CAR_Public/071108.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, November 8, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 222

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE CORP: Settles Suit Over Medical Bill Review Processes
ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Total Loss Valuation
ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery Ongoing in MUWA Members' Litigation
ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Hurricane Katrina Claims
ALLSTATE CORP: Motion to Certify Damage Valuation Suit Pending

ALLSTATE CORP: Court Grants Motions in EEOC I, Romero I Cases
ALLSTATE CORP: Deadline Set for Motions in Ex-Employees' Lawsuit
ALLSTATE CORP: Court Dismisses Suit by Former Employee Agents
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of “Huntley”
BRISTOL-MYERS: Plaintiffs Withdraw N.J. Lawsuit Over PLAVIX

BRISTOL-MYERS: Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Securities Suit
BUMBO LTD: Accused of Selling Dangerous Baby Seats in Cal. Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Workers File Suit Over Work Practices in Cal.
CONNECTICUT ELECTRIC: Recalls Counterfeit Circuit Breakers
DECOPAC INC: Recalls Football Bobble Head Cake Decorations

EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Continues to Face Sorbates Antitrust Lawsuits
E.I. DU PONT: Program to Mitigate PFOA Effects Continuing
E.I. DUPONT: Canada Teflon Suit Status Ruling Expected in 2008
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Rulings in W.H. Sammis Plant Suit Under Appeal
HERCULES OFFSHORE: Suit Over TODCO Purchase Consolidated in Tex.

IDACORP INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss Appeal in Idaho Securities Suit
IRWIN MORTGAGE: RESPA Suit Plaintiffs Challenge Decertification
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued in Penna. for Denying Underinsured Claims
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Several ACR Copper Tubes Suit
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Tenn. Court Junks Copper Tube Antitrust Suit

NEBRASKA: To Face Suit Over “Discriminatory” Insurance Plans
PENNSYLVANIA: Sued for Ending Aid to Mental Patients in Homes
ROYAL AHOLD: Settlement Fund to U.S. Investors Set for Release
SIMLYFUN LLC: Recalls Board Games on Pawns' High Lead Level
TARGET: Recalls Home Patio Sets After Fall Injury Reports


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

E-TRADE FINANCIAL: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Fraud Suit
OFFICE DEPOT: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.


                          *********


ALLSTATE CORP: Settles Suit Over Medical Bill Review Processes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. reached a settlement in one of several
purported class actions filed against it with regards to its
medical bill review processes.

Initially, a number of state and nationwide class actions  were
filed in various state courts challenging the legal propriety of
Allstate Corp.'s medical bill review processes on a number of
grounds, including, among other things, the manner in which
Allstate determines reasonableness and necessity.

These lawsuits, which to a large degree mirror similar lawsuits
filed against other carriers in the industry, allege these
processes result in a breach of the insurance policy and, in
some cases, the plaintiffs also allege fraud.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in the form of contractual and
extra-contractual damages.  The Company denies these
allegations.

One nationwide class action and one statewide class action have
been certified.

A settlement of the statewide class action for an amount that is
not material has been preliminarily approved by the court,
according to the company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business.  It conducts its business primarily in the United
States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Total Loss Valuation
---------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. faces a purported class actions with regards
to the valuation of total loss automobiles, according to the
company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007

A nationwide putative class action was filed against Allstate ,
which is challenging its use of a vendor’s automated database in
valuing total loss automobiles.

To a large degree, this lawsuit mirrors similar lawsuits filed
against other carriers in the industry.  

Plaintiffs allege that flaws in the database result in
valuations to the detriment of insureds.  They are seeking
actual and punitive damages.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business.  It conducts its business primarily in the United
States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery Ongoing in MUWA Members' Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against
Mississippi Windstorm Underwriters Association (MWUA) board
members and an Allstate Corp. subsidiary.

The suit was filed by some members of MWUA against the MWUA
board members and the companies they represent, including an
Allstate subsidiary, alleging that the Board purchased
insufficient reinsurance to protect the MWUA members.

It is one of several cases that the company is defending in the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business.  It conducts its business primarily in the United
States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Hurricane Katrina Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to face a consolidated class action
in Louisiana that is challenging the adjustment and settlement
of Hurricane Katrina claims, according to the company's Oct. 31,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007

In a putative class action in Louisiana, a trial court had ruled
that Allstate’s and other insurers’ flood, water and negligent
construction exclusions do not apply to man-made floods (i.e.,
floods caused by human negligence), and do not apply to flooding
in the New Orleans area to the extent it was caused by human
negligence in the design, construction and/or maintenance of the
levees.

Allstate and other insurers pursued an interlocutory appeal and
in June 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the trial court's ruling.

The matter has been remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings, which have been consolidated along with other
putative class and individual actions brought against the
Company and other insurers, challenging the adjustment and
settlement of Hurricane Katrina claims.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business.  It conducts its business primarily in the United
States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Motion to Certify Damage Valuation Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. faces a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana which
challenges the Company's estimation and adjustment of Hurricane
Katrina and Rita property damage claims in the State of
Louisiana.

The Company's motion to strike the class allegations was denied
and the parties are proceeding with discovery. Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is pending, according to the
company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007

The suit seeks a variety of remedies, including actual and/or
punitive damages in unspecified amounts and/or declaratory
relief.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business.  It conducts its business primarily in the United
States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Court Grants Motions in EEOC I, Romero I Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
The court handling a consolidated class action with regards to
Allstate Corp.'s agency program reorganization in 1999 granted
the company’s motions for summary judgment in the matter.

The reorganization-related matters include:

     -- a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the U.S. Equal
        Employment Opportunity Commission alleging retaliation
        under federal civil rights laws (the EEOC I suit); and

     -- a class action filed in August 2001 by former employee
        agents, alleging retaliation and age discrimination
        under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),
        breach of contract and ERISA violations (the Romero I
        suit).  

In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the
trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other
things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class
of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting
the court’s declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at
the option of the release signer.

The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must
return to Allstate “any and all benefits received by the [agent]
in exchange for signing the release.”  

It also stated that, “on the undisputed facts of record, there
is no basis for claims of age discrimination.”  

The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or
reconsider its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the
judge denied their request.

In June 2007, the court granted the Company’s motions for
summary judgment.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business.  It conducts its business primarily in the United
States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Deadline Set for Motions in Ex-Employees' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A December 2007 deadline is set for filing dispositive motions
for a certified class action against The Allstate Corp. that was
filed by former employee agents who terminated their employment
prior to the 1999 agency program reorganization.

These plaintiffs have asserted breach of contract and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims.

The court approved the form of class notice in October 2007 and
set a December 2007 deadline for filing dispositive motions.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business.  It conducts its business primarily in the United
States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Court Dismisses Suit by Former Employee Agents
-------------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted Allstate Corp.'s motion to dismiss a
putative nationwide class action that was filed by former
employee agents alleging various violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, including a worker
classification issue.

These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the
Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent
independent contractors treated as employees for benefit
purposes.

This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was
the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed
and remanded to the trial court in 2005.

In June 2007, the court granted Allstate’s motion to dismiss the
case, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business.  It conducts its business primarily in the United
States.


ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of “Huntley”
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the purported class action, “Huntley v. Allstate
Indemnity Company, Case No. 2:05-cv-06887-LMA-DEK.”

An Orleans Parish, Louisiana resident initiated the purported
federal class action against the Allstate Indemnity Company over
its insurance coverage in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006).

Doris L. Huntley filed the suit on behalf of all insured
property owners in Louisiana, who suffered a "total loss," at
least partially from wind damage, as a result of the hurricanes.

The suit alleges that although the covered property is a "total
loss," the Company failed to timely adjust/ appraise its
insureds' losses, including failing to pay face value of the  
policy.

The suit was based on Louisiana's "Valued Policy Law," La. R.S.
22:695(a).  That statute requires insurers to pay the entire
amount of loss on any insured structures, as long as any portion
of the loss resulted from a covered peril.   

Specifically, the statute provides that "if the insurer places a
valuation upon covered property and uses such valuation for
purposes of determining the premium charge to be made under the
policy, in case of total loss the insurer shall compute and
indemnify or compensate any covered loss of, or damage to, such
property which occurs during the term of the policy at such
valuation without deduction or offset, unless a different method
is to be used in the computation of loss, in which latter case,
the policy, and any application therefore, shall set forth in
type of equal size, the actual method of such computation by the
insurer."   

In other words, the insurer must pay the policy limits for a
"total loss" unless a different method of computation was
clearly set forth in the application and policy.  The suit
relies on this statute for recovery of the full value of loss.   

The trial court, later dismissed the putative class action
brought against Allstate and other insurers, holding that the
law did not apply where the cause of the policyholder’s total
loss was due in part to a non-covered peril, such as flood.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the
trial court's dismissal of the case, according to Allstate
Corp.'s Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007

To view the case visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?47f.

The suit is styled, "Huntley v. Allstate Indemnity Company, Case
No. 2:05-cv-06887-LMA-DEK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, under Judge Lance M. Africk
with referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Andre Phillip LaPlace, Esq.
          Law Offices of Andre P. LaPlace
          2762 Continental Dr., Suite 103
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808-3240
          Phone: 225-924-6898
          E-mail: alaw@andrelaplace.com

               - and -

          Gregory Michael Porobil, Esq.
          Gregory Porobil, Attorney at Law
          3300 Bienville St.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Phone: (504) 822-3600
          E-mail: greg1excell@bellsouth.net


BRISTOL-MYERS: Plaintiffs Withdraw N.J. Lawsuit Over PLAVIX
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported consumer fraud class action against
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. with regards to its PLAVIX drug have
voluntarily dismissed their case without prejudice.

On Nov. 3, 2006, defendants were served with a purported class
action complaint, subsequently amended to include various Sanofi
entities, and captioned, “Skilstaf, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co., et al., Case No. 3:06 CV 04965.”

The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the safety
and effectiveness of PLAVIX, both alone and in combination with
aspirin, and that third-party payors were misled, causing them
to pay more for PLAVIX prescriptions for their insureds,
compared to lower cost alternatives.  

Plaintiffs assert, among other things, violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages.  

On Oct. 23, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal with the Court, and the complaint has been voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

The suit is "Skilstaf, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-04965-FLW-TJB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L.
Wolfson with referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Michele Anne Dimartino, Esq.
          Miller & Associates
          555 East City Avenue, Suite 910
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: (610) 660-0622
          E-mail: mdimartino@doctoratlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

          Michael A. Tanenbaum, Esq.
          Sedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold, Esqs.
          One Gateway Center, Eleventh Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 242-0002
          E-mail: michael.tanenbaum@sdma.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities fraud class
action against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. has filed an amended
complaint with the U.S. District for the Southern District of
New York.

In June and July 2007, putative class-action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York
against the Company’s former chief executive, Peter Dolan and
current chief financial officer, Andrew Bonfield:

     -- “Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Assoc. v. Bristol-
        Myers Squibb Co., et al., 07 CV 5867 (Judge Crotty),”  
        and

     -- “Jean Lai v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., 07
        CIV 6259”

The complaints allege violations of securities laws for
allegedly failing to disclose material information relating to
efforts to settle the PLAVIX patent infringement litigation with
Apotex.

On Sept. 20, 2007, the Court dismissed the Lai case without
prejudice, changed the caption of the case to “In re Bristol-
Myers Squibb, Co. Securities Litigation,” and appointed Ontario
Teachers’ Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff.

On Oct. 15, 2007, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board filed an
amended complaint making similar allegations as the earlier
filed complaints, but no longer naming Andrew Bonfield as a
defendant.

The suit is “In re Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-5867,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Paul A.
Crotty.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212.687.1980
          Fax: 212.687.7714
          E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com

          Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P.
          Suite 301, 660 Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast
          Washington, DC, 20003-4335
          Phone: 202.544.9840
          Fax: 202.544.9850

               - and -

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925.945.0200
          Fax: 925.945.8792
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


BUMBO LTD: Accused of Selling Dangerous Baby Seats in Cal. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bumbo Ltd. and Target Corp. are facing a class-action complaint
filed Nov. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California accusing it of making and selling
defective baby seats that injure babies, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This consumer class action arises from defendants' deceptive and
unlawful conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing,
distribution and selling the defectively designed Bumbo Baby
Sitter.

Specifically, named plaintiff Wendy D. Whitson, brings this
action on behalf of all consumers who purchased defendants'
defective Bumbo Baby Sitter. The suit claims that as a result of
defendants' defectively designed product, these Bumbo Baby
Sitters failed to perform as intended and warranted during
normal usage, rendering the Bumbo Baby Sitter dangerous to use,
and violating state consumer protection statutes, breaching
express and implied warranties that accompanied the Bumbo Baby
Sitter, and causing plaintiff and members of the class to incur
loss of use and monetary damages caused by that defective
design.

Allegedly, defendants knew that there were problems with the
design of the Bumbo Baby Sitter, but resisted recalling the
defectively designed product that had either been sold to class
members or which were still awaiting sale to other consumers,
the complaint stated. Instead, defendants have allegedly
permitted class members to purchase the defectively designed
Bumbo Baby Sitters and have enriched themselves at the expense
of the class members by accepting money for a product that is
rendered worthless because of its innate defects.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether defendants' Bumbo Baby Sitter was defectively
         designed in that it failed to contain babies placed
         within it during normal usage, thereby rendering the
         Bumbo Baby Sitter dangerous to use;

     (b) whether defendants knew or should have known that the
         Bumbo Baby Sitter was defectively designed;

     (c) whether defendants knowingly concealed the defective
         design of the Bumbo Baby Sitter;

     (d) whether defendants engaged in unlawful business
         practices by failing to recall or sufficiently repair
         the defective Bumbo Baby Sitter without causing the
         class members to incur out-of-pocket costs;

     (e) whether defendants refused to recall the defectively
         designed Bumbo Baby Sitter in order to increase the
         future sales of its product;

     (f) whether defendants misrepresented the durability and
         usefulness of the Bumbo Baby Sitter;

     (g) whether defendants violated consumer protection
         statutes and/or false advertising statutes and/or state
         deceptive business practices statutes;

     (h) whether defendants violated express and implied
         warranty statutes;

     (i) whether defendant violated the principle of unjust
         enrichment; and

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

Plaintiff seeks relief, including:

     -- an order certifying the action to be maintained as a
        class action and ordering plaintiffs and their counsel
        to represent the class;

     -- restitution, including restitutionary disgorgement into
        a fluid recovery fund;

     -- compensatory and consequential damages;

     -- attorneys' fess;

     -- costs of this suit;

     -- pre- and post-judgment interest; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court may deem
        necessary or proper.

The suit is "Wendy D. Whitson et al. v. Bumbo Ltd., et al., Case
No. CV 07-5597," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Donald S. Edgar, Esq.
          Jeremy R. Fietz, Esq.
          Rex Grady, Esq.
          The Edgar Law Firm
          408 College Avenue
          Santa Rosa, CA
          Phone: (707) 545-3200
          Fax: (707 578-3040


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Workers File Suit Over Work Practices in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. faces a lawsuit in California
alleging violations of state laws regarding employee record-
keeping, meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime and related
practices with respect to its employees.

The case seeks damages, penalties and attorney’s fees on behalf
of a purported class of the company's present and former
employees, according to the company’s Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. -- http://www.chipotle.com--  
operates fast casual, fresh Mexican food restaurants serving
burritos, tacos, bowls and salads.


CONNECTICUT ELECTRIC: Recalls Counterfeit Circuit Breakers
----------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Electric & Switch Mfg. Co. (Connecticut Electric),
of Puyallup, Wash., is recalling about 64,000 Counterfeit
"Square D" Circuit Breakers.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said, the recalled
circuit breakers labeled “Square D” are counterfeit and could
fail to trip when they are required to, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

Connecticut Electric has not received any report of incidents or
injuries associated with these counterfeit circuit breakers.

Description: The counterfeit circuit breakers are black and are
marked as Square D products. Connecticut Electric has identified
the following breakers as possibly being counterfeit: QO115,
QO120, QO140, QO2125, QO215, QO220, QO230, QO240, QO250, QO260,
QO1515, QO2020, QO3100, QO320, QO330, QO340, QO360, QOB120,
QOB130, QOB220, QOB230, QOB250, QOB330, and QOB360.

Actual Square D circuit breakers have (a) the amp rating written
on the handle in white paint on the front of the breaker; (b)
the Square D insignia molded onto the breaker side, and; (c) a
yellow chromate mounting clip with half of the top of the clip
visible. If your Square D breaker does not match this
description, it could be counterfeit.

Picture of the recalled circuit breakers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07036.jpg

The circuit breakers were made in China and sold through
electrical distributors and hardware stores nationwide from
February 2005 through August 2006 for between about $6.50 and
$15.50.

Consumers should contact Connecticut Electric to determine if
the breaker they have is counterfeit and if necessary, to
arrange for a free inspection and replacement or refund.

For more information, Call Connecticut Electric at (866) 264-
3702 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.connecticut-electric.com. Consumers also can obtain  
additional information by emailing Connecticut Electric at
bdunham@connecticut-electric.com.


DECOPAC INC: Recalls Football Bobble Head Cake Decorations
----------------------------------------------------------
DecoPac Inc., of Anoka, Minn., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 80,000
football bobble head cake decorations.

The surface paint on the body of the bobble head contains lead
in excess of the federal lead paint standard.  No
incidents/injuries have been reported.

The recall includes plastic miniature football bobble heads with
green bases only, which were sold for placement on a cake. The
bobble heads represented the following teams:

Baltimore Ravens   Green Bay Packers Oakland Raiders  
Chicago Bears   Indianapolis Colts Philadelphia Eagles  
Cincinnati Bengals  New England Patriots Pittsburgh Steelers
Dallas Cowboys   New Orleans Saints San Francisco 49ers
Denver Broncos    New York Giants       St. Louis Rams

Football bobble heads with black bases are not included in this
recall.

Picture of recalled football bobble head with green base:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08050.jpg

The booble heads were made in China and sold at Bakeries and ice
cream stores nationwide from January 2006 through October 2007
with the purchase of a cake or ice cream.

Consumers should stop using the football bobble heads
immediately and contact DecoPac to receive a free product of
equal value.

For additional information, contact DecoPac Product Safety at
(800) 536-6558 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday or visit http://www.decopacproductsafety.com.


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Continues to Face Sorbates Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Co. continues to face purported class actions
filed on behalf of purchasers of sorbates and products
containing sorbates.

Eastman Chemical has been named in several putative class
actions filed on behalf of purchasers of sorbates and products
containing sorbates, claiming those purchasers paid more for
sorbates and for products containing sorbates than they woul  
have paid in the absence of the defendants’ price-fixing.

Two civil cases relating to sorbates remain.  In each case, the
Company prevailed at the trial court, and in each case, the
plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision.  

In one case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's
dismissal of all claims, except the plaintiff's claim for civil
penalties.  

In the other case, the court of appeals overturned the trial
court's decision and ruled that the plaintiff could amend and
re-file its complaint with the trial court.  

The Company appealed this decision to the state supreme court,
which declined to review the decision.  Accordingly, the
plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint on July 9, 2007.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Eastman Chemical Co. -- http://www.eastman.com-- is a chemical  
company engaged in the manufacture and sale of a portfolio of
chemicals, plastics and fibers.  Eastman has 16 manufacturing
sites in 10 countries that supply chemicals, plastics, and
fibers products to customers throughout the world.  


E.I. DU PONT: Program to Mitigate PFOA Effects Continuing
---------------------------------------------------------
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. is continuing to fund programs
that are part of a settlement of a suit over the ill effects of
its use of perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts (PFOA) in the
manufacture of resins.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned “Leach v. DuPont,” was
filed in West Virginia state court against DuPont and the Lubeck
Public Service District. DuPont uses PFOA as a processing aid to
manufacture fluoropolymer resins and dispersions at various
sites around the world including its Washington Works plant in
West Virginia.

The complaint alleged that residents living near the Washington
Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health
effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. The relief
sought included damages for medical monitoring, diminution of
property values and punitive damages plus injunctive relief to
stop releases of PFOA.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement
agreement in 2004 and as a result, the company established
reserves of $108 in 2004. The agreement was approved by the Wood
County Circuit Court on February 28, 2005 after a fairness
hearing. The settlement binds a class of approximately 80,000
residents. As defined by the court, the class includes those
individuals who have consumed, for at least one year, water
containing 0.05 ppb or greater of PFOA from any of six
designated public water sources or from sole source private
wells.

In July 2005, the company paid the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees
and expenses of $23 and made a payment of $70, which class
counsel has designated to fund a community health project. The
company is also funding a health study by an independent science
panel of experts in the communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate
available scientific evidence on whether any probable link
exists between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The
independent science panel health study is estimated to cost $18,
of which $5 was originally placed in an interest-bearing escrow
account. At present, the expected timeframe to complete the
study is three to five years.

In addition, the company is providing state-of-the art water
treatment systems designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water
to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water
Association (LHWA), until the science panel determines that PFOA
does not cause disease or until applicable water standards can
be met without such treatment.

At September 30, 2007, the estimated cost of constructing,
operating and maintaining these systems was $19 of which $10 was
originally placed in an interest-bearing escrow account. At
September 30, 2007, the reserve balance relating to the funding
of the independent science panel health study and the water
treatment systems was $20, including $11 in interest bearing
escrow accounts.
The settlement resulted in the dismissal of all claims asserted
in the lawsuit except for personal injury claims. If the
independent science panel concludes that no probable link exists
between exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then the settlement
would also resolve personal injury claims.

If it concludes that a probable link does exist between exposure
to PFOA and any diseases, then DuPont would also fund up to $235
for a medical monitoring program to pay for such medical
testing. In this event, plaintiffs would retain their right to
pursue personal injury claims. All other claims in the lawsuit
would remain dismissed by the settlement. DuPont believes that
it is remote that the panel will find a probable link.

Therefore, at September 30, 2007, the company had not
established any reserves related to medical monitoring or
personal injury claims. However, there can be no assurance as to
what the independent science panel will conclude.


E.I. DUPONT: Canada Teflon Suit Status Ruling Expected in 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on whether a lawsuit filed against E.I. DuPont De
Nemours & Co. in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec
Canada can proceed as a class action is expected in 2008.  

In December 2005, a motion was filed by a single named plaintiff
in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, Canada seeking
authorization to institute a class action on behalf of all
Quebec consumers who have purchased or used kitchen items,
household appliances or food-packaging containing Teflon or
Zonyl non-stick coatings. A ruling on this motion is expected
from the Court in 2008.

Damages are not quantified, but are alleged to include the cost
of replacement products as well as one hundred dollars per class
member as exemplary damages.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Rulings in W.H. Sammis Plant Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed against Ohio Edison
Co., an electric utility operating subsidiary of FirstEnergy
Corp., are appealing a denial of their motions to certify a
class and amend their complaint.

The suit was filed in Jefferson County, Ohio Common Pleas Court
on Aug. 22, 2005 by two named plaintiffs.  It is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages to be determined at trial
based on claims of negligence and eight other tort counts
alleging damages from W.H. Sammis Plant air emissions.  

In addition, it is also seeking injunctive relief to eliminate
harmful emissions and repair property damage and the institution
of a medical monitoring program for class members.

On April 5, 2007, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ request to
certify this case as a class action and, accordingly, did not
appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives or their counsel
as class counsel.

On July 30, 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel voluntarily withdrew their
request for reconsideration of the April 5, 2007 Court order
denying class certification and the Court heard oral argument on
the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint which OE has
opposed.

On Aug. 2, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to
amend their complaint.  

The plaintiffs have appealed the Court’s denial of the motion
for certification as a class action and motion to amend their
complaint, according to the company’s Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com-- is  
principally a holding company that holds, directly or
indirectly, all of the common stock of its eight principal
electric utility operating subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Company
(OE), The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI), The
Toledo Edison Company (TE), Pennsylvania Power Company (Penn),
American Transmission Systems, Inc. (ATSI), Jersey Central Power
& Light Company (JCP&L), Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed)
and Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec).  The Company’s
consolidated revenues are primarily derived from electric
service provided by its utility operating subsidiaries and the
revenues of its other principal subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions
Corp. (FES).


HERCULES OFFSHORE: Suit Over TODCO Purchase Consolidated in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two suits filed in relation to the proposed acquisition by
Hercules Offshore, Inc. of TODCO have been consolidated and
transferred to the  270th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.

On March 19 and 20, 2007, two stockholder lawsuits were filed in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, both alleging that
the board of directors of TODCO breached their fiduciary duties
in approving the proposed acquisition of TODCO by Hercules
Offshore, Inc.

The first suit, pending in the 333rd Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16397, is a purported
stockholder class action against the TODCO directors, and
contains claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

The second suit, pending in the 269th Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16357, is a stockholder
derivative action purportedly filed on behalf of TODCO against
the TODCO directors and the company, and contains:

     -- claims for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty, due
        care, candor, good faith and/or fair dealing;

     -- corporate waste;

     -- unlawful self dealing; and

     -- claims that the defendants conspired, aided and abetted
        and/or assisted one another in a common plan to breach
        these fiduciary duties.

Both complaints allege, among other things, that the TODCO
directors engaged in self-dealing in approving the proposed
acquisition by the Company by advancing their own personal
interests or those of TODCO's senior management at the expense
of the stockholders of TODCO, utilized a defective sales process
not designed to maximize stockholder value, and failed to
consider any value maximizing alternatives, thus causing TODCO
stockholders to receive an unfair price for their shares of
TODCO common stock.

The second suit also alleges that the Company conspired, aided
and abetted or assisted in these violations.

The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction
preventing the completion of the acquisition by the company,
rescission if the acquisition is consummated, imposition of a
constructive trust in favor of plaintiffs upon any benefits
improperly received by the defendants, attorneys' fees and
expenses associated with the lawsuit and any other equitable
relief the court deems just and proper.

On Aug. 29, 2007, the two lawsuits were consolidated and
transferred to the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas, according to the company’s Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Hercules Offshore, Inc. -- http://www.herculesoffshore.com--   
provides shallow-water drilling and liftboat services to the oil
and natural gas exploration and production industry in the Gulf
of Mexico, and internationally.  


IDACORP INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss Appeal in Idaho Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action against
IDACORP, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors, have
voluntarily dismissed their appeal against the dismissal of the
case.

On May 26, 2004 and June 22, 2004, two shareholder lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho
against IDACORP and certain of its directors and officers.  

The lawsuits captioned, “Powell, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et
al.,” and “Shorthouse, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al.,” raised
largely similar allegations.  

They were putative class actions brought on behalf of purchasers
of IDACORP stock between Feb. 1, 2002 and June 4, 2002.

On May 21, 2007, the U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint because
it failed to satisfy the pleading requirements for loss
causation.  The court also denied the plaintiffs' request to
further amend the complaint.

On June 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for voluntary
dismissal of their appeal, with prejudice, with both sides to
assume their own costs.  

IDACORP and the other defendants did not offer or tender any
consideration for this motion, nor did the defendants oppose the
motion.  

The Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs' motion on Oct. 3, 2007 and
the order dismissing the appeal was filed with the District
Court on Oct. 9, 2007.  This action is now concluded.

The suit is "Powell v. Idacorp., Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
00249-EJL-MHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho under Judge Edward J. Lodge.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         John K. Grant, Esq.
         Eli Greenstein, Esq.
         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins
         100 Pine St. #2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 288-4545
         E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com
                 e_file_ny@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Richard H. Greener, Esq.
         John T. Simmons, Esq.
         Greener Banducci Shoemaker P.A.
         815 W Washington
         Boise, ID 83702
         Phone: (208) 319-2600
         Fax: (208) 319-2601
         E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com
                 jsimmons@greenerlaw.com

Representing the company are:

         Rex Blackburn, Esq.
         Blackburn & Jones
         P.O. Box 7808,
         Boise, ID 83707
         Phone: (208) 489-8989
         Fax: (208) 489-8988
         E-mail: rex@blackburnjoneslaw.com

              - and -

         David G. Hetzel, Esq.
         Dennis F. Kerrigan, Jr., Esq.
         Leboeuf Lamb Greene & Macrae
         125 W 55th St.
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 424-8000
         Fax: (212) 424-8000
         E-mail: dghetzel@llgm.com
                 dennis.kerrigan@llgm.com


IRWIN MORTGAGE: RESPA Suit Plaintiffs Challenge Decertification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action, “Culpepper v. Inland Mortgage
Corp.,” filed a petition for a rehearing en banc of a decision
decertifying the case.

Since its filing in April 1996 by the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, the plaintiffs obtained class-
action status for their complaint, which is generally alleging
that the company violated the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act relating to it's payment of broker fees to
mortgage brokers.  

In June 2001, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld
the district court's certification of the class.  However, in
October 2001, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) issued a policy statement that explicitly disagreed with
the 11th Circuit's interpretation of RESPA in upholding class
certification.  

Subsequent to the HUD policy statement, the 11th Circuit decided
a RESPA case similar to the company's, concluding the trial
court had abused its discretion in certifying the class.  The
11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in effect, overruling
its previous decision upholding class certification in the
company's case.  

On Feb. 7, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama dismissed this case, by granting the motions
of the company, to decertify the class and for summary judgment,
and by denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  

On July 2, 2007, the 11th Circuit affirmed the decision of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
granting summary judgment in favor of the company's indirect
subsidiary, Irwin Mortgage Corp. (formerly Inland Mortgage
Corp.), and decertifying the plaintiffs’ class.

In its July 2, 2007, decision, and based on the test set forth
in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2001 policy
statement on lender payments to mortgage brokers, the court of
appeals affirmed summary judgment for Irwin Mortgage because the
plaintiffs failed to show that the total compensation Irwin
Mortgage paid to the mortgage brokers was unreasonable in light
of the services provided.

The court of appeals also held that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in decertifying the plaintiffs’ class
because the individualized assessment required in this type of
action made class certification inappropriate.

On July 13, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing en
banc, 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.

The suit is "Culpepper, et al. v. Inland Mortgage Corp., Case
No. 2:96-cv-00917-VEH-HGD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David R. Donaldson, Esq.
         David J. Guin, Esq.
         Tammy McClendon, Esq.
         Stokes, Donaldson & Guin, LLC
         Two North Twentieth Building, North 20th St., Ste. 1100
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 226-226-2282
         Fax: 226-226-2357
         E-mail: DavidD@dglawfirm.com
                 davidg@dglawfirm.com
                 tstokes@dglawfirm.com

              - and -
         
         Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
         Kieron F. Quinn, Esq.
         Quinn Gordon & Wolf
         40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408
         Baltimore, MD 21204-4803
         Phone: 1-410-825-2300
         Fax: 1-410-825-0066

Representing the company are:

         David S. Hay, Esq.
         Janel E. LaBoda, Esq.
         Alan Hall Maclin, Esq.
         J. Patrick McDavitt, Esq.
         Robert J. Pratte, Esq.
         Margaret K. Savage, Esq.
         Briggs & Morgan, 2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 1-612-977-8400
         Fax: 1-612-977-8650

              - and -

         Sarah Y. Larson, Esq.
         Alexander J. Marshall III, Esq.
         Cathy S. Wright, Esq.
         Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC
         AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Ste. 2400, 1901 6th Avenue North
         Birmingham, AL 35203-2618
         Phone: 254-1000
         Fax: 254-1999
         E-mail: slarson@mcglaw.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued in Penna. for Denying Underinsured Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Mutual Holding Co. and its affiliates are accused of
wrongfully denying claims for underinsured motorists' accidents
since 1990.

Also named in the suit are:

          -- LMHC Massachusetts Holdings, Inc.
          -- Liberty Mutual Group, Inc.
          -- Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
          -- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
          -- Employers Insurance Company of Wausau and
          -- Liberty Mutual Insurance Group.

Named plaintiff William Greenhorn brings this civil action
seeking recovery for benefits arising from wrongful denial of
underinsured motorist benefits for motor vehicle accidents from
1990 to the present, and therefore, upon information and belief,
the aggregate amount in controversy in this action exceeds
$5,000,000.

Mr. Greenhorn wants the court to rule on:

     (a) the members of the class have presented claim to the  
         defendants for recovery of underinsured motorist
         benefits under automobile policies issued by the
         defendants;

     (b) the defendants have denied the claim for recovery of
         underinsured motorist benefits on the basis of a
         Rejection Underinsured Motorist Protection form;

     (c) the Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection form
         relied upon by the defendants does not specifically
         comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Motor
         Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A.
         Section 1701 et seq.;

     (d) the Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection form
         upon which the defendants rely is an illegal and
         invalid Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection
         form;

     (e) by operation of law, the defendants are required to
         provide underinsured motorist coverage under each of
         the automobile policies wherein coverage has been
         rejected by reliance upon the illegal and invalid
         Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection form;

     (f) each member of the class is entitled to a declaration
         that the policy of insurance issued by the defendants,
         under which claim has been made does, in fact, provide
         underinsured motorist coverage;

     (g) each member of the class is entitle to adjudication of
         his or her underinsured motorist claims through
         arbitration before a Special Master for the award of
         underinsured motorist benefits under the policy of
         insurance where such coverage was wrongfully and
         illegally denied.

Plaintiff requests that the court enter an order:

      -- appointing a Special Master for the arbitration of the
         underinsured motorist claims the members of the class;

      -- ordering the Special Master to establish a process
         whereby the underinsured motorist claims of the members
         of the class can be fully, completely and expeditiously
         adjucated; and

      -- such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

The suit is "William Greenhorn et al. v. Liberty Mutual Holding
Company, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Charles Jay Schleifer, Esq.
          Weinstein, Schleifer & Kupersmith, P.C.
          2001 Market St Fl 41ST
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 350-6600

          - and -

          Howard G. Silverlan, Esq.
          Kane and Silverman P.C.
          Suite 1c44, 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue
          Philadelphia, PA 19130-3002
          Phone: (215) 232-1000
          Fax: (215) 232-0181


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Several ACR Copper Tubes Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries Inc. and Mueller Europe continue to face
several suits with respect to the sale of copper tubes used in
the manufacturing of air-conditioning and refrigeration units
(ACR copper tubes).  

In March 2006, the Company and Mueller Europe were named in a
complaint brought by Carrier Corporation, Carrier S.A., and
Carrier Italia S.p.A. alleging anticompetitive activities in the
sale of the CR copper tubes in the United States and elsewhere
(the Carrier Action).  

The Carrier Action was filed in United States District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee.  In July 2007, the Carrier
Action was dismissed in its entirety for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction as to all defendants.  In August 2007, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal in the Carrier Action with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The Company and
Mueller Europe filed notices of cross-appeal in August 2007.

                     ACR Class Actions

In addition, beginning in April 2006, the Company and Mueller
Europe have been named as defendants in several purported class
actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers alleging
anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of ACR
copper tubes in the United States and elsewhere (the ACR Class
Actions, and with the Carrier Action, the ACR Actions).

The Company and Mueller Europe are named in five ACR Class
Actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.  Three of the ACR Class Actions
filed in the Western District of Tennessee have been
consolidated to become the Direct ACR Class Actions.

                  Direct ACR Class Actions

In July 2007, the Direct ACR Class Actions were dismissed in
their entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to all
defendants.  In August 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
in the Direct ACR Class Actions with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The Company and Mueller Europe
filed notices of cross-appeal in August 2007.

                  Direct ACR Class Actions

Two of the ACR Class Actions filed in the Western District of
Tennessee have been consolidated to become the c.

The Company and Mueller Europe have been served, but have not
yet been required to respond, in the Indirect ACR Class Actions.  
Pursuant to an order granting an agreed motion of the parties to
the Indirect ACR Class Actions, neither the Company nor Mueller
Europe will be required to respond to the complaint in the
Indirect ACR Class Actions until after the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issues a mandate resolving
the last of the pending appeals in the Direct ACR Class Actions
and the Carrier Action.

             California Indirect ACR Class Action

The Company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Company, Inc., Deno
Holding Company, Inc., and Deno Acquisition Eurl are named in an
ACR Class Action filed by indirect purchasers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The California Indirect ACR Class Action alleges anticompetitive
activities with respect to plumbing tubes as well as ACR copper
tubes.  The Company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Company, Inc.,
and Deno Holding Company, Inc. have been served, but have not
yet been required to respond, in the California Indirect ACR
Class Action.

The Company believes that the claims for relief in the ACR
Actions are without merit and intends to defend the ACR Actions
vigorously.

The California suit is “Carpinelli et al. v. Boliden AB et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-04528-MJJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J.
Jenkins.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Monique Alonso, Esq.
         Gross & Belsky, LLP
         180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415/544-0200
         Fax: 415/544-0201

Representing the defendant is:

         Thomas Edward Wallerstein, Esq.
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP
         555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560
         Redwood Shores, CA 94065
         Phone: 650-801-5000
         Fax: 650-801-5100
         E-mail: tomwallerstein@quinnemanuel.com


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Tenn. Court Junks Copper Tube Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The court overseeing the Tennessee state court cooper tube
antitrust suit against Mueller Industries Inc. dismissed that
action without prejudice based on plaintiffs' lack of
prosecution.

Beginning in September 2004, the Company has been named as a
defendant in several purported class action complaints brought
by direct and indirect purchasers alleging anticompetitive
activities with respect to the sale of copper tubes in the
United States.  Two such purported class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.  The remaining Copper Tube Actions were filed in
state courts in Tennessee, California and Massachusetts.

Certain of the Copper Tube Actions purport to address the sale
of copper plumbing tube in particular.  Plaintiffs' motions to
consolidate the Federal Actions and the actions pending in
California state court, respectively, have been granted.  All of
the Copper Tube Actions, which are similar, seek monetary and
other relief.

Wholly owned Company subsidiaries, WTC Holding Company, Inc.,
Deno Holding Company, Inc., and Mueller Europe Ltd. (Mueller
Europe), are named in all of the Copper Tube Actions, and Deno
Acquisition Eurl is or was named in two of the Copper Tube
Actions but has not been, or was not, served with the complaints
in those actions.  The claims against WTC Holding Company, Inc.
and Deno Holding Company Inc. have been dismissed without
prejudice in the Copper Tube Actions pending in California and
Massachusetts state courts.

In September 2006, the Federal Actions were dismissed as to
Mueller Europe for lack of personal jurisdiction.  In October
2006, the Federal Actions were dismissed in their entirety for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to all defendants.  

Although plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal of Mueller Europe, the court has held that such motion
was mooted by its dismissal of the case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or
amend the judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, which the court denied in May 2007.  

In June 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Federal
Actions with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.  The Company, WTC Holding Company, Inc., Deno Holding
Company, Inc., and Mueller Europe filed notices of cross-
appeal in July 2007.

In September 2007, plaintiffs filed with the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee a motion to
vacate the judgment and orders dismissing the complaint in the
Federal Actions and filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a motion to stay or extend the
briefing schedule in the appeal of the Federal Actions.

Those motions remain pending.

In May 2007, before either the Company or Mueller Europe had
been required to respond to the complaint in the Massachusetts
state court action, the court overseeing the Massachusetts state
court action granted plaintiffs' voluntary motion to dismiss
that action without prejudice.

In September 2007, the court overseeing the Tennessee state
court action dismissed that action without prejudice based on
plaintiffs' lack of prosecution.

The Company's demurrer to the complaint has been filed in the
state court action in California.  Mueller Europe has not yet
been required to respond to the complaint in the state court
action pending in California.

The court overseeing the California state court action has
stayed that action conditioned upon the parties' submitting
periodic status reports on the status of the Federal Actions.

The Company believes that the claims for relief in the Copper
Tube Actions are without merit and intends to defend the Copper
Tube Actions vigorously.


NEBRASKA: To Face Suit Over “Discriminatory” Insurance Plans
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for a woman who works for the state Health and Human
Services System in Omaha are filing a class action against the
state for alleged discrimination in health care insurance, Josh
Funk of Columbus Telegram reports.

The lawsuit is being filed by Vince Powers and another attorney,
Kathleen Neary, on behalf of Sandra Cartwright.  The lawyers
plan to ask a judge to certify the lawsuit as a class action
covering all the state employees who were offered inferior
health insurance because they live in zip codes that are made to
opt for lesser insurance plans.

The state changed its health insurance offerings to state
employees for 2007.  Those living in zip code areas that begin
with either 680, 681 or 685 were given a choice between two
Mutual of Omaha plans and two Blue Cross & Blue Shield plans
which offer inferior coverage than those state employees living
elsewhere, according to the lawsuit.  Those zip codes allegedly
are where some 96 percent of the state's black employees reside.

The Nebraska Association of Public Employees filed a grievance,
but failed to get changes.  State personnel officials defended
the plans offered to employees statewide as equivalent plans.

Each of the four levels of plans carry the same copays and
deductibles, according to Laura Peterson, general counsel for
the Department of Administrative Services.

The lawsuit is based on several U.S. Supreme Court rulings and
the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment
discrimination.  In the 1971 "Griggs v. Duke Power Co." case,
cited by the report, an absence of an intent to discriminate by
the employer does not free it from wrongdoing.  It only needs to
be proven that its policies and practices have a discriminatory
effect.

The lawsuit seeks better health insurance for state employees in
Lincoln and Omaha. It also asks for compensation for employees
who paid higher premiums or received large medical bills for
services that would have been covered under the better insurance
plans.


PENNSYLVANIA: Sued for Ending Aid to Mental Patients in Homes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare is facing a class-
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania over the allegedly illegally terminated
medical assistance to dozens of mentally retarded people who
live in personal care homes.

According to the complaint, in December 2006, Defendants, the
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare and the Secretary of
Public Welfare (collectively, DPW), received federal approval to
amend the Consolidated Waiver to exclude from eligibility all
individuals who reside in personal care homes.

In January 2007, DPW’s agents informed Plaintiffs --  Carol Ann
Dorohovech and Jerome Madesky -- and approximately 75 other
personal care home residents who had received services under the
Consolidated Waiver that their enrollment in that Waiver had
been terminated in December 2006 and that they had no right to
appeal that decision, the suit says.

DPW transferred these individuals to another Medical Assistance
home and community-based waiver program that confers a far more
limited entitlement to services than the Consolidated Waiver.

Due to their mental retardation, Plaintiffs (and, on information
and belief, others similarly situated) did not understand the
notice sent by DPW concerning their termination from the
Consolidated Waiver or the consequences of that action.

DPW did not afford Plaintiffs and others similarly situated any
assistance to find alternative housing options -- including
options funded by the Consolidated Waiver -- that would have
allowed them to retain their entitlement to services under
the Consolidated Waiver.

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf
of a class composed of all Pennsylvania Medical Assistance
recipients who were enrolled in the Consolidated Waiver and
whose enrollment in that Waiver was terminated as of the close
of business on December 22, 2006 because they resided in
personal care homes.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether DPW terminated class members’ participation in
         the Consolidated Waiver without advance and meaningful
         notice;

     (b) whether DPW terminated class members’ participation in
         the Consolidated Waiver without affording them the
         right to appeal and the right to maintain their
         benefits pending appeal;

     (c) what steps, if any, DPW took to allow class members to
         remain in the Consolidated Waiver;

     (d) whether DPW’s failure to provide advance notice and the
         opportunity to be heard with respect to her decision to
         terminate class members from the Consolidated Waiver
         violated the Due Process Clause;

    (e) whether DPW’s failure to provide advance notice and the
        opportunity to be heard with respect to her decision to
        terminate class members from the Consolidated Waiver
        violated the federal Medical Assistance statute;

    (f) whether DPW violated the federal Medical Assistance
        statute by stripping class members of their entitlement
        to Consolidated Waiver services;

    (g) whether DPW violated the class members’ rights to have
        their health and safety safeguarded by terminating them
        from the Consolidated Waiver without affording them an
        opportunity to retain their eligibility by relocating
        and without affording them any assistance to do so; and

    (h) whether DPW violated the class members’ rights under
        Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
        Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to make
        reasonable modifications to DPW’s policies, practices,
        and procedures to assist them to understand the actions
        taken and the impact on their benefits and to locate
        alternative housing options to remain in the
        Consolidated Waiver.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

     -- retain jurisdiction over this action;

     -- declare that Defendants’ actions and inactions violate
        the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of
        the Constitution, Title XIX of the Social Security Act,
        the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
        Rehabilitation Act;

     -- issue appropriate classwide injunctive relief to enjoin
        Defendants from continuing to violate the Due Process
        Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
        Title XIX of the Social Security Act, the Americans with
        Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, and to
        take appropriate steps to remedy their violations;

     -- issue such other relief as may be just, equitable, and
        appropriate, including an award of reasonable attorneys'
        fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42
        U.S.C. Section 1988, 12205 and 29 C.F.R. Section
        794a(b).

The suit is "Carol Ann Dorohovech et al. v. Dept. of Public
Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Robert W. Meek
          Robin Resnick
          Disability Rights Network of PA
          1315 Walnut Street, Suite 400
          Philadelphia, PA 19107-4798
          Phone: (215) 238-8070
          Fax: (215) 772-3126
          E-mail: RMeek@drnpa.org


ROYAL AHOLD: Settlement Fund to U.S. Investors Set for Release
--------------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Lead Plaintiffs' counsel appointed by
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, in the
Settlement of the class action against Royal Ahold N.V. in the
U.S., will begin distributing payments from the Ahold Net
Settlement Fund to Class Members.  

The distribution to Class Members who submitted valid and
supported claim forms is pursuant to an October 3 Order issued
by the Honorable Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.

In June 2006, Judge Blake entered a final order and judgment
approving Royal Ahold's settlement of the suit "In re Royal
Ahold N.V. Securities & ERISA Litigation," for US$1.1 billion
(EUR937 million).

Class Members will receive their Settlement Payments by check or
by electronic funds transfer. Claimants will be paid by
electronic funds transfer only if they provided correct account
numbers and related details. Claimants who did not provide
complete and accurate bank account information will be paid by
check. Claimants who did not receive a notice from the Claims
Administrator indicating that their claim would be rejected
should monitor their mail or their bank account for their
Settlement Payment.

The Settlement Payments authorized by the Court's October 3,
2007 Order represent an initial distribution of 95% of the Ahold
Net Settlement Fund.

If Settlement Payment is more than $300 (approximately
EUR209.00) claimant will receive a second Settlement Payment
within the next approximately 12 months.

Claimants who are entitled to a payment of US$300 or less will
receive full payment in this distribution.

Claimants entitled to more than $300 will receive two
distributions with the first payment consituting approximately
95% of the total amount of the claimant's claim and the second
payment constituting approximately 5% of the total amount of the
claimant's claim.

The Ahold Settlement Fund is a "Qualified Settlement Fund," as
defined in United States Treas. Reg. Section 1.468B-1 through 5.
The tax treatment of your Settlement Payment will vary based
upon your tax status and treatment of your investments.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the
company to restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years.
Most of the problems were related to inflated earnings at the
company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in Columbia.  It alleged
that Ahold N.V. misled investors by presenting an inaccurate
financial picture of the company to stockholders and inflating
the price of its common stock.

It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA
Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven,
Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller,
Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William
J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild,
Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International,
ING Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based
upon the matters that Ahold first announced on Feb. 24.

The settlement of the suit covers Ahold, its subsidiaries and
affiliates, the individual defendants and the underwriters.   

It resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all
other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities.  The
settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a
recovery to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or
American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999 through Feb. 23,
2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased
their Ahold shares.

The settlement must be approved by at least 180 million shares
from about 800 million qualifying shares.  The average payment
is estimated to be $1.51 per Fund A share and 40 cents per share
for Fund B shares, according to court documents.  Claims are to
be made about 12 months after the court's final approval (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006).  The company denies any
wrongdoing in the settlement.

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
issued an order on Oct. 3 authorizing Lead Counsel and the
Claims Administrator to begin making Settlement payments to
Class Members of the class action against Royal Ahold N.V. in
the U.S. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 15, 2007).

For more information, contact the Claims Administrator by
calling one of the numbers provided below or writing to the
address below:

    In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities and Erisa Litigation
    c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
    Claims Administrator
    P.O. Box 9000 #6378
    Merrick, NY 11566-9000
    U.S.A.

    Country                   Toll Free Number

    Australia                 0011-800-1020-4060
    Austria                   0800-296107
    Belgium                   00-800-1020-4060
    Canada                    1-888-410-0027
    Denmark                   00-800-1020-4060
    England                   00-800-1020-4060
    Finland                   00-800-1020-4060
    France                    00-800-1020-4060 (France Telecom)
                              40-800-1020-4060 (TELE 2)
                              50-800-1020-4060 (Omnicom)
                              70-800-1020-4060 (Le 7 Cegetel)
                              90-800-1020-4060 (9 Telecom)
    Germany                   00-800-1020-4060
    Hong Kong                 001-800-1020-4060
    Ireland                   00-800-1020-4060
    Italy                     00-800-1020-4060
    Japan                     010-800-1020-4060
    Liectenstein              809-2288, ask to be connected
                              to 800-467-8208
    Luxembourg                00-800-1020-4060
    Netherlands               00-800-1020-4060
    Norway                    00-800-1020-4060
    Portugal                  00-800-1020-4060
    Scotland                  00-800-1020-4060
    Singapore                 001-800-1020-4060 (Singtel IDD)
                              002-800-1020-4060 (MobileONE IDD)
                              008-800-1020-4060 (Starhub IDD)
                              013-800-1020-4060 (Singtel
                              Budget Call)
                              018-800-1020-4060 (Starhub
                              I-Call)
                              019-800-1020-4060 (Singtel
                              V019)
    Spain                     00-800-1020-4060
    Sweden                    00-800-1020-4060
    Switzerland               00-800-1020-4060
    United States             1-888-410-0027
    International Toll Number +1-941-906-4864


SIMLYFUN LLC: Recalls Board Games on Pawns' High Lead Level
-----------------------------------------------------------
SimplyFun LLC, of Bellevue, Wash., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,500
Ribbit Board Games sold with five frog-shaped wooden pieces.

The company said surface paint on the five frog-shaped wooden
pieces contain excess levels of lead, violating the federal lead
paint standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported.

This recall involves SimplyFun Ribbit board games. The games are
sold with five frog-shaped wooden pieces that act as pawns for
movement. The wooden pieces are blue, red, green, yellow and
lavender in color.

The board games were made China and sold by SimplyFun
independent consultants nationwide from March 2007 through
October 2007 for about $18.

Picture of the frog-shaped wooden pieces:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08056.jpg.

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the five frog pieces
from the game and discontinue using them. Consumers should
contact SimplyFun for a refund or a set of five replacement
frogs.

For additional information, contact SimplyFun toll-free at (877)
557-7767 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.simplyfun.com.


TARGET: Recalls Home Patio Sets After Fall Injury Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
Target, of Minneapolis, Minn. is voluntarily recalling about
40,000 Home Patio Sets.

The chair can collapse when weight is applied to the front end
of the arm rests, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Target has received 35 reports of chairs collapsing, resulting
in 18 injuries such as bruising to the back, hips, shoulders,
arms and finger lacerations.

This recall involves six-piece home patio sets sold exclusively
at Target. The set consists of a table, an umbrella, and four
chairs. The chairs and the umbrella have a black aluminum frame
covered with a beige fabric.

The picture of the recalled patio sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08053.jpg

The patio sets made in China and sold exclusively at Target
stores nationwide and on its Web site from November 2006 through
July 2007 for about $130.

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled patio sets
immediately and return the entire six-piece set to any Target
store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Target at (800) 440-0680
between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.target.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


E-TRADE FINANCIAL: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP has filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of E-Trade Financial Corporation
between December 14, 2006 and September 25, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges E-Trade and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.

Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business, prospects and
financial condition caused E-Trade's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company was experiencing increased delinquencies in
         its mortgage and home equity portfolios;

     (2) the Company had failed to adequately reserve for loan
         losses and would be forced to take $95 million in
         charge-offs and provision expenses of $245 million in
         the second half of 2007;

     (3) the Company had failed to timely record impairments on
         certain securities and, consequently, such portfolios
         were materially overvalued; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements
         about its 2007 financial and operational results were
         lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On September 17, 2007, E-Trade shocked investors when it
announced that the Company was exiting the wholesale mortgage
business, restructuring its institutional brokerage business,
and revising its previously issued 2007 financial guidance, and
that it expected, among other things, "severance, restructuring
and other exit charges" of $32 million as a result of its
decision to exit and restructure the businesses.

Additionally, the Company stated that it was revising its
earnings guidance for 2007, to an earnings-per-share (EPS) range
of $1.05 to $1.15 for the year, significantly lower than the
Company's previously issued EPS guidance in the range of $1.53
to $1.67. As a result of this news, over the next six trading
days E-Trade shares fell $2.32 per share, or more than 16.3
percent, to close on September 25, 2007, at $11.89 per share on
heavy trading volume.

E-Trade, through its subsidiaries, offers financial services to
retail and institutional customers worldwide, including retail
investments and trading, checking, money market and savings
accounts, mortgage and home equity products, real estate loans,
and various consumer loans.

For more information, contact:

          Francisco Loya
          Sarah G. Lopez
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 888-529-4787
          E-mail: floya@kmllp.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
purchasers of Office Depot, Inc. common stock during the period
between April 26, 2007 and October 26, 2007.

The complaint charges Office Depot and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Office Depot is a global supplier of office products and
services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. As a result of
defendants' false statements, Office Depot stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $36.41 per share on June 4, 2007. Then on October 29,
2007, before the market opened, the Company announced that it
had to delay the distribution of its third-quarter earnings
release and related conference call and webcast, previously
scheduled to take place on October 30, 2007, due to an
independent review by the Audit Committee of the Company's
vendor program funds, relating principally to the timing of the
recognition of certain vendor program funds.

On this news, Office Depot's stock declined $2.86 per share to
close at $17.43 per share, a one-day decline of nearly 14% on
volume of 30 million shares, over five times the average three-
month volume.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) the Company failed to properly account for its vendor
         rebates;

     (b) the Company's efforts to improve its gross margin by
         reducing its labor costs also led to a reduction in
         customer service levels resulting in a loss of
         customers; and

     (c) given the more intense competition the Company was
         experiencing from OfficeMax and Staples and the
         Company's aggressive pricing to boost technology sales,
         the Company had no reasonable basis to make projections
         about its ability to maintain its gross margin.

As a result, the Company's projections issued during the Class
Period for 2007 were at a minimum reckless.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
November 5, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


                           *********


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  * * *