---

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

            Friday, November 9, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 223

                            Headlines

A&M COOKIE: Recalls Cookie with Undeclared Milk Content
AMERICAN HERITAGE: Faces Col. Suit Over Illegal “Recording Fees”
AT&T CORP: Judge Walker Orders Preservation of Spying Evidence
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Ill. Over Backdated Interest Rate Hikes
BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Baby Seats Posing Safety Risks

CACI INT'L: D.C. Court Allows Suit Over Alleged Iraqi Abuses
CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls Soups that May Contain Plastic Pieces
CANADA: Disabled Veterans Seek High Court Ruling in CA$5B Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Wolf Popper Files ERISA Lawsuit in N.Y. Court
CNA FINANCIAL: Parties Settle Health Care Policyholders’ Lawsuit

CNA FINANCIAL: Settles “Himmelman” Labor Case in N.J. Court
FISHER-PRICE INC: Recalls Toy Boats on Paint's High Lead Content
HAWAII: Court Asked for Homeless Kids' Equal Access to Education
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Feb. 2008 Hearing Set for $445M Settlement
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Court Dismisses Document Preparation Fees Suit

JANUS CAPITAL: Still Faces Several Market Timing Complaints
JO-ANN STORES: Recalls Additional Gardening Tools for Kids
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Seeks Nixing of Class Claim in Derivative Suit
KLA-TENCOR: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in Calif.
LAWYERS TITLE: Dec. Certification Hearing Set on Rates Suit

LAWYERS TITLE: Faces Suit in Ohio Over Title Insurance Rates
OKI DATA: Recalls Printers Due to Internal Electrical Defect
SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls Duck Toys on Paint's Lead Level
SONUS NETWORKS: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $40M
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Preliminarily Settles N.Y. GTA Lawsuit

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Court Upholds $34M Award to Students
WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Remaining Ovcon 35 Lawsuit for $9M


* Lawyer in Breast Implant Case Ordered to Return $41.5M in Fees


                       Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. U.S. Steel Remain at 300 at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. TRW Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Transocean Units Pending in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has $22.6M Accrued Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeco Has $13.1M Rise in Expenses at Sept.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Olin & Subsidiaries Face Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Pursues Case v. Equitas in N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Has $23.9M for Claims at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Records $34M A&E Reserve at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $3.6Mil Settlement Awarded to Calif. Local

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Commences at Inactive Vt. Mine Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $235.9M Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Has 25,780 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $13.7M Trust Balance at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $720M Recoverable for T&N

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex and Wagner Retain $213.6M Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Reversed in Norfolk Southern's Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Graham Corp.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Faces 117,200 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge's Cleanup Liabilities Total $2.6M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Begins Cleanup of Factory Site in Conn.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Ongoing v. Eastman Chem.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suit in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Cytec Drop to 8,200 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Has $181M Accrual at Sept.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Pending v. Crown Cork in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Carries $1.337Bil Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.P. Green Ind. Plan Affirmed Last Sept. 24
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Engaged in Keasbey Coverage Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Deals with Burn & Roe Coverage Disputes

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin'l. Still Involved in Texas Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Involved in Grace Action in Mont.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4 Parties Ordered to Follow Removal Rules
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants’ Plan Filed in Grace’s Proceeding
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Lawyers Unable to Find Witness in Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Contractor to Pay GBP36T for Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Local Wins $5.6M in Mesothelioma Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SUNY Workers Penalized for Removal Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Miner to Counter Law Lords’ Legal Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Bares Reports on Wear Valley Scandal

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Worker Sues 63 Companies for Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Locals Sentenced to 18 Months in Jail
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victim Fails to Get Support from Co-workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 Firms Fined GBP5,000 for Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Lawyer Justifies Compensation Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 15.5M Tons of Hazard Still Found in Poland
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Contractor to be Fined for Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipworker Anxious over Asbestos Warnings
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Asbestos Levels Found in Mining Area
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Lyman Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Seeks 7% Discount on Future Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Estimation Hearings to Begin Jan. 2
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Responds to Anderson Post-Trial Brief
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Deal to Resolve Claims in Okla.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BRAVO BRANDS: David Chase Files Securities Fraud Suit in Florida
COUNTRYWIDE CAPITAL: Kaplan Fox Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Hagens Berman Files Wash. Securities Suit


                          *********


A&M COOKIE: Recalls Cookie with Undeclared Milk Content
-------------------------------------------------------
A&M Cookie Company Canada is voluntarily recalling the
President's Choice Chocolate Chunk Brownie Cookies (UPC
041360008305), 12 oz., bearing the code date 03 22 08 N,
distributed by Sunfresh LLC.

The packages subject to recall contain an undeclared allergen,
milk present as a sub ingredient of a natural flavor. Persons
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk
of possible allergic reactions if they consume these cookies.

Shipping Case: Shipped in President's Choice Chocolate Chunk
Brownie Cookies (UPC 1 00 41360 00830 2)

No other Presidents Choice cookies sold in the USA are affected,
and  the Presidents Choice Chocolate Chunk Brownie Cookies  sold
in Canada are not affected.

No illnesses or allergenic reactions have been reported. This
product was distributed in Michigan, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana
through Jewel Stores and Wisconsin and Minnesota through
Roundy's stores.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the milk
containing cookie product was distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of milk. Subsequent investigation
indicates that the problem was caused by mislabeling.

Consumers who have purchased the above President's Choice
Chocolate Chunk Brownie Cookies bearing the code date 03 22 08 N
should return the product back to the store of purchase for a
full refund. Media or others with questions about the recall
should contact Ray Hehman of Marketing Partners Communications,
Inc at mkptnr@aol.com or 415 421-4141.


AMERICAN HERITAGE: Faces Col. Suit Over Illegal “Recording Fees”
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Title Agency, Inc. (d/b/a First American Heritage Title
Company) is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, over alleged
defrauding of homebuyers by charging them several illegal
"recording fees."

Named plaintiff Jimmy Tuti brings this action on behalf of
Colorado consumers who used defendant for closing and settlement
services in relation to their real property transactions.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether First American has fiduciary duties to
         plaintiffs;

     (b) whether First American's conduct constituted a breach
         of its fiduciary duties;

     (c) whether plaintiff and the class were damaged by First
         American's breach of its fiduciary duties;

     (d) whether First American entered into valid contracts
         with plaintiff and the class;

     (e) whether First American breach these contracts;

     (f) whether plaintiff and the class were damaged by First  
         American's breach of its contracts;

     (g) whether First American was unjustly enriched by the
         receipt and retention of the unwarranted and excessive
         fees;

     (h) whether First American's conduct constitutes a
         violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act;

     (i) whether First American participates in and pursues the
         common course of conduct and deceptive scheme  
         complained of herein;

     (j) whether First American's wrongful conduct resulted in
         economic damages to plaintiff and members of the class;

     (k) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         punitive damages and, if so, the amount of such
         damages; and

     (l) the nature of additional releif to which plaintiff and
         members of the class are entitled.

Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment and provide
relief as follows:

     -- certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
        Rule 23 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- finding defendant liable to plaintiff and the class for
        actual damages sustained and/or statutory damages as
        allowed by law, and awarding such prejudgment interest
        as may be allowed by law;

    -- imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of plaintiff   
       and members of the class, upon any benefits improperly
       received by defendant as a result of its wrongful
       conduct;

    -- declaratory relief as requested or as otherwise
       appropriate;

    -- permanently enjoining and restraining defendant and its
       agents, employees, representatives and all persons acting
       on its behalf from continuing the conduct complained of;
       and

    -- awarding plaintiff and the class such other and further
       relief, including any attorneys' fees, costs and
       equitable relief to which they may be entitled or which
       the court may deem necessary, proper and just.

The suit is "Jimmy Tuti et al. v. American Heritage Title
Agency, Inc., Case No. 07CV10598," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey A. Berens
          Law Office of Jeffrey A. Berens, LLC
          8691 East 26th Avenue
          Denver, CO 80238-2549
          Phone: (303) 378-8332
          Fax: (303) 395-0393


AT&T CORP: Judge Walker Orders Preservation of Spying Evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker granted a preservation motion
requested by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in a class
action filed over alleged widespread spying by the government
into American citizens, according to Kansas City infoZine.

Judge Walker ordered telecommunications companies to preserve
any evidence of collaborating with the government in
wiretapping.  He ordered a halt to any routine destruction of
documents or to arrange for the preservation of accurate copies.

He ordered each party to provide the court with confirmation
that the court's order has been carried out by Dec. 14.  The
court order did not require the government or the carriers to
reveal whether or not they had any relevant evidence.

                     Case Background

Plaintiffs allege that AT&T Corp. and its holding company, AT&T  
Inc., are collaborating with the National Security Agency in a
massive warrantless surveillance program that illegally tracks
the domestic and foreign communications and communication
records of millions of Americans.    

The first amended complaint, filed on Feb. 22, 2006, claims that     
AT&T and AT&T Inc. have committed violations of:    

     -- the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution     
        (acting as agents or instruments of the government) by     
        illegally intercepting, disclosing, divulging and/or     
        using plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 109 of Title I of the Foreign Intelligence    
        Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 USC SS 1809, by     
        engaging in illegal electronic surveillance of     
        plaintiffs' communications under color of law;    

     -- Section 802 of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control     
        and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by section 101     
        of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act     
        of 1986 (ECPA), 18 USC SS 2511(1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d) and     
        (3)(a), by illegally intercepting, disclosing, using     
        and/or divulging plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 705 of Title VII of the Communications Act of    
        1934, as amended, 47 USC S 605, by unauthorized     
        divulgence and/or publication of plaintiffs'     
        communications;    

     -- Section 201 of Title II of the ECPA (Stored     
        Communications Act), as amended, 18 USC SS 2702(a)(1)     
        and (a)(2), by illegally divulging the contents of     
        plaintiffs' communications;    

     -- Section 201 of the Stored Communications Act, as amended     
        by section 212 of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act, 18     
        USC SS 2702(a)(3), by illegally divulging records     
        concerning plaintiffs' communications to a governmental     
        entity and (7) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal     
        Bus & Prof Code SS 17200 et seq, by engaging in unfair,     
        unlawful and deceptive business practices.    

The complaint seeks certification of a class action and redress
through statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement and injunctive and declaratory relief.    

Since the filing of this complaint, additional class actions
have been filed in various jurisdictions that allege
substantially the same claims.     

The lawsuits have been consolidated under the jurisdiction of a
single court, namely the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of California.   

The government has filed motions to dismiss two lawsuits.

The suit is "In re National Security Agency Telecommunications
Records Litigation, MDL-1791" filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R.   
Walker.  Representing the plaintiffs are:           

          Cindy Ann Cohn
          Electronic Frontier Foundation
          454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110
          Phone: 415-436-9333 x 108
          Fax: (415) 436-9993
          E-mail: cindy@eff.org

          -- and --    

         Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com          

Representing the defendants are:

         Bruce A. Ericson, Esq.
         Jacob R. Sorensen, Esq.
         Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
         50 Fremont St., Post Office Box 7880
         San Francisco, CA 94120-7880
         Phone: (415) 983-1000
         Fax: (415) 983-1200
         E-mail: bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com
                 jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Ill. Over Backdated Interest Rate Hikes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of America, N.A. is facing a class-action complaint in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois accusing it of
retroactively increasing interest rates on credit-card accounts
without notifying consumers, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The case arises out of the bank's allege practice of reviewing
its credit card accounts at the end of each account's billing
cycle, targeting selected cardholders for interest rate
increases as a result of that review, and then retroactively
imposing the selective rate increases on the cardholders'
outstanding balances for the billing cycle that has already
passed.

Named plaintiff Laura M. Swanson claims BofA and FIA Card
Services, N.A. review cardholders' accounts at the end of
billing periods and backdate the rate increases without notice,
and without giving them the chance to pay off the balance to
avoid the penalties.

This is a class action on behalf of all consumers with billing
addresses in the State of Illinois who have or had credit card
accounts with defendants and whose interest rates on their
outstanding balances were retroactively increased by the bank.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the bank retroactively increased the interest     
         rates for plaintiffs;

     (b) whether the bank imposed the rate increases without
         advance notice to plaintiff and the class members;

     (c) whether the manner in which the bank imposed the              
         retroactive interest rate increases on plaintiff and      
         the class members denied them the opportunity to avoid
         the increases;

     (d) whether the bank's retroactive interest rate increases   
         and the resulting additional "interest" charges imposed
         on plaintiff and the class members constitute an
         illegal penalty;

     (e) whether the bank's retroactive interest rate increases
         and its imposition of the resultant additional
         "interest" charges are unfair or deceptive in violation
         of the Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Business
         Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.; and

     (f) whether the bank is liable for punitive damages for its
         actions.

Ms. Swanson prays that the court:

     -- certify the class, appoint Ms. Swanson as clas
        representative and appoint her attorneys as class
        counsel; and

     -- enter judgment in favor of Ms. Swanson and the class,
        and against the bank, for restitution, costs, interest,
        declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and all other
        relief deemed just.

The suit is "Laura M. Swanson et al. v. Bank of America, N.A. et
al., Case No.: 07CH32248," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Lawrence Walner
          Michael S. Hilicki
          Lawrence Walner & Associates, Ltd.
          150 North Wacker DRive, Suite 2150
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Phone: (312) 201-1616
          Fax: (312) 201-1538

          - and -

          Barry L. Kramer
          Law Offices of BArry L. Kramer
          11111 Santa MOnica Blvd., Suite 1860
          Los Angeles, California 90025-3352
          Phone: (310) 235-9980
          Fax: (310) 235-9982


BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Baby Seats Posing Safety Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bumbo International, of South Africa, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1
million bumbo “Baby Sitter” seats.

The company said if the seat is placed on a table, countertop,
chair, or other elevated surface, young children can arch their
backs, flip out of the Bumbo seat, and fall onto the floor,
posing a risk of serious head injuries.

CPSC has received 28 reports of young children falling out of
the Bumbo Baby Sitter seat, including three skull fractures,
which occurred when children fell out of chairs that had been
placed on tables.

The bottom of the children’s seat is round and flat with a
diameter of about 15 inches. It is constructed of a single piece
of molded foam and comes in yellow, blue, purple, pink, aqua,
and lime green. The seat has leg holes and seat back that wraps
completely around the child. On the front of the seat in raised
lettering is the word “Bumbo” with the image of an elephant on
top. The bottom of the seat has the following words:
“Manufactured by Bumbo South Africa Material: Polyurethane World
Patent No. PCT: ZA/1999/00030.”

The back of the seat contains the following “WARNING” – “Never
use on a raised surface. Never use as a car seat or bath seat.
Designed for floor level use only. Never leave your baby
unattended as the seat is not designed to be totally restrictive
and may not prevent release of your baby in the event of
vigorous movement.”

The bumbo seats were made in South Africa and sold by Target,
Wal-Mart, Sears, Toys R Us, Babies R Us, USA Babies and various
other toy and children’s stores nationwide, and various online
sellers, from August 2003 through October 2007 for about $40.

Consumers are advised never to use the infant seat on a table,
countertop, chair, or other elevated surface. Consumers can
contact Bumbo to obtain new warning label stickers and
instructions, free of charge. The new warning label will state:
“WARNING – Prevent Falls; Never use on any elevated surface.”
Consumers should use the Bumbo seat at ground level, but should
never leave a child unattended.

Contact Bumbo International at (877) 932-8626 between 8 a.m. and
5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.bumbosafety.com.


CACI INT'L: D.C. Court Allows Suit Over Alleged Iraqi Abuses
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia allowed a
suit to proceed against private defense firm CACI International
Inc. over alleged abuses of its interrogators at the notorious
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Lara Jakes Jordan of the Associated
Press reports.

Judge James Robertson has dismissed a similar civil suit against
a second contracting company, Titan Corp.  He found Titan not
directly to be blamed for abuses as its interpreters generally
were supervised and under control of military officials.  In the
case of CACI, Judge Robertson said: "a reasonable trier of fact
could conclude that CACI retained significant authority to
manage its employees."  He therefore allowed the suit to
proceed.

According to him, "CACI interrogators were subject to a dual
chain of command, with significant independent authority
retained by CACI supervisors."  "When the facts are construed in
this manner, no federal interest requires that CACI be relieved
of state law liability."

The class action was brought on behalf of 212 Iraqis who said
they or their late husbands were abused by U.S. personnel at Abu
Ghraib.  The cases were identified in court papers as Ilham
Nassir Ibrahhim and Saleh.

Class Action Reporter previously reported that a suit “Saleh, et
al. v. Titan Corp., et al, Case No. 05 CV 1165 (D.D.C.)," is
pending against CACI in the U.S. District Court of Columbia,
accusing it of conspiring to increase demand for interrogation
services in Iraq.

Plaintiffs filed the 26-count class-action complaint on June 9,
2004, originally on behalf of seven named plaintiffs and a class
of similarly situated plaintiffs, against a number of corporate
defendants and individual corporate employees.

The complaint, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, named as defendants:

     * CACI International Inc.,
     * CACI, Inc.-Federal, and
     * CACI N.V.
     * Stephen A. Stefanowicz employee of CACI Premier
       Technology, Inc.

Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that defendants formed a
conspiracy to increase demand for interrogation services in Iraq
and violated U.S. domestic and international law.

They are seeking, inter alia, declaratory relief, a permanent
injunction against contracting with the government, compensatory
damages, treble damages and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint several times
and the action was ultimately transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.

In March 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint:

     * adding several new counts;
     * adding CACI Premier Technology, Inc. as a Defendant;
     * dropping CACI, N.V. as a Defendant; and
     * adding two former CACI Premier Technology employees,
       Timothy Dugan and Daniel Johnson, as Defendants.

On June 29, 2006, the Court entered an Order granting the
Defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to numerous claims,
and granting the motions of the three individual defendants to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  

The court then invited the corporate defendants to file summary
judgment motions.  Finally, the Court consolidated the Saleh
with the matter, “Ibrahim, et al. v. Titan Corp. et al., Case
No. 1:04-CV-01248-JR (D.D.C. 2004),” for discovery purposes
only.

The suit is “Al Rawi et al v. Titan Corp. et al., Case No.  
1:05-cv-01165-JR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Susan L. Burke, Esq.
         BURKE O'NEIL LLC
         4112 Station Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19127
         Phone: (215) 487-6590
         Fax: (215) 482-0874
         E-mail: sburke@burkepyle.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph William Koegel, Jr., Esq.
         STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P.
         1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: (202) 429-6408
         Fax: (202) 429-3902
         E-mail: wkoegel@steptoe.com

         Ari Shlomo Zymelman, Esq.
         WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
         725 12th Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: (202) 434-5000
         Fax: 202-434-5423
         E-mail: azymelman@wc.com

              - and -

         Henry Eric Hockeimer, Jr., Esq.
         Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP
         1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
         Phone: (215) 864-8204
         Fax: (215) 864-9078
         E-mail: hockeimerh@ballardspahr.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls Soups that May Contain Plastic Pieces
------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company is voluntarily recalling a limited
quantity of 18.8 ounce cans of "Campbell's Chunky" Baked Potato
with Cheddar & Bacon Bits because they may contain pieces of
hard plastic that present a choking hazard and may cause injury
if swallowed.

Three consumers have reported minor injuries in and around the
mouth.

No other "Campbell's" soup products are affected by this recall.

72,300 units of the recalled soups were shipped to customers in
the following 24 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, and Wyoming.

The affected product is labeled as "Campbell's Chunky" Baked
Potato with Cheddar & Bacon Bits and has the following
individual code on the bottom of the can:

JUL 08 2009
CT DT                BZ            07097
                                   XXXX (equals military time)

Consumers who have purchased the "Campbell's Chunky" Baked
Potato with Cheddar & Bacon Bits with the can code JUL 08 2009
07097 should not eat this product. Consumers are encouraged to
return the product to the store where they purchased it for an
exchange or full refund. Consumers also can contact Campbell at
888-453-3868.


CANADA: Disabled Veterans Seek High Court Ruling in CA$5B Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing thousands of disabled veterans in a CA$5.2
billion class action brought against the federal government in
1999, announced that they are seeking leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada.

This announcement comes further to a decision rendered July 4,
2007 by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal
decision ruled in favor of the federal government on an appeal
following a 2005 decision by Ontario Superior Court Justice John
H. Brockenshire.

That 2005 decision quantified the damages owing by the federal
government (CA$5.2 billion) to thousands of disabled veterans
who, since their class action was certified in 1999, have been
seeking redress from the federal government for years of failure
to properly administer their funds. These were veterans who were
injured in the service of their country and were deemed, by the
government, incapable of managing their money as a result of
their disability. Veterans in the Class include those from the
First World War onwards.

In announcing that they are seeking leave to appeal, the lawyers
outlined their arguments for how the lawsuit meets the test for
a hearing before the country's highest court. These include:

    --  This is a national class action brought on behalf of a
        class of 10,000 disabled veterans and their dependants.
        The class consists of living and deceased veterans who
        were deemed incapable, as result of individual
        determinations of incapacity, to manage their own
        affairs.

        Class members reside, or have resided in every province.  
        The issues of law raised in this case concern the
        application and interpretation of Federal statutes and
        important principles of the law of equity to Federal
        institutions and governments.

    --  The July 4, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeal sought
        to be appealed cannot be reconciled with the 2002
        decision of the Court of Appeal (which ruled in the
        veterans' favor) which made final and binding
        determinations concerning the nature of the Crown's
        fiduciary duties to class members. Those determinations
        including the 4 declarations contained in the original
        judgment were not disturbed by the earlier decision of
        this court. The panel of the Court of Appeal of the 2007
        decision simply ignored the former decision and its
        implications.

    --  The July 4, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeal
        effectively imposed limitations on the extent of the
        fiduciary duties assumed by the Crown towards Class
        members. By contrast, the earlier decision of a
        different panel of the 2002 Court of Appeal decision    
       held that the Crown owed each disabled veteran in the
       class a fiduciary duty and that, in discharging such
       duty, it must act for the benefit of the veteran in
       managing his funds because the veteran is incapable of  
       doing so himself.

    -- The July 4, 2007 analysis with respect to whether or not         
       the lawsuit should be allowed to continue was
       fundamentally flawed. While the Crown argued that the
       5.1(4) of the Veterans Affairs Act was intended to
       eliminate the claim, it was for the Court to determine
       whether it was a complete bar to the action.

       That question was never raised by the Crown at the
       Supreme Court of Canada. The question was the Crown's to
       ask -- not the plaintiff's. The Crown sought a
       determination at the Supreme Court that the action was
       barred. The Plaintiff sought a determination that S.
       5.1(4) was of no force and effect. The Plaintiff lost.

       The Crown did not win. The Supreme Court made the
       determination that the Bill of Rights was not operable.
       That is all that was decided. The Crown failed to ask the
       right question of the Supreme Court on its own assumption
       that S. 5.1(4) barred the action in its entirety. The
       Crown was mistaken. The serious error in the July 4, 2007
       decision is to visit the Crown's error upon the Class in
       an equitable breach of fiduciary duty claim. This is
       unjust and clearly wrong.
    
"We are seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
on the basis that the Government of Canada, over a period of
nearly 90 years, failed to exercise its fiduciary
responsibility. By 1986, the Auditor General of Canada
recognized that the CA$83 million which had accumulated in the
Consolidated Revenue Fund represented a liability because the
government was not investing the funds as is legally required.
This negligence was unjust and illegal, and the government --
since the first Supreme Court of Canada hearing in this case in
2003 - does not dispute this fact," said the legal team.

"In return for their tremendous acts of sacrifice, their federal
government put the veterans' monies in the consolidated revenue
fund - the government's bank account. This money lowered the
cost of the government's borrowing and it had full access to the
veterans' funds. This lawsuit seeks to return to the veterans
what was taken from them, as a means of compensating them for
their losses," the lawyers noted.

The members of the legal team are David Greenaway and Ray
Colautti, Partners at the Windsor Ontario firm of Raphael
Partners LLP and London, Ontario lawyer Peter Sengbusch.

Addressing another central aspect of the case the lawyers said:
"Certainly on the basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, the Government of Canada passed legislation in 1990
that discriminated against these veterans on the basis of their
disabilities. We will argue that the Ontario Court of Appeal
ruling (July 2007) which dismissed the Charter argument,
deprived these disabled veterans of the opportunity to argue
that they are protected by the fundamental law of this country.
They fought for our rights and freedoms, and have been denied an
opportunity to challenge a law that fundamentally discriminated
against them."

                      About the Lawsuit

In 2003 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal
government can pass a law limiting its own liability, and ruled
against the veterans who argued that passage of the 1990
legislation removed their right to property and thus contravened
the Canadian Bill of Rights. Despite the government's victory,
the lawsuit continued on the basis that Justice Brockenshire
ruled the veterans could pursue damages in the case based on the
government's failure to act as a proper trustee. While it does
not contest that it failed to act as a trustee, the federal
government appealed that decision by Justice Brockenshire, and
thus the damages awarded.

Eleanor McMahon, Public Relations Raphael Partners LLP, (519)
966-1300 Ext. 560 or Cell: (647) 201-2820 (For information or
copies of the veterans' lawyers memorandum of argument go to
http://www.veteransinterest.org)


CITIGROUP INC: Wolf Popper Files ERISA Lawsuit in N.Y. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Citigroup 401(k) Plan and the Citibuilder
401(k) Plan for Puerto Rico, for violations of the federal
pension law in connection with the loss of value in Citigroup
stock acquired and held by present and former employees of
Citigroup through the Plans.

The goal of this litigation is to recover damages sustained by
the participants and beneficiaries of the Plans. The complaint
can be viewed on Wolf Popper's website or obtained from the
Court.

According to Marian Rosner, who represents the Plaintiff,
"Citigroup's employees have their retirement plans in turmoil as
Citigroup continued to acquire huge amounts of company stock for
the plans even as it gambled with high-risk business practices.
The employees now pay the price as the company struggles to come
to grips with its exposure to the subprime market and the
enormous undisclosed contingent liabilities with respect to off-
balance sheet transactions."

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Citigroup and
the various defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to
the Plans' participants by:

     (1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans'
         assets;

     (2) failing to provide participants with complete, accurate
         and material information concerning Citigroup's
         business and financial condition necessary for
         participants to make informed decisions concerning the
         prudence of directing the Plans to invest in Citigroup
         stock; and

     (3) failing to appoint and monitor the performance of the
         other fiduciaries.

Citigroup's exposure to the subprime market and its contingent
liabilities with respect to various off- balance sheet
transaction has led to the resignation of Citigroup's CEO and
caused the Plans to suffer well over $1 billion in market
losses.

The plaintiff is Stephen Gray.  Defendants are:

     -- Citigroup Inc.,
     -- Charles Prince,
     -- The Plans Administrative Committee of Citigroup Inc.,
     -- The 401 (k) Investment Committee and John Does

The suit is “Gray v. Citigroup Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-
09790,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Sidney H. Stein.

For more information, contact:

          James Kelly-Kowlowitz
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel.: 212.759-4600
          Toll Free: 877.370.7703
          Fax: 212.486.2093
          Toll Free Fax: 877.370.7704
          Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com
          Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com


CNA FINANCIAL: Parties Settle Health Care Policyholders’ Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action, “Shaffer v. Continental
Casualty Co., et al., Case No. CV06-2235 RGK,” which names CNA
Financial Corp. (CNAF), the parent of Continental Casualty Co.
(CCC), as a defendant, have reached a tentative settlement in
the matter.

The suit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, is a class action on behalf of
certain California long term health care policyholders, alleging
that CCC and CNAF knowingly used unrealistic actuarial
assumptions in pricing these policies, which according to
plaintiff, would inevitably necessitate premium increases.

The plaintiff asserts claims for intentional fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of various California
statutes.

CCC and CNAF have denied the material allegations of the amended
complaint and intend to vigorously contest the claims.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the court certified the case to proceed as a
class action.  CCC and CNAF have appealed the grant of class
certification to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Ninth
Circuit refused to hear the appeal on an interlocutory basis.

In April 2007, the Court denied CCC’s and CNAF’s motions for
summary judgment with the exception of the motion relating to
plaintiffs’ claim under the California Legal Remedies Act, which
was dismissed.  The claim under CLRA involved a provision for
claims of awards for attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages.

In June 2007, CCC and CNAF filed a motion to reconsider the
denial of summary judgment on the fraud claim.  In July 2007,
the Court denied the motion for reconsideration.

On October 10, 2007, CCC, CNA and the plaintiffs reached
agreement on terms, subject to entering into a binding
settlement agreement.

Under such terms, the case would be settled on a nationwide
basis for the policy forms potentially affected by the
allegations of the complaint.

Furthermore, CCC would provide certain enhanced benefits to
eligible class members including certain non-forfeiture
benefits, opportunities to exchange policies and free health
screenings.

The agreement is subject to notice to the class, as well as
Court approval, and had no material adverse effect on the
financial condition, cash flows or results of operations of the
Company.

The suit is “Ralph Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02235-PSG-PJW,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Philip
S. Gutierrez with referral to Judge Patrick J. Walsh.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
         Milstein Adelman & Kreger LLP
         2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
         Santa Monica, CA 90405
         Phone: 310-396-9600
         E-mail: wkreger@maklawyers.com

              - and -

         Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
         Neblett Beard and Arsenault
         2220 Bonaventure Court, P.O. Box 1190
         Alexandria, LA 71309-1190
         Phone: 318-487-9874

Representing the defendants are:

         Brent R. Austin, Esq.
         Wildman Harrold Allen and Dixon
         225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2200
         Chicago, IL 60606-1229
         Phone: 312-201-2848
         E-mail: austin@wildmanharrold.com

              - and -

         Stan Karas, Esq.
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges
         865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
         Phone: 213-443-3000
         E-mail: stankaras@quinnemanuel.com

    
CNA FINANCIAL: Settles “Himmelman” Labor Case in N.J. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action, “W. Curtis Himmelman, et
al. v. Continental Casualty Co., Case No. 06-166,” including CNA
Financial Corp. have reached an agreement to fully and finally
resolve the case.

The case is a purported class action and representative action   
brought on behalf of present and former CNA environmental claims   
analysts and workers' compensation claims analysts asserting   
they worked hours for which they should have been compensated at   
a rate of one and one-half times their base hourly wage.  

The complaint was filed on Jan. 12, 2006.  The claims were
originally brought under both federal and New Jersey state wage
and hour laws on the basis that the relevant jobs are not exempt
from overtime pay because the duties performed are not exempt
duties.

On Aug. 11, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s New Jersey
state law claims.

Under federal law, plaintiff seeks to represent others similarly
situated who opt in to the action and who also allege they are
owed overtime pay for hours worked over eight hours per day
and/or forty hours per workweek for the period Jan. 5, 2003 to
the entry of judgment.

Plaintiff seeks “overtime compensation,” “compensatory, punitive
and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements and
attorneys’ fees” without specifying any particular amounts (as
well as an injunction).

The Company denies the material allegations of the Complaint and
intends to vigorously contest the claims on numerous substantive
and procedural grounds.

The parties reached agreement to fully and finally resolve this
matter, 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 "Himmelman v. Continental Casualty Co., Case No.
3:06-cv-00166-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 the plaintiff is:

         Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
         Locks Law Firm, LLC
         457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
         Phone: (856) 663-8200
         E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          Sevfarth Shaw, LLP
          1270 Avenue Of The Americas, Suite 2500
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 218-5523
          E-mail: clowe@ny.seyfarth.com


FISHER-PRICE INC: Recalls Toy Boats on Paint's High Lead Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher-Price Inc., of East Aurora, N.Y., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
38,000 Go Diego Go Animal Rescue Boats.

The company said surface paints on the toys contain excessive
levels of lead, which violates the federal standard prohibiting
lead paint on children’s toys.

No incidents/injuries have been reported.

The toy is an orange and yellow boat that squirts water. Cartoon
character Diego is in the driver’s seat. “Fisher Price,” product
number K3413, and a date code between 137-7HF and 223-7HF are
marked on the toys.

Picture of the recalled boats:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08048.jpg

The boats were made in China and sold at retail stores
nationwide from June 2007 through October 2007 for about $15.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from children and contact Fisher-Price in order to receive a
free replacement toy. Consumers need to return the recalled toys
to Fisher-Price.

For additional information, contact Fisher-Price at (888) 299-
0579 anytime, or visit http://www.service.mattel.com.


HAWAII: Court Asked for Homeless Kids' Equal Access to Education
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Equal Justice (LEJ) and the ACLU of Hawaii are
filing –- to advance a class action --  a motion for preliminary
injunction in federal court seeking an order that would
immediately halt State officials from enforcing laws and
policies that block access by homeless children to public
education in violation of federal law.

ACLU said that as it meet with homeless families and social
service providers across the state, the number of children who
have been or are being denied access to basic public education
continues to grow. The State's blatant violations of federal law
have harmed children statewide and must be immediately
corrected," said William Durham of LEJ. "Congress has given the
State funds to fulfill an important national mandate. There is
no excuse for the State's negligence – every day that goes by
results in more children being denied an education."

The latest round of legal actions includes requests to bar the
State from carrying out specific practices that violate federal
law such as denying homeless children entrance to school because
they lack certain documentation, which has led to children
missing school for days and weeks at a time. The State has also
failed to provide transportation, which forces families of
extremely limited means to fend for themselves and results in
children being consistently tardy or absent from school.

The initial legal complaint, filed October 2, 2007, on behalf of
several homeless parents and their children, charged the State
with a systemic failure to provide homeless children with equal
access to a free and appropriate public education in violation
of the McKinney-Vento Act and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.

Lawyers want State officials responsible for overseeing the
education and welfare of homeless children and their families to
remove obstacles to the enrollment and attendance of homeless
children at public school, to provide transportation to and from
school, to coordinate with other government agencies to serve
homeless children, and to ensure that homeless children have the
same access to public education as all other children. In a
companion motion, the lawyers have also asked the Court to order
that the Plaintiffs represent all homeless students and their
parents statewide.

Plaintiff Olive Kaleauti said, "All I want to do is help my sons
get a good education. I feel like no matter how hard I try to do
this, the schools keep putting up barriers that prevent my
children from going to school. My children and others like them
are being punished for being homeless – but it's not their
fault."

ACLU Legal Director Lois Perrin added, "Over one year ago the
U.S. Department of Education notified the State that they were
failing to comply with federal law, yet the State has done
nothing to correct those deficiencies. While the State drags its
feet, homeless children are denied an education. A preliminary
injunction is necessary to avoid the immediate, profound and
lasting harms on the lives of homeless children caused by the
State's non-compliance."

Any homeless child or parent who has been denied access to
school or transportation to public school and wants to tell his
or her story confidentially or publicly should contact LEJ at
(808) 779-1744 or the ACLU of Hawaii at (808) 522-5905.

LEJ and the ACLU are working with Paul Alston, Roman Amaguin,
Steve Tannenbaum and Shellie Park-Hoapili of Alston Hunt Floyd &
Ing.

The lawsuit names as defendants:

     -- Judy Tonda, Department of Education Homeless
        Coordinator;

     -- Patricia Hamamoto, DOE Superintendent;

     -- Robert McClelland, DOE Systems Accountability Office
        Director;

     -- Board of Education members:

       * Karen Knudsen,
       * John Penebacker,
       * Herbert Watanabe,
       * Breene Harimoto,
       * Dr. Eileen Clarke,
     * Dr. Lei Ahu Isa,
     *Kim Coco Iwamoto,
     * Mary Cochran,
     * Maggie Cox,
     * Cec Heftel,
     * Denise Matsumoto,
     * Donna Ikeda, and
     * Garrett Toguchi; and

     -- Chiyome Fukino, Department of Health Director.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Feb. 2008 Hearing Set for $445M Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has
set a hearing for February 7, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. for the multi-
million dollar settlement of the suits:

     -- "In re HealthSouth Stockholder Litigation, Master File
         No. CV-03-BE-1501-S,”

     -- “In re HealthSouth Bondholder Litigation, No. 03-BE-
         1502-S;” and

     --  “Securities and Exchange Commission v. HealthSouth
          Corporation and Richard M. Scrushy, Civil Action No.
          CV-03-J-0615-S.”

At the hearing, the Court will determine if the Plans of
Allocation and the attorneys' fee and expense requests are fair
and reasonable.

The hearing will be held at the United States Courthouse for the
Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, 140 Hugo L.
Black United States Courthouse, 1729 Fifth Avenue, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.  

The stockholders and bondholders classes includes all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the stock or options of
HealthSouth Corp. including HealthSouth securities received in
exchange for the stock or options of certain other companies
acquired by HealthSouth between April 24, 1997 and March 18,
2003 (stockholder class) and all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired HealthSouth bonds, notes or other debt
instruments during the period between March 31, 1998 and March
18, 2003 (bondholder class).

Deadline to file for objections and exclusion is on December 15,
2007. Deadline to file claims is on Feb. 28, 2008.

             The Shareholders, Noteholders Class Actions

On June 24, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama consolidated a number of separate securities
lawsuits filed against the company.

The consolidated securities action included two prior
consolidated cases:

     -- "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, CV-98-J-
         2634-S," and

     -- "In re HealthSouth Corp. 2002 Securities Litigation,
        Consolidated File No. CV-02-BE-2105-S,"

     -- as well as six other lawsuits filed in 2003.

Including the cases previously consolidated, the consolidated
securities action comprised over 40 separate lawsuits.  The
court divided the consolidated securities action into two
subclasses:

     (1) complaints based on purchases of the company's common
         stock were grouped under the caption, "In re
         HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated
         Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S," (Stockholder Securities
         Action), which was further divided into complaints
         based on:

         (a) purchases of the company's common stock in the open
             market (grouped under the caption, "In re
             HealthSouth Corp. Stockholder Litigation,
             Consolidated Case No. CV-03-BE-1501-S," and

         (b) claims based on the receipt of the company's common
             stock in mergers (grouped under the caption,
             "HealthSouth Merger Cases, Consolidated Case No.
             CV-98-2777-S)."

         Although the plaintiffs in the HealthSouth Merger Cases
         have separate counsel and have filed separate claims,
         the HealthSouth Merger Cases are otherwise consolidated
         with the Stockholder Securities Action for all
         purposes.

     (2) complaints based on purchases of the company's debt
         securities were grouped under the caption, "In re
         HealthSouth Corp. Bondholder Litigation, Consolidated
         Case No. CV-03-BE-1502-S," (Bondholder Securities
         Action).

On Jan. 8, 2004, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
action filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The complaint names the company as a defendant, as well as more
than 30 of its current and former employees, officers and
directors, the underwriters of its debt securities, and its
former auditor.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

     (i) that the company misrepresented or failed to disclose
         certain material facts concerning its business and
         financial condition and the impact of the Balanced
         Budget Act of 1997 on its operations in order to
         artificially inflate the price of the company's common
         stock;

    (ii) that from Jan. 14, 2002 through Aug. 27, 2002, the
         company misrepresented or failed to disclose certain
         material facts concerning its business and financial
         condition and the impact of the changes in Medicare
         reimbursement for outpatient therapy services on the
         company's operations in order to artificially inflate
         the price of its common stock, and that some of the
         individual defendants sold shares of such stock during
         the purported class period; and

   (iii) that Richard M. Scrushy instructed certain former
         senior officers and accounting personnel to materially
         inflate the company's earnings to match Wall Street
         analysts' expectations, and that senior officers of
         HealthSouth and other members of a self-described
         "family" held meetings to discuss the means by which
         the company's earnings could be inflated and that some
         of the individual defendants sold shares of the common
         stock during the purported class period.

The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act, and
claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the 1934
Act.

On Feb. 22, 2006, the company reached a global, preliminary
settlement with the lead plaintiffs in the Stockholder
Securities Action, the Bondholder Securities Action, and the
derivative litigation, as well as with the company's insurance
carriers, to settle claims filed in those actions against the
company and many of its former directors and officers.

In September, a partial settlement has been reached between
HealthSouth Corporation and certain individuals, the Stockholder
Class and the Bondholder Class in a litigation, which alleged
that the Defendants violated federal securities laws (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006).

Defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability relating to any
claims asserted by the Stockholder Class and the Bondholder
Class, but they have agreed to a settlement in the amount of
$445 million in cash, HealthSouth common stock and warrants.

In January, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama granted final approval to the $445 million partial
settlement of the class action "In re HealthSouth Corp. 2002
Securities Litigation, Consolidated File No. CV-02-BE-2105-S"
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 15, 2007).

                       Settlement Terms

Under the settlement agreements, federal securities and fraud
claims brought in the class action against HealthSouth and
certain of its former directors and officers will be settled for
consideration consisting of HealthSouth common stock and
warrants valued at $215 million and cash payments by
HealthSouth's insurance carriers of $230 million, or aggregate
consideration of $445 million.

In addition, the federal securities class action plaintiffs will
receive 25% of any net recoveries from future judgments obtained
by or on behalf of HealthSouth with respect to certain claims
against Richard Scrushy, the company's former chief executive
officer, Ernst & Young, the company's former auditors, and UBS,
the company's former primary investment bank, each of which
remains a defendant in the derivative actions as well as the
federal securities class actions.

The settlement agreement also requires HealthSouth to indemnify
the settling insurance carriers for any amounts that they are
legally obligated to pay to any non-settling defendants.

The settlement does not contain any admission of wrongdoing by
HealthSouth or any other settling defendant.

Securities to be issued by HealthSouth in connection with the
settlement will consist of an aggregate of 25,118,656 shares of
its common stock and eleven-year warrants to purchase an
aggregate of 40,756,326 additional shares of HealthSouth common
stock at an exercise price of $8.28 per share, in each case, as
the same will be adjusted by the proposed 1-for-5 reverse stock
split of HealthSouth's common stock, which, subject to
stockholder approval, is expected to become effective before the
end of October.

             Settlement Excludes Ernst & Young, UBS

The settlement does not include Ernst & Young, UBS, Mr. Scrushy
or any former HealthSouth officer who entered a guilty plea or
was convicted of a crime in connection with the company's former
financial reporting activities.

                         The SEC Lawsuit

Another lawsuit against HealthSouth was filed in the same Court
by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
name of that lawsuit is Securities and Exchange Commission v.
HealthSouth Corporation and Richard M. Scrushy, Civil Action No.
CV-03-J-0615-S.

To settle the SEC claim, HealthSouth paid $100 million to be
distributed among certain investors.  The SEC Settlement has
already been approved by the Court.

On February 7, 2008, the Court will consider a proposed Plan of
Allocation for distributing the class actions settlement funds
and awarding attorneys’ fees. Once the Court has granted final
approval, eligible investors who file valid Claim Forms will
receive a share of the settlement benefits according to the Plan
of Allocation.

Francis E. McGovern is the court appointed Distribution Fund
Administrator.  A court appointed third-party Claims
Administrator, Rust Consulting will process claims, answer
questions, and issue payment and other benefits.

The suit is "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation,
Master Consolidation File No. 2:03-cv-03-BE-1500-S," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
under Judge Karon O. Bowdre.

The Settlement on the Net: http://www.HLSSettlement.com,or call  
1-888-952-9108

For more information, contact:

          HealthSouth Settlement Claims Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 1906 Faribault, MN 55021-7161

Representing HealthSouth are:

          John Whittington, Esq.
          HealthSouth Corporation
          One HealthSouth Parkway
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          E-mail: rbemporad@ldbs.com

          - and -

          Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP
          Julia Boaz Cooper
          One Federal Plaza
          1819 Fifth Ave. North
          Birmingham, AL 35203

Lead counsel for stockholder lead plaintiffs and class:

          Keith F. Park, Esq.
          Joy Ann Bull, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          James W. Johnson, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          140 Broadway, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10005

Lead Counsel for Bondholder Lead Plaintiff and Class:

         John P. Coffey, Esq.
         Jeffrey N. Leibell, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
         New York, NY 10019

         Robert T. Cunningham, Jr., Esq.
         Cunningham, Bounds, Crowder
         Brown & Breedlove, LLC
         1601 Dauphin Street, P.O. Box 66705
         Mobile, AL 36660

Counsel for Merger Subclasses:

          Andrew M. Schatz, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C.
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT  06103


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Court Dismisses Document Preparation Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court has dismissed the
purported class action, “Silke v. Irwin Mortgage Corp.,” which
was filed against an indirect subsidiary of Irwin Financial
Corp.
     
The suit was filed in April 2003.  It alleged that Irwin
Mortgage charged a document preparation fee in violation of
Indiana law for services performed by clerical personnel in
completing legal documents related to mortgage loans.

On June 18, 2004, the court certified a plaintiff class and held
oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment on April 30,
2007.

On May 2, 2007, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion in
another case, “Charter One Mortgage Corporation v. Condra,”
which held that the preparation of mortgage documents by non-
attorneys does not necessarily constitute the practice of law
and that a lender’s charging a fee for the preparation does not
convert it into the unauthorized practice of law.

Citing the Charter One decision, on Aug. 27, 2007, the Silke
trial court ruled in favor of Irwin Mortgage on its Motion for
Summary Judgment against plaintiff class members, thus
concluding this litigation.

Irwin Financial Corp. -- http://www.irwinfinancial.com--
provides financial services throughout the U.S. and Canada.  The
Company focuses primarily on the extension of credit to
consumers and small businesses, as well as providing the ongoing
servicing of those customer accounts.  Through its direct and
indirect subsidiaries, Irwin Financial operates three major
lines of business: commercial banking, commercial finance and
home equity lending.  


JANUS CAPITAL: Still Faces Several Market Timing Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group Inc. continues to face coordinated
proceedings, which includes some class actions on appeal, with
regards to the market timing investigations by the New York
Attorney General (NYAG) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Following the market timing investigations, Janus and certain
affiliates were named as defendants in a consolidated lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Maryland (Case Number MDL
No. 1586, 04-MD-15863).  

Five amended complaints were filed in these coordinated
proceedings, including:

       -- claims by a putative class of Janus fund investors
          asserting claims on behalf of the investor class
          (Marini, et al. v. Janus Investment Fund, et al., U.S.
          District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. 04-CV-
          00497);  

       -- derivative claims by investors in the Janus funds
          ostensibly on behalf of the Janus funds (Steinberg et
          al. v. Janus Capital Management, LLC et al., U.S.
          District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. 04-CV-
          00518);

       -- claims on behalf of participants in the Janus 401(k)
          plan (Wangberger v. Janus Capital Group Inc., 401(k)
          Advisory Committee, et al., U.S. District Court,
          District of Maryland, Case No. JFM-05-2711);

       -- claims brought on behalf of shareholders of Janus on a
          derivative basis against Janus’ Board of Directors
          (Chasen v. Whiston, et al., U.S. District Court,
          District of Maryland, Case No. 04-MD-00855); and

       -- claims by a putative class of Janus shareholders
          asserting claims on behalf of the shareholders
          (Wiggins, et al. v. Janus Capital Group Inc., et al.,
          U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Case No.
          04-CV-00818).

In August 2005, the U.S. District Court entered orders
dismissing most of the claims asserted against the Company and
its affiliates by fund investors in the Marini and Steinberg
cases described above, except certain claims under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under Section 36(b)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940.  

The U.S. District Court also entered an order dismissing all
claims in the Wiggins lawsuit.  Plaintiffs have appealed that
dismissal.  

In August 2006, the U.S. District Court in the Wangberger 401(k)
plan class action dismissed the action with prejudice, and the
plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.  

Finally, the U.S. District Court also dismissed the Chasen
lawsuit against Janus’ Board of Directors without leave to
amend, ruling that the plaintiff had failed to make a pre-suit
demand on the Board of Directors as required by applicable state
law.  The time to appeal this dismissal has expired.  

As a result of the above events, the Company and Janus Capital
Management LLC are the remaining defendants, in some capacity,
in one or more of the actions described in the preceding
paragraph, according to the company’s Oct. 25, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Janus Capital Group Inc. -- http://ir.janus.com/-- is a  
provider of investment advisory services.  Janus provides
investment advisory services through its primary subsidiaries,
Janus Capital Management LLC (JCM) and Enhanced Investment
Technologies, LLC (INTECH).  The Company derives substantially
all of its revenue and net income from its Investment Management
segment, which provides investment management and administrative
services to mutual funds, separate accounts and institutional
clients in both domestic and international markets. The Company
also owns a printing and fulfillment business (the Printing and
Fulfillment segment).


JO-ANN STORES: Recalls Additional Gardening Tools for Kids
----------------------------------------------------------
Jo-Ann Stores Inc., of Hudson, Ohio, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
97,000 children's toy gardening tools in addition to 16,000 toy
rakes recalled on September 26, 2007 and 6,000 toy watering cans
recalled on August 28, 2007.

The company said surface paint on the handle of the toy
gardening tools can contain excessive levels of lead paint,
violating the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

This recall involves the Robbie Ducky children’s leaf rake, hoe,
broom and spade. “Robbie Ducky Garden Collection” is printed on
a tag attached to the handle. The rake has a yellow handle with
the head of a tortoise and green prongs. The hoe has an orange
handle with a caterpillar and a blue blade. The broom has a
purple handle with a duck and an orange brush. The spade has a
yellow handle with the head of a frog and a red blade. The tools
measure between 27 and 29 inches long.

Picture of the recalled gardening tools:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08049.jpg

The gardening tools were made in China and sold at Jo-Ann Fabric
and Craft Stores nationwide from January 2007 through September
2007 for about $7.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from children and return them to any Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft
Store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Jo-Ann Stores toll-free at
(888) 739-4120 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, email the firm at guest.services@jo-annstores.com, or
visit http://www.joann.com.


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Seeks Nixing of Class Claim in Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of a class action
claim filed in a derivative lawsuit that remains pending in the
Delaware Chancery Court.

As part of the derivative lawsuit, which was filed on July 21,
2006, a plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder
recently asserted a separate putative class action claim against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers alleging that shareholders incurred damage due to
purported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting from
historical stock option granting practices.

The Company has moved to dismiss this claim, 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.

KLA-Tencor Corp. -- http://www.kla-tencor.com-- is a supplier  
of process control and yield management solutions, for the
semiconductor and related microelectronics industries.


KLA-TENCOR: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corp. faces a purported class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara,
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 plaintiff, Chris Crimi, filed a putative class action
complaint on Sept. 4, 2007 against the Company and certain of
its current and former directors and officers.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of persons
who held KLA-Tencor common stock between Sept. 20, 2002 and
Sept. 27, 2006, alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary
duty and rescission based on alleged misstatements and omissions
in the Company’s SEC filings concerning the Company’s past stock
option grants, and seeks unspecified damages based upon
purported dilution of the Company’s stock, injunctive relief,
and rescission.

The named defendants, in addition to the Company, are Edward W.
Barnholt, H. Raymond Bingham, Robert T. Bond, Richard J. Elkus,
Jr., Stephen P. Kaufman, Kenneth Levy, Michael E. Marks, Dean O.
Morton, Kenneth L. Schroeder, Jon D. Tompkins, and Richard P.
Wallace.

KLA-Tencor Corp. -- http://www.kla-tencor.com-- is a supplier  
of process control and yield management solutions, for the
semiconductor and related microelectronics industries.


LAWYERS TITLE: Dec. Certification Hearing Set on Rates Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A tentative December 2007 hearing was set for a purported class
action alleging that Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, overcharges
clients for owner's title insurance policy rates.

On Jan. 25, 2002, Miles R. Henderson and Patricia A. Henderson
filed a putative class action against Lawyers Title in the Court
of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  

Lawyers Title removed the case to the District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on March 6, 2002, and the plaintiffs
amended the complaint on March 8, 2002.  On June 28, 2002, the
District Court remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas
for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the defendants had a practice
of charging original rates for owners title insurance policies
when lower, reissue rates should have been charged.  

The company initially responded by demanding that the actions be
arbitrated, but on final appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the
Court ruled that arbitration was not required for either suit.  

On remand to the trial court, Plaintiffs in the Henderson Suit
are now seeking to have the case certified as a class action on
behalf of all sellers and buyers of residential property in Ohio
who paid the higher original rate from 1992 to the present.

A mediation was scheduled for November 2007.   The court is in
the process of setting a class certification hearing date, which
is expected to occur in December 2007.  

The suit demands an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, and
attorneys’ fees and costs.  

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com-- is a  
holding company. Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  The Company provides these products and
services to a customer group including residential and
commercial property buyers and sellers, real estate agents and
brokers, developers, attorneys, mortgage brokers and lenders,
and title insurance agents.   


LAWYERS TITLE: Faces Suit in Ohio Over Title Insurance Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of
LandAmerica Financial Group, faces a purported class action in
Ohio that accuses it of overcharging clients for owner's title
insurance policy rates, 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 similar putative class action suit was filed against
Commonwealth, by Rodney P. Simon and Tracy L. Simon in the Court
of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio on March 5, 2003.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the defendants had a practice
of charging original rates for owners title insurance policies
when lower, reissue rates should have been charged.  

The company initially responded by demanding that the actions be
arbitrated, but on final appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the
Court ruled that arbitration was not required for either suit.  

Plaintiffs in the Simon Suit are seeking to have the case
certified as a class action on behalf of all sellers of
residential property in Ohio, who paid the original rate from
1993 to the present, as requested in the original complaint,
although no hearing date on the class certification has been
scheduled.  

The suit demands an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, and
attorneys’ fees and costs.  

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com-- is a  
holding company. Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  The Company provides these products and
services to a customer group including residential and
commercial property buyers and sellers, real estate agents and
brokers, developers, attorneys, mortgage brokers and lenders,
and title insurance agents.   


OKI DATA: Recalls Printers Due to Internal Electrical Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Oki Data Americas, of Mount Laurel, N.J., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
400 C9600 Series Digital Color Printers because of an internal
electrical problem that could result in electrical shock to
consumers.

No incidents/injuries of electrical shock have been reported so
far.

The digital color printers are beige colored and measure 27
inches wide, 25 inches deep and 20 inches high. “Oki Printing
Solutions” and model “C9600” are printed on the front of the
unit. The following serial numbers are included in the recall.
The serial number is located on the back left side of the
printer.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08052a.jpg

Serial Numbers
AA56002655A0 through AA56002804A0
AA58001468A0 through AA58001617A0
AA58002702A0 through AA58002801A0

The printers were made in Japan and distributed through
authorized OKI Printing Solutions Dealers and Solution Providers
nationwide from August 2005 through September 2007 for about
$3,500.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
printer. Do not touch the printer or attempt to turn it off.
Unplug the printer immediately by pulling the plug from the wall
socket. Unplug the printer before locating the serial number on
the back of the unit. Contact the firm for a free inspection and
repair.

For additional information, contact Oki Data Americas toll-free
at (877) 654-6364 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET, or visit
http://www.okidata.com.


SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls Duck Toys on Paint's Lead Level
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schylling Associates Inc., of Rowley, Mass., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
3,500 of duck family collectible wind-up toy.

The company said surface paints on the ducks contain excessive
levels of lead, which violates the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recalled Duck Family consists of a large wind-up duck,
which pulls three little ducks. They are made of tin and are
primarily yellow in color.

The toys were made in China and sold by specialty toy stores and
gift shops nationwide from January 2007 through August 2007 for
about $8.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toy away
from children and contact Schylling to receive a refund or free
replacement toy.

For additional information, contact Schylling at (800)
767-8697 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.schylling.com.


SONUS NETWORKS: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $40M
---------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc., on Nov. 7, 2007, reached an agreement to
settle a litigation against the Company and certain of its
former and current officers alleging violations of federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's 2004
restatement.

Pursuant to the settlement, which is subject to court approval,
the Company has agreed to pay $40 million to the shareholder
classes in the case. The Company has recorded a $40 million
charge and related liability in the third quarter of fiscal 2007
for the full amount of the settlement.

The Company has approximately $15.3 million in insurance
coverage that could be used to help offset the costs of this
litigation as well as other litigation pending against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors. Due to ongoing discussions with its insurer about the
extent of the insurance coverage available for, and current
uncertainties about the outcome of, the other pending
litigation, the Company has not yet determined how much, if any,
of this insurance coverage will be allocated to the 2004
restatement settlement.

In the event that the Company ultimately determines that some or
all of the $15.3 million of available insurance will be utilized
towards this settlement, the Company would record a gain in that
subsequent reporting period for the amount of the insurance
proceeds allocated to the settlement.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Preliminarily Settles N.Y. GTA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. settled all consumer class
actions pending in the United States against the Company and its
subsidiary Rockstar Games, relating to a third-party program
called the "Hot Coffee Modification" that could be used by
consumers to alter the content of the Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas video game.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to
claim benefits if they swear that they:

     (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas before
         July 20, 2005;

     (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to
         modify and alter the game's content using the third-
         party Hot Coffee modification;

     (c) would not have bought the game had they known that
         consumers could modify and alter the game's content
         using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and

     (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game
         could be modified and altered, if they thought this
         possible.

Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for
benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an
edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment
of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of
purchase.

In July 2005, the company received four purported class actions.  
Two of the four complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, one was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and one
was filed in the Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois.  

The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the Company’s Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas game, assert that the company engaged in
consumer deception, false advertising and breached an implied
warranty of merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a
result of the company's alleged failure to disclose that Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas contained “hidden” content, which
resulted in the game receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the
Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rather than an Adults
Only 18+ (AO) rating.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, declarations of various
violations of law and litigation costs.  In January 2006, the
City of Los Angeles filed a complaint against the company in the
Superior Court of the State of California alleging violations of
California law on substantially the same basis.

The state court actions were removed to federal court (a motion
to remand filed by the City of Los Angeles is pending) and the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all the
cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, which consolidated them under the caption, “In re
Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II),
06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD).”

                     Settlement Terms

The actual value of all cash payments under the settlement will
depend on the number of class members that apply for benefits.
Take-Two has committed to spend at least $1.025 million on
settlement benefits, and the settlement generally caps the
defendants' out-of-pocket costs at no more than $2.75 million,
in addition to the costs of providing notice to class members
and paying a fee to plaintiffs' counsel. The Company previously
established a reserve sufficient to substantially cover the
expected cost of the settlement and related expenses. The full
settlement terms will be described in the parties' Settlement
Agreement, which the plaintiffs are expected to file with the
Court in mid-November when they seek preliminary approval for
the settlement.

"If the case had continued, we believe the court would have
agreed that Take-Two was not liable for consumers acting
independently to modify their games with third-party hardware
and software to access normally inaccessible content," said Ben
Feder, Chief Executive Officer of Take-Two. "Nonetheless, we
believe it is in the best interest of the Company to avoid
protracted and costly litigation to prove our case and to
finally put this matter behind us."

If the proposed settlement receives preliminary and final
approval from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, all claims in these lawsuits will be
dismissed without any admission of liability or wrongdoing by
Take-Two or Rockstar.

The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Eric James Belfi, Esq.
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 907-0790
         Fax: (212) 883-7579
         E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com
  
             - and -

         Andrew Palmer Bell, Esq.
         Locks Law Firm, PLLC
         110 East 55th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-838-3333
         Fax: 212-838-3735
         E-mail: abell@lockslawny.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven L. Caponi, Esq.
         Blank Rome LLP
         1201 North Market Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (302)-425-6408
         Fax: (302)-425-6464
         E-mail: caponi@blankrome.com

              - and -

         Dan Chammas, Esq.
         McDermott Will & Emery
         2049 Century Park E., 34th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
         Phone: (310) 277-4110


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Court Upholds $34M Award to Students
--------------------------------------------------------------
The First District Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that awarded
$33.8 million to thousands of students whom University of
California hit with unexpected fee increases in 2003, Audrey Kuo
of The UCLA Daily Bruin reports.

In a court opinion released on March 2006, San Francisco
Superior Court Judge James Warren ordered the university to pay  
$33.8 million to rectify the damages incurred after thousands of  
professional students faced unexpected fee increases (Class
Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).

The lead plaintiff is Mohammad Kashmiri, who graduated from
Berkeley’s law school in 2004.

The lawsuit stipulated the university breached its contract with
more than 50,000 professional students -- around 9,000 of whom
saw their fees more than double.  Judge Warren said in the court
opinion that in: "university-wide publications" such as student
catalogues, the university made a promise to professional
students that fees would remain constant, and they did not
follow through.

The university was allegedly responsible for unfair fee
increases against three different subclasses of professional
students at UCLA and UC Berkeley during different academic
periods of the 2002-2003 university year according to the suit.

The biggest chunk of money, $28 million of the $33.8 million  
awarded, went to 9,163 professional school students -- business,  
law, medical, etc. -- with the other $5.3 million targeted for  
other students (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006).  With a
10 percent rate of interest, the amount owed is now over $39
million, according to Andrew Freeman, a lawyer for the
professional students.  He is now representing a second group of
UC students who he said faced similar problems with the
university raising fees, according to the report.

Judge Warren specifically ruled that bills sent to students  
before fees rose were binding contracts, and terms outlined in  
each university fee schedule released from 1996 to 2003 were not  
"vague or indefinite."  The judge cited that the key statement  
accompanying prior fee schedules read "Increases in the fee  
apply to new students only. The fee will remain the same for  
each student for the duration of his or her enrollment in the  
professional degree program."

The recent appellate court decision stated that “implied
contracts were formed between the university and respondents.”
The decision also ruled that the university “breached its
contracts ... by raising the educational fees for these terms
after the students had received bills specifying the exact
amount to be paid.”

The appellate court also upheld an injunction banning further
fee increases.

The university has until Dec. 12 to determine whether it will
choose to appeal the decision.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Remaining Ovcon 35 Lawsuit for $9M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited has reached a tentative settlement to
conclude the one remaining antitrust lawsuit involving one of
the Company's combined hormonal contraceptives, Ovcon 35.

Under the proposed settlement, all claims will be dismissed and
the class action, which was brought by direct purchaser
plaintiffs, will be terminated in exchange for a cash payment of
$9.0 million. The settlement remains subject to the negotiation
of definitive documentation and the necessary approvals of the
parties and the court.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Warner Chilcott Ltd. --
http://www.warnerchilcott.com/-- is the holding company for a  
host of pharmaceutical makers.  Women's health care products,
including hormone therapies (femhrt and Estrace Cream) and
contraceptives (Estrostep, Loestrin, and OvCon), are the
company's largest segment.  Other products include dermatology
treatments for acne (Doryx) and psoriasis (Dovonex and
Taclonex).  US subsidiary Warner Chilcott, Inc. makes
prescription drugs for dermatology and women's health; other
subsidiaries provide services in data management systems,
pharmaceutical development, manufacturing, and chemical
development.


* Lawyer in Breast Implant Case Ordered to Return $41.5M in Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer who won a $2 billion settlement in a breast implant
class action is being sued by clients claiming he got a large
amount of the money as legal fees, it emerged in a report by
Nate Raymond of The American Lawyer.

The case was sent to arbitrators and the arbitrators found that
John O'Quinn of Houston collected $263 million of that money as
legal fees.  In September the arbitrators told Mr. O'Quinn to
return $41.5 million.  The amount included the interest on the
original fee of $35.7 million that he got.  As of September,
interest continues to accrue on the money.

Acting for the clients are lawyers Joseph Jamail and Ronald
Krist, both of Houston.  The lawyers have a history of court
cases between them, it emerged in the report. One was in 1998
when Mr. O'Quinn got involved in a scandal that arose out of Mr.
Jamail's case against the Texas attorney general.  Mr. Jamil
accused the attorney general of demanding kickbacks from lawyers
who wanted to play a role in the state's tobacco litigation.  

In 2001, Messers. Jamail and Krist were set to represent Kendall
Montgomery, a former associate of Mr. O'Quinn's, who claimed
that Mr. O'Quinn's firm owed him $105 million in fees from
tobacco and other litigation.  The dispute settled immediately.

In August, Mr. O'Quinn filed a malpractice suit against Mr.
Krist on behalf of a person who hired Mr. Krist as lawyer in an
injury suit against BP PLC.  Mr. Krist was accused of conflict
of interest for turning around and defending BP in other suits.

In the breast implant case, Mr. O'Quinn is represented by Billy
Shepherd of Cruse, Scott, Henderson & Allen in Houston.  Mr.
Shepherd is planning to appeal the arbitrator's ruling.  He
noted that the judgment is technically against three legal
entities connected to Mr. O'Quinn, not Mr. O'Quinn as an
individual, according to the report.

Mr. Jamail and other lawyers in the arbitration were awarded
$10.24 million in fees and $500,000 for expenses.  The case cost
$2 million to prosecute, says Mr. Krist, according to the
report. After the recovery is split, each firm will get more
than $2.1 million.


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. U.S. Steel Remain at 300 at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, faced about 300
active asbestos-related cases involving about 3,050 plaintiffs,
including cases involving the businesses acquired from Lone Star
Technologies Inc., according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct.
30, 2007.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company faced about 300 active
asbestos-related cases with about 3,050 plaintiffs. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2007)

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company was a defendant in about 300
active cases involving about 3,700 plaintiffs. Many of these
cases involve multiple defendants (typically from 50 to more
than 100).

Almost 2,750, or about 90 percent, of these claims are pending
in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.

During the 2007-3rd quarter, the Company paid about US$1 million
in settlements. These settlements, along with review of case
docket information for certain states, and voluntary and
involuntary dismissals, resulted in the disposition of about 200
claims. New case filings added about 150 claims.

During 2006, the Company paid about US$8 million in settlements.
These settlements, along with review of case docket information
for certain states, and voluntary and involuntary dismissals,
resulted in the disposition of about 5,150 claims. New case
filings added about 450 claims.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is a
defendant in cases in which a total of about 165 plaintiffs
allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.

Pittsburgh-based United States Steel Corp. produces and sells
steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular, in North
America and Central Europe. Operations in North America also
include iron ore mining and processing to supply steel producing
units; real estate management and development; and
transportation services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. TRW Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. subsidiaries continue to
face asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 30, 2007.

In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to
have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain
components sold by the Company's subsidiaries. The Company said
it believes that most of the claimants were assembly workers at
the major U.S. automobile manufacturers.

Most of these claims name, as defendants, numerous manufacturers
and suppliers of various products allegedly with asbestos. The
Company said it believes that, to the extent any of the products
sold by its subsidiaries and at issue in these cases contained
asbestos, the asbestos was encapsulated.

Livonia, Mich.-based TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a supplier
of automotive systems, modules and components to global
automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and related
aftermarkets. The Company conducts substantially all of its
operations through subsidiaries. These operations primarily
encompass the design, manufacture and sale of active and passive
safety related products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Transocean Units Pending in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several Transocean Inc. subsidiaries, along with unaffiliated
defendants, still face several asbestos-related complaints that
have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31,
2007.

These complaints involve over 700 persons that allege personal
injury arising out of asbestos exposure in the course of their
employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints also name as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries to whom the Company may owe indemnity. Further, the
complaints name other unaffiliated defendant companies,
including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related
products containing asbestos.

The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors
used those asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling
operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling
structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and
assert claims based on negligence and strict liability, and
claims authorized under the Jones Act. The plaintiffs seek
awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company has not yet been able to conduct extensive discovery
or determine the number of plaintiffs that were employed by its
subsidiaries or otherwise have any connection with its drilling
operations.

Houston-based Transocean Inc. is an international provider of
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The
Company also p