CAR_Public/071114.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 14, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 226

                            Headlines


BELL'S FISHERY: Recalls Whitefish Pate with Undeclared Contents
BROOKS AUTOMATION: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Gateway Residents Sue Over Alleged Defective Complex
CARRIER CORP: Recalls Defective Air Conditioners, Heat Pumps
CMS ENERGY: Objection Filed Against $200M Securities Suit Deal

CRUM & FORSTER: Dismissal of N.J. RICO, Antitrust Suit Appealed
DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls Toy Cars on Paint's High Lead Content
DOMINION RESOURCES: Wrongly Named in W.V. Royalty Owners Lawsuit
DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces “Holman” Labor Lawsuit in Calif.
FLOWSERVE CORP: Tex. Court Stays Proceedings in Securities Suit

GATX CORP: Settles La. Suit Over Dimethyl Sulfide Leak for $415T
HARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Cat Vitamin on Possible Contamination
INDIANA: Judge Dismisses Suit Over “Discriminatory” Property Tax
INTERACTIVE MEDIA: Hannah Montana Fan Sues Over Ticket Promo
INTERNATIONAL SOURCING: Recalls Toys on Paint's Lead Content

IPO LITIGATION Plaintiffs File New Class Certification Motion
KROGER CO: Recalls Mislabeled Light Caesar Salad Dressing
LABOR READY: Calif. Court Approves Settlement in Sex Bias Case
LABOR READY: Settles Calif. Overtime Suit by Former Employees
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Kansas Suits Over Wire in Defibrillators

MIDWAY GAMES: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Illinois
NATIONAL CITY: Reserves $25M to Settle Loan Originators Suit
NEW YORK: Fails to Provide Public Defense to Poor, NYCLU Claims
NICOR ENERGY: Settles Ill. Litigation Over Fixed Bill Service
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Allows Shareholders Suit to Proceed

TUESDAY MORNING: Still Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
UAL CORP: Still Working to Settle Multiple Suits Over Surcharges
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Refused Summary Judgment in Securities Suit
UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
UPM-KYMMENE CORP: Settles Labelstock Products Antitrust Suits

WALT DISNEY: Faces ADA Violation Suit Over Segway Ban in Parks
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Kan. Court Yet to Certify Natural Gas Suit

* Coughlin Stoia Tops SCAS' List with $11B in Settlements


                          *********

BELL'S FISHERY: Recalls Whitefish Pate with Undeclared Contents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bell's Fishery of Mackinaw City (Mich.) is recalling all of its
packages of Bell's Whitefish Pate because they contain
undeclared egg, soy, and milk products.

People who have allergies to egg, soy or milk products run the
risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The recalled Bell's Whitefish Pate was sold in Michigan at
Bell's Fishery located at 229 S Huron St. in Mackinac City, and
Biindigen Gas Station located at 2169 US 31 North, in Petoskey.

The product comes in an 8 ounce or 16 ounce plastic container
marked with lot #100607, expiration date 10-20-07, or lot #
100807, expiration date 10-28-07.

No Illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
product was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the
presence of egg, soy, and milk as ingredients in the Bell's
Whitefish Pate.

Production of the product has been suspended until FDA and
Bell's Fishery is certain that the labeling problem has been
corrected.

Consumers who have purchased the Pate are encouraged to return
the product to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Bell's Fishery at 1-231-
436-7821.


BROOKS AUTOMATION: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rya W. Zobel of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts refused to throw out an options backdating
class action filed against semiconductor maker Brooks Automation
Inc.

Judge Zobel, however, tossed a handful claims made against
individuals.  He approved, meanwhile, a motion to dismiss filed
by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Related cases were ordered consolidated and lead plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Complaint on February 12, 2007. Defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint on April 9, 2007.

The original complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants Brooks Automation, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 by publicly issuing a series of false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results, thus causing Brooks's shares to trade at
artificially inflated prices.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that on March 18, 2006, The
Wall Street Journal published a story titled "The Perfect Payday
- Some CEOs reap millions by landing stock options when they are
most valuable; Luck - or something else?" that identified Brooks
as one of several companies "with wildly improbable option-grant
patterns." On April 26, 2006, Brooks disclosed that its Board of
Directors created a special committee to conduct an internal
review of matters related to past stock option grants, including
the timing of such grants and associated documentation.

The Complaint further alleges that on May 11, 2006, Brooks
issued a press release titled "Brooks Automation to Restate Past
Periods Related to Certain Stock Option Grants," that stated, in
part, that "the Company will be required to correct certain SEC
filings, including particularly its financial statements
contained in filings for some or all of the periods commencing
in fiscal 1999 and ending in fiscal 2005."

Brooks further stated that "[t]he Company believes that it
accounted for certain matters concerning stock options
incorrectly, and as a result recognized less compensation
expense than it should have in periods prior to fiscal 2006." On
May 18, 2006, two individuals reportedly resigned from the
Company's Board of Directors.

The Complaint also alleges that the Securities and Exchange
Commission is conducting an informal inquiry concerning stock
option grant practices to determine whether violations of the
federal securities laws have occurred and Brooks has allegedly
received a grand jury document subpoena from the U.S. Attorney
for the Eastern District of New York requesting records
pertaining to the granting of stock options.

The Complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
certain Company insiders sold approximately 320,000 Brooks
shares at artificially inflates prices for proceeds of
approximately $6.4 million.

The complaint alleges that, as a result of the Company's recent
disclosures, that since March 20, 2006, the first trading day
after the above-noted Wall Street Journal article of March 18,
2006, shares of Brooks have declined from $13.88 per share at
the opening of trading on March 20, 2006, to close at $12 per
share at the close of trading on May 23, 2006, a decline of
$1.88 per share, or approximately 14%.

The first identified complaint in the database is “Leech v.
Brooks Automation, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11068-RWZ,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Rya W. Zobel.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Peter A. Pease, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617/542-8300
         Fax: 617/542-1194
         E-mail: ppease@bermanesq.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Randall W. Bodner, Esq.
         Ropes & Gray LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7000 x7776
         Fax: 617-951-7050
         E-mail: rbodner@ropesgray.com


CALIFORNIA: Gateway Residents Sue Over Alleged Defective Complex
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven residents of the Gateway Apartments in Marin City (Cal.)
filed a class action against the project's developer over
defects in the buildings, Nancy Isles Nation of the Marin
Independent-Journal reports.

The lawsuit claims mold, water damage and disruption in the
building endangered the health and safety of the residents.

Plaintiffs claim Gateway Apartment Partners rented the units
knowing that they were defective while collecting rent and
government subsidies.

According to the report, Gateway attorney Douglas Straus, said
the developer sued the contractor and had the defects repaired
before tenants were affected, spending about more than $10
million on that project.

Mr. Straus said tenants were offered relocation options during
the repairs but most chose to stay at a reduced rent.

The lawsuit asks for unspecified financial damages. A hearing is
scheduled for Jan. 19, the report said.

Gateway Apartments is a 12-building complex with 225 apartments
built in the mid-1990s.


CARRIER CORP: Recalls Defective Air Conditioners, Heat Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Corp., of Farmington, Conn., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 185,000 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
(PTAC) and Heat Pumps (PTHP).

The company said an electric heater in the unit can break,
posing a fire hazard to consumers.

Carrier has received five reports of electric heater
failures, resulting in fires contained to the unit. No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves Carrier-brand packaged terminal air
conditioners (PTAC) and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHP)
manufactured between 2001 and 2005. Model numbers included in
the recall are 52C, 52P, and unbranded model 84 units sold
through the Bryant and FAST channels. Serial and model numbers
are located on the rating/data plate on the right front of the
unit, underneath the removable front panel. A complete list of
the serial numbers involved in this recall can be found at
http://www.carrierptacrecall.com. The units were sold with  
208/230 and 265 volts, and have capacities of 7,000, 9,000,
12,000, and 15,000 BTUs.

The recalled products were made in Mexico and sold by HVAC
dealers and factory-direct sales from January 2002 through
December 2006 for between $425 and $675.

Consumers are advised to stop using the heating mode of the
recalled units until they are inspected in accordance with
Carrier's inspection instructions, which can be found at
http://www.carrierptacrecall.com. Consumers
should contact Carrier to receive a free repair.

For additional information, contact Carrier at (800)
761-8492 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.carrierptacrecall.com.


CMS ENERGY: Objection Filed Against $200M Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two former officers of Consumers Energy Corp. filed an objection
to a $200,000,000 settlement of the case, “In Re CMS Energy
Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 CV 72004 (GCS).”  Their
principal complaint was with the exclusion of all present and
former officers and their immediate families from participation
in the settlement.

Beginning in May 2002, a number of complaints were filed against
CMS Energy Corp., Consumers Energy Corp., and certain officers
and directors of CMS Energy and its affiliates in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit under the
caption, “In Re CMS Energy Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 CV
72004 (GCS).”   

It generally seeks unspecified damages based on allegations that
the defendants violated U.S. securities laws and regulations by
making allegedly false and misleading statements about CMS
Energy’s business and financial condition, particularly with
respect to revenues and expenses recorded in connection with
round-trip trading by CMS MST.

In January 2005, the court granted a motion to dismiss Consumers
and three of the individual defendants, but denied the motions
to dismiss CMS Energy and the 13 remaining individual
defendants.

