CAR_Public/071112.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 12, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 224

                            Headlines

AETNA LIFE: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Alleging ERISA, RICO Violations
AETNA INC: Pa. Transportation Authority Files Securities Suit
APPLE INC: Fla. Suit Over iTunes-iPod Tie-up Sent to Calif.
AT&T WIRELESS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Roadside Assistance
BRISTOL-MYERS: Settles AWP MDL with Three Groups of Claimants

BRISTOL-MYERS: Yet to Report Pollution Case Settlement Approval
ENERGY EAST: Settles N.Y. Investor Suit Over Iberdrola's Bid
FISHER-PRICE INC: Recalls Kitchen Toys with Detachable Parts
GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Kids' Jewelry on Lead Content
HANGZHOU ZHONGCE: Chinese Firm Seeks to Junk U.S. Consumer Suit

ISRAEL: Islamic Trust Leaders Sued Over Temple Mount Destruction
MASCO CORP: Still Faces Residential Insulation Contractors' Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: Investors File Suit Over Defibrillators in Minn.
MERCK & CO: U.S. Vioxx Victims to Get $5B; Aussie Suit Continues
NEW MEXICO: Sue Dona Ana County Jail Sued Over Mental Care

PHI SERVICE: Parties Appeal Summary Judgment in Del. ERISA Suit
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Snowmobiles to Replace Fuel Tank
PPG INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of $23M Antitrust MDL Settlement
PPG INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of Cal. Antitrust Suit Deal
PPG INDUSTRIES: Flat Glass Antitrust Suit Deal Hearing Canceled

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces ERISA Breach Litigation in Iowa
PRINCIPAL LIFE: Faces ERISA, Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Iowa
SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Steps Up Recall of Tops on Lead Content
SPORT SUPPLY: Suit Over Old SSG Shares Purchase in Discovery
TELSTRA CORP: Settles Investor Suit for $5M; Lawyer to Get $1M

TWEEN BRANDS: Recalls Beads on Paint's High Lead Levels
VINTAGE CHOCOLATES: Recalls Soy Choco Bars for Undeclared Milk
VITERRA ENERGY: Ore. Court Approves Suit Over Water, Sewer Bills
WASHINGTON GROUP: Settles Del. Suit Over $2.4B Sale to URS Corp.
WASHINGTON GROUP: La. Suits Over Levee Failure Remain Pending


                   New Securities Fraud Cases
     
CITIGROUP INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
CROCS INC: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit in Colorado
LCA-VISION: Strauss & Troy Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
MEDTRONIC INC: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
OFFICE DEPOT: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in Fla.


                          *********


AETNA LIFE: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Alleging ERISA, RICO Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Life Insurance Co., a unit of Aetna, Inc., faces a
purported class action in New Jersey, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit, “Michele Cooper, et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance
Company, et al.,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on July 30, 2007 and amended on Oct. 19,
2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the company violated state law, the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
(ERISA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act in connection with various practices related to the payment
of claims for services rendered to the company's members by
providers with whom it do not have a contract (out-of-network
providers), resulting in increased out-of-pocket payments by the
company members.  

The purported classes together consist of all members in
substantially all of its health benefit plans who received
services from out-of-network providers from 2001 to date for
which we allowed less than the full amount billed by the
provider.  

The plaintiffs seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits,
recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance
amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory
penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest,
costs and attorneys’ fees, and to disqualify us from acting as a
fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA.  

The suit is “Cooper v. Aetna Health Inc. PA, Corp. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-03541-FSH-PS” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with
referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

         Robert J. Axelrod, Esq.
         Levinson Axelrod
         3641 Highway #9 North
         Howell, NJ 07731
         Phone: (732) 730-9600

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael Xavier McBride, Esq.
         Connell Foley LLP
         85 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1765
         Phone: (973) 535-0500
         E-mail: mmcbride@connellfoley.com


AETNA INC: Pa. Transportation Authority Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc. faces a purported securities fraud class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The purported class action was filed on Oct. 24, 2007 by the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority on behalf of
all purchasers of the company's common stock between Oct. 27,
2005 and April 27, 2006.  

The plaintiff alleges that the company and three of its current
or former officers and/or directors, John W. Rowe, M.D., Alan M.
Bennett and Craig R. Callen, violated federal and state
securities laws and applicable common law.  

The plaintiff alleges misrepresentations and omissions
regarding, among other things, the company medical benefit
ratios and its health plan pricing policies, as well as insider
trading by Dr. Rowe and Messrs. Bennett and Callen.  

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys’ fees, among other remedies.  

The suit is “Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,
et al. v. Aetna Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-04451,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Judge Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Grant & Eisenhofer PA
          1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302.622.7000
          Fax: 302.622.7100
          E-mail: info@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610.667.7706
          Fax: 610.667.7056
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


APPLE INC: Fla. Suit Over iTunes-iPod Tie-up Sent to Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. is facing a class action charging it with illegally
tying iPods to the iTunes Store in order to create a monopoly,
reports say.

The suit was originally filed by Frederick Black of Florida in
August.  The case has now been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California where a number of
similar matters are pending.

The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 3, 2007).  It alleges that Apple
monopolizes the online digital content business by illegally
tying two product lines, iTunes and iPods.

Mr. Black claimed Apple controls more than 80% of the online
music and video market through iTunes.  He said Apple has made
it impossible to transfer digital content bought from iTunes to
any music or video players but iPods, and impossible to download
digital content to an iPod from any other online vendor.

Apples deceptive and unfair business practices allegedly placed
an unconscionable burden on the class of more than 100,000
Florida consumers, Mr. Black says.

Plaintiff brought the action pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.220(b)
on behalf of any Florida consumer who has purchased an Apple
iPod or any Florida consumer who has purchased and downloaded
digital content (music, video, etc) from the iTunes Store.

Plaintiff requests that the court rule:

     (a) whether defendant conducted itself in a manner that was
         deceptive and unfair under the Florida Deceptive and
         Unfair Trade Practices Act;

     (b) whether defendant maintain a monopoly in the relevant
         markets discussed;

     (c) whether defendant has conducted itself in such a manner
         as to attempt to maintain a monopoly in the relevant
         markets as discussed;

     (d) whether the definition of the relevant markets as
         discussed are satisfied;

     (e) whether the relevant class period is satisfied;

     (f) whether the market influence and power defendant has in
         each of the relevant markets discussed are satisfied;

     (g) whether the restrictions defendant places on its
         customers are unconscionable; and

     (h) whether plaintiff and the class have been damaged by
         defendant's practices.

Plaintiff requests judgment against defendant as follows:

     -- declaring defendant to be in violation of the Florida
        Antitrust Act;

     -- treble damages;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

     -- any further relief the court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Frederick Black et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
0721186," filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Edward R. Curtis
          William T. Cotterall
          Tripp Scott, P.A.
          110 S.E. Sixth Street, 15th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-7500
          Fax: (954) 761-8475


AT&T WIRELESS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Roadside Assistance
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Fort Myers attorney filed a class action against AT&T
Wireless, formerly Cingular, for allegedly billing people for
roadside assistance that they didn't subscribe to, Pat Gillespie
of The News-Press reports.

Attorney Scott Weinstein filed a federal class action seeking
damages that exceed $5 million as hundreds of thousands of
Florida residents subscribe to the charge that they call a
hidden option that’s added to each customer automatically.  

The report, citing court documents, said the company adds the
monthly charge, though the clients neither enrolled for it nor
knew it was on their bill until they discovered it.  The suit
alleges violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

Mr. Weinstein’s primary clients are from near Orlando and Fort
Lauderdale, including Paul Flaherty Jr.  But Mr. Weinstein said
he has gotten calls from residents of Southwest Florida and
other parts of the state.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Settles AWP MDL with Three Groups of Claimants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. is currently working to settle certain
claims as well as defend others pending in lawsuits relating to
the pricing of drugs.

Bristol-Myers Squibb, together with a number of other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, is a defendant in private class
actions, as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
numerous states, many New York counties, and the City of New
York, relating to the pricing of the company's products.  The
suits are pending in federal and state courts.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege defendants caused the
Average Wholesale Prices of their products to be inflated,
thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who
reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs.

Twelve state attorneys’ general suits are pending in federal and
state courts around the country.  

A case in Alabama state court is scheduled to be the first to
proceed to trial in February 2008.

One set of class actions, a suit by the Arizona attorney general
and several suits filed by New York Counties and the City of New
York, have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

The Court in the AWP MDL has certified three classes of persons
and entities who paid for or reimbursed for seven of the
Company’s physician-administered drugs.

In June 2007, the Company settled in principle the claims of
Class 1 (Medicare Part B beneficiaries nationwide) for $13
million, plus half the costs of class notice up to a maximum
payment of $1 million.

In a non-jury trial in the AWP MDL, the Court found the Company
liable for violations of Massachusetts’ consumer protection laws
with respect to certain oncology drugs for certain years and
awarded damages in the amount of $183,454 for Class 3 (private
third party payors) and instructed the parties to apply the
Court’s opinion to determine damages for Class 2 (Medigap
insurers).   In August, 2007, the Court found damages of
$187,789 for Class 2.  

The Company will appeal the June 2007 decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit.

A hearing will be scheduled thereafter for preliminary approval
of the Class 1 settlement, according to the company’s Oct. 25,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com-- is engaged in  
the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing,
distribution and sale of pharmaceuticals and other healthcare-
related products.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Yet to Report Pollution Case Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. has yet to report that the Superior
Court in Puerto Rico has approved a proposed settlement of a
purported pollution class action filed against it and other
companies.

As previously disclosed, the company is one of several
defendants in a class action filed in Superior Court in Puerto
Rico relating to air emissions from a government owned and
operated wastewater treatment facility.

The Court certified the class on Aug. 9, 2007 and on Aug. 15,
2007, the parties executed a global settlement agreement,
resolving all claims in the litigation.

An Oct. 26, 2007 hearing was set in the matter.

Under the terms of the settlement, certain measures, including
capital improvements, will be implemented at the wastewater
treatment facility to minimize the potential for future odor
emissions.  

The Company’s share of the payment to plaintiffs will be
approximately $700,000.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com-- is engaged in  
the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing,
distribution and sale of pharmaceuticals and other healthcare-
related products.


ENERGY EAST: Settles N.Y. Investor Suit Over Iberdrola's Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy East Corp. settled a purported class action in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York for Kings County
(Brooklyn) in connection with Iberdrola S.A.'s proposed
acquisition of the company, according to the company’s Nov. 1,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Howard Lasker, an alleged shareholder of Energy East, filed the
suit on or about July 6, 2007 against the company and its
directors.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, the
consideration for the proposed acquisition is unfair and
inadequate because it does not provide Energy East shareholders
with a sufficient premium and the defendants have breached their
fiduciary duty.  It seeks an injunction on the completion of the
Merger as well as monetary damages in an amount not specified.  

On Sept. 26, 2007, the plaintiff and Energy East and its
directors agreed, subject to confirmatory discovery and court
approval, to settle the lawsuit.  

The settlement is based on Energy East's agreement to include
certain additional disclosures in its proxy statement.  As a
result of the settlement, plaintiff will not seek to enjoin the
transaction.

The settlement, if completed and approved by the court, will
result in dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit. The
settlement also will result in a release of claims that have
been or could have been asserted relating to the Merger, the
Merger Agreement, or any disclosures relating to the Merger by
the plaintiff and the purported class of Energy East
shareholders.

In connection with such settlement, the plaintiff's counsel will
apply to the court for attorneys' fees and expenses not to
exceed in the aggregate $340,000, which Energy East has agreed
to pay, if awarded by the court, provided the court approves the
settlement and dismisses the lawsuit with prejudice. Energy East
and its directors continue to deny all of the substantive
allegations in the complaint.

Energy East Corp. -- http://www.energyeast.com-- is a public  
utility holding company that through its subsidiaries, has
regulated transmission, distribution and generation operations
in New York and Maine, and is engaged in regulated natural gas
transportation, storage and distribution operations in New York,
Connecticut, Maine and Massachusetts.  It also controls energy-
marketing companies and has other non-utility businesses.  The
Company created a support services company in 2004, Utility
Shared Services Corp., to consolidate support service functions
for its utilities.


FISHER-PRICE INC: Recalls Kitchen Toys with Detachable Parts
------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher-Price Inc., of East Aurora, N.Y., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 155,000 Laugh & Learn Learning Kitchen Toys.

The company said pieces of the faucet or the clock hands can
detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.

There have been 48 reports of small parts separating from the
toys, including two reports of children gagging on pieces, one
report of a child who started choking on a piece and one report
of a child who choked on a piece.

The recall involves a play kitchen learning toy with a pretend
refrigerator, range and sink. The product’s item number L5067 is
stamped in several locations on the toy and printed on the
product’s packaging above the UPC.

Picture of the kitchen toy:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08063.jpg

The toys were made in Mexico and sold at various retail and toy
specialty stores nationwide from May 2007 through October 2007
for about $70.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from
children and contact Fisher-Price for a free repair kit.

For additional information, contact Fisher-Price toll-free at
(888) 812-7187 between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday and between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Saturday, or visit
http://www.service.mattel.com.


GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Kids' Jewelry on Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greenbrier International, Inc., of Chesapeake, Va., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 198,000 Beary Cute, Expressions, and Sassy &
Chic Children’s Metal Jewelry.

The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of
lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects.

No incidents/injuries were reported so far.

Description: This recall involves the Beary Cute, Expressions,
and Sassy & Chic children’s jewelry with items number 855589,
873091, 873097, or 903950. The item number can be found on the
reverse of the packaging.

Name          Type of Jewelry                Item Number
Beary Cute    Pierced earrings with jewelry
               like studs and hanging earrings
               with bears, hearts and flowers    855589

Expressions    Necklaces with beads and pendants   873091 or
                                                   873097
Sassy & Chic   Girl’s bracelets and charms    903950

Picture of the recalled jewelry:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08045d.jpg

The jewelry were made in China and sold at Dollar Tree, Dollar
Bill$, Dollar Express, Greenbacks and Only $1 stores nationwide
from December 2005 through July 2007 for $1.

Consumers are advised to immediately take this jewelry away from
children. Consumers should return the recalled jewelry to the
store where purchased for a refund.

For additional information, contact Dollar Tree Stores Inc. at
(800) 876-8077 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.dollartree.com.


HANGZHOU ZHONGCE: Chinese Firm Seeks to Junk U.S. Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese tire company Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Co. filed a motion
with the U.S. District Court in Camden seeking for the dismissal
of a consumer suit filed against it, BusinessWeek reports.

Hangzhou Zhongce said the suit should be dismissed because the
manufacturer does not do business in New Jersey or anywhere else
in the U.S.

A Pennsylvania man, Robert McCulley, who says he was exposed to
danger when he purchased a set of tires made by the company, is
suing Hangzhou Zhongce along with several importers.  Mr.
McCulley is seeking class-action status for the lawsuit.  The
suit was filed June 27, 2007.

Hangzhou Zhongce's tires sold in the U.S. were recalled in
August after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
reported that the tires lacked a safety feature that prevents
tread separation.

The recall was made by Foreign Tires Sales Inc., a New Jersey
importer.  The models recalled are steel-belted radial
replacement tires for pickups, vans and sport utility vehicles
that consumers bought from early 2004 through mid-2006.

Defendants in the suit are:

     -- Hangzhou Zhonhce Rubber Company, Ltd.,
     -- Tireco,
     -- Strategic Import Supply,
     -- Omni United USA, Inc.,
     -- Oteck International, Inc.,
     -- K&D Tire Wholesalers LLC,   
     -- Robinson Tire,
     -- Foreign Tire Sales, Inc.,
     -- Reliable Tire Company, and
     -- John Does 1-50

The suit is “Mcculley v. Hangzhou Zhonhce Rubber Company, Ltd.
et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-02993,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Joseph H.
Rodriguez with referral to Judge Joel Schneider.

Representing the defendants is:

          Mitchell S. Berman, Esq.
          Mitchell S. Berman LLC
          1179 East Landis Ave.
          Vineland, NJ 08362-1120
          Phone: (856) 405-0900
          E-mail: msb@bermanlawllc.com

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          Locks Law Firm, LLC
          457 Haddonfield Road
          Suite 500
          Cherry Hill, N.J. 08002
          Phone: (856) 663-8200
          E-mail: mgalpern@lockslaw.com

          Mary Helen Grabish, Esq.
          Locks Law Firm
          601 Walnut St.
          Suite 720 East
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: 215-893-0100
          E-mail: mgrabish@lockslawpa.com


ISRAEL: Islamic Trust Leaders Sued Over Temple Mount Destruction
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of 150 Israeli citizens, representing a broad cross
section of the Israeli public, have initiated an unprecedented
criminal prosecution of WAQF (Islamic Trust) leaders in
Jerusalem –- alleging that Islamic officials have engaged in an
alleged deliberate destruction of ancient Jewish relics on the
Temple Mount. The indictment was filed in the Jerusalem District
Court by means of a private lawsuit.

The private indictment is first of its kind in Israeli legal
history and utilizes a seldom applied section of the criminal
code.  If convicted, the WAQF officials face years in prison.

The legal action, which is led by Shurat HaDin - Israel Law
Center, accuses members of the Islamic Trust ("the WAQF") of the
intentional demolishing of priceless Jewish artifacts, including
the remains of the Second Temple.

In recent months the WAQF has brought in bulldozers and heavy
digging equipment to carry out "renovations".  Israeli
archaeologists who have sifted through the discarded earth were
shocked to have discovered a great number of Jewish artifacts
brutally trashed by the bulldozers. A wall from the outer
courtyard of the Second Temple is believed to have been
completely pulverized.

The court papers contend that the recent accelerated destruction
is part of a four decade long campaign by the WAQF to eradicate
all evidence of the historical Jewish connection and claim to
the Temple Mount.

After liberating the Old City in 1967, Israel permitted the WAQF
to remain as "custodians" of the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest
site. The Islamic group has repaid Israel and World Jewry with
an unrelenting 40 year long campaign of hatred and incitement.

Shurat HaDin alleges that the Israeli government, in its
political cowardice, has consistently refused to undertake any
concrete actions to stop the criminal activities of the WAQF –
thus abandoning the millenniums long Jewish claim over the
Temple Mount and allowing Islamic extremists to re-write
Jerusalem's history.

Shurat HaDin Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: "This private
prosecution in an unprecedented response to the brutal attempt
by the WAQF extremist to eradicate any Jewish claim over the
Temple Mount. The WAQF leaders belong in prison and since
Israel's government is refusing to protect Jewish heritage and
property, we will prosecute the WAQF ourselves. This legal
action is a moral obligation, not only for the Jewish people,
but also for the Christian community, which has significant
interests in safeguarding the Temple Mount as well".

An Israeli group is suing Muslim authorities responsible for
renovation work on the Temple Mount.

The Israel Law Center said it had filed a private lawsuit
against the Waqf at the Jerusalem District Court.

The Waqf, which answers to the Palestinian Authority and Jordan
rather than to Israel, says its Temple Mount work is part of
efforts to improve the infrastructure serving Muslim holy places
at the site.

But Waqf officials have angered Israel in the past by denying
there are historical Jewish links to the Temple Mount. The
situation is especially explosive given the current Israeli-
Palestinian talks on possible shared sovereignty in Jerusalem.

"This legal action is a moral obligation not only for the Jewish
people, but also for the Christian community, which has
significant interests in safeguarding the Temple Mount as well,"
said Israel Law Center director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner.


MASCO CORP: Still Faces Residential Insulation Contractors' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corp. continues to face a purported class action in
Georgia seeking class representation for residential insulation
contractors that have directly purchased fiberglass insulation
suitable for residential installation from certain insulation
manufacturers.

Early in 2003, a suit was brought against the company and a
number of its insulation installation companies in the federal
court in Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that certain practices
violate provisions of federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiff publicized the lawsuit with a press release and
stated in that release that the U.S. Department of Justice was
investigating the business practices of the company's insulation
installation companies.  

Although the company was unaware of any investigation at that
time, the company was later advised that an investigation had
been commenced but was subsequently closed without any
enforcement action recommended.

The complaint requests class action certification, 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.

Masco Corp. -- http://www.masco.com-- manufactures, distributes  
and installs home improvement and building products.


MEDTRONIC INC: Investors File Suit Over Defibrillators in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Inc. is facing a lawsuit, seeking class-action status,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
claiming the company and its top executives suppressed
information about defects in a critical wire lead used with
certain heart defibrillators, Chris Serres of the Star Tribune
reports.

The suit, filed by investor Stanley Kurzweil, seeks unspecified
damages from the Fridley-based medical device giant, and from
Chairman Arthur Collins Jr., CEO William Hawkins III and CFO
Gary Ellis.

Mr. Kurzweil is seeking class-action status for those who bought
Medtronic stock between June 25 and Oct. 15 this year. During
that period, the suit alleges that Medtronic made false and
misleading statements about the leads, claiming in a securities
filing that the product enjoyed "strong market acceptance."

On October 15, 2007, due to reports of adverse events and at
least five patient deaths with defibrillator leads sold under
the brand name Sprint Fidelis, Medtronic issued a recall of the
product.

Leads are the thin insulated wires connected to a defibrillator
that carry electric impulses to the heart. Your wallet card will
specify the manufacturer of your defibrillator leads.

The suit is “Kurzweil v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., Case Number:
0:2007cv04564,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.


NEW MEXICO: Sue Dona Ana County Jail Sued Over Mental Care
----------------------------------------------------------
Civil rights groups sued the Dona Ana County Detention Center
for alleged failure to provide adequate mental health services
to inmates in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and constitutional prohibitions on “cruel and unusual
punishment.”

The class action charges county officials with “deliberate
indifference to [inmates’] serious mental health needs,”
including failure to provide adequate mental health screening,
monitoring, and care.  

On behalf of plaintiffs, Protection and Advocacy System, Inc.
(P&A), the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, and
private attorneys Michael Lilley of Las Cruces and Peter Cubra
and Lisa Schatz-Vance of Albuquerque seek an effective program
for mental health screening and treatment for all detainees and
policy changes prohibiting the unnecessary incarceration of
people with mental illness.

“Local officials have chosen to arrest and incarcerate people
with serious mental disabilities instead of providing them with
the treatment they require,” said P&A Executive Director, Jim
Jackson.  “After incarcerating them, the county does not provide
them with needed treatment at the jail, either.  We gave County
officials multiple chances to fix the situation and they ignored
our efforts.  We felt litigation was our only recourse.”

In December, 2006, a jail conditions expert, hired by P&A,
inspected the jail and sent a memo to detention center Director
Chris Barela recommending improvements in the jail’s program for
mental health screening.  When their letter went ignored, P&A
sent a second letter in June, 2007 requesting that specific
problems regarding inadequate mental health care be corrected.

The letter followed an attempted suicide by a person held in the
jail who is a named plaintiff in the civil rights suit.  In May
and September 2007 P&A visited with jail officials and
reiterated their concerns.

None of these contacts prompted significant improvements in
mental health programming, according to a statement by ACLu.

ACLU Executive Director Peter Simonson said, “By ignoring
inmates’ mental health problems, the county has created a lose-
lose situation.  The inmates suffer.  The jail suffers, because
it faces possible suicides and violence within the facility.  
And ultimately the citizens of Doña Ana county lose, because
eventually some of these inmates will return to society in worse
mental states than when they entered the jail.  It’s high time
the situation was resolved for all concerned.”

The lawsuit was filed in state court.  In addition to policy
changes, it seeks punitive and compensatory damages.

For more information, contact:

          Whitney Potter
          ACLU of New Mexico
          Phone: (505) 266 5915 ext. 1003
          Mobile No.: (505) 507 9898

          Nancy Koenigsberg
          Protection and Advocacy System, Inc.
          Phone: (505) 256-3100


MERCK & CO: U.S. Vioxx Victims to Get $5B; Aussie Suit Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Slater & Gordon Ltd. said that on Nov. 9, 2007, a breakthrough
settlement agreement was announced for VIOXX victims in the U.S.

The agreement provides for $US4.85 billion in compensation for
people who suffered heart attacks and strokes after using at
least 30 days' worth of VIOXX, and who suffered their injury
within 14 days of their last VIOXX use -- a group of people very
similar to the group of Australians represented in the VIOXX
class action being run by Slater & Gordon.

The U.S. agreement only covers people who live in the United
States or suffered their injury there, so victims from Australia
and other countries aren't able to make a claim under this
scheme. Merck has said that it intends to continue fighting non-
U.S. claims through the courts. Nonetheless, the settlement is a
very important development for VIOXX victims worldwide, as it
demonstrates that these claims can be successfully resolved.

Because the settlement doesn't cover Australians, the VIOXX
class action in the Federal Court of Australia is still
continuing. Slater & Gordon said it is hopeful that the recent
U.S. developments mean that Australian VIOXX victims, too, will
eventually be compensated for their injuries, one way or
another.

For more information about the U.S. settlement agreement and
what it means for Australian VIOXX victims, contact Slater &
Gordon at 1800 555 777.

         General Information on VIOXX Class Action

Since December 2005, Slater & Gordon has been running the
Peterson class action for VIOXX victims. The lead applicant in
the case is Graeme Peterson, a Melbourne man who suffered a
heart attack after several years’ use of VIOXX.

In early 2006, the case was moved to the Federal Court of
Australia, and Slater & Gordon reached agreements with a number
of other Australian law firms to take over the conduct of their
claims. This means that all of these VIOXX claims can be dealt
with by the courts together, through the Peterson class action,
and that the claims can be resolved faster than individual VIOXX
proceedings could.

Throughout 2007, the parties to the case have been exchanging
evidence and preparing their cases for the first trial in the
class action, which will likely occur in 2008.


PHI SERVICE: Parties Appeal Summary Judgment in Del. ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action against PHI Service Co.,
subsidiary of Pepco Holdings, Inc. is appealing the granting of
a motion for summary judgment in the matter to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The purported class action was filed by management employees of
PHI alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

In 1999, Conectiv, which the company later acquired, established
a cash balance retirement plan to replace defined benefit
retirement plans then maintained by Atlantic City Electric Co.
and Delmarva Power & Light Co.  

Following the acquisition by Pepco of Conectiv, this plan became
the Conectiv Cash Balance Sub-Plan within the PHI Retirement
Plan.

On Sept. 26, 2005, three management employees of PHI Service Co.
filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware against the PHI Retirement Plan, PHI and Conectiv (PHI
Parties), alleging violations of ERISA, on behalf of a class of
management employees who did not have enough age and service
when the Cash Balance Sub-Plan was implemented in 1999 to assure
that their accrued benefits would be calculated pursuant to the
terms of the predecessor plans sponsored by Atlantic City
Electric and Delmarva Power.

A fourth plaintiff was added to the case to represent DPL
heritage "grandfathered" employees who will not be eligible for
early retirement at the end of the grandfathered period.

Plaintiffs have challenged the design of the Cash Balance Sub-
Plan and are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Cash
Balance Sub-Plan is invalid and that the accrued benefits of
each member of the class should be calculated pursuant to the
terms of the predecessor plans.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the use of a variable
rate to compute the plaintiffs' accrued benefit under the Cash
Balance Sub-Plan results in reductions in the accrued benefits
that violate ERISA.

The complaint also alleges that the benefit accrual rates and
the minimal accrual requirements of the Cash Balance Sub-Plan
violate ERISA as did the notice that was given to plan
participants upon implementation of the Cash Balance Sub-Plan.

The PHI Parties filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which was
denied by the court in July 2006.  The Delaware District Court
stayed one count of the complaint regarding alleged age
discrimination pending a decision in another case before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the Third
Circuit).

In January 2007, the Third Circuit issued a ruling in the other
case that PHI believes should result in the favorable
disposition of all of the claims (other than the claim of
inadequate notice) against the PHI Parties in the Delaware
District Court.  The PHI Parties filed pleadings apprising the
Delaware District Court of the Third Circuit's decision in
February 2007.

In March 2007, the plaintiffs filed pleadings apprising the
Delaware District Court that the Third Circuit had denied a
request for a rehearing in the other case.  

Also in January 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification and the PHI Parties filed their opposition in
February 2007.

In May 2007, the PHI Parties filed a motion for summary judgment
at the close of discovery.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition
and cross-motion for summary judgment on June 19, 2007.

The motion was granted by the Delaware District Court on Sept.
19, 2007.  On Oct. 12, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of
the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
according to the company’s Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Pepco Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.pepcoholdings.com/-- is a  
diversified energy company that, through its operating
subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in two principal business
operations: electricity and natural gas delivery, and
competitive energy generation, marketing and supply.  PHI
Service Co., a subsidiary service company of PHI, provides a
variety of support services, including legal, accounting,
treasury, tax, purchasing and information technology services to
PHI and its operating subsidiaries.  These services are provided
pursuant to a service agreement among PHI, PHI Service Co., and
the participating operating subsidiaries.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Snowmobiles to Replace Fuel Tank
------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minn., in cooperation, with
the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission, is recalling
about 28,000 snowmobiles.

The company said the fuel tank filler neck can crack and
separate allowing fuel or fuel vapors to leak from the fuel
tank. This poses a fire hazard to consumers.

The firm has received 1,048 reports of the filler neck cracking
or leaking. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves certain model year 2004-2007 Polaris
snowmobiles. The model number and serial number (VIN)
identification decal is located on the right side of the tunnel
underneath the seat. See the chart of model numbers included in
this recall.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08516.jpg

The snowmobiles were made in the U.S. and sold at Polaris
dealers nationwide from July 2003 through October 2007 for
between $4,100 and $11,600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled snowmobiles
and contact their Polaris snowmobile dealer to schedule a free
installation of a new fuel tank assembly. Polaris has directly
notified registered consumers who have not already received a
repair.

For additional information, contact Polaris at (888) 704-5290
between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.polarisindustries.com.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of $23M Antitrust MDL Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to approve a $23 million settlement reached by PPG
Industries, Inc. in a suit alleging it violated antitrust rules
in its operation in the U.S. automotive refinish industry.

Approximately 60 cases alleging antitrust violations in the
automotive refinish industry have been filed in various state
and federal jurisdictions.

The approximately 55 federal cases have been consolidated as a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Certain of the defendants in the federal automotive refinish
case have settled.  The automotive refinish cases in state
courts have either been stayed pending resolution of the federal
proceedings or have been dismissed.

Neither PPG's investigation conducted through its counsel of the
allegations in these cases nor the discovery conducted in the
case has identified a basis for the plaintiffs' allegations that
PPG participated in a price-fixing conspiracy in the U.S.
automotive refinish industry.

PPG's management continues to believe that there was no
wrongdoing on the part of the company and that it has
meritorious defenses in the federal automotive refinish case.

Nonetheless, it remained uncertain whether the federal court
ultimately would dismiss PPG, or whether the case would go to
trial.

On Sept. 14, 2006, PPG agreed to settle the federal class action
for $23 million to avoid the ongoing expense of this protracted
case, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated with
complex litigation involving jury trials.  PPG recorded a charge
for $23 million in the third quarter of 2006.

Although a formal settlement agreement has been executed and the
$23 million was paid into escrow on Jan. 3, 2007, necessary
court proceedings will follow before the settlement is final and
non-appealable.

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

The suit is "In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust  
Litigation, MDL-1426," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Richard Barclay  
Surrick.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of Cal. Antitrust Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
A California court has yet to approve a proposed settlement of
one of several antitrust suits filed in state courts against PPG
Industries, Inc. and other companies.

There are class actions in five states alleging that the company
violated antitrust rules in its operation in the U.S. automotive
refinish industry.

Theses suit were filed pursuant to state statutes on behalf of
indirect purchasers of automotive refinish products.  The
plaintiffs in these cases have not yet specified an amount of
alleged damages.

The cases are in state courts in California, Maine,
Massachusetts, Tennessee and Vermont.  

A similar suit brought in a federal court in New York City was
dismissed on May 8, 2007.

PPG believes that there was no wrongdoing on its part, and
believes it has meritorious defenses to the independent state
court cases.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, PPG agreed to settle the
California state court cases and it is considering potential
settlement of the remaining state court cases.  

Necessary court proceedings will follow before the settlement of
the California state court cases becomes final and non-
appealable.

The hearing for court approval of the California state court
cases was held Oct. 4, 2007, and PPG is awaiting a final
decision from the court.

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

PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- operates in five  
segments: Industrial Coatings, Performance and Applied Coatings,
Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals and Glass.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Flat Glass Antitrust Suit Deal Hearing Canceled
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the final approval of the settlement of antitrust
claims filed against PPG Industries, Inc. by indirect purchasers
of flat glass in California has has yet to be scheduled.

On Nov. 8, 2006, PPG entered into a class-wide settlement
agreement to resolve all antitrust claims of indirect purchasers
of flat glass in California.  

PPG agreed to make a payment of $2.5 million, inclusive of
attorneys’ fees and costs.

On Jan. 30, 2007, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The Court has also approved the form of notice to
the settlement class.

Initially scheduled for July 10, 2007, the hearing was canceled
and has not been rescheduled.

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

PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- operates in five  
segments:  Industrial Coatings, Performance and Applied
Coatings, Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals
and Glass.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces ERISA Breach Litigation in Iowa
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act continues against Principal Life Insurance Co., a
unit of Principal Financial Group, Inc., in  the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

A trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement Savings Plan filed
the purported class action over allegations that the company
received secret kickbacks from mutual funds.

Originally, the putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Nov. 8,
2006.  It alleges, among other things, that Principal Life
breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services
to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose,
to employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life
receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are
included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed
to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services
provided to the plans.  

Plaintiff further alleges that these acts constitute prohibited
transactions under Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all retirement plans to
which Principal Life was a service provider and for which
Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from
mutual funds.  Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief.

Principal Life’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Southern
District of Iowa was granted and Principal Life is aggressively
defending the lawsuit.

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

The suit is “Ruppert v. Principal Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 4:07-cv-00344-HDV-TJS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa under Judge Harold D. Vietor with
referral to Judge Thomas J. Shields.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Klint L. Bruno, Esq.
         Korein Tillery
         209 South LaSalle, Suite 701
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-759-7510
         E-mail: kbruno@koreintillery.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Joel S. Feldman, Esq.
         Sidley, Austin et al.
         10 South Dearborn Street, Bank One Plaza
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Pone: 312-853-7000
         Fax: 312-853-7036
         E-mail: jfeldman@sidley.com


PRINCIPAL LIFE: Faces ERISA, Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc., and Princor Financial Services
Corp. are facing two purported class actions in Iowa --  one
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, the other alleging violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.

On Aug. 28, 2007, two plaintiffs filed two putative class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against the company and Princor Financial (Principal
Defendants).

One of the lawsuits alleges that the Principal Defendants
breached alleged fiduciary duties to participants in employer-
sponsored 401(k) plans who were retiring or leaving their
respective plans, including providing misleading information and
failing to act solely in the interests of the participants,
resulting in alleged violations of ERISA.

The second suit is based upon the same facts and alleges
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities Act of 1933.

The allegations of the second suit include alleged omissions and
misrepresentations by the Principal Defendants related to mutual
fund shares purchased by plan participants rolling out of
employer-sponsored retirement plans.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com--  
is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services.  


SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Steps Up Recall of Tops on Lead Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schylling Associates Inc., of Rowley, Mass., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling an
additional 3,600 (66,000 spinning tops were recalled on August
22, 2007) Winnie-the-Pooh Spinning Top.

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

No incidents/injuries were reported so far.

The recalled spinning top is primarily metal and has wooden
handles. The top is printed with Winnie-the-Pooh characters.
Tops with plastic handles are not included in this recall.

The tops were made in China and sold at Specialty toy stores and
gift shops nationwide from April 2003 through November 2003 for
about $12.

Consumers should 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.


SPORT SUPPLY: Suit Over Old SSG Shares Purchase in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Formal discovery is ongoing in a Delaware class action against
Sport Supply Group, Inc. (SSG) in connection with the Sept. 20,
2006 Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which the Company
acquired the remaining shares of the outstanding capital stock
of Old SSG that the Company did not already own.

On Sept. 21, 2006, Jeffrey S. Abraham, as Trustee of the Law
Offices of Jeffrey S. Abraham Money Purchase Plan, dated Dec.
31, 1999, f/b/o Jeffrey S. Abraham, filed a complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County, C.A. No. 2435-N against:

     -- the Company,
     -- Michael J. Blumenfeld,
     -- the four directors of Old SSG:

        * Arthur J. Coerver,
        * Harvey Rothenberg,
        * Robert W. Philip, and
        * Thomas P. Treichler, and
   
     -- Old SSG, as a nominal defendant

The plaintiff is a former stockholder of Old SSG and brought the
action as a class action on behalf of all Old SSG minority
stockholders.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the $8.80 cash
price per share of Old SSG common stock paid to the minority
stockholders in the merger was unfair in that the purchase price
failed to take into account the value of Old SSG, its improved
financial results and its value in comparison to similar
companies.

Plaintiff also alleges that the process by which the merger
agreement was arrived at could not have been the product of good
faith and fair dealing because the Company and Mr. Blumenfeld
acted in bad faith by taking various actions to depress the
price of Old SSG common stock and dry up the market liquidity in
such shares, all in an effort to effect the merger.

In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the directors of Old SSG
breached their fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty to the
plaintiff and the other minority stockholders in the merger
agreement negotiations.

The plaintiff requested that the merger be enjoined or in the
alternative, damages be awarded to the Old SSG minority
stockholders.

On January 31, 2007, the plaintiff amended his complaint and is
requesting that the court certify plaintiff as the class
representative of the proposed class and award plaintiff and the
class compensating and/or rescissory damages.

The plaintiff also seeks the costs of bringing the action,
including reasonable attorneys fees and experts’ fees.

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

Sport Supply Group, Inc. -- http://www.sportsupplygroup.com/--  
formerly Collegiate Pacific Inc., is a marketer, manufacturer
and distributor of sporting goods equipment, physical education,
recreational and leisure products, and a marketer and
distributor of soft good athletic apparel and footwear products
(soft goods), primarily to the institutional market in the U.S.


TELSTRA CORP: Settles Investor Suit for $5M; Lawyer to Get $1M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Telstra Corp. Ltd. reached an agreement to settle a class action
brought by Telstra investors.  The settlement is subject to
Federal Court approval.

The action concerns a briefing given by Telstra to the
Commonwealth Government on August 11, 2005 and which was not
disclosed to the ASX until September 7, 2005.

Telstra has agreed to pay up to $5 million in settlement of the
matter.

Slater & Gordon Ltd. has sought a total of $1.25 million from
that amount to cover its fees and external disbursements.

                      Case Background

On January 20, 2006, a representative proceeding was commenced
in the Federal Court of Australia against Telstra by Mr. Andrew
Taylor (the Applicant).

The Applicant claims damages for himself and on behalf of group
members, for loss allegedly arising from the purchase of shares
in Telstra in the period commencing August 11, 2005 and
finishing on September 6, 2005. (The T3 public offer took place
after this period.)

The Applicant alleges that Telstra breached the Australian
Securities Exchange (ASX) Listing Rules and the Corporations Act
2001 (by failing to immediately disclose to the ASX information
that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect
on the price or value of Telstra’s shares.

The parties have now settled.  Included in the class are people
who:

     (a) purchased shares in Telstra between (and including) 11
         August 2005 and 6 September 2005; and who did not on or
         before 6 September 2005 resell those shares at a price
         equal to or greater than the price for which the shares        
         were purchased;

     (b) did not opt out of the Proceeding by Friday 4 May 2007,
         being the date fixed by the Court before which a class
         member was required to opt out of the Proceeding.

The amount available for distribution to Eligible Claimants
after payment to Slater & Gordon of $1.25 million in respect of
the Applicant’s costs, will be $3.75 million, less certain
administrative costs.

A fairness hearing is set at the Federal Court in Sydney on 13
December 2007.   

For more information, contact: Slater & Gordon on 1800 555 777
or telstrasettlementinfo@slatergordon.com.au.


TWEEN BRANDS: Recalls Beads on Paint's High Lead Levels
-------------------------------------------------------
Tween Brands Inc., of New Albany, Ohio, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 4,000 decorative packaging pearl-like bead
attachments sold with girl’s gift sets.

The company said surface coating on a plastic bead decorative
packaging attachment contains excessive levels of lead,
violating the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents/injuries were reported so far.

The recalled item is a pearl-like pink bead attachment on the
outside packaging of the gift sets and a zipper pull/wrist band
on a cosmetic lip gloss set. The gift sets were sold under the
“Sparkle by Too” line, as follows: 3-Pack Lip Gloss Wristlet
(Style No. 2014), 4-Pack Body Spray (Style No. 2017), and 3-
Piece Bath Set (Style No. 2018).

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08058.jpg

The beads were made in China and sold at Limited Too retail
stores nationwide, catalog and Web site from April 2007 through
September 2007 for between $11 and $13.

Consumers should immediately remove this recalled decorative
pearl-like bead attachment from the gift sets and return it to
any Limited Too store for a $5 Limited Too coupon. In addition
to the $5 coupon, consumers who choose to return the gift sets
along with the packaging attachment will receive a full refund.

For additional information, call Tween Brands at (800) 934-4497
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.limitedtoo.com.


VINTAGE CHOCOLATES: Recalls Soy Choco Bars for Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vintage Chocolates Inc. of Elizabeth, New Jersey is recalling
4,455 bars of soy milk chocolate, because it may contain
undeclared traces of milk. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this soy milk chocolate bar.

The Soy Milk chocolate bar was distributed in the following
states: New York, New Jersey , Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Wisconsin., New Mexico,
Virginia, Washington, Oregon, California, Michigan, Ohio. This
product was available through retail stores and chain stores and
through our web site: echocolates.com.

The bar is presented in a beige cardboard package of 3.5 oz,
depicting tree with a green band on top stating "43% Soy milk or
38% Soy milk". On the back of the package one would find; the
following information: UPC: 797148000398.

There is one incident involving a child who developed rashes
that has been confirmed to date.

This incident triggered an analysis of the formulation, and
product analysis to determine the origin of the problem. We
think the traces of milk came from a cross contamination issue
during processing. We are currently designing a new process to
specifically tackle this problem.

Consumers who have purchased The Vintage Plantation Soy milk
bars are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at: 1-
800-207-7058.


VITERRA ENERGY: Ore. Court Approves Suit Over Water, Sewer Bills
----------------------------------------------------------------
Multnomah County Judge Marilyn Litzenberger preliminarily
approved a settlement of a suit over water and sewer bill
overpayments by as many as 35,000 Oregonians who rented
apartments, The Oregonian reports.

The settlement affects people who were billed for water and
sewer use by Viterra Energy Services or Aquameter, Inc. between
1995 and 2002.

A fairness hearing is set for April 4, 2008 at 10 a.m. in
Courtroom 708 of the Circuit Court of the state of Oregon,
County of Multnomah.

Deadline to file objection is Feb. 19, 2007.  Deadline for
exclusion and filing of claim is 30 days from the issuance of
the settlement notice.

Rust Consulting, Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota will
serve as Claims Administrator.

The suit was filed by Lulella Swoboda and Lee Street against:

     -- Viterra Energy Services Inc.,
     -- Aquameter Inc.,
     -- Viterra Energy Services Group,
     -- CTL Management, Inc., and
     -- CTL Management LLC,
     -- Guardian Management Corp.,
     -- Apartment Management Cos.

The suit is “Swoboda, et al. v. Viterra, et al., case no. 0109-
09981,” filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for
the County of Multnomah under Judge.

For more information, visit http://www.submeterclassaction.com
or call 877/625-9420.


WASHINGTON GROUP: Settles Del. Suit Over $2.4B Sale to URS Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc. reached a tentative
agreement to settle a purported class action that sought to  
block the company’s $2.4 billion sale to URS Corp.

On Oct. 1, 2007, Schultze Asset Management LLC, the owner of
831,317 Washington Group shares filed the complaint in the Court
of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2007).

In the complaint, Schultze claims the sale price does not take
into account Washington Group's growth prospects, and company
directors failed to solicit alternative offers.  

The purported class action complaint was filed by putative
shareholders of Washington Group International against the
company, certain of its officers and directors and URS
challenging the proposed merger.

The complaint, ”Schultze Asset Management, LLC, et al. v.
Washington Group International, Inc., et al. (CA No. 3261),”
raised allegations on behalf of a purported class of the
company's stockholders against the Defendants for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of
the merger.

It alleged that in determining to enter into the Agreement, the
Defendants failed to take appropriate steps to obtain maximum
value for stockholders and did not engage in an adequate,
conflict-free, fair process to obtain maximum value for
stockholders, that certain directors and officers engaged in
self-dealing and suffered from conflicts of interests, and that
the Defendants have failed to disclose all material information
concerning the value of Washington Group International and the
process leading to the Agreement.  

The Complaint sought to enjoin the consummation of the proposed
merger or, alternatively, to rescind it.

On Oct. 18, 2007, Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding with regard to the settlement of the
Complaint.

The MOU states that the parties will enter into a settlement
agreement providing for, among other things:

       -- Washington Group International to include certain
          disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K (filed on
          Oct. 19, 2007); and

       -- a dismissal with prejudice and a complete settlement
          and release of all claims against the Defendants
          asserted in the Complaint, or that arise out of the
          Merger Agreement and related matters which have been
          or could have been asserted in the litigation.

The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to
confirmatory discovery, the execution by the parties of a
definitive settlement agreement, and the approval of that
agreement by the Court.

Washington Group International, Inc. -- http://www.wgint.com--
is an international provider of a range of design, engineering,
construction, construction management, facilities and operations
management, environmental remediation and mining services.


WASHINGTON GROUP: La. Suits Over Levee Failure Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc. still faces several class
actions related to the New Orleans levee failure during
Hurricane Katrina, 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. 28, 2007.

From July 1999 through May 2005, the Company performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) on the
east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (Industrial
Canal) in New Orleans, Louisiana (Task Order 26).  All the work
performed by the Company and its subcontractors was directed,
supervised and approved by the USACOE.

On Aug. 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.  The
storm surge created by the hurricane flooded the east bank of
the Industrial Canal and overtopped the Industrial Canal levee
floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the
City.

Between Sept. 19, 2005 and Sept. 28, 2007, 49 personal injury
and property damage class actions have been filed in Louisiana
State and Federal court naming the company, of which 47 are
currently pending.  

Other defendants include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Board for the Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer,
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.

Over 170 hurricane-related cases, including Washington Group
International cases, have been consolidated in the Federal
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  

The plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their
design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans
levees.

The alleged class of plaintiffs are all residents and property
owners who incurred damages arising out of the breach and
failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The allegation against the company is that the work it performed
adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and floodwall
and caused and/or contributed to breaches and flooding.  

The plaintiffs allege damages of $200 billion and demand
attorneys’ fees and costs.

The actions, which are all currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and are
consolidated under “Berthelot” are:

      -- "Berthelot, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,
         et al., Case No. 05-4182,

      -- "Vodanovich, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,
         et. al., Case No. 05-5237,

      -- "Kirsch, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 05-6073,

      -- "Ezell v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et al., Case
         No. 05-6314,

      -- "Brown, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 05-6324,

      -- "LeBlanc, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 05-6327, and

      -- “Finney, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 06-0886,”

      -- “Christenberry, et al. v. Board of Commissioners of the
         Orleans Levee District, et al., Case No. 06-2278,”

      -- “Sanchez, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 06-2287,”

      -- “C. Adams, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,
         et al., Case No. 06-4065,”

      -- “Brock, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 06-4931,”

      -- “Fleming, et al. v. The United States of America, et       
         al., Case No. 06-5159,”

      -- “G. Adams, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,        
         et al., Case No. 06-4634,”

      -- “Gisevius v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et al.,
         Case No. 06-5308,”

      -- “Holmes, et al. v. The United States of America, et
         al., Case No. 06-5161,”

      -- “Joseph, et al. v. New Orleans Sewage and Water Board,
         et al., Case No. 06-5032,”

      -- “LeDuff, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 06-5260,”

      -- “O’Dwyer(1) v. Boh Bros Construction Col, LLC, et al.,
         Case No. 05-4181,”

      -- “O’Dwyer(3) v. Dept. of Trans. and Dev., et al., Case
         No. 06-4389,”

      -- “Bradley, et al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et
         al., Case No. 06-225,”
   
      -- “O’Dwyer(2) v. Dept. of Trans. and Dev., et al., Case
         No. 06-5786,”

      -- “Richardson v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC, et al.,
         Case No. 06-8708,”

      -- “Yacob v. Board of Commissioners for Orleans Levee
         District, et al., Case No. 06-5937,”

      -- “Cochran, et. al. v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,
         et al., Case No. 06-5785,”

      -- “Ciuffi v. United States of America, et al., Case No.
         07-1271,”

      -- “Carney v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,”

      -- “The Parfait Family, et al. v. United States of
         America, et al., Case No. 07-3500,”

      -- “Lundy v. The United States of America, et al., Case
         No. 07-3173,”

      -- “Dear Mother’s Taste of New Orleans, LLC, et al., v.
         M.A. Hayes Co., et al., Case No. 06-5890,”

      -- “Douville, et al., v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., LLC,
         et al., Case No. 07-1113,”

      -- “Jones, et al., v. State Farm Fire & Casualty, et al.,
         Case No. 06-9151,”

      -- “Entercomm Communications Corp. v. United States of
         America, et al., Case No. 07-4976.”

      -- “Johnson v. United States of America, et al, Case No.
         07-4562,”

      -- “Radio Parts, Inc., v. United States of America, et
         al., Case No. 07-4555,”

      -- “Huey, et al. v. United States of America, et al., Case
         No. 07-4550,”

      -- “Abair, et al. v. United States of America, et al.,
         Case No. 07-4392,”

      -- “Bell v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 07-
         4965,”

      -- “Ferrara, et al. v. United States of America, et al.,
         Case No. 07-4945,”

      -- “Gentilly Land Co., Inc., et al. v. United States of
         America, et al., Case No. 07-4969,”

      -- “Liberty Bank & Trust Company v. United States of
         America, et al., Case No. 07-4953,”

      -- “Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States of
         America, et al., Case No. 07-5286,”

      -- “Haydel Realty Co., Inc. v. United States of America,
         et al., Case No. 07-5020,”

      -- “Wetco Restaurant Group, LLC v. United States of
         America, et al., Case No. 07-5012,”

      -- “CII Carbon, LLC v. United States of America, et al.,
         Case No. 07-4995,”

      -- “Marrero Land and Improvement Association, LTD v.
         United States of America, et al., Case No. 07-5011,”

      -- “Connick, et al. v. United States of America, et al.,
         Case No. 07-5067,”

      -- “Sloan, et al. v. United States of America, et al.,
         Case No. 07-5013,”

      -- “Keppel v. United States of America, et al., Case No.
         07-5007,” and

      -- “Albano, et al. v. Board of Commissioners for the
         Orleans Parish Levee District, et al., Case No. 07-
         4837.”

Washington Group International, Inc. -- http://www.wgint.com--
is an international provider of a range of design, engineering,
construction, construction management, facilities and operations
management, environmental remediation and mining services.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CITIGROUP INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Citigroup Inc. between April 17, 2006, and
November 2, 2007.

The complaint charges Citigroup and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Citigroup is a diversified global financial services
holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial
services to consumer and corporate customers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. The complaint
specifically alleges that:

     (i) Defendants' portfolio of CDOs contained billions of
         dollars worth of impaired and risky securities, many of
         which were backed by subprime mortgage loans;

    (ii) Defendants failed to properly account for highly
         leveraged loans such as mortgage securities; and

   (iii) Defendants had failed to record impairment of debt
         securities which they knew or disregarded were
         impaired, causing the Company's results to be false and
         misleading.

On November 4, 2007, Citigroup announced significant declines in
the fair value of $55 billion in the U.S. subprime debt exposure
- a revenue decline related to these declines of $8 to $11
billion. Later that day, Citigroup announced the resignation of
its then-current Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and Chairman of
the Board of Directors of Citigroup. On this news, Citigroup's
stock collapsed to open at $36.00 per share on November 5, 2007,
a decline of 5%, from November 2, 2007, and a decline of 25%
from October 12, 2007.

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

For more information, contact:

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


CROCS INC: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. announced that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of CROCS,
Inc. between July 27, 2007 and October 31, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that CROCS, a company that offers footwear
for men, women and children under the "CROCS" brand, and certain
of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose:

     (i) that CROCS was experiencing significant distribution
         problems in Europe as it had moved distribution
         facilities and was experiencing distribution problems
         in Japan with a third-party distributor, causing the
         Company to lose tens of millions of dollars in sales;

    (ii) that the Company's sales were being negatively impacted
         by seasonal conditions as consumers reduced purchases
         of the Company's products in cold weather climates;

   (iii) that the Company's inventory levels were building far
         beyond historic levels as sales began to slow and the
         Company's sales began to be impacted by seasonality;
         and

    (iv) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable
         basis for their positive statements about the Company,
         its earnings and prospects.

On October 31, 2007, CROCS issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the third quarter of 2007, the period
ending September 30, 2007. Following the earnings announcements,
CROCS held a conference call for analysts and investors. During
the call, Defendants discussed problems at its European and
Japanese distribution centers and its growing inventory, among
other things. In response to these announcements, the price of
CROCS stock declined from $74.75 per share to $47.74 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 7,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


LCA-VISION: Strauss & Troy Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Strauss & Troy filed a securities class action  
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
LCA-Vision Inc.  between February 12, 2007 and November 2, 2007,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, LCA-Vision
Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors (the
"Defendants") violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing
to disclose adverse facts known to them regarding the Company's
business and financial results. As a result the stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $50.56 per share in July 2007.

On July 31, 2007, LCA-Vision issued a press release and revealed
that the Company's financial performance had been lower than
expected during the second quarter due to a decline in same-
store procedure volume and rising patient acquisition costs. The
Company also revised their full year financial guidance
downward. On this news, the Company's shares fell 17%, closing
at $35.51 and dropped further on August 1, 2007 to $33.40 per
share.

LCA-Vision then reported the true state of the problems within
the Company when it revealed in an October 30, 2007 press
release that its fourth quarter earnings per diluted share was
unknown, but significantly below its previous estimate of $0.27
and that the Company was suspending revenue guidance
indefinitely. On this news the stock fell more than $9.00 to
$19.10, and by November 2, 2007 the stock had dropped to a low
of $15.41.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all individuals
and entities that purchased LCA-Vision common stock during the
Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 7,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          Matthew Chasar, Esq.
          Strauss & Troy
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Phone: 800-669-9341 or (513) 621-2120
          E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com or
                  mrchasar@strausstroy.com
          Website: http://www.strausstroy.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a class action against Medtronic, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of
investors who purchased Medtronic common stock on the open
market from June 25, 2007 through October 15, 2007.

The complaint charges that during the Class Period Medtronic
misrepresented the true facts concerning the Sprint Fidelis
defibrillation leads, and that those true facts were only
disseminated to investors on October 15, 2007 when the Company
disclosed that it would voluntarily suspend distribution of
these defibrillator leads. The Sprint Fidelis defibrillation
leads were introduced to the market in September 2004 and,
according to an article in The Wall Street Journal on October
30, 2007, by early 2007 "about 90% of new Medtronic
defibrillators used Fidelis leads."

By January 2007 Medtronic had received 679 reports of injuries
caused by fractures in the Sprint Fidelis defibrillation leads.
In a meeting with Dr. Robert G. Hauser, of the Minneapolis Heart
Institute in February 2007, Medtronic was informed specifically
that the Minneapolis Heart Institute would cease using the
Fidelis leads in operations and would use Medtronic's earlier
generation Sprint Quattro leads.

The reports of lead failures led Medtronic to send a letter
dated March 21, 2007 to physicians treating patients with the
Sprint Fidelis leads describing the nature of the lead failures
and attributing the failures to physician error, or "variables
within the implant procedure." Medtronic continued receiving
further reports of lead failure subsequent to March 21, 2007. In
fact the number of lead failures grew from a total of 795
injuries reported by April 30, 2007 to a total of 1,053 injuries
reported by June 30, 2007.

Notwithstanding this increased evidence of severe problems with
the leads, Medtronic stated (falsely) in its Form 10-K for
fiscal year end April 27, 2007 (filed with the SEC on June 25,
2007) that the Sprint Fidelis lead had experienced "strong
market acceptance" and "increasing clinical data that supports
these devices" since its introduction to the market in September
2004. From July 2007 through September 2007, Medtronic continued
to receive increasingly frequent reports of lead failures, with
the number of reported failures reaching 1,661 by September 30,
2007.

Finally, on October 15, 2007, Medtronic belatedly acknowledged
that the increasingly frequent adverse reports were the result
of manufacturing defects and suspended distribution of the
Sprint Fidelis defibrillation leads because of the high
incidence of lead fractures. The Company further admitted that
it had "identified five patient deaths in which a Sprint Fidelis
lead fracture may have been a possible or likely contributing
factor." Upon the release of this information into the market,
Medtronic's stock dropped $6.33 per share or 11.2% on volume of
approximately 62.9 million shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 7,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          E. Elizabeth Ferguson, Esq.
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022
          Tel.: 212.759.4600 or 877.370.7703 (toll free)
          Fax: 212.486.2093 or 877.370.7704 (toll free)
          E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
          Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP has filed a class action in the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of Office
Depot, Inc. common stock during the period between April 26,
2007 and October 26, 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Jack Fruchter
          Larry Levit
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, New York 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          Facsimile: (212) 279-3655


                           *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *