CAR_Public/071113.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 13, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 225

                            Headlines

ATLANTIC LOTTO: Newfoundland Couple Sues Over Daughter's Suicide
CONNECTICUT: Request for Madison Permit Fees Suit Fund Filed
EDWARD JONES: $127M Securities Suits Settlements Get Final Okay
GUNNS LTD: Tasmanians Plan to Sue Over Proposed Pulp Mill
HUNTER FAN: Recalls Humidifier After Reports of Water Leakage

JDS UNIPHASE: CEO Denies Hiding Writedowns at Cal. Court Trial
MCKESSON CORP: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for AWP Litigation in Mass.
MISSISSIPPI: Human Services Submits Plan to Improve Foster Care
NESTOR TRAFFIC: Expects 2008 Ruling on Ohio Speed Program Suit
NEWMONT MINING: Col. Court Okays $15M Securities Suit Settlement

OLIN CORP: Dropped in Amended Suit Over Pioneer Cos. Purchase
OMNICARE INC: Ky. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: “Butland” Decertification Appeal Nixed
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Customer Damage Suits in Cal., Ga.
OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ainsworth Lumber Settles for $8.6M

PACER INT'L: Subsidiaries Settle Calif. Owner-Operators' Lawsuit
SAIA INC: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Fuel Surcharge Rates
SAIA INC: Dock Workers File Labor Law Violations Suit in Cal.
SCIELE PHARMA: Ga. Court Considers Motion to Nix Securities Suit
SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls Robot on Paint's High Lead Level

SWIMWAYS CORP: Recalls “Skippy” Pool Toys on Laceration Hazard
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Antitrust Lawsuit
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Ky. Court Mulls Bid to Junk Securities Suit
TFT-LCD LITIGATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Complaint
YALE-NEW HAVEN: Suit Over Free Bed Funds Denied Class Status

* E.U. Consumer Watchdog Chief Rejects U.S.-Style Class Action


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit
DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit
FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit

MEDTRONIC INC: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
WSB FINANCIAL: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                          *********


ATLANTIC LOTTO: Newfoundland Couple Sues Over Daughter's Suicide
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Lottery Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
on behalf of all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
who have gambled on video lottery terminals, The Daily News
reports.

Newfoundland couple Keith and Cathy Piercey filed the suit
claiming their daughter's gambling addiction led her to commit
suicide in 2003.

The suit claims that VLTs are unlike other forms of gambling,
and are inherently deceptive, addictive and dangerous.

The Atlantic Lottery Corp. is an organization which operates
lottery games in Atlantic Canada. It is owned jointly by the
four Atlantic provincial governments: New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador.
ALC's headquarters are located in Moncton, New Brunswick. All
profits returned by ALC are distributed to the provinces for
their general funds.


CONNECTICUT: Request for Madison Permit Fees Suit Fund Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Drew Lichtenfels, who represents the builders in a
class action over Madison's building permit fees, asked the
court to order the town to set aside money in case it needs to
pay up, Abbe Smith of New Haven Register reports.

Connecticut Superior Court Judge William T. Cremins granted
class-action status to the purported class action that claims
the Town of Madison’s building permit fees are excessively high
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2007).

The judge made the ruling on Oct. 12, 2007 in the complex
litigation division of the court.  Madison is appealing the
ruling.

                   Case Background

Five local area builders filed the civil suit in Superior Court,
alleging that Madison's building permit fee schedule is an
unconstitutional “scheme” that specifically and illegally
targets the building industry as a source of town revenue (Class
Action Reporter, April 29, 2007).

The five builders listed in the suit are:

      -- Dowler Group,
      -- Peter Smith Building Co.,
      -- MJM Builders, Inc.,
      -- Paul Coady Construction, and
      -- Neighborhood Builders, Inc.

The class includes anyone who paid for a building permit after
April 1, 2003.

Seeking both monetary and punitive damages as well as an
injunction prohibiting the town from continuing to charge its
stated fees.  The lawsuit seeks total damages worth about $7
million, according to the report.

In 2002, the town revised its building permit fee schedule after
Town Engineer Stew MacMillan surveyed fee schedules in a number
of communities throughout the area and the state and found that
the town has neither the lowest nor the highest fees.  Following
that survey he recommended a revised schedule for building fees.  

In their suit, the plaintiffs allege that the fees do not
reflect the actual costs the town incurs in the administration
and inspection of buildings under construction.

Instead, plaintiffs say, the fee schedule is being used as a
revenue producing measure “in part to fund social programs, and
other initiatives that have no relationship to the offering and
regulation of building activity in the town.”  This allegedly
constitutes an illegal tax, which violates the state's Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

Mr. Lichtenfels also asked the court to force the town's
Building Department to hire more licensed inspectors to speed up
processing of applications and inspections.

For more details, contact:

          Drew Lichtenfels, Esq.
          29 Water Street,
          Guilford, CT 06437
          Phone: 203-458-7879
          Fax: 203-458-0186


EDWARD JONES: $127M Securities Suits Settlements Get Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Circuit Judge Margaret Neill finalized a $127.5
million settlement of nine securities class actions against
Edward D. Jones & Co., the principal operating subsidiary of The
Jones Financial Cos., L.L.L.P., Heather Cole of the St. Charles
County Business Record reports.

The Jones Financial was sued in nine civil class actions that
were eventually consolidated into three proceedings:

     (1) "Bressler, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.";

     (2) "Spahn IRA, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P."; and

     (3) "Enriquez, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P."

In August 2006, Jones Financial announced a preliminary
settlement agreement to resolve all three groups of lawsuits.  
Each of the suits claimed that Jones Financial failed to
adequately disclose its revenue sharing arrangements with
certain designated Preferred Mutual Fund Families.

The settlement involves all of the Partnership's present and
former clients who purchased and/or held shares in any of the
Preferred Mutual Fund Families during the period from Jan. 1,
1999 through Dec. 31, 2004.  Jones Financial has agreed to pay
$55 million to former clients and for attorneys' fees, as well
as any costs to administer the settlement.

Additionally, Jones Financial will issue $72.5 million of credit
vouchers to current clients that can be redeemed ratably over a
three-year period.  Any credit voucher not redeemed during the
applicable year would expire after each annual redemption
period.  

The $55 million cash component of the settlement and related
administrative costs was charged against previously established
legal expense accruals.  The $72.5 million non-cash credit
voucher component will be recognized as a reduction to revenue
in the periods in which they are redeemed by clients.

The company agreed to assume the cost of notice and
administration of the settlement.  The settlement provides for
the release of all claims, debts and causes of action related to
certain revenue sharing payments received by Jones Financial,
fees and commissions received by the company for mutual fund
trades, shelf-space arrangements, directed brokerage
transactions, shareholder accounting fees and mutual fund trades
generally.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the Court in the Spahn case gave its
preliminary approval for the settlement and directed notice be
provided to class members within 120 days (Class Action
Reporter, May 3, 2007).  On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court in the
Enriquez case entered an identical order preliminarily approving
the settlement.  The District Court in Bressler dismissed the
lawsuit, however, the plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal.  
The appeal has been stayed pending completion of the settlement.

In October 2007, Judge Neill approved the $127.5 million
settlement .  Under it, about 1.3 million former customers will
get a check for $18.33 mailed to them, for a total of $24
million, and 3.6 million current customers will get credit
vouchers worth $20.23, according to court filings from
plaintiffs' and defense attorneys.

The vouchers can be applied to annual IRA fees, used to reduce
commissions for equity and fixed income trades, or applied
toward the $50 fee charged when a customer closes an account and
moves the assets. The judges also awarded the fee request from
plaintiffs' attorneys of $27 million. Edward Jones also may be
reimbursed for up to $6 million for its costs administering the
settlement out of any settlement money left after the former
customers and plaintiffs' attorneys are paid.


GUNNS LTD: Tasmanians Plan to Sue Over Proposed Pulp Mill
---------------------------------------------------------
A group is planning to file a $2 billion class action against
the company planning to build a pulp mill in northern Tasmania,
reports say.

More than 200 people voted to begin a register of potential
litigants against timber company Gunns Ltd., which is planning
to build the pulp mill in the Tamar Valley, north of Launceston.  
Gunns already received permission from the state and federal
government to go ahead with the project subject to certain
conditions.

The Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill (TAP) is leading the plan
to launch the lawsuit.  

TAP chairman Bob McMahon told The voice of Tasmania Mercury: "We
are looking at least at a possible $2 billion class action
against Gunns Ltd. which will include thousands of claims for
loss of property and housing values in the Tamar Valley, loss to
businesses, loss to public amenities and potential threats to
public health and safety."


HUNTER FAN: Recalls Humidifier After Reports of Water Leakage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter Fan Co., of Memphis, Tenn., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling
about 84,000 Warm Mist Carefree Humidifier.

The company said water used in the humidifier can leak into the
unit’s electrical compartment, posing a fire hazard.

Hunter has received four reports of incidents involving a water
leak, including one report of a fire resulting in minor property
damage. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Warm Mist CareFree humidifiers sold in
white and black with blue or green tinted water tanks. “Hunter”
and “NiteGlo” are printed on the humidifier. Model numbers are
listed on a white label on the bottom of the humidifier. Model
numbers and tank sizes are:

Model Numbers   Name         Size         Description
36200              Carefree     2 Gallon         White plastic
                   Humidifier                     with a blue
                   Warm Mist                      tinted water
                                                  tank

35201, 36201 Carefree     2 Gallon        White plastic
                  Humidifier                     with a blue
                  Warm Mist                    tinted water
                                                 tank
                  
35202, 36204 CareFree     2 Gallon        White plastic
                  Humidifier                     with a blue
                  Warm Mist                    tinted water
                                                 tank

35203, 36203,     CareFree    2 Gallon        White plastic
37203             Humidifier                     with a green
                  Warm Mist                      tinted water
                                                 tank

35207, 36207 CareFree    2 Gallon        White plastic
                  Humidifier                     with a blue
                  Warm Mist                    tinted water
                                                 tank
35253, 36253 CareFree
                  Humidifier
                  Warm Mist 2.5 Gallon        Black plastic
                                                 with a blue
                                                 tinted water
                                                 tank

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08064f.jpg

The humidifiers are made in China and sold at Lowe’s, Wal-Mart,
discount and hardware stores nationwide, as well as through mail
order catalogs and Web retailers from September 2005 through
February 2007 for between $40 and $65.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using and unplug the
recalled humidifiers. Consumers should contact Hunter Fan to
receive a free replacement humidifier or refund.

For additional information, contact Hunter Fan Co. toll-free at
(877) 288-1145 anytime, or visit http://www.hunterfan.com.


JDS UNIPHASE: CEO Denies Hiding Writedowns at Cal. Court Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
JDS Uniphase Corp. chief executive officer Jozef Straus
testified last week in a shareholder class action before an
Oakland, California court, Bert Hill of The Ottawa Citizen
reports.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal alleged that JDS
Uniphase hid from its group of investors the fact that it
expected heavy losses in 2001.  

Last week, Mr. Straus said demand for optical gear in 2000 was
"bursting at the seams."  He denied he hid looming writedowns
from acquisitions and excess inventory.  He denied selling $123
million worth of JDS shares in July 2000 based in information
abut the company's prospects.

                     Case Background

On July 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated all the securities actions
then filed in or transferred to that court as, "In re JDS
Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-02-1486
CW," and appointed the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust
Funds as lead plaintiff.

The complaint in "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities
Litigation" purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of those who acquired the company's securities from
Oct. 28, 1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of
subclasses consisting of those who acquired the company's common
stock pursuant to its acquisitions of The Optical Coating
Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI), E-TEK Dynamics, Inc., and SDL Ltd.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made material misstatements
and omissions concerning demand for the company's products,
improperly recognized revenue, overstated the value of
inventory, and failed to timely write down goodwill.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  

In January 2005, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims
against the company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and
Charles Abbe, and granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss claims against Kevin Kalkhoven.  

Defendants subsequently filed answers denying liability for the
claims asserted against them.  On Dec. 21, 2005, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
  
On Aug. 24, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' motions for summary judgment and deferred ruling on
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

The suit is "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, C-
02-1486," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken with referral
to Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
         Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         Phone:  415-288-4545 and 619-231-1058
         Fax: 415-288-4534 and 619-231-7423
         E-mail: reedk@lerachlaw.com
                 e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         John Frith Stewart, Esq.
         Segal, Stewart, Cutler, Lindsay, Janes & Ber
         1400-B Waterfront Street, 325 West Main Street
         Louisville, KY 40202-4251
         Phone: 502-568-5600

Representing the defendants are:

         Philip T. Besirof, Esq.
         Jordan David Eth, Esq.
         Morrison & Foerster, LLP
         425 Market St.
         San Francisco, CA
         Phone: 94105-2482
         Fax: (415) 268-7000 and 415-268-7522
         E-mail: PBesirof@mofo.com
                 jeth@mofo.com


MCKESSON CORP: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for AWP Litigation in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 13, 2007 hearing is set for the matter, “New England
Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al., v. First DataBank, Inc.
and McKesson Corp. (Civil Action No. 05-11148).”

The suit, originally filed in U.S. District Court in Boston in
October 2006 by Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro on
behalf of consumers and third-party payers alleges that McKesson
-- the largest pharmaceutical distributor in North America --
entered into a secret agreement to artificially inflate the
reported average wholesale price (AWP) of thousands of drugs, a
benchmark used by Medicaid and insurance plans to determine
payment to pharmacies.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the court issued its ruling on plaintiffs’
petition for class certification.

The court certified a class of third party payors for purposes
of liability and equitable relief, but declined to certify such
a class for purposes of a damages award.

The court did certify a class of percentage co-pay consumers on
issues of both liability and damages.

The court has set a hearing date of Nov. 13, 2007 to further
address the class issues, including whether a damages class can
be certified for third party payors.

Following the court’s class certification order, plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add a
new class of uninsured consumers who paid “usual and customary”
cash prices, and to add a Sherman Act or alternatively a state
antitrust claim on behalf of all classes.

The court has set a hearing date of Jan. 22, 2008 to consider
final approval of the publicly reported proposed settlements
with defendants, First DataBank, Inc. and Medi-Span, Inc.

The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al.
v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         George E. Barrett, Esq.
         Barret Johnston & Parsley
         217 Second Avenue N.
         Nashville, TN 37201-1601
         Phone: 615-244-2202
         E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com

         Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq.
         The Wexler Firm, LLC,
         2000 One LaSalle Street
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-346-2222
         Fax: 312-346-0022
         E-mail: jfc@wtwlaw.us

         Barbara Mahoney, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-7292
         Fax: 206-623-0594
         E-mail: barbaram@hbsslaw.com

              - and -

         Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300
         Fax: 215-496-6611
         E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com
         Web site: http://www.srk-law.com


MISSISSIPPI: Human Services Submits Plan to Improve Foster Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi Dept. of Human Services and attorneys
representing children in the state's foster care submitted a
plan to the court to correct deficiencies in the state's foster
care system, Ronni Mott of Jackson Free Press, reports.

The plan was made with the cooperation of the Children’s Rights
out of New York, the Attorney General’s office, and the Office
of the Governor.

The plan includes:

     -- providing foster children with required medical and
        mental health screenings, assessments, and care;

     -- providing foster children with at least two in-person
        caseworker visits per month to monitor their safety and
        well-being;

     -- licensing all foster family homes, including kinship     
        care homes;

     -- increasing foster care reimbursement rates to reflect
        the actual costs of caring for foster children;

     -- limiting caseloads to 14 cases per worker;

     -- appointing an independent court monitor to ensure the
        timely implementation of reforms.

“Olivia Y. v. Barbour” was originally filed in March of 2004 on
behalf of six plaintiffs -- children who had allegedly fallen
victim to physical and psychological harm while in the custody
of the Mississippi DFCS or had simply been neglected by DFCS
altogether.  

These six plaintiffs were representative of the over 3,500
foster children dependent upon the care of DFCS, as well as
thousands more who are improperly diverted from the system.  In
May of 2004, seven more children joined in the lawsuit through
an amended complaint.

The suit alleged that the substantive constitutional due process
rights of over 3,500 Mississippi foster children in state
custody had been violated through the State's repeated failures
to provide essential medical care, protection against neglect
and abuse, and minimally acceptable placement and adoption
services.  

Rather than face trial, Mississippi agreed to a court-supervised
process of reforming its child welfare system such to meet and
exceed constitutional, federal, and national child protective
standards.

The suit was filed against the Governor of Mississippi, the
Executive Director of the Department of Human Services, and the
Director of DHS’s Division of Familyand Children’s Services, all
in their official capacities.   The U.S. District Judge Tom S.
Lee has approved the settlement of the suit (Class Action
Reporter, July 13, 2007).

The suit is “Olivia Y. v. Barbour, 04-CV-251,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on March
30, 2004.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marcia Lowry
          Eric Thompson
          Tara Crean
          Margaret Ross
          Children's Rights, Inc.
          404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 683-2210
          Fax: (212) 683-4015
          E-mail: ethompson@childrenrights.org

          Wayne Drinkwater, Esq.
          Melody McAnally, Esq.
          Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP
          One Jackson Place, Suite 450
          188 E. Capitol Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Phone: (601) 948-8000
          Fax: (601) 948-3000
          E-mail: wdrinkwater@bradleyarant.com

          John Lang, Esq.
          Christian Carbone, Esq.
          Loeb & Loeb, LLP
          345 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10037
          Phone: (212) 407-4000
          Fax: (212) 407-4990
          E-mail: jlang@loeb.com

          Stephen H. Leech, Esq.
          P.O. Box 3623
          Jackson, MS 39207
          Phone: (601) 355-4013
          E-mail: s.leech@sleech.com


NESTOR TRAFFIC: Expects 2008 Ruling on Ohio Speed Program Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Nestor, Inc., expects a decision by 2008 on a question that is
before the Ohio Supreme Court on whether a municipality has the
power under home rule to enact civil penalties for the offense
of violating a traffic signal light or for the offense of
speeding, both of which are criminal offenses under the Ohio
Revised Code.

The Supreme Court accepted the case for determination of the
question in relation to two cases naming Nestor Traffic, and the
City of Akron, as defendants.

Initially, two purported class actions were filed that seek
damages and injunction against the city's speed program.

These cases, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, are:

      -- "Mendenhall v. City of Akron, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
          00139-DDD;" and

      -- "Sipe, et al. v. Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 5:06-cv-00154-DDD."

Both actions were originally filed in the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas, but were later removed to federal court.

                     Mendenhall Litigation

In "Mendenhall," which was filed on Jan. 19, 2006, plaintiff
brought a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified
amount against city of Akron and all of its city council members
in their official capacity and the company, alleging federal and
state constitutional violations.

On Feb. 17, 2006, defendants filed a joint motion for judgment
on the pleadings.  Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion
on March 24, 2006.

On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance
permitting photo enforcement of speeding laws was a proper
exercise of municipal power under the Ohio Constitution, but
deferred ruling on the alleged due process violations pending an
opportunity for discovery by the plaintiff, which was completed
on Oct. 20, 2006.

The plaintiff amended her complaint on Aug. 8, 2006 to include
equal protection violations among her federal constitutional
claims.

The company filed an answer to that amended complaint on Aug.
18, 2006.  

                        Sipe Litigation

In "Sipe," which was filed on Jan. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a
complaint and class action for declaratory judgment, injunctive
relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified amount against
the company, various past and present employees of the company
and the city of Akron and alleging fraud, civil conspiracy,
common plan to commit fraud, violations of the Consumer Sales
Practices Act, nuisance, conversion, invasion of privacy,
negligence, and federal constitutional violation.

The action was filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas
and was removed to federal court.   

On Feb. 17, 2006, the company and the other defendants filed a
joint motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiff filed an
opposition to that motion on March 24, 2006.

On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance
permitting photo enforcement of speeding laws was a proper
exercise of municipal power under the Ohio Constitution, but
deferred ruling on the alleged due process violations pending an
opportunity for discovery by the plaintiff, which was completed
on Oct. 20, 2006.  

              Questions Before Ohio Supreme Court

With respect to both of the above cases, final resolution can be
determined only after disposition of the Court’s certified
question to the Ohio Supreme Court, namely:

“Whether a municipality has the power under home rule to enact
civil penalties for the offense of violating a traffic signal
light or for the offense of speeding, both of which are criminal
offenses under the Ohio Revised Code.”

On Feb. 7, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case for
determination of the question presented.  The Ohio Supreme Court
has received briefs from all parties, and oral arguments were
heard on Sept. 18, 2007.    

Although the Ohio Supreme Court is not bound to render a
decision in a specific period of time, the company anticipates
that a decision will be rendered not later than March 2008,
according to Nestor, Inc.'s  Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Oct. 30, 2007.

For more details, contact:

         Jacquenette Geggus Corgan, Esq.
         [Mendenhall Plaintiff]
         Ste. 201, 190 North Union Street
         Akron, OH 44304
         Phone: 330-535-8160
         Fax: 330-762-9743
         E-mail: j.corgan@justice.com

         Antoni Dalayanis, Esq.
         [Sipe Plaintiff]
         5th Floor, 12 East Exchange Street
         Akron, OH 44308
         Phone: 330-315-1060
         Fax: 800-787-4089
         E-mail: lawyer@bright.net

              - and -

         Michael J. Defibaugh
         [Mendenhall & Sipe Defendant]
         City of Akron, Law Department
         Ste. 202, 161 South High Street
         Akron, OH 44308
         Phone: 330-375-2030
         Fax: 330-375-2041
         E-mail: defibmi@ci.akron.oh.us


NEWMONT MINING: Col. Court Okays $15M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado gave
preliminary approval to a tentative settlement of a consolidated
securities class action filed against Newmont Mining Corp.

                         Case Background

On June 8, 2005, UFCW Local 880 - Retail Food Employers Joint
Pension Fund filed a putative class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of Newmont Mining Corp.'s publicly traded securities
between July 28, 2004 and April 26, 2005.

The action named Newmont, Wayne W. Murdy, Pierre Lassonde and
Bruce D. Hansen as defendants. Substantially similar purported
class actions were filed in the same court on June 15, 2005 by
John S. Chapman and on June 20, 2005 by Zoe Myerson.

In November 2005, the court consolidated these cases and, in
March 2006, appointed a lead plaintiff.  

In April 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint naming David Francisco, Russell Ball, Thomas Enos and
Robert Gallagher, as additional defendants.