In March 2006, the court conditionally certified a class
consisting of “all persons who purchased CMS Common Stock during
the period of Oct. 25, 2000 through and including May 17, 2002
and who were damaged thereby.”

The court excluded purchasers of CMS Energy’s 8.75 percent
Adjustable Convertible Trust Securities (ACTS) from the class
and, in response, a new class action was filed on behalf of ACTS
purchasers (ACTS Action) against the same defendants named in
the Shareholder Action.  

The settlement described in the following paragraph has resolved
both the Shareholder and ACTS Actions.

On Jan. 3, 2007, CMS Energy and other parties entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding, subject to court approval,
regarding settlement of the two class actions.  The settlement
was approved by a special committee of independent directors and
by the full board of directors of CMS Energy.   Both judged that
it was in the best interests of shareholders to eliminate this
business uncertainty.

Under the terms of the MOU, the litigation was settled for a
total of $200 million, including the cost of administering the
settlement and any attorney fees the court awards.  CMS Energy
made a payment of approximately $123 million plus interest on
the settlement amount on Sept. 20, 2007.  CMS Energy’s insurers
paid $77 million, the balance of the settlement amount.

In entering into the MOU, CMS Energy made no admission of
liability under the Shareholder Action and the ACTS Action.

The parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
dated May 22, 2007 (incorporating the terms of the MOU.  In
accordance with the Stipulation, CMS Energy paid approximately
$1 million of the settlement amount to fund administrative
expenses.

On Sept. 6, 2007, the court issued a final order approving the
settlement.  The remaining settlement amount was paid following
the Sept. 6, 2007 hearing.

On Oct. 5, 2007, two former officers of Consumers filed an
appeal of the order approving the settlement of the shareholder
litigation.  

Based on the objections they filed in the District Court and
comments made on the record at the fairness hearing on Sept. 6,
2007, they are not challenging the amount of the settlement.

Their principal complaint was with the exclusion of all present
and former officers and their immediate families from
participation in the settlement, according to CMS Energy Corp.'s
Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

For more details, contact:

         Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
         Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26 Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 894-7200

              - and -

         Robert A. Wallner, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: (212) 594-5300


CRUM & FORSTER: Dismissal of N.J. RICO, Antitrust Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action over allegations that
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. violated both the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and antitrust statutes  
are appealing the dismissal orders in the case.

The company and U.S. Fire, among numerous other insurance
company and insurance broker defendants, have been named as
defendants in a class action filed by policyholders alleging,
among other things, that the defendants used contingent
commission structure to deprive policyholders of free
competition in the market for insurance.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class consisting
of all persons who between Aug. 26, 1994 and the date of the
class certification engaged the services of any one of the
broker defendants and who entered into or renewed a contract of
insurance with one of the insurer defendants.

In October 2006, the court partially granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, subject to plaintiffs'
filing an amended statement of their case.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed their “supplemental statement of
particularity” and amended case statement.  In response,
defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice.   On
Sept. 28, 2007, the court dismissed the RICO case with prejudice
and declined to accept supplemental jurisdiction over
plaintiffs’ state law claims.

The Judge gave the plaintiffs 30 days to re-plead a basis for
federal jurisdiction over the state law claims, but the
plaintiffs elected instead to file a notice of appeal of the
dismissal orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. and U.S. Fire continue to be named
as defendants, according to its Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. -- http://www.cfins.com-- through    
its eight subsidiaries, offers an array of property/casualty
insurance products to businesses, including management
liability, automobile, and workers' compensation coverage.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls Toy Cars on Paint's High Lead Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Merchandising Inc., of Goodlettsville, Tenn., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 380,000 pull-back action toy cars.

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

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recall involves two styles of "pull and release" toy
cars, including a four pack of Super Wheels (UPC #400016576344)
and a two pack of Super Racer cars (UPC # 883788965002).

The toy cars were made in China and sold at Dollar General
stores nationwide from April 2007 through October 2007 for about
$1 per pack.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toy cars
away from children and return them to any Dollar General store
for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Dollar General at
(800) 678-9258 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.dollargeneral.com.


DOMINION RESOURCES: Wrongly Named in W.V. Royalty Owners Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Resources Services, Inc. (DRS) said it was erroneously
named as defendant in a purported class action “Jones et al. v.
Dominion Resources Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
00671.”

In 2006, Gary P. Jones and others filed the suit against
Dominion Transmission, Inc., Dominion Exploration and
Production, Inc. (DEPI) and DRS in in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under Judge
Joseph R. Goodwin

The plaintiffs are royalty owners, seeking to recover damages as
a result of the Dominion defendants allegedly underpaying
royalties by improperly deducting post-production costs and not
paying fair market value for the gas produced from their leases.

The plaintiffs seek class-action status on behalf of all West
Virginia residents and others who are parties to or
beneficiaries of oil and gas leases with the Dominion
defendants.

DRS is erroneously named as a defendant as the parent company of
DTI and DEPI.

Dominion Resources, Inc. -- http://www.dom.com/-- is a fully  
integrated gas and electric holding company.  Dominion
concentrates its efforts in the energy intensive Northeast, Mid-
Atlantic and Midwest regions of the U.S.


DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces “Holman” Labor Lawsuit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Downey Savings and Loan Assoc., F.A., a subsidiary of Downey
Financial Corp., continues to face a purported class action
filed by two former traditional branch employees in Los Angeles
Superior Court, California, according to the company's Nov. 1,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit was filed on Oct. 29, 2004, under the caption, “Margie
Holman and Alice A. Mesec, et al. v. Downey Savings and Loan
Association, Case No. BC323796.”

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged unpaid
regular and overtime wages and bonuses, inadequate meal and rest
breaks, and related claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status to represent all
other current and former Downey Savings employees who held the
position of Customer Service Supervisor and/or Customer Service
Representative at Downey Savings’ in-store branches at any time
from Oct. 29, 2000 to date.

Based on a review of the current facts and circumstances with
retained outside counsel:

       -- Downey Savings plans to oppose the claim and assert
          all appropriate defenses, and

       -- management has provided for what is believed to be a
          reasonable estimate of exposure for this matter in the
          event of loss.

Downey Financial Corp. -- http://www.downeysavings.com-- is a  
savings and loan holding company.  Downey Savings and Loan
Association (the Bank) is the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary.
The Company is also involved in real estate investments.  Its
banking activities focus on attracting funds from the general
public and institutions and obtaining borrowings; originating
and investing in loans, primarily residential real estate
mortgage loans, investment securities and mortgage-backed
securities, and originating and selling loans to investors in
the secondary markets.


FLOWSERVE CORP: Tex. Court Stays Proceedings in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has
stayed the trial and all pretrial proceedings in a consolidated
class action against Flowserve Corp.

In 2003, related lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, alleging that the company  
violated federal securities laws.  

Since the filing of these cases, which have been consolidated,
the lead plaintiff has amended its complaint several times.  

The lead plaintiff’s current pleading is the fifth consolidated
amended complaint.  

The Complaint alleges that federal securities violations
occurred between Feb. 6, 2001 and Sept. 27, 2002 and names as
defendants our company, C. Scott Greer,  the company's former
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Renee J.
Hornbaker, the company's former Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the company's
independent registered public accounting firm, and Banc of
America Securities LLC and Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, which
served as underwriters for the company's two public stock
offerings during the relevant period.

The Complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
forfeiture by Mr. Greer and Ms. Hornbaker of unspecified
incentive-based or equity-based compensation and profits from
any stock sales, and recovery of costs.

On Nov. 22, 2005, the Court entered an order denying the
defendants’ motions to dismiss the Complaint.

The company has subsequently filed other contested motions for
the purpose of dismissing this case which are currently pending
before the Court.

The case had been set for trial on Oct. 1, 2007, but on Aug. 22,
2007, the Court stayed the trial and all pretrial proceedings
pending its ruling on whether the case may be certified as a
class action.

The suit is “Ryan et al. v. Flowserve Corp. et al., Case No. 03-
CV-01769,” with the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Barbara M.
G. Lynn.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA, 94111
          Phone: 415.288.4545
          Fax: 415.288.4534
          E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

          Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
          600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Phone: 800.449.4900
          E-mail: support@milberg.com

               - and -

          Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX, 75204
          Phone: 214.744.3000
          Fax: 214.744.3015
          E-mail: info@provostumphrey.com


GATX CORP: Settles La. Suit Over Dimethyl Sulfide Leak for $415T
----------------------------------------------------------------
GATX Corp. along with other defendants in the class action,
“Schneider, et al. v. CSX Transportation, Inc., et al.,” have
reached a tentative $415,000 settlement for the matter.

The suit ( 2001-8924) was filed in Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana on May 25, 2001 against:

     -- CSX Transportation, Inc.;
     -- Hercules, Inc.;
     -- Rhodia, Inc.;
     -- Oil Mop, L.L.C.;
     -- The Public Belt Railroad Commission for The City of New
        Orleans;
     -- GATX Corp.;
     -- GATX Capital Corp.;
     -- The City of New Orleans; and
     -- The Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co.

The suit asserts that on May 25, 2000, a tank car owned by the
Rail division of GATX Financial Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary
of GATX that was merged into GATX in 2007 (GFC), leaked the
fumes of its cargo, dimethyl sulfide, in a residential area in
the western part of the city of New Orleans and that the tank
car, while still leaking, was subsequently taken by defendant,
New Orleans Public Belt Railroad, to another location in the
City of New Orleans, where it was later repaired.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for alleged personal
injuries and property damages.

The petition alleges that a class should be certified, but
plaintiffs have not yet moved to do so.  

The defendants have offered to settle this suit by funding an
escrow of $415,000, of which GATX has contributed $79,000.  The
escrow will be disbursed upon receipt of releases from the
plaintiffs and the dismissal of the uncertified class action by
the Court.

The parties are proceeding to finalize the settlement documents
and processes and will then seek appropriate Court orders and
approvals, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

GATX Corp. -- http://www.gatx.com-- leases, manages, operates  
and invests in assets in the rail, marine and industrial
equipment markets.  


HARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Cat Vitamin on Possible Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartz Mountain Corp. is voluntarily recalling one specific
lot of Hartz Vitamin Care for Cats due to concerns that one or
more bottles within the lot may have been potentially
contaminated with Salmonella.

Hartz is fully cooperating with the US Food and Drug
Administration in this voluntary recall.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems, all of whom are at particular risk from
exposure and should avoid handling these products.

Salmonella symptoms may include fever, diarrhea, abdominal pain,
and nausea in both cats and humans. Anyone experiencing the
symptoms of Salmonella infection should seek immediate medical
attention. Owners of cats exhibiting these symptoms should also
seek veterinary assistance.

The product involved is 3600 bottles of Hartz Vitamin Care for
Cats, lot code SZ- 1637 1, UPC number 32700-97701, which was
manufactured by a third party manufacturer, UFAC (USA), Inc., in
Baconton, Georgia. While normal testing conducted by Hartz and
UFAC has not revealed the presence of Salmonella in any Hartz
products, sampling conducted by the FDA did detect the presence
of Salmonella. Hartz is aggressively investigating the source of
the problem.

Although the company has not received any reports of animals or
humans becoming ill as a result of coming into contact with this
product, Hartz is taking immediate steps to remove the product
from all retail stores and distribution centers. Cat owners
should> check the lot code on their bottles, and, if the code is
not visible, or if the bottle has lot code SZ- 16371 imprinted
thereon, they should immediately discontinue use of the product
and discard it in a proper manner.

Consumers can contact Hartz at 1-800-275-1414 with any questions
they may have and to obtain reimbursement for purchased product.


INDIANA: Judge Dismisses Suit Over “Discriminatory” Property Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Indiana Tax judge has dismissed a class action brought by ten
taxpayer organizations and several taxpayers challenging the
constitutionality of the state's property tax system.

A group of homeowners and taxpayer groups, including the
Vanderburgh County Taxpayers Association, filed the suit seeking
to represent a class consisting of potentially 2 million
taxpayers statewide.  In general, the suit questions legality of
statewide assessment methods and the use of tax abatement. It
contends the current tax structure does not comply with the
state constitution's requirement for a "uniform and equal rate
of property assessment and taxation."

Specifically, according to Mr. Corbin's report, the plaintiffs
had wanted the judge to:

     -- void the deadline extensions Gov. Mitch Daniels
        previously ordered that gave counties more time to adopt
        local-option income taxes to reduce their property taxes
        because he does not have a power to do so; and

     -- overturn a recent 1.65 percent income tax increase in
        Indianapolis, because one of the Indianapolis City-
        County Council members who voted to adopt it should have
        been disqualified over his residency. That council
        member, Patrice Abduallah, later resigned.

Defendants contended the plaintiffs did not exhaust all the
administrative remedies available to them before taking their
case to court, meaning the Indiana Tax Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear the case yet.  In response, John Price, the
plaintiff's attorney said the constitutional issues are too
broad to be decided by local tax boards or state agencies.

Indiana Tax Judge Thomas G. Fisher heard in October arguments by
the state government, the city of Indianapolis and Marion County
to dismiss the suit (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2007).

In recent development, Mr. Price the suit was dismissed by the
Indiana Tax Court, on jurisdictional grounds.  The Court based
its order on the current statutory framework limits which limit
access to the Tax Court.

The taxpayers certainly respect Judge Thomas Fisher, who
essentially held that his hands were tied by the law as it
stands today. The “statutory framework” to which the Judge
referred would appear to require the taxpayers to present their
constitutional claims to State agencies who clearly have no
authority to take any action on claims that the agencies
themselves violate the Indiana Constitution. The requirement for
taxpayers to jump through bureaucratic hoops cries out for
legislative revision.

The taxpayers are committed to working in the upcoming session
of the General Assembly to change Indiana law and make it more
taxpayer friendly, when challenges are brought in the judicial
system. In addition, the taxpayers will pursue the
administrative hurdles set up in the current law, though it is
unknown at this time how many months or years the process will
take.

In addition, the various taxpayer organizations who came
together as co-Plaintiffs in this case have concluded that by
working together they can accomplish a great deal more than
operating separately in their own areas of the State.

The groups say they will now take their property tax battle to
the Indiana General Assembly.


INTERACTIVE MEDIA: Hannah Montana Fan Sues Over Ticket Promo
------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action law firms filed a suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against:

     -- Interactive Media Marketing, Inc., and
     -- Smiley Miley, Inc.

on behalf of a New Jersey woman and anyone else who joined the
official Miley Cyrus Fan Club at mileyworld.com based on the
club's representation that joining would make it easier to get
Hannah Montana concert tickets.

Miley Cyrus is the star of the Hannah Montana television program
and live show.

Thousands of fans who couldn't get tickets to the Hannah Montana
live show at the official fan club website now have legal
recourse.

"They deceptively lured thousands of individuals into purchasing
memberships into the Miley Cyrus fan club, and that's why we're
suing," said Rob Peirce, of Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., a
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania- based law firm that filed the Hannah
Montana lawsuit with attorney B.J. Wade from the firm of
Glassman, Edwards, Wade & Wyatt of Memphis, TN.

The lawsuit is asking for treble damages for all members of the
class action and recovery of all attorneys' fees, as stipulated
in the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

"Thousands of people joined the club based on the understanding
that by joining they would be able to purchase Hannah Montana
concert tickets before they were offered for sale to the general
public," said Peirce.

"While the club and the website do not guarantee ticket
availability, they explicitly state that members who log on
shortly after tickets become available will have a good
opportunity to get tickets. In reality, the vast majority of
club members, including those who logged on at the appointed
time or shortly thereafter, were unable to obtain concert
tickets, " said Mr. Peirce.

According to the lawsuit, Interactive Media Marketing, Inc. and
Smiley Miley, Inc., both Tennessee-based companies, knew or
should have known that its membership vastly exceeded the number
of available tickets.

The Hannah Montana class action is filed in the name of Kerry
Inman, a New Jersey woman who tried to log into the site to
purchase tickets to the Atlantic City, N.J. performance of the
Hannah Montana "Best of Both Worlds" concert tour at the exact
moment when tickets were to be made available for sale, but was
unable to get the tickets.

"The scenario that the Inman family went through -- paying for a
membership, then logging on to purchase tickets as soon as
possible -- this scenario has been replayed thousands, if not
tens of thousands of times over the past few months," said Mr.
Peirce.

The suit is “Inman v. Interactive Media Marketing, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:2007-cv-01109” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District.

For more information, contact:

          Rob Peirce
          Robert Peirce & Associates, Inc.
          Phone: (412) 281-7229
          E-mail: robpeirce@peircelaw.com


INTERNATIONAL SOURCING: Recalls Toys on Paint's Lead Content
------------------------------------------------------------
International Sourcing Ltd. (ISL), of Springfield, Mo., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 7,500 Dragster and Funny Car toy.

The company said surface paint on the wheels and engine of the
toys contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal
lead paint standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recall includes plastic models of a dragster and funny
car. The dragster is approximately 22 inches long, black in
color with various sponsor decals on the toys. The funny car is
approximately 14 inches long and is also black in color. Both
models have the ISL logo imprinted on the underside.

The toys were made in China and sold at national Hot Rod
Association (NHRA) events through Schumacher Racing, and Matco
Tools through door to door sales by its representatives from
March 2007 through September 2007.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the toy away from
children, and return it to International Sourcing Ltd. for a
full refund or replacement product.


For additional information, contact International
Sourcing Ltd at (877) 404-1584 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT
Monday through Friday or visit http://www.islpromotions.com.


IPO LITIGATION Plaintiffs File New Class Certification Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation
(05-3349-cv) filed a new motion for class certification in six
focus cases.

Previously, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals denied a
request to reconsider its decision to overturn the certification
of the six cases (Class Action Reporter, April 11, 2007).

                     Case Background

On Oct. 13, 2004, six selected focus cases, among the more than
300 coordinated cases in the IPO allocation litigation, were
certified as class actions.  The actions are coordinated for
pretrial purposes before U.S. District Court Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York.

The six focus cases are that against Corvis Corp.; Engage
Technologies, Inc.; Firepond, Inc.; iXL Enterprises, Inc.;
Sycamore Networks, Inc.; and VA Linux Corp.

The IPO Litigation consists of 309 class actions involving more
than 300 IPOs marketed between 1998 and 2000.  The defendants
include the companies brought public, certain of their officers
and directors and 55 of the investment banks that brought them
public and underwrote various follow-on offerings.

The lawsuits allege that the IPO offerings were manipulated by
the investment banks to artificially inflate the market price of
those securities and to reap excessive compensation and that
their conduct was concealed from the public, in violation of the
federal securities laws.  There are also allegations that they
misused their securities analysts to hype the stock.

In June 2006, The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee announced that
a proposed settlement between the issuer defendants and their
directors and officers and the plaintiffs has been structured in
the IPO Securities Litigation which would guarantee at least (or
the first) $1 billion dollars to investors who are class members
from the insurers of the issuers.

                Decertification of Focus Cases

On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
issued a decision reversing the court's ruling certifying six of
the cases in the consolidated proceedings as class actions.

On Dec. 14, 2006, the court agreed to stay all proceedings,
including consideration of the settlement, pending a decision
from the 2nd Circuit on whether it will hear further argument on
the class certification issue.

In seeking for a review, plaintiffs argued that the initial
decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted
incorrect standards that a district court must apply in
determining whether to grant class certification, according to
Law.com.

They also said the circuit erred in concluding that the
criterion for certification set out in Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure could not be satisfied with
respect to their class, and argued that a remand was appropriate
to enable the district court to reconsider the class
certification motion under the standards set forth by the
circuit.

       Denial to Hear Rehearing of Decertification

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition
for rehearing, but allowed the plaintiffs to request that the
district court certify a more limited class. On April 23, 2007,
plaintiffs requested 30 days to report to the District Court on
how they wish to proceed regarding class certification.

The District Court indicated that a new class definition was a
priority for the issuers’ proposed settlement agreement, and met
on May 30, 2007, to discuss this as well as other issues. During
the May 30, 2007 conference, the plaintiffs orally moved for
revised class certification and stated that they will seek mixed
class and merits discovery in advance of their opening brief on
class certification. The plaintiffs also indicated that they may
seek discovery from issuers in cases other than the six focus
cases.

On June 25, 2007, the parties submitted a stipulation to
terminate the settlement, which was granted by Court Order. On
June 26, 2007, plaintiffs served a document request on all
issuer defendants. On June 27, 2007, the Court held a conference
with counsel for all three groups in the case. The parties
agreed that the plaintiffs had until July 31, 2007, to file any
Amended Complaints.

In addition, the Court set the following briefing schedule for
class certification: opening briefs due by September 27, 2007,
responses due by December 21, 2007, and reply briefs due by
February 15, 2008. Finally, the plaintiffs had until July 11,
2007, to respond to the underwriters’ motion, joined by the
issuers, regarding the statute of limitations.

There was a conference with the Court to address discovery
issues on July 25, 2007; however, the conference was adjourned
at the request of the parties, and has not been rescheduled. On
July 31, 2007, the plaintiffs requested that the Court extend
the deadline to August 14, 2007, for filing any Amended
Complaints.  On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in the six focus cases. The amended complaints
include a number of changes, such as changes to the definition
of the purported class of investors, and the elimination of the
individual defendants as defendants.

On September 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in the six focus cases. If the plaintiffs are
successful in obtaining class certification, they are expected
to amend the complaint against the Company and the other non-
focus case issuers in the same manner that they amended the
complaints against the focus case issuers and to seek
certification of a class in the Company’s case.

The proposed class is any person or entity who bought shares of
any of the corporations listed below on or prior to Dec. 6,
2000.

ISSUER                                      BEGIN DATE END DATE

724 Solutions, Inc.                         01/27/00 12/06/00
Accelerated Networks, Inc.                  06/22/00 12/06/00
ACLARA BioSciences, Inc.                    03/20/00 12/06/00
Aether Systems, Inc.                        10/20/99 12/06/00
AGENCY.COM, Ltd.                            12/08/99 12/06/00
Agile Software Corp.                        08/20/99 12/06/00
Agilent Technologies, Inc.                  11/17/99 12/06/00
AirNet Communications                       12/06/99 12/06/00
Airspan Networks, Inc.                      07/19/00 12/06/00
Akamai Technologies, Inc.                   10/28/99 12/06/00
Alamosa PCS Holdings, Inc.                  02/03/00 12/06/00
Alloy Online, Inc.                          05/14/99 12/06/00
Antigenics Inc. (named as Antigenics, Inc.) 02/03/00 12/06/00
Apropos Technology, Inc.                    02/17/00 12/06/00
Ariba, Inc.                                 06/23/99 12/06/00
Ashford.com, Inc.                           09/22/99 12/06/00
AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc.                     03/03/00 12/06/00
Ask Jeeves, Inc.                            07/01/99 12/06/00
Audible, Inc.                               07/15/99 12/06/00
Autobytel.com, Inc.                         03/26/99 12/06/00
AutoWeb.com, Inc.                           03/23/99 12/06/00
Avanex Corporation                          02/03/00 12/06/00
AvantGo, Inc.                               09/27/00 12/06/00
Avenue A, Inc.                              02/28/00 12/06/00
Avici Systems Inc. (named as Avici Systems, 07/27/00 12/06/00
Inc.)                                           
BackWeb Technologies Ltd.                  06/07/99 12/06/00
Be Free, Inc.                              11/03/99 12/06/00
Blue Martini Software, Inc.                07/24/00 12/06/00
Bookham Technology PLC                     04/11/00 12/06/00
Bottomline Technologies, Inc.              02/12/99 12/06/00
Braun Consulting, Inc.                     08/10/99 12/06/00
Breakaway Solutions, Inc.                  10/05/99 12/06/00
Brocade Communication Systems, Inc.        05/24/99 12/06/00
BSQUARE Corporation                        10/19/99 12/06/00
Buy.com, Inc.                              02/07/00 12/06/00
CacheFlow, Inc. (now Blue Coat Systems)    11/19/99 12/06/00
Caldera International, Inc.                03/20/00 12/06/00
Calico Commerce, Inc.                      10/06/99 12/06/00
Caliper Technologies Corp. (now Caliper Life
Sciences, Inc.)
                                           12/14/99 12/06/00
Capstone Turbine Corp.                     06/28/00 12/06/00
Carrier1 International SA                  02/23/00 12/06/00
Centra Software, Inc.                      02/03/00 12/06/00
chinadotcom corporation                    07/12/99 12/06/00
Choice One Communications, Inc.            02/16/00 12/06/00
Chordiant Software, Inc.                   02/14/00 12/06/00
Clarent Corporation                        06/30/99 12/06/00
CNET Networks (named as successor-ininterest
to Ziff-Davis)1                            03/30/99 12/06/00
Cobalt Networks, Inc.                      11/05/99 12/06/00
Commerce One, Inc.                         07/01/99 12/06/00
Concur Technologies, Inc.                  12/16/98 12/06/00
Copper Mountain Networks, Inc.             05/12/99 12/06/00
Corio, Inc.                                07/21/00 12/06/00
Corvis Corp.                               07/27/00 12/06/00
Cosine Communications, Inc.                09/25/00 12/06/00
Covad Communications Group, Inc.           01/21/99 12/06/00
Critical Path, Inc.                        03/29/99 12/06/00
CyberSource Corporation                    06/23/99 12/06/00
Daleen Technologies, Inc.                  09/30/99 12/06/00
Data Return Corp.                          10/27/99 12/06/00
deCODE Genetics, Inc.                      07/17/00 12/06/00
Delano Technology Corporation              02/09/00 12/06/00
deltathree, Inc.                           11/22/99 12/06/00
Dice, Inc. (named as EarthWeb, Inc.)       11/10/98 12/06/00
Digimarc Corporation                       12/01/99 12/06/00
Digital Impact, Inc.                       11/22/99 12/06/00
Digital Insight Corp.                      09/30/99 12/06/00
Digital Island Corporation (now Cable &
Wireless plc)                              06/29/99 12/06/00
Digital River, Inc.                        08/11/98 12/06/00
DigitalThink, Inc.                         02/24/00 12/06/00
Digitas, Inc.                              03/13/00 12/06/00
Diversa Corp.                              02/14/00 12/06/00
DoubleClick, Inc.                          12/11/98 12/06/00
Drugstore.com, Inc.                        07/28/99 12/06/00
Epiphany, Inc.                             09/21/99 12/06/00
eBenX Inc.                                 12/09/99 12/06/00
eGain Communications Corp.                 09/23/99 12/06/00
El Sitio, Inc.                             12/10/99 12/06/00
E-Loan, Inc.                               06/28/99 12/06/00
Eloquent, Inc.                             02/16/00 12/06/00
Engage Technologies, Inc.                  07/20/99 12/06/00
Equinix, Inc.                              08/10/00 12/06/00
eToys, Inc.                                05/20/99 12/06/00
Evolve Software, Inc.                      08/09/00 12/06/00
Exchange Applications, Inc.                12/09/98 12/06/00
EXFO Electro Optical Engineering, Inc.     06/29/00 12/06/00
Expedia, Inc.                              11/09/99 12/06/00
Extensity, Inc.                            01/26/00 12/06/00
Extreme Networks, Inc.                     04/08/99 12/06/00
F5 Networks, Inc.                          06/04/99 12/06/00
Fairmarket, Inc.                           03/14/00 12/06/00
Fatbrain.com                               11/19/98 12/06/00
Finisar Corp.                              11/11/99 12/06/00
FirePond, Inc.                             02/04/00 12/06/00
FlashNet Communications, Inc.              03/16/99 12/06/00
Focal Communications                       07/28/99 12/06/00
Foundry Networks, Inc.                     09/27/99 12/06/00
FreeMarkets, Inc.                          12/09/99 12/06/00
Gadzoox Networks, Inc.                     07/19/99 12/06/00
Gigamedia Ltd.                             02/17/00 12/06/00
Global Crossing Ltd.                       08/13/98 12/06/00
GlobeSpan, Inc. (now GlobeSpanVirata, Inc.)06/23/99 12/06/00
GoTo.com (now Overture Services, Inc.)     06/18/99 12/06/00
GRIC Communications                        12/14/99 12/06/00
GT Group Telecom, Inc.                     03/09/00 12/06/00
Handspring, Inc. (now PalmOne, Inc.)       06/20/00 12/06/00
High Speed Access Corp.                    06/04/99 12/06/00
Hoover's, Inc.                             07/20/99 12/06/00
iBasis, Inc.                               11/10/99 12/06/00
iBeam Broadcasting Corporation             05/17/00 12/06/00
iManage, Inc.                              11/17/99 12/06/00
Immersion Corp.                            11/12/99 12/06/00
Impsat Fiber Networks, Inc.                01/31/00 12/06/00
Informatica Corp.                          04/28/99 12/06/00
InforMax, Inc. (now Invitrogen Corp.)      10/02/00 12/06/00
Inforte Corp.                              02/17/00 12/06/00
Inrange Technologies Corp.                 09/21/00 12/06/00
InsWeb Corp.                               07/22/99 12/06/00
Integrated Information Systems, Inc.       03/17/00 12/06/00
Integrated Telecom Express, Inc.           08/18/00 12/06/00
InterNAP Network Services Corporation      09/29/99 12/06/00
Internet Capital Group                     08/04/99 12/06/00
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.            08/03/99 12/06/00
Intersil Holding Corp.                     02/24/00 12/06/00
InterTrust Technologies Corp.              10/26/99 12/06/00
interWAVE Communications InternationalLtd. 01/31/00 12/06/00
Interwoven, Inc.                           10/08/99 12/06/00
Intraware, Inc.                            02/25/99 12/06/00
iPrint.com, Inc. (now iPrint Technologies,
inc.)                                      03/07/00 12/06/00
ITXC Corporation                           09/27/99 12/06/00
iVillage, Inc.                             03/18/99 12/06/00
iXL Enterprises, Inc.                      06/02/99 12/06/00
Jazztel PLC                                12/08/99 12/06/00
JNI Corp.                                  10/26/99 12/06/00
Juniper Networks Inc.                      06/24/99 12/06/00
Kana Software, Inc.                        09/21/99 12/06/00
Keynote Systems Inc.                       09/24/99 12/06/00
Korea Thrunet Co. Ltd.                     09/16/99 12/06/00
Lante Corporation                          02/10/00 12/06/00
Latitude Communications, Inc.              05/06/99 12/06/00
Lexent Inc.                                07/27/00 12/06/00
Liberate Technologies (named as Liberate
Technologies, Inc.)                        07/27/99 12/06/00
Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.              08/20/99 12/06/00
Liquid Audio, Inc.                         07/08/99 12/06/00
Loudeye Technologies, Inc.                 03/15/00 12/06/00
Manufacturers Services Ltd.                06/22/00 12/06/00
Marimba, Inc.                              04/29/99 12/06/00
MarketWatch.com, Inc.                      01/15/99 12/06/00
Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc.      10/18/99 12/06/00
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.             06/27/00 12/06/00
MatrixOne, Inc.                            03/01/00 12/06/00
Maxygen, Inc.                              12/15/99 12/06/00
McAfee.com Corp.                           12/01/99 12/06/00
McData Corporation                         08/09/00 12/06/00
MCK Communications, Inc.                   10/22/99 12/06/00
Mediaplex, Inc.                            11/19/99 12/06/00
MedicaLogic, Inc.                          12/10/99 12/06/00
MetaSolv Software, Inc.                    11/17/99 12/06/00
Metawave Communications Corp.              04/26/00 12/06/00
Microtune, Inc.                            08/04/00 12/06/00
Modem Media, Inc.                          02/05/99 12/06/00
MP3.com, Inc.                              07/21/99 12/06/00
Multex.com, Inc.                           03/17/99 12/06/00
NaviSite, Inc.                             10/22/99 12/06/00
Neoforma.com, Inc.                         01/24/00 12/06/00
Net Perceptions, Inc.                      04/22/99 12/06/00
Net2000 Communications, Inc.               03/06/00 12/06/00
Net2Phone, Inc.                            07/29/99 12/06/00
Netcentives, Inc.                          10/13/99 12/06/00
NetRatings, Inc.                           12/08/99 12/06/00
Netro Corporation (now SR Telecom Inc.)    08/18/99 12/06/00
NetSilicon, Inc.                           09/15/99 12/06/00
NetSolve, Inc.                             09/29/99 12/06/00
Network Engines Inc.                       07/13/00 12/06/00
Network Plus Corporation                   06/29/99 12/06/00
NetZero, Inc.                              09/23/99 12/06/00
New Focus, Inc.                            05/17/00 12/06/00
Next Level Communications                  11/09/99 12/06/00
NextCard, Inc.                             05/14/99 12/06/00
Nextel Partners, Inc.                      02/22/00 12/06/00
Niku Corp.                                 02/28/00 12/06/00
Northpoint Communications Group Inc.       05/05/99 12/06/00
Nuance Communications, Inc.                04/12/00 12/06/00
OmniSky Corp.                              09/20/00 12/06/00
OmniVision Technologies, Inc.              07/14/00 12/06/00
ON Semiconductor Corporation (named as
ON Semiconductor Corp.)                    04/27/00 12/06/00
ONI Systems Corp. (now CIENA Corp.)        06/01/00 12/06/00
Onvia.com, Inc.                            02/29/00 12/06/00
Onyx Software Corp.                        02/11/99 12/06/00
OpenTV Corp.                               11/23/99 12/06/00
Openwave Systems Inc. (named as Openwave
Systems, Inc.) (f/k/a Phone.com, Inc.)     06/11/99 12/06/00
Oplink Communications, Inc.                10/03/00 12/06/00
Optio Software, Inc.                       12/15/99 12/06/00
OraPharma, Inc.                            03/09/00 12/06/00
Oratec Interventions, Inc.                 04/04/00 12/06/00
Orchid Biosciences, Inc.                   05/04/00 12/06/00
Organic, Inc.                              02/09/00 12/06/00
OTG Software, Inc.                         03/10/00 12/06/00
Pacific Internet Ltd.                      02/05/99 12/06/00
Packeteer, Inc.                            07/27/99 12/06/00
Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.                    11/03/99 12/06/00
Palm Inc.                                  03/01/00 12/06/00
Paradyne Networks, Inc.                    07/15/99 12/06/00
pcOrder.com, Inc. (named as PCOrder.com,
Inc.) (now Trilogy Software, Inc.)         02/25/99 12/06/00
Perot Systems Corp.                        02/01/99 12/06/00
PlanetRX.com                               10/06/99 12/06/00
Portal Software, Inc.                      05/05/99 12/06/00
Predictive Systems, Inc.                   10/27/99 12/06/00
Preview Systems, Inc.                      12/07/99 12/06/00
priceline.com Inc. (named as Priceline.com,
Inc.)                                      03/30/99 12/06/00
Primus Knowledge Solutions Inc.            07/01/99 12/06/00
Prodigy Communications Inc.                02/10/99 12/06/00
Proton Energy Systems, Inc.                09/28/00 12/06/00
PSi Technologies Holdings, Inc.            03/16/00 12/06/00
PurchasePro.com, Inc.                      09/13/99 12/06/00
Quest Software, Inc.                       08/13/99 12/06/00
Quicklogic Corp.                           10/14/99 12/06/00
Radio One, Inc.                            05/06/99 12/06/00
Radio Unica Communications Corp.           10/19/99 12/06/00
Radware Ltd.                               09/30/99 12/06/00
Ravisent Technologies, Inc.                07/16/99 12/06/00
Razorfish, Inc.                            04/26/99 12/06/00
Red Hat, Inc.                              08/11/99 12/06/00
Redback Networks, Inc.                     05/17/99 12/06/00
Regent Communications Inc.                 01/24/00 12/06/00
Register.com, Inc.                         03/02/00 12/06/00
Repeater Technologies, Inc.                08/08/00 12/06/00
Resonate, Inc.                             08/02/00 12/06/00
Retek Inc.                                 11/17/99 12/06/00
Rhythms NetConnections, Inc.               04/06/99 12/06/00
Rowecom, Inc.                              03/09/99 12/06/00
Saba Software, Inc.                        04/06/00 12/06/00
Satyam Infoway, Inc.                       10/18/99 12/06/00
SciQuest.com, Inc.                         11/19/99 12/06/00
Selectica, Inc.                            03/09/00 12/06/00
Sequenom, Inc.                             01/31/00 12/06/00
Silicon Image, Inc.                        10/05/99 12/06/00
Silicon Laboratories, Inc.                 03/24/00 12/06/00
SilverStream Software, Inc.                08/16/99 12/06/00
Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. (f/k/a Stanford
Microdevices)                              05/24/00 12/06/00
SmartDisk Corporation                      10/05/99 12/06/00
SMTC Corp.                                 07/20/00 12/06/00
SonicWALL, Inc.                            11/11/99 12/06/00
Sonus Networks, Inc.                       05/24/00 12/06/00
Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.          10/27/99 12/06/00
Stamps.com, Inc.                           06/24/99 12/06/00
StarMedia Network, Inc. (now CycleLogic,
Inc.)                                      05/25/99 12/06/00
StorageNetworks, Inc.                      06/29/00 12/06/00
Stratos Lightwave, Inc. (now known as
Stratos International, Inc.)               06/26/00 12/06/00
Support.com, Inc. (now SupportSoft, Inc.) 07/18/00 12/06/00
Switchboard, Inc.                         03/02/00 12/06/00
Sycamore Networks, Inc.                   10/21/99 12/06/00
Talarian Corporation                      07/20/00 12/06/00
Telaxis Communications Corp. (now YDI
Wireless, Inc.)                           02/01/00 12/06/00
TeleCommunication Systems Inc.            08/07/00 12/06/00
TeleCorp PCS, Inc.                        11/23/99 12/06/00
TenFold Corp.                             05/21/99 12/06/00
Terra Networks, S.A.                      11/15/99 12/06/00
TheGlobe.com, Inc.                        11/12/98 12/06/00
TheStreet.com, Inc.                       05/10/99 12/06/00
TIBCO Software, Inc.                      07/13/99 12/06/00
Ticketmaster Online-CitySearch, Inc. (now
Ticketmaster)                             12/02/98 12/06/00
Tickets.com, Inc.                         11/03/99 12/06/00
Tippingpoint Technologies, Inc.           03/17/00 12/06/00
TiVo, Inc.                                09/29/99 12/06/00
Transmeta Corporation (named as Transmeta
Corp.)                                    11/06/00 12/06/00
Triton Network Systems, Inc.              07/12/00 12/06/00
Turnstone Systems, Inc.                   01/31/00 12/06/00
Tut Systems, Inc.                         01/29/99 12/06/00
UAXS Global Holdings Inc. (now Universal
Access Global Holdings Inc.)              03/16/00 12/06/00
United Pan-European Communications NV     02/11/99 12/06/00
Usinternetworking, Inc.                   04/08/99 12/06/00
UTStarcom, Inc.                           03/02/00 12/06/00
VA Linux Systems Inc. (now VA Software
Corp.)                                    12/09/99 12/06/00
ValiCert, Inc.                            07/27/00 12/06/00
Valley Media, Inc.                        03/26/99 12/06/00
Value America, Inc.                       04/08/99 12/06/00
Variagenics, Inc.                         07/21/00 12/06/00
Ventro Corporation (now NexPrise, Inc.)   07/26/99 12/06/00
Verado Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a First World   
Comm. Inc.)                               03/08/00 12/06/00
VerticalNet, Inc.                         02/10/99 12/06/00
VIA Net.Works, Inc.                       02/11/00 12/06/00
Viador, Inc.                              10/25/99 12/06/00
Viant Corporation                         06/17/99 12/06/00
Vicinity Corporation                      02/09/00 12/06/00
Vignette Corp.                            02/19/99 12/06/00
Virage, Inc.                              06/29/00 12/06/00
Vitria Technology, Inc.                   09/16/99 12/06/00
Vixel Corp. (now Emulex Corp.)            10/01/99 12/06/00
WebMD Corporation                         02/10/99 12/06/00
webMethods, Inc. (named as WebMethods,
Inc.)                                     02/10/00 12/06/00
Webvan Group, Inc.                        11/04/99 12/06/00
Wink Communications                       08/19/99 12/06/00
Wireless Facilities, Inc.                 11/04/99 12/06/00
Women.com Networks, Inc.                  10/14/99 12/06/00
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment,
Inc.                                      10/18/99 12/06/00
XCare.net, Inc. (now Quovadx, Inc.)       02/09/00 12/06/00
Xpedior, Inc.                             12/15/99 12/06/00
Z-Tel Technologies, Inc.                   12/15/99 12/06/00

1 This settlement applies only to investors in the class of
Ziff-Davis, Inc. stock intended to track the performance of the
ZDNet business unit,
which is traded under the symbol ZDZ.  This
settlement does not apply to investors in other securities
issued by Ziff-Davis, Inc. or CNET Networks, Inc.

For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.


KROGER CO: Recalls Mislabeled Light Caesar Salad Dressing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Kroger Co. announced a recall of Kroger brand 16 oz. Light
Caesar Salad Dressing with a Sell By date of May 09 08, a code
of SA7221 and a UPC number: 0 11110-71765 8 on the back label.

The salad dressing is being recalled because the back label of
the bottle was mislabeled with a Light Asian Salad Dressing
label. A small number of cases were released that contain the
back label for light Asian Dressing which does not list milk,
egg, and anchovies in the ingredient statement or allergen
contains statement. People who have an allergy to milk, eggs,
and/or anchovies run the risk of serious or life-threatening
reaction if they consume this product.

No illnesses have been reported. For most consumers, there is no
safety issue with the salad dressing.

The salad dressing may have been distributed to Kroger, Dillons,
Food 4 Less (Chicago area only), Jay C, Smith's, Fry's, King
Soopers, and City Market grocery stores. No other Kroger-brand
salad dressings are affected by this recall.

The mislabeling issue was identified at three Fry's stores in
the Phoenix area. The Company is investigating the mislabeling
and will enhance labeling procedures to prevent future
occurrences.

Customers are encouraged to return the product to the store they
purchased it from for a full refund.

Consumers with questions or concerns may call The Kroger Co. at
1-800-632-6900.


LABOR READY: Calif. Court Approves Settlement in Sex Bias Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Court in Los Angeles County gave final
approval to a settlement of a sex discrimination suit filed by
temporary employees and job applicants of Labor Ready, Inc.

On July 29, 2002, Marisol Balanderan and 55 other plaintiffs
filed an action against the company and one of the company's
customers in California State Court, Los Angeles County.  

Plaintiffs are temporary employees and job applicants who seek
unquantified compensatory and punitive damages based on
allegations that they were subjected to discrimination in
dispatch to jobs on the basis of their female gender, throughout
a period from September 2001 through January 2002.

They also seek certification of a class of similarly situated
temporary employees.

On April 26, 2007, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement which resolved all outstanding claims.  

On Aug. 6, 2007, the Court issued final approval of the
settlement, according to its Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 28, 2007.

Labor Ready, Inc. -- http://www.laborready.com/-- is an  
international provider of temporary employees for manual labor,
light industrial and skilled construction trades, operating
under the brand names of Labor Ready, Labour Ready, Workforce,
Spartan Staffing and CLP Resources.  


LABOR READY: Settles Calif. Overtime Suit by Former Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action accusing Labor Ready, Inc. of
violating California's overtime wage laws have reached a
settlement for the matter.

Initially, on July 16, 2003, Alecia Recio, Elizabeth Esquivel,
Debbie Owen and Barry Selbts, each a current or former Labor
Ready employee, jointly filed an action in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, alleging failure to pay
overtime under state and federal law and seeking unspecified
damages and certification of a class of similarly situated
employees.

On Sept. 23, 2003, the court dismissed the case for improper
venue.  On Oct. 1, 2003, Ms. Recio re-filed her case in
California State Court, Los Angeles County, seeking similar
relief on behalf of Labor Ready employees employed in the State
of California.  

On Dec. 14, 2006 the Court denied the company's motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  

The case went to mediation on Sept. 27, 2007 and on Oct. 12,
2007.  

Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement which
resolved all claims, according to its Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 28, 2007.

Labor Ready, Inc. -- http://www.laborready.com/-- is an  
international provider of temporary employees for manual labor,
light industrial and skilled construction trades, operating
under the brand names of Labor Ready, Labour Ready, Workforce,
Spartan Staffing and CLP Resources.


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Kansas Suits Over Wire in Defibrillators
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Carlile of Kansas City and Phillip S. Brown, a Johnson
County resident filed class actions against Medtronic Inc. over
malfunctions that could occur in heart defibrillators implanted
in more than a quarter-million patients, Julius Karash of The
Kansas City Star reports.

The Carlile lawsuit was filed in federal court in Kansas City
and the Brown lawsuit was filed in federal court in Kansas City,
Kansas.

Plaintiffs claim that Medtronic was negligent in its design of
electronic wires -- known as SprintFidelis leads -- that connect
the defibrillators to patients’ hearts.

Each lawsuit contains six counts, including allegations of
negligence and failure to warn patients of problems with the
Sprint Fidelis wires earlier.

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

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

According to Mr. Karash, Medtronic spokesman Rob Clark said the
company did not comment on the specifics of litigation filed
against it, adding that lawsuits could be expected when the
company recalled products.

Medtronic, Inc., based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is a leading
manufacturer of medical technology, specializing in implantable
and interventional therapies.


MIDWAY GAMES: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Midway Games, Inc. continues to face purported securities fraud
class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

Beginning on July 6, 2007 a number of putative securities class
actions were filed against Midway, Steven M. Allison, James R.
Boyle, Miguel Iribarren, Thomas E. Powell and David F. Zucker.

The lawsuits are essentially identical and purport to bring suit
on behalf of those who purchased the Company’s publicly traded
securities between Aug. 4, 2005 and May 24, 2006.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made a series of
misrepresentations and omissions about Midway’s financial well-
being and prospects concerning its financial performance,
including decisions regarding reductions in work force, the
company’s need to seek additional capital, and decisions by
Sumner Redstone and his related parties with respect to their
ownership or trading of the company’s common stock, that had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company’s securities during the Class Period.  

Plaintiffs also claim that defendants lacked a reasonable basis
for the company’s earnings projections, which plaintiffs alleged
were materially false and misleading.  

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of the company’s common stock during the Class Period.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 1,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Joseph Zerger, et al. v. Midway Games Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-CV-03797,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge David H. Coar.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY, 10017
          Phone: 212.907.0800
          Fax: 212.684.6083

               - and -

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


NATIONAL CITY: Reserves $25M to Settle Loan Originators Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
National City Corp. recorded at its third quarter earnings a $25
million reserve based on a proposed settlement agreement in a
pending wage and hour class action which, pending court
approval, will resolve all claims related to that action.

On November 6, 2007, National City’s subsidiary bank, National
City Bank, along with several affiliated entities, reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs of a class action
lawsuit involving mortgage loan originators.

Under the proposed settlement, National City, without admitting
any liability, agreed to resolve all wage and hour claims of the
loan originators identified as employees during the class
period. The settlement is subject to court approval. National
City has established a reserve of $25,000,000. This resulted in
a $17 million reduction in net income, or $.03 reduction in
diluted earnings per share, in the third quarter of 2007.


NEW YORK: Fails to Provide Public Defense to Poor, NYCLU Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of New York is facing a class action in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York County of Albany accusing it of
failing in its constitutional duty to provide effective counsel
to New Yorkers accused of crimes who cannot afford to pay
private lawyers.

This civil rights lawsuit was brought by the New York Civil
Liberties Union and the law firm of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
seeking to remedy the State of New York’s alleged persistent
failure to guarantee meaningful and effective legal
representation to indigent people accused of crimes, as required
by the New York State Constitution and laws and the United
States Constitution.

The plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Article 9 of
the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules on behalf of all
indigent persons who have or will have criminal felony,
misdemeanor, or lesser charges pending against them in New York
state courts in Onondaga, Ontario, Schuyler, Suffolk and
Washington counties who are entitled to rely on the government
of New York to provide them with meaningful and effective
defense counsel. The Class includes all indigent persons against
whom criminal charges will be brought in the Counties during the
pendency of this action.

Plaintiffs and the members of the class have allegedly suffered
or are at imminent, severe and unacceptably high risk of
suffering irreparable harm because of the Defendant’s failure to
remedy the financial and administrative deficiencies that plague
the provision of public defense.

The suit raises these claims:

     (1) Violation of Article I, SS 6 of the Constitution of the
         State of New York;

     (2) Violation of New York State Statutes Guaranteeing the
         Right to Counsel for Indigent Defendants;

     (3) Violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the    
         United States Constitution and 42 USC S 1983;

It asks for the certification of this action as a class action;
a declaration pursuant to CPLR SS 3001 that the plaintiffs’
rights are being violated; a preliminary and a permanent
injunction requiring the defendant to provide a system
of public defense consistent with the Constitution and laws of
the State of New York and the United States Constitution; and an
award of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, costs and
disbursements.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Corey Stoughton, Esq.
          Palyn Hung, Esq.
          Donna Lieberman, Esq.
          Arthur Eisenberg, Esq.
          Christopher Dunn, Esq.
          125 Broad St., 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 607-3300
          Fax: (212) 607-3318

          Gary Stein, Esq.
          Danny Greenberg, Esq.
          Sena Kim-Reuter, Esq,
          Estee Konor, Esq.
          Ximena Naranjo, Esq.
          Michelle Paris, Esq.
          Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 756-2000
          Fax: (212) 593-5955


NICOR ENERGY: Settles Ill. Litigation Over Fixed Bill Service
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor Energy Services Co., a subsidiary of Nicor, Inc., settled
a purported class action filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois over the company's fixed bill service.

On April 29, 2003, a second amended purported class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois against Nicor Energy/Nicor Services, alleging violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by the company relating to
the fixed bill service offered by Nicor Services.  

Nicor Services offered a fixed bill product under which it paid
the annual gas service portion of a customer's Nicor Gas Co.
utility bill in exchange for twelve equal monthly payments by
the customer to Nicor Services, regardless of changes in the
price of natural gas or weather.  

The plaintiff sought compensatory damages, prejudgment and
postjudgment interest, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief on behalf of a proposed class consisting of
all purchasers of the fixed bill service from Feb. 1, 2002
through Dec. 31, 2002.  

On Oct. 7, 2005, the Circuit Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to
certify the proposed class.

In March 2007, Nicor Services settled this matter and the
lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, according to the company's
Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 28,
2007.

Nicor, Inc. -- http://www.nicor.com/-- is a holding company,  
whose primary business is gas distribution.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Allows Shareholders Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote denied defendants' request to
throw out a shareholder lawsuit filed against Openwave Systems
and nine former executives in an alleged stock-option backdating
scheme.

Between Feb. 21, and March 27, 2007, four substantially similar
securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Openwave and four current and former officers of the Company.

The complaints purport to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Openwave stock from Sept. 30, 2002
through Oct. 26, 2006, and allege that during the Class Period,
the defendants engaged in improper stock options backdating and
issued materially false and misleading statements in the
Company’s public filings and press releases regarding the manner
in which Openwave granted and accounted for the options.

Based on these allegations, the complaints assert two causes of
action—one against all defendants for violation of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and a
second against the individual defendants for violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On April 25, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a joint motion to transfer the actions to the Northern
District of California where the related shareholder derivative
class actions are pending.

On May 18, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating the
four securities class actions into a single action captioned,
“In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-
1309 (DLC)),” and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  

On June 14, 2007, the court entered an order denying the motion
to transfer.

On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint. The consolidated and amended
complaint adds 17 additional defendants, including:

     * several current and former Openwave officers and
       directors,
     * KPMG LLP, and
     * Merrill Lynch,
     * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
     * Lehman Brothers Inc.,
     * J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and
     * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

The consolidated and amended complaint alleges claims for
violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, as well as claims for violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising out of the
Company’s 2005 public offering. The complaint seeks
money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Company is required under contracts with the individual
defendants to indemnify them under certain circumstances for
attorneys’ fees and expenses.  

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System is appointed lead
plaintiff; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP shall serve
as lead counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated actions
and the class.

On Aug. 10, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated and amended class action complaint.

On Oct. 31, Judge Cote permitted a shareholder lawsuit to go
forward against Openwave Systems and the executives.

The suit is “In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation
(Master File 07-1309 (DLC)),” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Denise L.
Cote.

Representing the plaintiffs is  Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP.


TUESDAY MORNING: Still Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday Morning Corp. continues to face several labor-related
class actions in California, according to the company's Nov. 1,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

During 2001 and 2002, the company was named as a defendant in
three complaints filed in the Superior Court of California in
and for the County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a statewide class made up
of some of the company's current and former employees, which
they claim are owed compensation for overtime wages, penalties
and interest.  They are also seeking attorney's fees and costs.

In October 2003, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with a sub-class of these plaintiffs consisting of manager-in-
training and management trainees, which was paid in November
2005 with no material impact to the company's financial
statements.  The trial date related to the remaining complaint
is currently scheduled for September 2007.

Managers, managers-in-training and assistant managers, filed a
similar lawsuit in Orange County, California in 2004 and an
amended complaint was recently filed in January 2007.  This case
is still in the discovery phase.

The company provided no development in the matter in its Nov. 1,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Tuesday Morning Corp. -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/-- is a
closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, gifts and related
items in the U.S.


UAL CORP: Still Working to Settle Multiple Suits Over Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
UAL Corp. is still working to settle purported class actions
with regards to certain surcharges included in tariffs for
carrying air cargo and certain passenger pricing practices and
surcharges applicable to international passenger routes,
according to its Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Oct. 8, 2007.

                 Air Cargo Surcharges Litigation

The company and other air cargo carriers have been named as
defendants in more than 90 class actions alleging civil damages
as a result of a purported air cargo pricing conspiracy.

Those lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial activities in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The company has entered into an agreement with the majority of
the private plaintiffs to dismiss the company from the class
actions in return for an agreement to cooperate with the
plaintiffs' factual investigation, and it is no longer named as
a defendant in the civil lawsuit.

                 Passenger Surcharges Litigation

More than 50 additional putative class actions have also been
filed alleging violations of the antitrust laws with respect to
passenger pricing practices.

Those lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial activities in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The company has entered into a settlement agreement with a
number of the plaintiffs in the passenger pricing cases to
dismiss United from the class actions in return for an agreement
to cooperate with the plaintiffs’ factual investigation.

The settlement agreement is subject to review and approval by
the Federal Court.

UAL Corp. -- http://www.united.com/-- is a holding company  
whose principal subsidiary is United Air Lines, Inc., whose
operations consist primarily of the transportation of persons,
property and mail throughout the U.S. and abroad, and it
accounted for most of UAL’s revenues during the year ended
December 31, 2006.  


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Refused Summary Judgment in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied a
motion for partial summary judgment in the consolidated
securities fraud class action pending against UnitedHealth
Group, Inc.

On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class actions
alleging a violation of the federal securities laws was brought
by an individual shareholder against certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

On Dec. 8, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
consolidating the actions into a single action.  The action is
captioned, “In re UnitedHealth Group Incorporated PSLRA
Litigation.”

Lead plaintiff California Public Employees Retirement System
brought the action against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions during the period between Jan.
20, 2005 and May 17, 2006, in press releases and public filings
that artificially inflated the price of the company’s common
stock.

The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain
defendants sold shares of the company's common stock while in
possession of material, non-public information concerning the
matters set forth in the complaint.

It alleges claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The action seeks unspecified
money damages and equitable relief.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on Feb. 6, 2007.  The motion to dismiss was denied in an order
filed on June 4, 2007, and discovery is ongoing.

On July 18, 2007, the lead plaintiff moved for partial summary
judgment on the Company’s liability on the Section 11 claim.  
The court denied the motion for partial summary judgment on Oct.
2, 2007.

The suit is “In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum
with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Gretchen A. Agee, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-492-6741
         Fax: 612-340-8856
         E-mail: agee.gretchen@dorsey.com


UNITED RENTALS: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet
to rule on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against United Rentals, Inc.

Initially, three purported class actions were filed against the
company.  Plaintiff in each of the suits sought to sue on behalf
of a purported class comprised of purchasers of the company's
securities from Oct. 23, 2003 to Aug. 30, 2004.

The lawsuits initially named as the defendants the company, its
chairman, vice chairman, and chief executive officer, its former
president and chief financial officer, and its former corporate
controller.  

These initial complaints alleged, among other things, that
certain of the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings and other public statements contained false and
misleading statements, which resulted in damages to the
plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the company's securities.  

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each action
asserted claims:

      -- against all defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule  
         10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and  

      -- against one or more of the individual defendants under  
         Section 20(a) of such Act.  

The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs
and expenses.  On Feb. 1, 2005, the court entered an order
consolidating the three actions.   

On Nov. 8, 2005, the court appointed City of Pontiac Policeman's
and Fireman's Retirement System as lead plaintiff for the
purported class.  

The consolidated action is now entitled, "In re United Rentals,
Inc. Securities Litigation."  The parties agreed upon, and the
court subsequently approved, a schedule for the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint in this action and the briefing
of any motions to dismiss directed to the operative complaint in
the action.  

On June 5, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which:

     -- adds allegations relating to, among other things, the
        conclusions of the Special Committee and to other
        matters disclosed in the 2005 Form 10-K;

     -- amends the purported class period to include purchasers
        of the company's securities from Feb. 28, 2001 to Aug.
        30, 2004; and

     -- names as an additional defendant the company's first
        chief financial officer.

In September 2006, the company and certain of the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
in this action.  Briefing with respect to these motions is now
complete.

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

The suit is "In re United Rentals, Inc. Securities Litigation,  
Case NO. 04-CV-1615," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Erin Green Comite, Esq.
         Scott & Scott
         108 Norwich Ave., P.O. Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06415
         Phone: 860-537-5537
         Fax: 869-537-4432
         E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

              - and -

         Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
         Schatz & Nobel
         One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6292
         Fax: 860-493-6290
         E-mail: nancy@snlaw.net

Representing the defendants are:

         David M. Bizar, Esq.
         Day, Berry & Howard
         Hartford, CT 06103-3499
         Phone: 860-275-0648
         Fax: 860-275-0343
         E-mail: dmbizar@dbh.com

              - and -

         Alan R. Friedman, Esq.
         Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel
         1177 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-715-9100
         E-mail: afriedman@kramerlevin.com


UPM-KYMMENE CORP: Settles Labelstock Products Antitrust Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
UPM-Kymmene Corp. agreed to settle class actions raised by
direct purchasers of magazine paper and labelstock.

In April, UPM-Kymmene, UPM Raflatac, Inc., and UPM-Kymmene,
Inc., were named as defendants in several purported antitrust
class actions in relation to labelstock products (Class Action
Reporter, April 9, 2007).

One group of lawsuits was filed against company, and its UPM
Raflatac subsidiary, along with certain labelstock
manufacturers.

These class actions were filed in U.S. District Courts by the
company's customers; and in state courts by customers of the
company's customers.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated federal
and/or state antitrust laws by conspiring with one another to
fix the prices of and allocate the markets for labelstock
products.

The complaints seek treble or punitive damages for alleged
overcharges resulting from the purported conspiracy.

The other group of lawsuits was filed against the company and
its UPM-Kymmene subsidiary. These class actions are making
similar allegations against manufacturers of magazine papers.

These complaints, like the labelstock complaints, seek treble or
punitive damages for alleged overcharges resulting from the
purported conspiracy.

According to the agreement UPM will pay compensation to magazine
paper customers in value of 9 million and to labelstock
customers of $8.25 million.   

The charge, a total of approximately EUR12 million, will be
recorded for the last quarter of 2007.                                       
                        

Class actions filed by indirect purchasers of magazine paper and
labelstock continue to be pending.                                              

Class actions were filed after the U.S. Department of Justice
opened criminal investigations into competitive practices in
2003. The U.S. authorities have since concluded the
investigations.

For further information, contact:                                        

          Mr Juha Makela
          General Counsel
          UPM
          Phone: +358 204 15 0407                     

          Pirkko Harrela                                                     
            
          Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications                 
            
          UPM-Kymmene Corporation                                            
            
          Website: http://www.upm-kymmene.com


WALT DISNEY: Faces ADA Violation Suit Over Segway Ban in Parks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walt Disney World Co. is facing a class action filed by three
disabled people who were not allowed to use Segways to move
around Walt Disney's theme park, Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed in federal court as a purported class action
on behalf of Mahala Ault and Dan Wallace of Illinois and Stacie
Rhea of Iowa.  The plaintiffs are each able to stand but cannot
walk far, and use Segways to get around.  They say they've been
denied permission to use the vehicles at Disney World,
allegedly, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Disney has banned Segways in its parks because of its danger to
guests and cast.  Segways can go 12 mph.

If certified, the suit could respresent numerous Segway users
nationwide.

The suit is "Ault et al. v. Walt Disney World Co., Case No.
6:2007-cv-01785," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge Gregory A. Presnell with
referral to Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding.

One of the plaintiffs' lawyers is:

          Nancy A. Johnson, Esq.
          Dempsey & Associates, P.A.
          1560 Orange Ave., Suite 200
          Winter Park, Florida 32789
          Phone: (407) 422-5166
          Fax: (407) 422-8556


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Kan. Court Yet to Certify Natural Gas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas state court has yet to rule on a motion seeking class
certification for a lawsuit filed against Williams Partners L.P.
along with its other subsidiaries.

In 2001, defendants were named in a purported nationwide class
action in Kansas state court that had been pending against other
defendants, generally pipeline and gathering companies, since
2000.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.

Defendants have opposed class certification and a hearing on
plaintiffs' second motion to certify the class was held on April
1, 2005.  Parties are awaiting a decision from the court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 1,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Williams Partners L.P. -- http://www.williamslp.com-- is a  
partnership formed by The Williams Companies, Inc. (Williams),
to own, operate and acquire a diversified portfolio of
complementary energy assets.  The Company is principally engaged
in the business of gathering, transporting and processing
natural gas and fractionating and storing natural gas liquids
(NGLs).   


* Coughlin Stoia Tops SCAS' List with $11B in Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------
The ISS Governance Services unit of RiskMetrics Group, a leading
provider of risk management and corporate governance services to
the global financial community, has released its first-ever
Securities Class Action Services (SCAS) 50 Power Rankings
report, which highlights the top 50 plaintiffs law firms by
dollar value of securities class action settlements and number
of securities class action settlements from 2003 to 2006 in
which the law firms served as lead or co-lead counsel.

Through its SCAS offering, ISS Governance Services maintains the
industry's most comprehensive database on securities class
action litigation and provides professional monitoring and
claims filing services to investment managers whose clients have
a stake in class action suits. To help institutional investors
monitor class action trends, ISS Governance Services publishes
an annual SCAS 50 survey focusing on those firms bringing in the
most settlement dollars and playing the most active role in U.S.
class action cases.

The SCAS 50 Power Rankings report is based on SCAS 50 data from
the past four years. The top five law firms by dollar value of
securities class action settlements from 2003 to 2006 were:

          -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins;
          -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman;
          -- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine;
          -- Millberg Weiss; and
          -- Heins Mills & Olson.

"Our securities class action team has been tracking the most
active plaintiffs' law firms for almost five years, and to-date
the top five plaintiffs' law firms have generated over $38
billion in settlement dollars for investors," said Adam Savett,
Head of Securities Class Action Services at RiskMetrics Group.

"The law firm of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins tops the
list with over $11 billion in settlements, primarily due to the
over $6 billion in Enron settlements that were finalized in
2006. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman is number two with
over $10 billion in settlements."

The top five law firms by number of securities class action
settlements were:

          -- Millberg Weiss;
          -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins;
          -- Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz & Kessler;
          -- Berger & Montague; and
          -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman.

The top ten firms in terms of number of settlements accounted
for more than sixty percent of the securities class action
settlements during 2003 to 2006.


                           *********


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  * * *