Canada
          Phone: (514) 937-2881
          Fax: (514) 937-6529


DELL INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Litigation in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dell, Inc. and several of its current and former directors and
officers face a consolidated securities fraud class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Initially, four putative securities class actions that were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas against Dell and certain of its current and former
officers.  

They have been consolidated as “In re Dell Inc. Securities
Litigation,” and a lead plaintiff has been appointed by the
court.

Judge Sam Sparks of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas named Union Asset Management Holding AG lead
plaintiff in the matter (Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2007).

The lead plaintiff has asserted claims under sections 10(b),
20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based
on alleged false and misleading disclosures or omissions
regarding our financial statements, governmental investigations,
known battery problems, business model, and insiders’ sales of
our securities.

The action also includes the company's independent registered
public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a
defendant.

The consolidated suit is "In re Dell, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00726-SS," filed in the U.S.
District Court of for the Western District of Texas under Judge
Sam Sparks.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James M. Hughes, Esq.
          Lauren S. Antonino, Esq.
          Motley Rice LLC
          P.O. Box 1792, 28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Phone: (843) 216-9000
          Fax: (843) 9410 or (843) 216-9290
          E-mail: jhughes@motleyrice.com
                  lantonino@motleyrice.com


DELL INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dell, Inc. and several of its current and former directors and
officers face a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Initially, four putative class actions that were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District by purported
participants in the Dell Inc. 401(k) Plan have been consolidated
as “In re Dell Inc. ERISA Litigation,” and lead plaintiffs have
been appointed by the court.  

The lead plaintiffs have asserted claims under ERISA based on
allegations that Dell, certain current officers, and certain
current and former directors imprudently invested and managed
participants’ funds and failed to disclose information regarding
the company's stock held in the 401(k) Plan.

The suit is “Lee v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00810-
SS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas under Judge Sam Sparks.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Albert A. Carrion, Jr., Esq.
          Brown, McCarroll LLP
          111 Congress Ave., Suite 1400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 472-5456
          Fax: 512/479-1101
          E-mail: acarrion@mailbmc.com

Representing the defendants is:
    
          Michael L. Davitt, Esq.
          Jones Day
          2727 North Harwood Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 220-3939
          Fax: (214) 969-5100
          E-mail: mldavitt@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Brian Strother Greig, Esq.
          Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.
          600 Congress Ave., Suite 2400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 536-4510
          Fax: 512/536-4598
          E-mail: bgreig@fulbright.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Pails for Lead Paint Standard Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, of Charlotte, N.C., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
142,000 purple Halloween pails with witch decorations.

The company said the green paint on the pails contains excessive
levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves purple Halloween pails with a picture of a
witch figure silhouetted against a green moon. The pail measures
about 6 1/2 inches high. “Distributed by Family Dollar, Inc,”
SKU number 1033953, and UPC number 017845000591 are printed on a
label on the pail. Orange Halloween pails with black jack-o-
lantern decorations are not included in this recall.

These recalled Halloween pails were manufactured in China and
are being sold at Family Dollar stores nationwide from August
2007 through October 2007 for about $1.

Picture of recalled Halloween pails:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08051.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled Halloween
pail away from children and return it to any Family Dollar store
for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Family Dollar at (800) 547-
0359 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.familydollar.com


FLORIDA: County Sued Over $24 Toll for Venetian Causeway Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miami-Dade County is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov.
1 in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and
for Miami-Dade County, Florida claiming it has been charging
residents of Venetian Islands an illegal fee of $24 to use the
Venetian Causeway to get to their homes, despite 80-year-old
deed restrictions prohibiting such tolls.

Accordingly, pursuant to deed restrictions recorded in Miami-
Dade County, Florida, is expressly prohibited from charging a
toll for vehicular travel over the Venetian Causeway to any of
the owners of real property on the Venetian Islands, including
Rivo Alto Island, Di Lido Island, San Marino Island, San Marco
Island, Biscayne Island (the Venetian Islands).

Named plaintiff Barbara C. Leibell brings this action on behalf
of all persons and entities who have owned real property on the
Venetian Islands between Jan. 1, 2005 and the present and who
were charged a toll described as an "administrative fee" of $24
per registered vehicle in order to obtain passage over the
Venetian Causeway.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the County charged plaintiff and the class a
         toll charge for use of the Venetian Causeway;

     (b) whether the County's used of the revenue from the
         "administrative processing fee" that it charged
         plaintiff and the class for operational costs and
         capital improvement projects constitutes a toll that is
         prohibited by recorded deed restrictions; and

     (c) whether the County breached its restrictive covenant
         to plaintiff and members of the class by charging them  
         an "administrative processing fee" to use the Venetian
         Causeway.

Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant as follows:

     -- permanently enjoining the County from charging a toll or
        administrative fee to plaintiff and any members of the
        class;

     -- declaring that the imposition of an administrative fee
        violates the restrictive covenants contained in the
        First Deed and the Second Deed; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court deems
        just and proper.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Bernard L. Egozi
          Egozi & Bennett, P.A.
          2999 NE 191st Street, Suite 407
          Aventura, Florida 33180
          Phone: (305) 931-3000
          Fax: (305) 931-9343

          - and -

          Arthur J. Leibell
          Arthur J. Leibell, P.A.
          330 W. Rivo Alto Drive
          Miami Beach, Florida 33139
          Phone: (305) 632-6669


HAWAII: Circuit Judge Denies Pay Increase to Substitute Teachers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Victoria Marks refused a request by substitute
teachers that their salary be increased as much as that of full-
time employees, Alexandre Da Silva of Honolulu Star-Bulletin
reports.

State law ties wages for substitutes to the pay for "Class II
Teachers," or those with bachelor's degrees.  Those with
bachelor's degrees earn $136.  Those without bachelor's degrees
earn $125 for a seven-hour day; while those with full teacher's
credentials earn $147.

The suit was filed by substitute teachers David Garner of Maui,
David Hudson of the Big Island and Jo Jennifer Goldsmith and
Allan Kliternick of Oahu against the Department of Education.  
Plaintiffs, on behalf of an estimated 4,000 substitute teachers,
demanded the same salary increases awarded to full-time
employees under a new two-year contract.  The full-time teachers
received a 4 percent raise in pay on Aug. 1.

Judge Marks ruled that the Education Department was not required
to give the demanded increase, said attorney Bruce Wakuzawa,
according to the report.

Mr. Wakuzawa said the group of teachers plan to file an appeal
within a month.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Bruce H. Wakuzawa
          Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing
          18th Floor ASB Tower, 1001 Bishop Street
          Honolulu, Hawaii  96813
          (Honolulu Co.)
          Phone: 808-524-1800
          Fax: 808-524-4591
          Web site: http://www.ahfi.com


ILLINOIS: Chicago Police Faces Suit Over Illegal DUI Arrest
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago police officer being investigated for improper arrests
of people suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol is
being sued by a man he arrested last summer, reports say.

John Haleas and the city of Chicago are facing a complaint filed
by Noe Martinez in federal court.  Mr. Martinez claims he was
unlawfully charged with drunken driving by police officer
Haleas.

Police officer Haleas has received multiple awards for DUI
arrests, but he is now prevented from doing so, after the Cook
County State’s Attorney’s Officer revealed the officer failed to
follow proper procedures in April 2005.  The discovery resulted
to the prosecutor's dropping more than 50 DUI arrests he took
part in, according to NBC5.com.

Mr. Martinez, who said he was arrested while sitting on his car
after after leaving 2010 N. Parkside Ave. on June 7, that the
police officer did not follow proper procedures during the
arrest.  Police officer Haleas did not administer a sobriety
test until at the Grand Central District police station, Mr.
Martinez said, and testing was inconclusive.

The complaint alleges that the police officer wrote false
reports and falsely imprisoned Martinez and others like him,
according to Jeff Coen of the Chicago Tribune. The suit seeks
unspecified damages.

Martinez was released but still charged with DUI, the suit said,
according to Mr. Coen.

Mr. Martinez is asking that the city "create and implement new
policies...and require quicker and more effective internal
investigation."

The suit is "Martinez v. Haleas et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-
06112," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Mark Filip.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Brendan Shiller, Esq.
          Law Office of Brendan Shiller, LLC
          4544 N. Broadway
          Suite 325
          Chicago, Illinois 60640
          Phone: 773 907 0940
          E-mail: brendan@shillerlaw.com


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 regardless
of the number of workers 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 did not agree 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.


LCA-VISION: Faces Two Purported Securities Fraud Suits in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
LCA-Vision, Inc. faces two purported securities class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

On Sept. 13, 2007, and Oct. 1, 2007, two complaints were filed
against LCA-Vision and certain of its current and former
directors and officers by Beaver County Retirement Board and
Spencer and Jean Lin, respectively, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a
class of shareholders who purchased LCA-Vision’s stock between
Feb. 12, 2007, and July 30, 2007.

The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that certain
of LCA-Vision’s public disclosures regarding its financial
performance and prospects were false or misleading.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the class
members.

The first identified complaint is “Beaver County Retirement
Board, et al. v. LCA-Vision Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00750,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio under Judge Susan J. Dlott

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Phone: 619.231.1058
          Fax: 619.231.7423

          Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates
          519 Alleghany Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA, 15219
          Phone: 412.391.5164

               - and -

          Strauss & Troy
          The Federal Reserve Building, 150 East Fourth Street           
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513.621.2120
          Fax: 513.241.8250
          E-mail: wlwoods@strauss-troy.com


MINNESOTA: MAC Plans to Extend Noise Suit Settlement to Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) board voted on Oct.
15 to approve a proposed settlement in a noise mitigation
lawsuit brought by the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and
Eagan together with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority.

"The proposed settlement represents a reasonable, financially
responsible plan to address aircraft noise concerns among
residents around Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport,"
MAC Chairman Jack Lanners said. "If approved by city leaders and
Hennepin County District Court, the agreement will bring noise
relief to thousands of area residents and closure to an issue
that has generated years of public policy debate."

The Metropolitan Airports Commission has long been a national
leader in airport noise mitigation. I n the past 15 years, the
MAC has spent more than $360 million insulating or acquiring
homes, multi-family dwellings and schools in the 65 DNL noise
contour and greater. (DNL means Day-night Level, the federal
metric used to measure noise around airports).

The Federal Aviation Administration defines areas in the 65 DNL
and greater as being significantly impacted by airport noise.
The cities' lawsuit -- and a separate class action brought by
residents around the airport -- stemmed from disagreements over
the amount of mitigation appropriate in the 60 to 64 DNL
contours, which are outside the federal standard for noise
mitigation.

"Our goal is to provide a mitigation program commensurate with
noise impacts," Mr. Lanners said. "Homes in less-impacted noise
contours do not need as extensive a mitigation program to
achieve appropriate interior noise reduction. The proposed
settlement takes into account the amount of mitigation needed in
particular areas and ensures every dollar provided goes toward
purchase and installation of noise-reducing improvements."
The Proposed Agreement

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the MAC would provide
mitigation to homes in the 60 to 64 DNL contours. Mitigation
activities would vary based on noise contour, with homes in the
most noise-impacted contours eligible for more extensive
mitigation than those in less impacted areas. Multi-family
dwellings (those with more than three living units) would
receive less extensive mitigation than single-family homes. The
total cost to MAC is uncertain until the program is complete,
but it is estimated the proposal could cost as much as $130
million to implement.

Four separate residential noise mitigation programs are included
in the agreement. Costs depicted in each of the four programs
are in 2007 dollars and will be adjusted annually for inflation
according to the Consumer Price Index:

(a) Single-family Homes in the Projected 2007 Mitigated 63-64  
    DNL Noise Contours

The approximately 432 homes in the most noise-impacted contours
would be eligible to receive the same level of noise mitigation
provided in the 65 DNL contour and greater. The program is
designed to achieve five decibels of noise reduction on average.
Depending on the improvements needed to reduce interior noise
sufficiently, modifications could include: central air
conditioning; exterior and storm window repair or replacement;
prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic
insulation; baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment.
Construction would be scheduled for completion by December 31,
2009.

(b) Single-family Homes in the Projected 2007 Mitigated 60-62
    Noise Contours

Owners of the approximately 5,344 homes in less noise-impacted
areas would be eligible for one of two mitigation packages:

     1.) The estimated 3,421 homes that did not have central air
         conditioning as of September 1, 2007 could receive it.

         In addition, homeowners would get up to $4,000
         (including installation costs) in other noise
         mitigation products and services they could choose from
         a menu provided by the MAC.

    2.) Owners of homes that already had central air
        conditioning installed as of September 1, 2007 or who
        choose not to receive central air conditioning would be
        eligible for up to $14,000 (including installation
        costs) of noise mitigation products and services they
        could choose from a menu provided by the MAC.

        Categories of products on the menu will include:

        (i) exterior and storm window repair or replacement;

       (ii) prime door and storm door repair or replacement;

      (iii) wall and attic insulation;

       (iv) baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment.

Construction is scheduled for completion by December 1, 2012.

(c) Multi-family homes in the projected 2007 mitigated 60-64 DNL
    Contours

Any of the approximately 1,931 multi-family units in the
projected 2007 mitigated 60-64 DNL contours that do not have air
conditioning would receive through-the-wall or equivalent
permanently installed air conditioners. The MAC also will
install an acoustical cover for each air conditioner in the
multi-family units. Installation is scheduled to be complete by
December 1, 2010.

(d) $7 Million Total for Opt-Out and 2005 Mitigated Single-
family Homes

Single-family homes whose owners opted out of the already
completed MAC noise-mitigation program but that now have new
owners would be eligible to "opt in" and receive noise
mitigation. If the total cost to MAC of opt-in mitigation is
less than $7 million, any remaining monies would be used to
reimburse owners of the approximately 1,835 single-family homes
in the 2005 Mitigated 60-64 DNL contours for purchase and
installation of products included on a menu provided by the MAC.

The amount each homeowner receives will be determined by
subtracting dollars spent for the opt-in program from the total
$7 million budget and dividing the remainder among the total
number of single-family homes within the 2005 60-64 DNL
contours. The MAC would begin to issue reimbursements by March
1, 2010 and would complete them by July 31, 2014. The total the
MAC will spend on the opt-out and 2005 program all together is
capped at $7 million.

The MAC would also pay the cities $2.5 million in attorney's
fees.

Owners of single-family homes participating in the program who
sell the home within two years of receiving mitigation could be
required to reimburse the MAC for twenty-five percent of the
cost of providing the mitigation, up to a maximum of $3,500 per
home.

"The whole point of the noise mitigation program is to reduce
the impacts of aircraft noise on people living near the
airport," Lanners said. "We want to discourage profiteering by
individuals who might otherwise purchase homes in the area
simply to receive the MAC improvements, only to turn around and
sell the properties shortly afterwards for a profit."

People can identify where their home sits in relation to the
2007 noise contours through the MAC's noise program Web site,
http://www.macnoise.com/maps.

City councils in Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan are expected
to act on the proposed settlement tomorrow. The Minneapolis
Public Housing Authority also is evaluating the proposed
agreement.

      Possible Impacts on the Separate, Class Action

In June, the MAC announced a proposed agreement with
representatives of more than 4,400 homeowners in a separate
class action lawsuit. The settlement proposal reached between
the MAC and citizens' representatives would provide nearly $65
million in noise mitigation for members of the class.

That proposed settlement would benefit owners of approximately
4,413 single-family homes located within the 60 to 64 DNL
Mitigated 2007 noise contours. Unlike the proposed settlement in
the cities' case, which would provide benefits to all homes in
any blocks touched by the noise contour line, the class action
settlement includes only properties that themselves lie within
the contour; properties that are on the same block but lie
outside the contour would not be eligible.

Under the proposed class action settlement announced in June
owners of homes currently without central air conditioning would
receive it - including ducting and finishing work -- free of
charge. In addition, they would receive a $1,750 value for
purchase and installation of noise mitigation products or cash
reimbursement for eligible improvements made within the past
five years. Up to $750 of that amount could be applied to the
attorneys' fees of the citizens in the class action suit if
approved by the court.

The proposed class action settlement also provides that those
homes that with existing central air conditioning would receive
$9,250 for the purchase and installation of noise mitigation
products or cash reimbursement for eligible improvements made
within the past five years. Again, up to $750 of that amount may
be applied to the attorneys' fees of the citizens in the class
action suit if approved by the court.

Lawyers in the class action suit have waited to seek the judge's
approval of that settlement agreement in order to assess the
outcome of talks between the MAC and the cities involved in the
cities' lawsuit.

If the cities, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and the
judge all approve the settlement proffered by the MAC board
today in the cities' lawsuit, the MAC will propose that
representatives and members in the class action suit also accept
those terms.

If the judge does not agree to apply the terms of the cities'
settlement to the class settlement within 90 days of accepting
the agreement in the cities' case, the settlement in the cities'
case becomes void and the cities' lawsuit is reinstated.

The Federal Aviation Administration also must advise the MAC
that the settlement agreement with the cities is an appropriate
use of airport revenue and consistent with federal grant
obligations by November 30, 2007, or the agreement is null and
void.

"Our goal is to achieve a single settlement of both suits,"
Lanners said. "The result will be a consistent, reasonable,
financially responsible approach to noise mitigation around
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport."

For more information, contact

          Patrick Hogan
          The Metropolitan Airports Commission
          Phone: 612-726-5335


MOTIVE INC: Agrees to Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $7M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motive, Inc., a provider of management software for broadband
and mobile data services, has reached an agreement in principle
to settle the securities class action litigation pending in U.S.
District Court in the Western District of Texas.

Additionally, the company has reached an agreement in principle
to settle the shareholder derivative litigation pending in the
same court (“Adair v. Harmon, et al.”).

With regard to the class action, the agreement in principle
provides that all claims against the company and individuals
named as defendants will be dismissed without presumption or
admission of any liability or wrongdoing. Pursuant to the terms
of settlement, Motive will pay to the plaintiff class a total of
$7 million. The payment will be comprised of $4.5 million from
insurance proceeds and $2.5 million from Motive. Additionally
2.5 million shares of the company's stock will be issued by
Motive for the benefit of the plaintiff class.

In the shareholder derivative litigation, the agreement in
principle provides that the company will adopt certain
governance provisions. All claims against the defendants will be
dismissed without presumption or admission of any liability or
wrongdoing. Additionally, the company will pay plaintiffs'
attorneys fees of $100,000 plus costs.

In connection with these agreements in principle, the company
will take a charge of approximately $8 million for litigation
and related expenses to the September 30, 2007 results. As such,
the agreement in principle to settle will be reflected in the
Company's unaudited third quarter results to be filed on Form 8K
on November 7, 2007.

"The settlement of these cases is an extremely important
milestone in resolving the challenges faced by the company over
the past several years and moving forward with our strategies
for building the value of this business," said Alfred Mockett,
Motive's chairman and chief executive officer. "We are extremely
pleased to have reached these agreements in principle."

The agreements in principle to settle these actions are
conditioned upon the negotiation and execution of appropriate
settlement documents between the parties, approval by the court
and other factors. There is no assurance that the settlements
will be completed. If the settlements are not completed, then
the parties may attempt to reach agreement on other settlement
terms or resume the litigation.

For more information, contact:

          Mike Fitzpatrick
          Motive, Inc.
          Phone: 512-531-1044 W or 512-657-7782 M
          E-mail: Mike.Fitzpatrick@motive.com

       - or -

          Al Bellenchia
          The Torrenzano Group
          Phone: 212-681-1700 W or 917-670-6665 M
          E-mail: abellenchia@torrenzano.com


PFIZER INC: Pa. Court Certifies Class in Neurontin-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
granted class-action status to the lawsuit, “Clark v. Pfizer No.
1819 June Term 2004.”

Plaintiffs claim that they fraudulently promoted Neurontin's use
to treat conditions not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.  They claim that there was, and is, no
scientifically adequate proof that Neurontin or gabapentin can
effectively treat these unapproved conditions.

Named as defendants in the matter are Warner-Lambert, LLC and
Pfizer, Inc.  

The suit seeks a refund of all money paid by those who purchased
Neurontin or gabapentin for these unapproved uses.

In granting class-action status to the case, the court certified  
as class members all persons who purchased Neurontin, or its
generic equivalent, gabapentin, in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania from 1995 to the present, for personal, family, or
household purposes for the treatment of conditions other than:

       -- Adjunctive treatment of partial seizures associated
          with epilepsy, or

       -- The management of post-herpetic neuralgia (nerve pain
          associated with “shingles”).

The certified class only includes people who were Pennsylvania
residents as of Nov. 1, 2007.

For more details, contact:

          Sacks & Weston
          Pennsylvania Neurontin Class Action
          114 Old York Road
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: 215-925-8200
          Web site: http://www.paneurontinclassaction.com/


QWEST COMMS: Still Faces Colo. Suit Over Insurance Benefit Cut
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. continues to face a
purported class action, "Kerber et al. v. Qwest Group Life
Insurance Plan et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00644-WDM-CBS."

The putative class action was purportedly filed on behalf of
certain of the company retirees in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado in connection with the company's
decision to reduce life insurance benefits for these retirees to
a flat $10,000 benefit.

The action was filed on March 30, 2007.  The plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that the company and other defendants were
obligated to continue their life insurance benefits at the
levels in place before the company decided to reduce them.

Plaintiffs seek restoration of life insurance benefits to
previous levels and certain equitable relief.

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

The suit is "Kerber et al. v. Qwest Group Life Insurance Plan et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00644-WDM-CBS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Walker D. Miller
with referral to Judge Craig B. Shaffer.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Curtis L. Kennedy, Esq.
         Curtis L. Kennedy Law Office
         8405 East Princeton Avenue
         Denver, CO 80237-1741
         Phone: 303-770-0440
         Fax: 303-834-0360
         E-mail: CurtisLKennedy@aol.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael Brian Carroll, Esq.
         Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.
         633 Seventeenth Street #3000
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-299-8474
         Fax: 303-298-0940
         E-mail: mcarroll@sah.com

    
QWEST COMMS: Continues to Face Multiple Rights-of-Way Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. still faces several
putative class actions in state and federal courts in relation
to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-
way.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
the company on behalf of landowners on various dates and in
various courts in California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon,
South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

For the most part, the complaints challenge the company's right
to install our fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.  

Complaints in Colorado, Illinois and Texas, also challenge the
company's right to install fiber optic cable in utility and
pipeline rights-of-way.

The complaints allege that the railroads, utilities and pipeline
companies own the right-of-way as an easement that did not
include the right to permit the company to install its fiber
optic cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs’ consent.

Most actions (California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas,
Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and
Texas) purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in
the named plaintiffs’ respective states.

The Massachusetts action purports to be on behalf of state-wide
classes in all states (other than Louisiana and Tennessee) in
which Qwest has fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way, and
also on behalf of two classes of landowners whose properties
adjoin railroad rights-of-way originally derived from federal
land grants.

Several actions purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state
classes.

The Illinois state court action purports to be on behalf of
landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin.

The Illinois federal court action purports to be on behalf of
landowners in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana and Oregon.

The Indiana action purports to be on behalf of a national class
of landowners adjacent to railroad rights-of-way over which our
network passes.

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust
enrichment, as well as punitive damages.

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

Denver, Colorado-based Qwest Communications International, Inc.
-- http://www.qwest.com/-- is a provider of voice, data and   
video services.  The Company operates most of its business
within its local service area, which consists of the 14-state
region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming. The Company operates through three
segments: wireline services, wireless services and other
services.


REABLE THERAPEUTICS: Still Faces Tex. Suit Over Blackstone Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
ReAble Therapeutics, Inc. (RTI) and its directors continue to
face a purported class action in Texas over the acquisition of
all of its outstanding shares of capital stock by Blackstone
Capital Partners V L.P.

The suits are:

      -- "Louis Dudas et al. v. Encore Medical Corporation et
         al.," filed on July 7, 2006 in the District Court of
         Travis County, Texas, 345th Judicial District; and

      -- "Robert Kemp et al. v. Alastair J. Clemow et al.," was
         filed on July 18, 2006 in the Court of Chancery of the
         State of Delaware, New Castle County.  

Blackstone, Grand Slam Holdings, LLC, and Grand Slam Acquisition
Corp. are also named as defendants in the Delaware action.

The Delaware Action was dismissed in February 2007 with no
liability accruing to RTI or the other defendants.

The Texas Action is still in preliminary stages and we cannot
presently predict the outcome of the lawsuit, although we
believe it is without merit.

The Texas Action complaint alleges that RTI’s directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, inter alias, agreeing to an allegedly
inadequate acquisition price in connection with the Merger.

The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind any actions
that have already been taken to consummate the Merger,
rescissory damages and the plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and
attorneys’ fees and expert fees.

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

ReAble Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.encoremed.com--  
formerly Encore Medical Corp.) hopes that recovering customers
will re-up for its reconstructive products.  The company makes
traction systems, electrotherapyand iontophoresis products,
continuous passive motion devices, and other items used in
orthopedic rehabilitation.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Lawsuit Over Kenmore Dryers Granted Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harry Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted certification to a lawsuit
filed against Sears, Roebuck and Co. over its Kenmore-brand
clothes dryers, Bloomberg News reports.

Bristol, Tenn., resident Steven Thorogood, filed the suit on
April 7, 2006 accusing Sears of falsely claiming 50 different
models of its Kenmore-brand clothes dryers had stainless-steel
drums.

The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages.

Judge Leinenweber, recently, certified the class action, which
includes people who bought the suspect dryers in 28 states plus
the District of Columbia during the five years after March 2001.

"The case comes down to whether or not Sears improperly
represented that the dryer drum was stainless steel when it was
a combination of stainless steel and corrodible mild steel,"
Judge Leinenweber wrote in his decision.

The suit is “Thorogood v. Sears Roebuck And Co., Case Number:
1:2006cv01999,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, under the Honorable Harry D.
Leinenweber.


TOYS R US: Recalls Elite Ops Toys for Lead Paint Standard Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toys “R” Us Inc., of Wayne, N.J., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 16,000
Elite Operations toys.

The company said the surface coatings on the toys contain
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.  No injuries were reported.

The recall involves four military-style Elite Operations toys,
including Super Rigs (#1004), Command Patrol Center (#1020),
Barracuda Helicopter (#1023), and 3 Pack 8-inch Figures (#1024).
The product number is located on the toy's packaging.

These recalled toys were manufactured by Toy World Group
Ltd/Chun Tat Toys Factory Limited, of Guangdong, China, and are
being sold at Toys “R” Us stores nationwide and toysrus.com from
July 2007 through October 2007 for between $10 and $30. No other
Elite Operations brand military play sets are included in this
recall.

Picture of recalled elite operations toys:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08057d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08057c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08057a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08057b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the toy away from
children, and return them to any Toys “R” Us for a full refund
or store credit.

For additional information, contact Toys “R” Us at (800) 869-
7787 between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. ET Monday through Saturday, and
between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Sunday, or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.toysrus.com


YKK CORP: Harris Mfg. Files Penna. Lawsuit Over Zipper Cartel
-------------------------------------------------------------
YKK Corp. and its subsidiaries are facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania claiming it leads an illegal zipper
cartel that fixes prices and restricts competition, the
Courthouse News Service reports.

Also named defendants in the suit are:

     -- YKK Corp. of America,
     -- YKK Snap Fasteners America, Inc.,
     -- William Prym Gmbh and Co.,
     -- KG, Prym Fashion Inc., and
     -- Prym Consumer USA, Inc.

This action arises from an alleged worldwide conspiracy by
defendants to fix prices and allocate customers for fasteners
and attaching machines.

Named plaintiff Harris Manufacturing Co. claims the European
Commission fined YKK and its co-conspirators $458 million on
Sept. 19 for their illegal, worldwide zipper cartel in the
"fasteners and attaching machines market."

The Commission identified four separate cartels in which the
conspirators "agreed on coordinated price increases, fixed
minimum prices, allocated customers, shared markets and
exchanged other commercially important and confidential
information."

Because of defendants' and their co-conspirators' unlawful
conduct, plaintiffs and other class members paid artificially
inflated prices for fasteners and as a result have suffered
antitrust injury to their business or property.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or
entities in the United States who purchased fasteners directly
from defendants during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to Dec. 31,
2003.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contact, combination or conspiracy to fix, raise,
         maintain or stabilize prices or allocate customers for  
         fasteners;

     (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section 1 of
         the Sherman Act;

     (d) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this
         complaint and the nature and character of the acts
         performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in
         furtherance of the conspiracy;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused
         injury to the business or property of plaintiff and
         other members of the class;

     (f) the effect of the conspiracy on prices for fasteners
         sold to purchasers in the United States during the
         class period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by  
         plaintiff and other members of the class.

Plaintiff prays that:

     -- the court determine that this action may be maintained
        as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
        Procedures 23 and adjudge plaintiff to be an adequate
        representative thereof;

    -- the unlawful combination, contract, or conspiracy as
       alleged in the complaint be adjucated and decreed a per
       se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
       Section 1;

    -- plaintiff and the class recover damages against
       defendants and their co-conspirators, jointly and
       severally, in an amount to be trebled in accordance with
       the antitrust laws pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 15(a);

    -- defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees,  
       assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents
       and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or
       claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined
       and restrained from, in any manner;

       (1) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract,
           combination or conspiracy alleged herein, or from
           engaging in any other contract, combination or
           conspiracy having a similar purposed or effect, and
           from adopting or following any practice, plan,
           program or device having a similar purpose or effect;
           and

       (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
           other person engaged in the manufacture, distribution
           or sale of fasteners, information concerning prices,
           customers, markets or other terms or conditions of
           sale of any such product except to the extent
           necessary in connection with a bona fide sales
           transactions between the parties to such
           communications;

     -- plaintiff and the class be awarded their expenses and
        costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to
        the extent provided by law;

     -- plaintiff and the class be awarded pre-jdugment and
        post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate to the
        extent provided by law; and

     -- plaintiff and the class be awarded such additional  
        relief as the court may deem proper.

The suit is "Harris Manufacturing Company, Inc. et al. v. YKK
Corp. et al., Case No. 07 4602," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Joseph C. Kohn
          Douglas E. Hoese
          William E. Hoese
          Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: (215) 238-1700

          Warren Rubin
          Tina Moukoulis
          Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          The Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450
          100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: (215) 561-3600

          - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel
          Randall B. Weill
          Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Phone: (207) 791-3000


ZURN-PEX INC: Plumbing Parts Co. Sued Over Faulty Tubing Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas-based Zurn-Pex Inc., and Zurn Industries, Inc. are facing
a lawsuit, seeking class-action status, over alleged sale of  
defective tubing systems that have led to water leaks in his
house and others, The Associated Press reports.

Named plaintiffs Brian Johnston and Beverly Barnes claims the
company's brass crimp fittings are poorly designed and
manufactured and have failed only months after installation.

The water leaks have caused extensive damage and have led to
mold and other health problems, the complaint said.

The complaint accuses the company of consumer fraud, false
advertising, negligence, failure to warn, deceit,
misrepresentation and breach of warranty.

Officials from Zurn Industries could not be reached for comment,
the report said.

Zurn-Pex Inc. -- http://www.zurnpex.com-- has long been a  
forerunner in providing cutting edge technology for your
plumbing and heating needs. It manufactures and distributes one
of the largest plumbing products packages in the world.

Zurn includes: the Specification Drainage Operation, AquaFlush
flush valves, AquaSense sensor-operated plumbing products,
AquaSpec commercial faucets, Wilkins, Zurn Light Commercial,
Flo-Thru, the Chemical Drainage Systems, Zurn PEX Plumbing
Systems and Zurn Radiant Heat.


XM SATELLITE: Trial Court Told to Rule on Arbitration Objections
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit ruled
that the trial court must decide on objections to the
arbitration in the matter, “Matthew Enderlin v. XM Satellite
Radio Holdings Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Inc.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas on Jan. 10, 2006 on behalf of a purported
nationwide class of all XM subscribers.  

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in a deceptive
trade practice under Arkansas and other state laws by
representing that its music channels are commercial-free.  

The Company has filed an answer to the complaint and instituted
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association pursuant
to the compulsory arbitration clause in its customer service
agreement.  

The arbitration has been stayed pending judicial determination
of Mr. Enderlin’s objections to the arbitration.   

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held on April
17, 2007 that those objections are to be decided by the trial
court, not the arbitrator.

The company reported no development in the case at 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 "Enderlin v. XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., Case
No. 4:06-cv-00032-GTE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge G. Thomas Eisele.

Representing plaintiffs are:  

      James Allen Carney, Jr., Esq.
      Steven Eugene Cauley, Esq.
      Tiffany M. Wyatt Oldham
      Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, LLP
      Post Office Box 25438
      Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
      Phone: (501) 312-8500
      E-mail: acarney@cauleybowman.com
              toldham@cauleybowman.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


WELLCARE HEALTH: Coughlin Stoia Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of an
expanded Class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who purchased of the common stock of WellCare Health Plans, Inc.
between November 4, 2004 and October 25, 2007, inclusive ,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint charges Wellcare and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Exchange Act. WellCare provides
managed care services exclusively for government-sponsored
healthcare programs, focusing on Medicaid and Medicare in the
United States.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants
issued numerous statements regarding the Company and its future
prospects. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to
disclose that the Company was operating its business in a
potentially illegal and improper manner in violation of
applicable federal guidelines and regulations, while it
depended, in large part, upon the federal government for payment
and other state governments for its reserves.

On October 24, 2007, the Company issued a press release
announcing that its Tampa headquarters were raided. According to
many news outlets, it was reported that about 200 federal and
Florida state agents seized computers and files from corporate,
marketing and human resources offices. In response to this
announcement, shares of the Company's common stock fell $7.10
per share, or 6%, to close at $115.17 per share, on heavy
trading volume.

Over the next day, shares continued to fall. Then, on October
26, 2007, the Company disclosed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") had requested information from WellCare. On
October 30, 2007, the Associated Press reported that the Florida
Agency for Health Care Administration health agency will halt
WellCare's plans to expand into new counties while the federal
government investigates the Company. In response to these
announcements, on October 30, 2007, shares of the Company's
stock fell an additional $6.58 per share, or 23%, to close at
$22.04 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Wellcare common stock during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 26,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


                           *********


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  * * *