It alleged, among other things, that Newmont and the individual
defendants violated certain antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose alleged operating
deficiencies and sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On Oct. 20, 2006, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a settlement
class consisting of all purchasers of Newmont securities from
November 1, 2003, through and including March 23, 2006 (except
defendants and certain related persons), entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement with defendants.

                        Settlement Terms

If approved by the Court, the Settlement:

       -- would release all claims asserted, or that could have
          been asserted, in the action;

       -- would provide for a payment by Newmont of $15 to be
          distributed to class members pursuant to a plan of
          allocation developed by the lead plaintiff; and

       -- would provide that all defendants deny any wrongdoing
          or liability with respect to the settled matters.

On Sept. 25, 2007, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

A Dec. 11, 2007 final hearing is set before Judge Marcia S.
Krieger, U.S. District Court Judge, at the Alfred A. Arraj U.S.
Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294-3589 (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 22, 2007).

The suit is "UFCW Local 880-Retail Food Employers Joint Pension
Fund v. Newmont Mining Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01046
MSK-BNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado under Judge Marcia S. Krieger with referral to Judge
Boyd N. Boland.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Darby K. Kennedy, Esq.
         Dyer & Shuman, LLP
         801 East 17th Avenue
         Denver, CO 80218-1417
         Phone: 303-861-3003
         Fax: 303-830-6920
         E-mail: dkennedy@dyershuman.com

Representing the defendants is
       
         Pamela Robillard Mackey, Esq.
         Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey &
         Foreman, PC
         150 East 10th Avenue
         Denver, CO 80203
         Phone: 303-831-7364
         Fax: 303-832-2628
         E-mail: pmackey@hmflaw.com


OLIN CORP: Dropped in Amended Suit Over Pioneer Cos. Purchase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corp.'s name was struck out in the Third Amended Petition
for Breach of Fiduciary Duties suit that was filed in connection
to the purported class action, “Denton v. McGovern.”

The company was responsible as indemnitor of the former
directors of Pioneer, who were named as defendants in this
action filed in the 129th Judicial District of the Harris County
District Court in Texas in June 2007.  

Originally filed as a stockholder derivative action and now
purportedly pleaded as a class action, the suit alleges state
law claims for breach of fiduciary duty by the former Pioneer
directors in connection with the company's acquisition of
Pioneer Companies, Inc. on Aug. 31, 2007.

The suit requests certification of a class, declaratory relief,
rescission of the Pioneer transaction or, if rescission is not
feasible, an award of money damages, attorney’s fees and
unspecified other equitable relief.  

The company (and Pioneer) were initially named as defendants,
but were not included as defendants in plaintiff’s Third Amended
Petition for Breach of Fiduciary Duties, which was served on
Sept. 17, 2007, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Olin Corp. -- http://www.olin.com-- is manufacturer engaged in  
three business segments: Chlor Alkali Products, Metals and
Winchester.  Chlor Alkali Products manufactures and sells
chlorine and caustic soda, sodium hydrosulfite, hydrochloric
acid, hydrogen, bleach products and potassium hydroxide.  Metals
products, include copper and copper alloy sheet, strip, foil,
rod, welded tube, fabricated parts, and stainless steel and
aluminum strip.  Winchester products, include sporting
ammunition, canister powder, reloading components, small caliber
military ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges.


OMNICARE INC: Ky. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
granted a motion that sought for the the dismissal of a
purported securities fraud class action filed against Omnicare
Inc. in relation to the company's December 2005 public offering.  

On Feb. 2 and Feb. 13, 2006, respectively, two substantially
similar putative class actions were filed against the company:

     -- "Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers   
        Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No.   
        2:06cv26," and   

     -- "Chi v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv31"  

These suits were filed against the company and two of its
officers in the U.S. District Court For the Eastern District of
Kentucky, purporting to assert claims for violation of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaints, which purport to be brought on behalf of all
company shareholders, allege that the company artificially
inflated its earnings by engaging in improper generic drug
substitution and that the defendants have made false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects.

Thus, the suit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages
and injunctive relief.

On March 7, 2006, the parties to both actions filed stipulations
agreeing that the cases should be consolidated and proposing a
scheduling order for the conduct of the actions upon
consolidation.   

Those scheduling orders were entered on March 10, 2006.  On
April 3, 2006 plaintiffs in the HOD Carriers case formally moved
for consolidation and the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act  
of 1995.   

On May 22, 2006, that motion was granted, the cases were
consolidated, and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were
appointed.  

On July 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, adding a third officer as a defendant and new factual
allegations relating primarily to revenue recognition, the
valuation of receivables and the valuation of inventories.  

On Oct. 31, 2006, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second
amended complaint, which was granted on January 26, 2007, on the
condition that no further amendments would be permitted absent
extraordinary circumstances.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed their second amended complaint on
Jan. 29, 2007.

The second amended complaint:

      -- expands the putative class to include all purchasers of
         Omnicare common stock from Aug. 3, 2005 through July
         27, 2006,

      -- names two members of the Company’s board of directors
         as additional defendants,

      -- adds a new plaintiff and a new claim for violation of
         Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
         alleged false and misleading statements in the
         registration statement filed in connection with the
         Company’s December 2005 public offering,

      -- alleges that the Company failed to timely disclose its
         contractual dispute with UnitedHealth, and

      -- alleges that the Company failed to timely record
         certain special litigation reserves.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on March 12, 2007, claiming that plaintiffs had failed
adequately to plead loss causation, scienter or any actionable
misstatement or omission.  That motion was fully briefed as of
May 1, 2007.

In response to certain arguments relating to the individual
claims of the named plaintiffs that were raised in defendants’
pending motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a motion to add, or
in the alternative, to intervene an additional named plaintiff,
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, on July 27, 2007.

Oral argument was held on defendants’ motion to dismiss on Aug.
2, 2007.

On Oct. 12, 2007, the court issued an opinion and order
dismissing the case and denying plaintiffs’ motion to add an
additional named plaintiff, according to the company's Oct. 31,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD
Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Omnicare, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00026-WOB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge William
O. Bertelsman.  

Representing the plaintiff is:

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

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: rmaniskas@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Kevin L. Murphy, Esq.
         Graydon, Head & Ritchey, LLP
         2500 Chamber Center Drive, Suite 300, P.O. Box 17070
         Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017
         Phone: 859-344-0330
         Fax: 859-344-0886
         E-mail: kmurphy@graydon.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Richard W. Reinthaler, Esq.
         Dewey Ballantine LLP
         1301 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019-6092
         Phone: 212-258-8000
         Fax: 212-259-6333
         E-mail: lpmco@dbllp.com


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: “Butland” Decertification Appeal Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Supreme Court rejected plaintiff’s petition for
certiorari against a ruling declaring that the certification of
the suit “Mark and Christine Butland et al. v. Orkin
Exterminating Co., Inc., et al.” was improper.

The company, a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., was a named as
defendant in the case, which was filed in the Circuit Court of
Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida on March 1999.  The suit
seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The court ruled in early April 2002, certifying the class action
against Orkin.  Orkin appealed this ruling to the Florida 2nd
District Court of Appeals, which remanded the case back to the
trial court for further findings.

In December 2004, the court issued a new ruling certifying the
class action.  Orkin appealed this new ruling to the Florida 2nd
District Court of Appeals.  

In June 2006, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals
issued a ruling denying certification of the class.  

Following the Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, the court upheld
its prior decision that class certification was improper but
also ruled that the Plaintiffs can return to the trial court and
attempt to certify a narrower class.  

Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari
with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the ruling that
the class certification was improper.  

The Florida Supreme Court has rejected Plaintiff’s petition,
according to Rollins, Inc.'s Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com-- a subsidiary of  
Rollins, provides insect, rodent, and termite control services
to more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Customer Damage Suits in Cal., Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc.,
faces several purported class actions in California and Georgia,
which allege that plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of
the rendering of services by the company.

Some of these lawsuits are:

       -- “Ernest W. Warren and Dolores G. Warren, et al. v.
          Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., et al;”

       -- “John Maciel v. Orkin, Inc., et. al.;” and

       -- “Ronald and Ileana Krzyzanowsky et al. v. Orkin
          Exterminating Company, Inc. and Rollins, Inc.”

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class.  The cases
originate in Georgia and California, respectively.

In Warren, the Superior Court of Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia,
ruled in August 2006, certifying the class action against Orkin.  
Orkin has appealed this ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals.

The Maciel lawsuit has not been scheduled for a class
certification hearing.

The Krzyzanowsky lawsuit has recently been filed in the United
U.S. District Court for the District of Northern District of
California.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com-- a subsidiary of  
Rollins, provides insect, rodent, and termite control services
to more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ainsworth Lumber Settles for $8.6M
------------------------------------------------------------
Ainsworth Lumber Co. of Vancouver, Canada has entered into an
agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs in the OSB
Antitrust Litigation.

Under the agreement, Ainsworth will pay US$8.6 million to be
distributed across the settlement class.  The agreement is
subject to court approval.

The suit was filed by Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC,
representing direct purchasers of Oriented Strand Board against:

     * Louisiana-Pacific Corporation;
     * Georgia-Pacific Corporation;
     * Weyerhaeuser Company;
     * Potlatch Corporation;
     * Ainsworth Lumber Co., Ltd.;
     * Norbord, Inc.;
  * J.M. Huber Corporation,

J.M. Huber Corp. has also settled in the case, according to
reports.

The complaint was brought on behalf of direct purchasers of OSB
during the period from June 1, 2002 through the present, and
alleges violations of the antitrust laws by defendants�
actions in reducing the available supply of OSB and fixing the
price at which it was sold.

The cases are consolidated and a consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed on March 31, 2006. Discovery of
millions of pages of documents and nearly 100 depositions is
complete. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
complaint and for judgment on the pleadings in August 2007.
Trial preparation is underway.

Meanwhile, Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. has entered into an $8.6
million agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs, settling
on a class-wide basis all claims asserted against it.

The suit is "Sawbell Lumber Co. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul
S. Diamond.   

Representing the defendants are:

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

              - and

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

Representing the company are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq.
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq.
         James H. Schink, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144 and 312-861-2350
         E-mail: bechols@kirkland.com
                 jmutchnik@kirkland.com

              - and -   

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq.
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475
         E-mail: sswirsky@schnader.com


PACER INT'L: Subsidiaries Settle Calif. Owner-Operators' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two subsidiaries of Pacer International Inc. have settled a
California class action known as the “Renteria,” which was filed
against them on behalf of a class of owner-operators.

The subsidiaries -- Interstate Consolidation, Inc., which was
subsequently merged into Pacer Cartage, Inc., and Intermodal
Container Service -– engaged in local cartage and harbor drayage
operations.

The “Renteria” case specifically alleges that the subsidiaries
providing insurance for their owner-operators constitutes
engaging in the insurance business without a license in
violation of California law and that charging the putative class
of owner-operators in Renteria for workers compensation
insurance that they elected to obtain through the subsidiaries
violated California’s Business and Professions Code.

In June 2007, the company's motion for summary adjudication on
the insurance issue was granted, so that the only remaining
issue in the case is the workers compensation claim.  

In August 2007, the company agreed to settle this last remaining
claim on a “claims-made” basis under which the Company’s maximum
exposure would not exceed its previously established $750,000
liability reserve.

The settlement has received preliminary court approval, but
remains subject to completion of the claims filing and payment
process, and then final court approval.

Pacer International, Inc. -- http://www.pacer-international.com/
-- is a non-asset-based North American logistics provider.  The
Company focuses on its core intermodal product, with intermodal
sales representing approximately 80% of its total revenues.


SAIA INC: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Fuel Surcharge Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
Saia, Inc. faces several purported class actions alleging that  
the company along with other defendants conspired to fix fuel
surcharge rates in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Initially, on July 2007, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in
California against Saia and several other major LTL (less-than-
truckload) freight carriers.  It sought injunctive relief,
treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

Since the filing of the original case, similar cases have been
filed against Saia and other LTL freight carriers, each with the
same allegation of conspiracy to fix fuel surcharge rates.

The plaintiffs in these cases are seeking class-action status
for their cases, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Duluth, Georgia-based Saia, Inc. -- http://www.saia.com/-- is a  
trucking transportation company that provides a variety of
trucking transportation and supply chain solutions to a range of
industries, including the retail, chemical and manufacturing
industries.


SAIA INC: Dock Workers File Labor Law Violations Suit in Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saia, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in California
state court on behalf of California dock workers alleging
various violations of state labor laws.

The claims include the alleged failure of the Company to provide
rest and meal breaks and the failure to reimburse the employees
for the cost of work shoes, among other claims.  

The plaintiff is seeking class-action certification.

Duluth, Georgia-based Saia, Inc. -- http://www.saia.com/-- is a  
trucking transportation company that provides a variety of
trucking transportation and supply chain solutions to a range of
industries, including the retail, chemical and manufacturing
industries.


SCIELE PHARMA: Ga. Court Considers Motion to Nix Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
yet to rule on a motion that is seeking for the dismissal of a
second amended complaint in a securities fraud suit filed
against Sciele Pharma, Inc., f/k/a First Horizon Pharmaceutical
Corp.

The company, certain former and current officers and directors
are defendants in a consolidated securities lawsuit filed on
Aug. 22, 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

Plaintiffs in the class action alleged in general terms that the
company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(a) of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and that the company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  

In an amended complaint, plaintiffs claim that the company
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market in connection with the company's public offering on
April 24, 2002 and thereafter relating to alleged "channel
stuffing" activities.

The amended complaint also alleged controlling person liability
on behalf of certain of the company's officers under Section 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages.

On Sept. 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia dismissed, without prejudice, the class
action.  

Although the lawsuit was dismissed, the court granted the
plaintiffs the right to refile provided that the plaintiffs pay
all of the defendant's fees and costs associated with filing the
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint as permitted,
but instead filed a motion asking the District Court to
reconsider its Sept. 29, 2004 order and lift the condition that
they must pay defendants' fees and costs before further
amendment.  

On June 22, 2005, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
and gave them another opportunity to amend if they pay
defendants' fees and costs.  

Once again, plaintiffs chose not to file a second amended
complaint.  Instead, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

On Sept. 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court’s determination that the Amended Complaint was a “shotgun
pleading” that did not satisfy the pleading requirements under
the federal rules.   

The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with the remedy ordered
by the District Court.  Instead of dismissing the Amended
Complaint with a right to further amend if Plaintiffs paid
Defendants’ fees and costs, the Court of Appeals held that the
District Court should have ordered Plaintiffs to replead under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).  

The Court of Appeals also held that Plaintiffs’ claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 must meet the heightened pleading
standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) because those
claims sound in fraud.  

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s
orders and remanded with instructions to order a repleading.  

On April 20, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
On June 29, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, which is currently pending, according
to the company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2007.

The suit is "In re First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF," on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
J. Owen Forrester.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         David Andrew Bain, Esq.
         Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
         1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900
         E-mail: dab@classlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         John Patterson Brumbaugh, Esq.
         King & Spalding
         191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763       
         Phone: 404-572-5100
         E-mail: pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com


SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls Robot on Paint's High Lead Level
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schylling Associates Inc., of Rowley, Mass., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 2,600 "Robot 2000" collectable tin robot.

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

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The "Robot 2000" is a battery-operated, tin robot standing
12" tall. It has a red light on the head and chest panels that
open.

The robots were made in China and sold at specialty toy stores
and gift shops nationwide from October 2006 through September
2007 for about $25.

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.


SWIMWAYS CORP: Recalls “Skippy” Pool Toys on Laceration Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swimways Corp., of Virginia Beach, Va., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 31,000 “Skippy” Pool Toys.

The company said the elastic tongue of the fish can break and
forcefully come out and cut the users’ hands during launching of
the toy.

Swimways has received 24 reports of the pool toy breaking during
use. There were five reports of injuries to children including
one requiring stitches to a child’s hand. Another child’s thumb
nail was ripped back from the nail bed.

This recall involves a rubber pool toy shaped like a fish. The
fish are blue, purple or green colored and measure 8 1/2 inches
long by 5 inches wide. A loop of elastic tubing shaped like a
tongue comes out of the mouth of the fish and is used for
launching the fish across the water like a slingshot. “WARNING.
Do not aim at another person. Made in China” is printed on the
bottom of the fish.

Picture of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08065a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08065b.jpg

The pool toys were made in China and sold at mass merchandisers
and independent pool supply stores nationwide from February 2007
through September 2007 for about $10.

Consumers are advised to take the toy away from children
immediately and contact Swimways for a free replacement toy.

For additional information, contact Swimways toll-free at (888)
559-4653 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.swimways.com


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Antitrust Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its
motion to dismiss two of three counts of a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
accusing the company of restraining trade and fixing prices of
mattresses.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and, under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), as
representatives of a class made up of all persons and entities
who purchased Tempur-Pedic brand mattresses for delivery in the
United States, at any time from Jan. 5, 2003 to the present,
directly from TPX or from an authorized distributor and/or their
selling agents (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2007).

The class seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under U.S.
antitrust laws.

The purported class raises the question of:

      -- whether distributors agreed with TPX on minimum resale
         prices for Tempur-Pedic brand mattresses;

      -- whether distributors agreed with TPX to fix the price
         at which the distributors and TPX would sell Tempur-
         Pedic brand mattresses to consumers;

      -- the identities of the parties to the agreements;

      -- the duration, extent, and success of the agreements to
         set minimum resale prices for Tempur-Pedic brand
         mattresses;

      -- the duration, extent, and success of the agreements to
         fix the price a which TPX and its distributors would
         sell Tempur-Pedic brand mattresses to consumers;

      -- whether the agreements violated the federal antitrust
         laws;

      -- whether an injunction should issue to prohibit TPX and
         its distributors from engaging in conduct in violation
         of the antitrust laws;

      -- whether and to what extent the conduct of TPX and its
         distributors caused injury to the class members; and

      -- the appropriate measure of damages to the class
         members.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment against
defendants as follows:

     -- that the court certify this action as a class action
        pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules
        of Civil Procedure, and designate plaintiffs as the
        representatives of the class and counsel for plaintiffs
        as counsel for the class;

     -- that the court adjudge and decree that TPX has engaged
        in unlawful conduct in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1;

     -- that the court order TPX to pay the class and plaintiffs
        actual damages as result of the unlawful overcharges
        identified, trebled as required under Section 4 of the
        Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15;

     -- that the court enjoin TPX from continuing or resuming
        its unlawful anticompetitive conduct as permitted under
        Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 26;

     -- that the court order TPX to pay the costs of this
        action, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, as
        permitted under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 15; and

     -- that the court grant all other relief as may be deemed
        equitable, appropriate and just.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss two of the three counts of
the Jacobs action on Feb. 23, 2007.

Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June
25, 2007, based on a motion filed by the Company.

Following a decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in “Leegin
Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.,” on June 28, 2007,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts
of the Antitrust Action on July 10, 2007.  

That motion is fully briefed and the Company is awaiting a
decision on the motion, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Jacobs et al v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
Case No. 4:07-cv-00002-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge Harold L.
Murphy.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq.
          Craig Gordon Harley, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476
          E-mail: mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com
                  CHarley@chitwoodlaw.com
                  jmw@classlaw.com;

               - and -

          Robert Kirtley Finnell, Esq.
          The Finnell Firm
          Suite 200, P.O. Box 63
          One West Fourth Avenue
          Rome, GA 30162-0063
          Phone: 706-235-7272
          E-mail: bob@finnelllawfirm.com

    
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Ky. Court Mulls Bid to Junk Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has
yet to rule on Tempur-Pedic International Inc.'s motion seeking
for the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against it.

Between Oct. 7, 2005 and Nov. 21, 2005, five complaints were
filed against the company and certain of its directors and
officers purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders who
purchased the company's stock between Apr. 22, 2005 and Sept.
19, 2005.

These actions were consolidated and Lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on Feb. 27, 2006 and asserted claims
arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Lead plaintiffs allege that certain of the company's public
disclosures regarding its financial performance between April
22, 2005 and Sept. 19, 2005 were false and/or misleading.

On Dec. 7, 2006, lead plaintiffs were permitted to file an
amended complaint.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs, fees and other
relief within the court's discretion.  

The company has filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Law
Action which has been fully briefed, and are now awaiting a
decision on that motion, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Grillo, et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00410-JMH,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Joseph M. Hood.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michelle M. Ciccarelli, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-213-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, & Schulman, L.L.P.
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor,
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-594-5300
          Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael D. Blanchard, Esq.
          Bingham McCutchen, LLP
          One State Street
          Hartford, CT 06103-3178
          Phone: 860-240-2700
          Fax: 860-240-2800
          E-mail: michael.blanchard@bingham.com

               - and -

          Barry D. Hunter, Esq.
          Frost Brown Todd, LLC
          250 W. Main Street, 2700 Lexington, Financial Center
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: 859-231-0000
          Fax: 859-231-0011


TFT-LCD LITIGATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Class counsel for businesses and individuals that purchased Thin
Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) products
directly from manufacturers announced that plaintiffs filed last
week a consolidated class action complaint charging defendants
with operating a global cartel to fix the prices of LCDs sold in
the United States.

"After initial introduction, components for consumer electronics
products are typically characterized by downward pricing
trends," stated plaintiffs' counsel Richard M. Heimann of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. "This has not always been the
case with TFT-LCDs. For the past decade, we have seen price
manipulation including periods of substantial price increases.
Amongst the reasons for this are that the top manufacturers
agreed to fix and maintain prices and to restrict supply."

"Despite the enormous size of the TFT-LCD industry, over $100
billion, a small group of corporations dominate it and control
the price of TFT-LCDs," explained plaintiffs' counsel Bruce L.
Simon of Pearson Simon Soter Warshaw & Penny, LLP.

"Repeatedly these corporations have asserted that a shortage of
manufacturing capacity has been the cause of TFT-LCD price
increases. Any such shortages, plaintiffs allege, were the
result of collusion among defendants to restrict output and
artificially increase prices."

                         Case Background

In February 2007, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed
a class action complaint in the United States District Court in
Wisconsin against:

     * LG Philips LCD Company Ltd.,
     * LG Philips LCD America, Inc.,
     * LG Electronics Inc.,
     * Royal Philips Electronics N.V.,
     * Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
     * Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.,
     * AU Optronics Corporation,
     * AU Optronics Corporation America,
     * Chi Mei Optoelectronics,
     * Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.,
     * Sharp Corporation,
     * Sharp Electronics Corporation,
     * Toshiba Corporation,
     * Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd.,
     * Hitachi Ltd.,
     * Hitachi Displays, Ltd.,
     * Hitachi America Ltd.,
     * Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.,
     * Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation,
     * NEC Corporation,
     * NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd.,
     * IDT International Ltd.,
     * International Display Technology Co., Ltd.,
     * International Display Technology USA Inc.,
     * Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., and
     * HannStar Display Corporation

The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons and entities
residing in Minnesota who, from January 1, 2002 to present,
purchased TFT-LCDs or panels in the U.S. indirectly from the
Defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants conspired with
the purpose and effect of fixing prices, allocating market
shares, eliminating and suppressing competition, constraining
supply, limiting capacity, and committing other unlawful
practices designed to inflate and stabilize the prices of TFT-
LCDs.

The case was transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation by order dated April 17, 2007 to the Honorable Susan
Y. Illston in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

In September, 2007, the Court held a hearing on the motion of
the Department of Justice for an extended stay of merits
discovery, which was opposed by the class counsel(Class Action
Reporter, Oct 24, 2007).

For more information, contact:

          Richard M. Heimann
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          Phone: 415-956-1000

          - and -

          Bruce L. Simon
          Pearson Simon Soter Warshaw & Penny, LLP
          Phone: 415-433-9000


YALE-NEW HAVEN: Suit Over Free Bed Funds Denied Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
The state Supreme Court denied class-action status for a suit
accusing Yale-New Haven Hospital with misuse of its free bed
funds, the New Haven (CT) Register reports.

The suit arose out of the Service Employees International
Union's study of the hospital's debt collection practices.  The
study found hundreds of liens on properties and wage
garnishments against uninsured patients.  The SEIU then filed a
suit on behalf of nine plaintiffs.  The suit claims uninsured
and underinsured patients served at the hospital since 1991 may
not have been told about the funds and were subject to harsh
collection methods by Yale-New Haven.

In 2006, a Superior Court ruled there wasn't enough communality
among the plaintiffs for the suit to go ahead as a class action.  
The Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

A total of four suits were brought against the hospital.  A suit
filed by a clinic at the Yale Law School was settled after Yale-
New Haven agreed to send out free and reduced care applications
to some 18,000 patients who had open accounts prior to Oct. 1,
2003. After getting back 360 applications, all of which
qualified for free care, Yale-New Haven decided to close all
18,000 accounts, according to the report.


* E.U. Consumer Watchdog Chief Rejects U.S.-Style Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The European Union's consumer chief has ruled out a U.S.-style
class action for Europe -- at least -- in her term, reports say.

E.U. Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva told a
group of business leaders, consumer groups and leading law firms
in Lisbon, Portugal: "To those who have come all the way to
Lisbon to hear the words "class action", let me be clear from
the start. There will not be any. Not in Europe, not under my
watch."

The commissioner said in March that she hopes to introduce a new
system of "collective redress" as part of her strategy to
strengthen consumer rights.  What retailers describe as
"perceived insecurity of transactions" have kept people in E.U.
states from making cross-border purchases.  

At the meeting, the commissioner said, instead: she intends to
introduce what she describes as "group action," in which
plaintiffs are represented by their national consumers' body or
a new E.U. consumers regulatory body.

Class actions in the U.S. have been criticized as more
beneficial to lawyers than individuals concerned.  European
employers group BusinessEurope opposes the U.S. model.  

Under the commissioner's model, proceeds from the lawsuit will
be distributed in an appropriate manner among plaintiffs and
their representatives.  Introduction of unmeritorious claims
should be discouraged, she added.

A total of 15 E.U. member states currently have no legal
provision for class actions.  The remaining 12 that have such
rules only have jurisdiction within their own country.  Among
them, the Netherlands is the closest to the U.S. model, while
Germany and Austria have test-case procedures and France allows
representative actions.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BigBand
Networks, Inc.  between March 14, 2007 through September 27,
2007 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that BigBand misled the investing public
throughout the Class Period through their representations in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection with
the Company's IPO.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that BigBand failed to inform
the public at the time of the IPO and during the Class Period
that the Company was having a number of issues customizing and
integrating its switched digital video services with a number of
its customers. In addition, BigBand failed to disclose to
investors that one if its major customers had been unable to
work off excessive amounts of inventory and this would
substantially affect BigBand's revenues.

The truth regarding the Company's operational status was
revealed on September 27, 2007. On that date, BigBand announced
that the Company expected to post an operating loss for the
third quarter 2007 and would have to dramatically revise its
revenue outlook. The Company stated that it expected to report
revenue for the third quarter in the range of $35 to $39
million, well below the Company's previous guidance of $54 to
$58 million. The Company revealed for the first time the issues
its customers were having customizing the Company's switched
digital video technology and that the Company's Telco-TV revenue
experienced a slowdown due to a "major customer" having to
"work[] through previously purchased inventory."

As a result of Defendants' false and misleading Class Period
statements and omissions, BigBand's stock traded at inflated
levels during the Class Period. Once the Company's true
financial condition was revealed, BigBand shares fell 28% in
value, to close at $6.40 per share on September 28, 2007, a 51%
drop from the $13 per share price during the Company's IPO.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

For more information, contact:

          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          Washington, DC Office
          Toll-free: (877) 337-1050
          E-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com
          Website: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com


CITIGROUP INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Citigroup Inc. securities
between January 1, 2004 and November 5, 2007.

The complaint charges that Citigroup misled shareholders by
falsely reporting financial statements that failed to
consolidate the results and liabilities of certain highly-
leveraged special investment vehicles, as required by Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles or "GAAP."

The mortgage-backed securities owned by these special investment
vehicles (sold to them by Citigroup) have tumbled in value,
forcing Citigroup to bail out the special investment vehicles,
to the tune of billions of dollars in additional liability.

Purchasers of Citigroup securities between January 1, 2004 and
November 5, 2007 who wish to serve as lead plaintiff must file a
motion with the Court by January 7, 2008. Any member of the
purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

For more information, contact:

          Dustin Mansoor
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          E-mail: dmansoor@gardylaw.com
          Website: http://www.gardylaw.com


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California against Countrywide Capital V NYSE:CFC-PB), and
Countrywide Financial Corporation and certain of Countrywide's
officers and directors.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the preferred stock CCV pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its November 1, 2006 initial public offering,
through August 9, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that on November 1, 2006, CCV completed
its IPO of 52,000,000 preferred shares at $25.00 per share for
estimated proceeds of $1.3 billion to CCV pursuant to the
Registration Statement. The Complaint further alleges that at
the time of the Offering:

     (i) Countrywide told investors that its lending practices
         were materially different from other mortgage banks
         because, through its experience in the mortgage lending
         business, the Company knew how to originate,
         underwrite, manage, and service loans and adequately
         evaluate credit risks;

    (ii) that Countrywide represented that its loan origination
         standards and procedures were "designed to produce high
         quality loans" and that it was different from and could
         do better than other mortgage companies; and

   (iii) that only a small percentage of the loans it originated
         -- approximately 10% -- were subprime loans and that
         Countrywide principally produced "prime" loans in
         accord with industry standards.

However, as alleged in the Complaint, these representations were
materially false as it has now been revealed that that the
percentage of subprime loans was, in reality, materially higher
than represented by Countrywide.

The Complaint further alleges that on July 24, 2007, Countrywide
disclosed that it would record an impairment charge of $417
million and stated that the impairment charges were attributable
to accelerated increases in "delinquency levels and increases in
the estimates of future defaults and loss severities on the
underlying loans."

In addition, it is alleged that the announced provision for
losses on loans held for investment was $293 million "driven
primarily by a loan loss provision of $181 million on prime home
equity" loans. On July 24, 2007, CCV shares declined from a
closing price of $24.46 per share on July 23, 2007, to close at
$23.52 per share, a decline of $0.94 per share or approximately
4%.

It is further alleged that on August 9, 2007, Countrywide filed
its quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2007 on Form
10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission that stated, in
part, that "(t)he secondary mortgage markets are also currently
experiencing unprecedented disruptions resulting from reduced
investor demand for mortgage loans and mortgage-backed
securities and increased investor yield requirements for those
loans and securities ... our capacity to retain mortgage loans
and mortgage backed securities is not unlimited.

As a result, a prolonged period of secondary market illiquidity
may reduce our loan production volumes and could have an adverse
impact on our future earnings and financial condition." On
August 9, 2007, CCV shares declined from a closing price on
August 8, 2007 of $21.22 per share to close at $20.70 per share,
a decline of $0.52 per share of approximately 2%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 19,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
          Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN  55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com


DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. filed a suit, on November 9, 2007, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of shareholders of Dyadic International, Inc.

The complaint alleges operational and financial improprieties
perpetrated by the Company and its Asian subsidiaries approved
by the Defendants, which culminated in an internal investigation
and subsequent firing of the Company's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer Mark A. Emalfarb.

As a result of the improprieties in the Company's Asian
subsidiaries and the subsequent internal investigation, the
Company has abandoned its Asian operations. The Company's stock
was artificially inflated as a result of the material omissions
and misstatements contained within the Company's publicly filed
financial statements and reports. Its stock is currently
suspended for trading on the American Stock Exchange and is at
risk of being delisted, resulting in total loss of equity for
owners of Dyadic's securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 11,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph White, Esq.
          Greg Stone
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Tel: (561) 394-3399
          Fax: (561) 394-3382
          Website: http://www.saxenawhite.com


FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Flamel Technologies, SA American Depository
Receipts between March 23, 2007 and August 22, 2007.

The complaint charges Flamel and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made a series of false and misleading statements
regarding the prospects for COREG CR. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants were in possession of
undisclosed clinical trial data showing that Coreg CR was no
more effective than Coreg IR, the twice-daily version of the
drug.

On August 23, 2007, in an article entitled "Flamel Technologies
Shares Dive on Disappointing Coreg Study Results," the
Associated Press reported that a study of its once-daily heart
disease drug failed to show any benefit over the twice-daily
version. On this news, Flamel's ADR price dropped from $12.68 to
$9.56 per share. This decrease in Flamel's ADR price was a
result of the artificial inflation caused by defendants'
misleading statements coming out of the ADR price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Flamel ADR's between March 23, 2007 and August 22, 2007.

Flamel is a biopharmaceutical company that develops polymer-
based delivery technologies for medical applications. Its lead
product is COREG CR for use in the treatment of moderate to
severe congestive heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction
following myocardial infarction and hypertension.

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


MEDTRONIC INC: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. 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 its Sprint Fidelis
defibrillation leads ("Fidelis leads") until October 15, 2007,
when the Company disclosed that it would voluntarily suspend
distribution of Fidelis leads.

Fidelis 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 Fidelis leads. 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 Fidelis lead had experienced "strong market
acceptance" and "increasing clinical data ... supports these
devices." 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 Fidelis
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, 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:

          Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
          Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a proposed class action
against Washington Mutual claiming the company violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and committed securities fraud
by artificially inflating the Company's financial results
through inflation of property appraisals to support risky loans.

"With the mortgage industry having made so much money in recent
years, it is disappointing to hear that these profits were made
by inflating loan appraisals that put both the shareholders of
Washington Mutual and homeowners across the nation at risk of
defaults and foreclosures, while the executives took home
handsome paychecks for what was believed to be a real and
legitimate performance," said lead attorney and HBSS partner
Reed Kathrein. "We intend to pursue aggressive legal action to
protect the rights of investors."

Insight into WaMu's alleged mortgage loan mishandlings came in
early November when the Attorney General of the State of New
York filed a lawsuit against First American Corporation and
eAppraiseIT, alleging their complicity in a scheme to provide
inflated appraisals to Washington Mutual.

According to the complaint, WaMu told investors in mid-October
2007 that the company had suffered a 72 percent drop in net
income during the third quarter of 2007 and would have to set
aside up to $1.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2007 to cover
its losses. These write downs were caused, at least in part, by
the impairment of loan assets that were based on the inflated
appraisals fraudulently orchestrated by WaMu and eAppraiseIT,
the complaint alleges.

WaMu's officers had a duty to the relay accurate and truthful
information regarding the company's financial standing, which
they failed to do on numerous occasions, and to correct any
previously-issued statements that had become materially
misleading or untrue so the value of company stock would not
suffer, the complaint alleges.

According to the filed complaint these individuals participated
in the drafting, preparation and approval of many public and
shareholder reports and were aware of, or chose to disregard any
misstatements.

Washington Mutual is one of the nation's largest residential and
commercial banks operating in retail banking, card services,
commercial and home loans. The company's home loans segment
provides a range of services including originating and servicing
home loans, offers real estate secured residential loan products
and services consisting of fixed-rate home loans, adjustable-
rate home loans, hybrid home loans and mortgage loans to higher
risk borrowers.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle claims
Washington Mutual, in cooperation with its appraisal firm,
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and as a result has
damaged stock holders and company investors.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 4,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Reed Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          E-mail: Reed@hbsslaw.com


WSB FINANCIAL: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP has filed a securities class action
complaint against WSB Financial, Inc. and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock
of WSB issued pursuant to the December 2006 Registration
Statement and Prospectus during the period December 14, 2006
through October 23, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that defendants, including the Company's
top executives and the underwriter of WSB's initial public
offering ("IPO"), D.A. Davidson & Co., violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a materially misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus in connection with WSB's December 14,
2006 IPO. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus misrepresented:

     (i) the adequacy of the Company's accounting policies,
         including that the Company's allowances for loan losses
         were adequate;

    (ii) that the Company maintained "a high quality loan
         portfolio"; and

   (iii) that the Company had complied "with all of the laws and
         regulations" relevant to its operations. Due to the
         Company's misleading statements, WSB stock traded as
         high as $21 per share during the Class Period.

The truth about the Company's accounting policies and compliance
with applicable laws and regulations began to be revealed when,
on September 21, 2007, WSB announced that it would eliminate 33
jobs in the mortgage division of the company, and that WSB's
Executive Vice President of Sales and Lending at Westsound Bank
was leaving the Company. As a result, WSB's stock price fell
from $15.30 to $12.40.

Then, after the market closed on October 23, 2007, WSB belatedly
revealed that state and federal regulators were looking into
possible fraud and misconduct in its real estate lending
practices and that its CFO would be taking a leave of absence.

Due to this announcement, the Company's stock collapsed to close
at $4.73 on October 25 -- a drop of nearly 60 percent.

Afterwards, WSB revealed that in the spring of 2007 the
Washington State Department of Financial Institutions ("WSDFI")
had identified a number of high end home construction loans --
now totaling at least 146 loans valued at $90 million -- for
which WSB Financial had not obtained proper income
documentation. As a result, the Company stopped making these
loans as of April 2007 but never disclosed these facts until
October 29, 2007.

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

For more information, contact:

          Klafter & Olsen LLP
          Phone: 202/261-3553
          E-mail: http://www.klafterolsen.com


                           *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *