CAR_Public/071115.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 15, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 227

                            Headlines

ACCREDO HEALTH: Continues to Face Securities Litigation in Tenn.
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Lawn Mowers Due to Fire Hazard
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Nov. 26 Trial for Calif. Labor Lawsuit Vacated
BLOOMBERG LP: Fourth Plaintiff Joins Discrimination Lawsuit
BRITISH AIRWAYS: U.S. Passengers' Suit Over Lost Luggage Widened

CREDIT SOLUTIONS: Cheats Its Customers, Washington Suit Claims
DEL REY TORTILLERIA: Recalls Tortillas for Possible Health Risk
DELTA AIR: Objects to Former Employees' Class Certification Bid
DERMALIVE: Canadian User Sues Over Anti-aging Treatment Damage
FIRST CONSULTING: Sued Over Plan to Merge with Computer Sciences

INTUIT INC: E-Filing Firms Sued Over Fees Collected on Taxpayers
ISRAELI BROADCASTING COS: Face Suit for Limiting Competitions
MEDCO HEALTH: Settles Mass. Suit Over PolyMedica Corp. Merger
MEDCO HEALTH: Still Faces Several ERISA Complaints in N.Y.
MEDCO HEALTH: Still Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.

MEDCO HEALTH: Opposes Stay Recommendation in Pharmacies' Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Suit Over Xbox Live
NAPASTYLE: Recalls Pitchers, Tumblers for Possible Health Risk
NORTHERN TOOL: Recalls Wagons with Paint Exceeding Lead Standard
PEOPLE'S CHOICE: ERISA Suit Class Certification Hearing Set Dec.

PRISON HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Pa. Physician's Litigation
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Ore. Suit Over Patient Data Theft Dismissed
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: $2M Deal in Suit Over “Modal” Payment Ok'd
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Seeks Dismissal of Mutual Funds Lawsuits
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Settles Mortgage Securities Suit for $7.5M

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces Stockbrokers' Suits in Calif.
SAN DIEGO GAS: Accused of Negligence in Two California Fires
SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls Music Box on Paint's Lead Level
SCOTTISH RE: N.Y. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Suit
SOLUTIA INC: Plaintiffs in SIP Plan Suit Appeal Case Dismissal

SPIN MASTER: Recalls Beads that Caused Child's Hospitalization
SPIN MASTER: Faces Suit Over Toys Coated with “Date Rape Drug”
TITAN CORP: Col. Court Dismisses Suit Over Abu Ghraib “Abuses”
TOWN SPORTS: Faces Suits in N.Y. Alleging Labor Law Violations
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Nov. Settlement Hearing Set in Waxler's Suit

YAMAHA CORP: Recalls Power Adaptors Due to Electric Shock Hazard


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit


                          *********


ACCREDO HEALTH: Continues to Face Securities Litigation in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredo Health Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., still faces a consolidated securities
fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee.  

The suit was filed against the company, and two former company
officers, one of whom is now a director at Medco Health
Solutions.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.   

The putative class representatives seek to represent a class of
individuals and entities that purchased company's stock from
June 16, 2002 to April 7, 2003 and who supposedly suffered
damages from the alleged violations of the securities laws.  

On June 30, 2004, the court appointed Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP's client the Louisiana School Employees
Retirement System and individual plaintiff Debra Swiman as co
lead plaintiffs for the class in the consolidated action.
Bernstein Litowitz was appointed as co-lead counsel.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Sept. 15,
2004.  Plaintiffs' allegations against Accredo and its top
officers arise out of Accredo's overstated fourth quarter 2002
and second quarter 2003 financial statements.  

The alleged false statements relate to the company's inadequate
reserves for nearly $60 million in uncollectible accounts
receivable.

On April 11, 2005, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.  Discovery has commenced and
is continuing.  

On March 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued its Report and
Recommendation recommending that lead plaintiffs' motion for
class certification be granted.

On April 19, 2006, the court entered an order adopting the
Report and Recommendation, certifying the class and appointing
Louisiana School Employees Retirement System and Debra Swiman as
class representatives and BLB&G as co-class counsel.  

Medco Healt 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. 29, 2007.

The suit is "Ferrari, et al. v. Accredo Health, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-02216-BBD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee under Judge Bernice B.
Donald.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Tor Gronborg, Esq.
          Trig R. Smith, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          401 B St., Ste. 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058  

Representing the company are:  

          Douglas F. Halijan, Esq.
          Jef Feibelman, Esq.
          Burch Porter & Johnson
          130 N. Court Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Phone: 901-524-5000
          Fax: 901-524-5024

               - and -
  
          John H. Goselin, Esq.
          Oni A. Holley, Esq.
          Peter Q. Bassett, Esq.
          Alston & Bird
          One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree St.
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: 404-881-7000


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Lawn Mowers Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Corp., of Torrance, California, in
cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 22,000 Honda HRX217KHXA and HRX217KHMA lawn
mowers.

The company said due to a manufacturing defect, a crack can
occur in the fuel tank causing a fuel leak. If gasoline leaking
from the fuel tank is ignited, a fire or explosion can occur.

American Honda Motor Corp. has received six reports of fuel
leakage. No fires or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves HRX walk-behind lawn mowers with model
numbers HRX217KHXA and HRX217KHMA. Only serial numbers from
1400001 through 1453714 are included in the recall. The model
and serial number are printed on a label located on the upper
rear of the deck. The lawn mower is dark gray with a red engine
cover.

These recalled lawn mowers were manufactured in the United
States and are being sold at Honda Lawn and Garden dealers
nationwide, including The Home Depot stores, from January 2007
through September 2007 for between $800 and $900.

Pictures of recalled lawn mowers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08077a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08077b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these recalled lawn mowers
immediately and contact any Honda Lawn and Garden dealer to have
the fuel tank replaced. Registered owners of the recalled lawn
mowers will be mailed a notice.

or additional information, contact Honda at (800) 426-7701
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.hondapowerequipment.com.


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Nov. 26 Trial for Calif. Labor Lawsuit Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 26, 2007 trial scheduled for a purported class action
filed against Apria Healthcare Group, Inc. in California
Superior Court for the County of San Francisco has been vacated
with no new date being set.

The suit contains blanket claims of liability under various
California employee protection statutes and regulations relating
to:

     -- payment of regular and overtime wages;  

     -- the timeliness of such payments;

     -- the maintenance and provision of access to required  
        payroll records; and  

     -- the provision of meal and rest periods.  

The suit is "Venegas v. Apria Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No.
CGC-06-449669," filed on Feb. 21, 2006.  No class has been
certified at this time but the complaint seeks compensatory and
punitive damages in an unspecified amount as well as other
relief on behalf of a purported class consisting of certain
hourly employees of the company in the State of California.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint denying all
material allegations and asserting a number of affirmative
defenses.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the Court granted summary adjudication in
favor of the company on four of the nine causes of action stated
in the plaintiff’s complaint (for unjust enrichment, false
imprisonment, fraud and declaratory relief).

On the same date, the Court issued orders vacating the Nov. 26,
2007 trial date previously set by the Court, granted the
plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the class action allegations of
the complaint which the Court had stricken from the complaint on
Aug. 15, 2007, and set a case management conference for Dec. 4,
2007.

A new trial date has not been set, and no ruling has been made
on whether this case may be certified as a class action,
according to America Service's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Apria Healthcare, Inc. -- http://www.apria.com/-- provides a  
range of home   healthcare services through approximately 475
branch locations that serve patients in all 50 states throughout
the U.S.  The company has three service lines: home respiratory
therapy, home infusion therapy and home medical equipment.  


BLOOMBERG LP: Fourth Plaintiff Joins Discrimination Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monica Prestia has joined a lawsuit against Bloomberg L.P.
accusing the financial services and media company of violating
federal law by discriminating against a class of female
employees who became pregnant and took maternity leave, Ray
Riviera of the New York Times reports.

In September, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
filed the suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as
amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 25, 2007).

In its suit, the EEOC asserts that Bloomberg engaged in a
pattern or practice of demoting and reducing the pay of female
employees after they announced their pregnancies and after they
took maternity leave. Some women were replaced by more junior
male employees, the EEOC says. The lawsuit also alleges that the
same pregnant women and new mothers were excluded from
management meetings and subjected to stereotyping about their
abilities to do their jobs because of their family and caregiver
responsibilities. Complaints made by the women to Bloomberg’s
human resources department were dismissed.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit (Civil Action No. 07- CIV 8383) in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after
first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The suit seeks
monetary relief; an order requiring the company to implement new
policies and practices to prevent discrimination; training on
anti-discrimination laws; posting of notices at the work site;
and other injunctive relief.   

Ms. Prestia, the fourth woman to join the class action, says
that she was hired as an account executive with Bloomberg in
1997 and within two years was promoted to Latin American sales
manager for Bloomberg Television.

Ms. Prestia had filed a separate federal lawsuit against the
company in June after filing a complaint with the commission.  
Her lawyer, Richard A. Roth, said she would drop her own
lawsuit.

Ms. Prestia said after she had her first child in 2005, she
received the worst performance review of her career, her
compensation fell, and a supervisor who could not have children
of her own was openly hostile to her.  The hostility only
increased when Ms. Prestia complained to the Human Resources
Department, which did not take action, the complaint states.

Bloomberg denied the allegations, but is not opposing her motion
to intervene.

The suit is seeking monetary damages and an order that the
company put new policies into effect to prevent discrimination.

Ms. Prestia is represented by:

          Richard A. Roth
          The Roth Law Firm PLLC
          545 Fifth Avenue, Suite 960
          New York, New York 10017
          Phone: 212-542-8882
          Cell Phone: 914-484-5555
          Fax: 212-542-8883


BRITISH AIRWAYS: U.S. Passengers' Suit Over Lost Luggage Widened
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (HBSS) filed
an amended complaint against British Airways (NQB: BAIRY),
expanding its allegations that the airline giant acted
recklessly when it lost more than one million items of passenger
baggage over the past years, and should reimburse passengers for
actual loses.

In September, three U.S. travelers filed a proposed class action
in federal court in Seattle alleging British Airways caused them
a major inconvenience for mishandling their luggage (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 7, 2007).

According to the suit, filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
British Air loses 23 bags per 1,000 passengers carried, about 60
percent more than the industry average and twice as bad as the
worst U.S. carrier.

The suit claims that British Airways has lost more than one
million items of baggage over the past two years.

The complaint claims British Airways violated provisions of the
Montreal Convention, which governs how airlines handle passenger
baggage. The convention, to which the United States and 124
other countries are signatories, also provides means by which
airlines can be held legally and financially liable for damages
sustained in cases of destruction, damage to, or temporary or
complete loss of checked baggage.

The suit seeks to recover actual losses incurred by travelers
who had luggage lost, delayed or damaged. According to the suit,
the Montreal Convention waives the $1,500 loss limit when the
carrier is reckless and has knowledge that damage would probably
result.

"Since the complaint was filed in September, we have been
inundated with calls and e-mails from passengers who experienced
horrific treatment by British Air, in the way the airline dealt
with baggage, and how they dealt with passengers searching for
luggage," said Steve Berman, managing partner of the firm.

Aside from additional plaintiffs, the amended complaint includes
newly discovered statements and documents by British Air
insiders acknowledging the breakdown in baggage handling.

The suit also claims that despite an April 2007 report that the
airline's baggage handling system was overloaded by nearly 25
percent, British Air failed to alert passengers to the
increasing complications posed by their flawed system.

Additional reports indicate that the airline's backlog of
mishandled passenger baggage reached 20,000 pieces by March
2007, the complaint states. The amended complaint goes on to
cite that British Air workers claim that in reality the backlog
neared 40,000 bags at that time.

Among the new plaintiffs is Laura Hutchinson, a student
attending the University of Washington and among the thousands
of British Air passengers who have not seen their luggage since
checking it upon departure.

In June 2007, Ms. Hutchinson set off for Paris where she would
participate in a two-month study-abroad program. Her luggage
contained many crucial study materials, two months worth of
clothing and other necessary travel accessories.

According to the amended complaint, when Ms. Hutchinson
discovered her baggage was missing, British Air directed her to
continue to her dormitory and that her bags would reach her the
next day. Despite the airline's promises and several failed
attempts to locate its whereabouts, the luggage never arrived
and Ms. Hutchinson has yet to be fully compensated for her
losses.

Cindy Kerr experienced similar, if not more, frustration upon
traveling to Nairobi, Africa on business in June 2007. As chief
marketing officer for a non-governmental organization that helps
to provide irrigation equipment for underdeveloped parts of
Africa, Kerr's luggage contained important business materials
and all of her personal items necessary for a six-week trip to
rural parts of Africa.

According to the amended complaint, after Ms. Kerr was informed
that her baggage was missing, British Air officials directed her
to return to the airport in Nairobi on at least four separate
occasions so she could personally search for her bags amid piles
of other unclaimed bags. Each trip proved fruitless and finally,
Ms. Kerr was informed that her bag had "disappeared" from the
airline's tracking system.

The suit seeks to recover actual losses incurred by travelers
who had luggage lost, delayed or damaged. According to the suit,
the Montreal Convention waives the $1,500 loss limit when the
carrier is reckless and has knowledge that damage will probably
result to travelers.

The amended complaint claims British Airways is liable under the
terms of the Montreal Convention, which governs how airlines
handle passenger baggage. The Convention, to which the United
States and 124 other countries are signatories, also provides
means by which airlines can be held legally and financially
liable for damages sustained in cases of destruction, damage to,
or temporary or complete loss of checked baggage.

The suit seeks to represent American international British Air
travelers who had luggage lost or damaged or delayed between
September 5, 2005 and September 5, 2007.

The suit is “Smith et al. v. British Airways Plc, Case Number:
2:2007cv01370,” filed in the Western District of Washington,
under Hon. Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Steve Berman
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com/britishair.htm

          - and -

          Mark Firmani
          Firmani & Associates, Inc.
          Phone: (206) 443-9357
          E-mail: mark@firmani.com


CREDIT SOLUTIONS: Cheats Its Customers, Washington Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CSA-Credit Solutions of America based in Addison, Texas, is
facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, claiming it defrauds
consumers, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Jessica and Matt McDaniel alleges CSA defrauds
consumers by promising to reduce their debt by 60 percent,
promising to "repair (their) credit," for which they charge 15
percent of the total debt, then gives horrible advice, fails to
negotiate with creditors, and leaves customers with even worse
credit than they started.

This action is brought and may be maintained pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedures 23(b)(3), on behalf of:

     (a) all persons in the United States who signed a services
         contract with CSA and made at least one monthly fee
         payment to CSA pursuant to that agreement; and

     (b) all persons who, while residents of Washington State,
         signed a services contract with CSA and made at least
         one monthly fee payment to CSA pursuant to that
         agreement.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (1) whether CSA is a "credit repair organization" within
         the meaning of 15 U.S.C. Section 1679a(3);

     (2) whether CSA's practice of charging and/or receiving
         fees prior to performing its services in full violates
         15 U.S.C. Section 1679b(b);

     (3) whether CSA has violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1679c; and

     (4) whether CSA is liable for punitive damages pursuant to
         15 U.S.C. Section 1679g(a)(2).

They demand judgment and other relief as follows:

     -- certification of the class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23;

     -- judgment in an amount equal to no less than the amount
        of plaintiffs and the class paid to CSA;

     -- judgment in an amount equal to no less than the amount
        plaintiffs and the class paid to CSA;

     -- judgment in an amount equal to the amount that
        plaintiffs paid to CSA;

     -- judgment for punitive damages;

     -- equitable and injunctive relief;

     -- for appropriate attorney's fees;

     -- for costs of this action; and

     -- for any other relief that the court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is "Jessica McDaniel et al. v. CSA-Credit Solutions of
America, Inc., Case No. 07-CV-01815-CMP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman
          Tyler S. Weaver
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Fax: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com or tyler@hbsslaw.com


DEL REY TORTILLERIA: Recalls Tortillas for Possible Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, is announcing the
recall of its flour tortilla products.

Included in the recall are flour tortillas of all sizes [White
Flour Tortillas; Tortillas de Harina(6 inch); Burritos 2, 3, and
4; and Fajita 8" size] with the name "Del Rey" on the label, and
with one of these Date Codes: OCT/17/07; OCT/20/07; OCT/24/07;
NOV/04/07; NOV/10/07; or NOV/11/07.

Illinois state officials have told us that they believe there is
a connection between the tortillas and recent illnesses in
Racine, WI schools, in which students experienced vomiting,
nausea and abdominal cramps. If you experience symptoms of this
type, you should consult a health professional.

State officials have told us that they do not believe the
problem involves microbial contamination. Del Rey is not certain
that its products caused the reported symptoms, but is recalling
the product nevertheless as a precaution while its investigation
continues.

This recall does not affect any other Del Rey products.

The products were distributed nationwide through food
distributors and grocery stores.

Consumers should immediately return any product that is subject
to this recall to the store where it was purchased for a full
refund or replacement.

Consumers with questions may contact the company by calling
Marcy Toledo, General Manager, at 773 637-8900.


DELTA AIR: Objects to Former Employees' Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc., asks the Court to:

  (a) disallow and expunge Claim Nos. 8601 & 8604 filed in the
      names of George T. Baker, Herbert Summers, Charles L.
      Strickland and Donald F. Mairose; and

  (b) deny with prejudice  Baker, et al.'s requests (i) for
      certification of class under Rule 7023 of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure, and (ii) to appoint counsel.

Baker, et al., filed the proofs of claim against the Debtors,
asserting a portion of their retirement benefits that have been
allegedly disregarded in the calculation of claims for damages
arising from the termination of the non-qualified retirement
plans, which was expected to exceed $100,000,000 against Delta.

Baker, et al., are members of DP3, Inc., doing business as Delta
Pilots' Pension Preservation Organization.

According to Baker, et al., the Class claim was also filed on
behalf of the persons who are similarly situated, consisting of
all persons who (i) were previously employed by Delta as pilots,
(i) retired from service with Delta prior to September 2, 2006,
(iii) qualified as participants under the Qualified Plan, and
(iv) are not being allowed a claim for their full retirement
benefits under the Qualified and Non-Qualified Plans, owing to
Delta's disregard of the benefits' portions through the Debtors'
inconsistent application of the compensation and benefit
limitations, as specified in IRC Section 401(a)(17) and Section
415(b).

                   Class Claims in Question

Marshall S. Huebner, Esq., at Davis Polk & Wardwell, in New
York, relates that Delta, DP3, and the DP3 claimants underwent
arm's-length negotiations to settle all claims arising out of,
or relating to Delta's non-qualified pension plans.  Delta
provided for the claims their individual calculation
methodologies as duly approved by the Court and supported by
DP3.
                                                               
In seeking non-qualified pension claims from Delta, on top of
the expected calculation of qualified pension benefits by the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, DP3 has violated the
express terms of the Court-approved settlement, Mr. Huebner
contends.

Mr. Huebner further finds that DP3's clear attempt to recover
from Delta benefits that may possibly be lost on account of the
PBGC's application of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act rules, is not supported by any legal principle.  No
contractual provision allows a non-qualified pension claim
against Delta to offset a possible loss of PBGC-paid qualified
pension benefits.

Moreover, the attempt gives PBGC the grounds to contend that any  
top up claim would be illegal under the ERISA, as amended in
1974, he says.

Mr. Huebner points out that the Class claim is barred by virtue
of being filed (i) in direct violation of two comprehensive
settlements enshrined in two written stipulations ordered
approved, final and non-appealable by the Court; and (ii) after
the expiration of all possible deadlines.

            Delta: Class Certification Inappropriate

Similarly, Delta says that the DP3 claimants' request for
certification is untimely, as it was filed after the effective
date of a confirmed Chapter 11 Plan and after the expiration of
the applicable bar dates for the members of the putative Class.  
Class certification is not appropriate in the period immediately
preceding a plan confirmation, and is certainly not appropriate
after distributions have commenced.

Owing to their apparent purpose to collaterally attack
negotiated settlements, neither DP3 or the DP3 claimants can
possibly meet the rigorous standards for certification under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor can their
counsel, Miller & Martin PLLC, be appointed to represent any
Class, Mr. Huebner contends.

The Debtors maintain that the Court should decline to exercise
its discretion to certify the DP3 Class action because the
asserted Class claim is a thinly-disguised effort to evade Title
IV of ERISA by recovering for the termination of a qualified,
defined benefits plan.

Specifically, the Debtors find that the DP3 claimants seek more
non-qualified claims to evade the possibility that the PBGC will
assign certain benefits a lower priority based on application of
ERISA's three- and five-year look-back rules.

The rules, with respect to ERISA's Title IV, require the PBGC to
determine the benefit payable to a retiree based on (i) his or
her age, pay and service three years prior to the pension plan
termination, and (ii) the benefit plan terms five years prior to
its termination.  The calculated amount will then be compared to
the amount actually being paid to the retiree at pension plan
termination, giving a lower payment priority to the difference
between the two, Mr. Huebner explains.

Notwithstanding the circumstances, the Debtors maintain that the
DP3 claimants' Class claim and request for certification fail
because the lengthy Class action process begins only upon the
Court's finding that the claim satisfies each of the Civil Rule
requirement, and thereafter, Rule 9014 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure allows the Court to choose, in its absolute
discretion, to permit the DP3 Class claim under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

                 DP3 and Class Claimants Respond

Baker, et al., contend that their Class claim "seek only to
compel Delta to liquidate and allow the Class of retired pilots'  
claim for the full economic loss caused by Delta's termination
of the Non-Qualified Plans in accordance with the terms of the
settlements between Delta and DP3."

Dean Booth, Esq., at Miller & Martin LLC, in Chattanooga,
Tennessee, finds that the Debtors' arguments to the request for
Class certification are irrelevant as it relates to the merit of
the Class claim, as opposed to the fact that the Court's
determination is based only whether the nominal Class
representatives meet the requirements for certification required
by Civil Rules 23(a) and 23(b).

Rather than collaterally attack the DP3 and Delta settlements on
which the members of the putative Class relied, the Class
claimants seek to enforce the terms of the settlement and compel
Delta to liquidate the claims of the putative Class to the
extent that the claims include all post-termination, non-
qualified pension benefits lost as a result of Delta's
termination of the NQ Plans, he says.

In addition, the unsecured Class claim seeks to recover the
disregarded benefit payable directly by the Debtors under the NQ
Plans, while the PBGC's claim asserts unfunded benefits arising
under the Qualified Plan.  In this regard, the Class claim do
not usurp the PBGC's authority afforded in Title IV of ERISA,
Mr. Booth clarifies.

The Class claimants assert their standing to pursue the Class
claim for the "actual economic loss" suffered by the individual
claimants and members of the putative Class, as caused by
Delta's failure to properly compute and schedule the amount of
lost pension benefits pursuant to the Plans, and the settlements
between DP3 and Delta.

Moreover, the Class claimants assert their constitutional
standing to prosecute their Class claim, as an injury-in-fact
was caused by Delta's calculation of the Class claimants'
benefits without regard to the compensation and benefit
limitations specified in IRC Sections 401(a)(17) and 415(b).

The Class claimants' statutory standing to pursue the Class
claims is also empowered by Title I of ERISA, which authorizes a
plan participant -- defined as any employee or former employee
-- to bring an action to recover benefits under a retirement
plan, Mr. Booth asserts.

Mr. Booth adds that contrary to Delta's contention that the PBGC
possesses the exclusive authority to pursue a claim for unpaid
benefits, ERISA affords standing to Class claimants, as
participants of the NQ Plans, to assert the Class claim.  This
is
reinforced by the termination of the Qualified Plan and the
PBGC's appointment as the Statutory Trustee.

Under the assumption that the PBGC maintains an exclusive
authority to pursue a claim for unfunded benefit liabilities
relating to the terminated Qualified Plan, the Class claim,
reflecting a general unsecured claim for a benefit payable under
the NQ Plans, does not infringe upon the PBGC's authority, Mr.
Booth maintains.

According to DP3, Delta's contention that the Class claimants
failed to file their claim by the Bar Date, is "misplaced",
because:

  (a) the stipulations and settlements between Delta, the
      Committee and DP3 created for the Class a reasonable
      expectation that they are allowed an unsecured claim that
      included all "actual economic loss" resulting from the
      termination of the NQ Plans; and

  (b) the many pleadings filed by DP3 preserve and recover
      pension benefits for all retired pilots constitute
      informal proofs of claim by members of the putative Class
      for all "actual economic loss".

Alternatively, the Court should find that the Class claimants'
failure to file within the deadline was the result of "excusable
neglect", and the  Bar Date should be extended, pursuant to Rule
9006(b)(1), Mr. Booth asserts.

DP3 further asserts the reasonability of the Class claim, as the
prerequisites to certification of the Class under Civil Rule 23
has been satisfied:

  * At least 3,485 retirees have presumably suffered a loss of  
    the disregarded benefit complies with the numerosity
    requirement;

  * The untimely filing of an informal claim prior to the
    expiration of the purported Bar Date is caused by inadequacy
    of Delta's notice; and

  * Certification of the Class will facilitate the prompt
    resolution of the substantive legal issues, binding all
    members of the Class in one proceeding.

Accordingly, the DP3 and the Class claimants ask the Court to:

  (a) allow the Class claims;

  (b) certify the Class under Civil Rules 23(b)(i) and (b)(3);
      and

  (c) appoint (i) Dean Booth, Esq., (ii) Shelley D. Rucker,
      Esq., and (iii) Nicholas W. Wittenburg, Esq., of Miller &
      Martin PLLC, as Class counsel.

            PBGC Calls for ERISA-Unrelated Resolution

In a separate filing, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
holds that the Court "can, and should, resolve the motion and
the objection without deciding any issues relating to Title IV
of ERISA."

Alternatively, the PBGC reserves the right to fully brief the
ERISA issues prior to any decision reached in the proceeding, as
the disputed issues may have a significant impact on the ERISA-
administered Title IV pension plan termination insurance
program.

(Delta Air Lines Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 83;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).  


DERMALIVE: Canadian User Sues Over Anti-aging Treatment Damage
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Montreal victim of anti-wrinkle treatment Dermalive is seeking
permission to launch a $10 million class action in Quebec
Superior Court on behalf of about 1,500 women affected by the
product, it emerged in a report by Charlie Fidelman of The
Gazette.

The complainant is Doris Durand whose face erupted in painful
lumps at every part injected with the filler, and her lips
swelled alarmingly within a year of using the product.  She had
her lips opened and the implant scraped away, but the swelling
reaction continues until now.

Dermalive is an injectable permanent filler whose plastic
particles stimulate collagen growth in the soft tissue to plump
out dimples and wrinkles.

It was approved by Health Canada in 2003, the same year its
licence as a medical product was suspended in France.  Health
Canada quietly suspended Dermalive's use this summer after
receiving eight cases of problems with the implant this year.  
It is now banned in the U.S. and is subjects of legal suits in
Europe.


FIRST CONSULTING: Sued Over Plan to Merge with Computer Sciences
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action styled, “Joshua Teitelbaum v. First
Consulting Group, Inc., et al. (Case No. BC380470)” was filed on
Nov. 8, 2007 in the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Los Angeles, purportedly on behalf of the
public holders of Fist Consulting's common stock.

The complaint names as defendants the company and each of FCG’s
directors, and alleges, among other things, that FCG’s directors
breached their fiduciary duties by adopting the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated October 30, 2007, between FCG, Computer
Sciences Corporation, and LB Acquisition Corp., and by approving
the merger described therein.

The complaint further alleges that the proposed merger provides
FCG’s public stockholders with inadequate consideration for
their shares of FCG common stock.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action status, an
injunction preventing the completion of the merger, rescission
of the merger agreement, and the payment of attorneys’ fees and
expenses.

The company said it believes the lawsuit is without merit and
intend to defend the action vigorously.


INTUIT INC: E-Filing Firms Sued Over Fees Collected on Taxpayers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner & Weinstock
and Cooley & Handy filed a class action suit against a group of
income tax software companies that are part of a cartel known as
the Free File Alliance LLC.  The suit names as defendant Intuit
Inc., H&R Block Inc., H&R Block Digital Tax Solutions LLC and
Free Fire Alliance LLC.

The suit, brought by Philadelphia resident Stacie Byers, alleges
that cartel members including H&R Block and Intuit unlawfully
charged millions of U.S. taxpayers excessive e-filing fees.
Damages are estimated in the billions of dollars.

"This amounts to a tax on e-filing tax returns. Hardworking
taxpayers deserve better," said Feldman Shepherd partner Thomas
More Marrone. "This is government outsourcing at its worst."

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, asserts that the IRS contracted with
the cartel to collect e- filed federal tax returns on its
behalf. As agents of the IRS, federal law required cartel
members to set "fair and uniform" fees for e-filing. But cartel
members set their fees based solely on profit, the complaint
states.

"The private tax software companies have used the 'Free File'
arrangement to push commercial products they sell, and until
recently tried to get taxpayers to buy high-rate 'refund
anticipation loans,' said Alan M. Feldman, Managing Partner of
Feldman Shepherd.

"The name 'Free File Alliance' is clearly misleading," Marrone
said. "E- filing has become an enormous profit center for cartel
members."

The class action seeks a full refund of all fees paid for e-
filing, as well as injunctive relief. Defendants include all
members of the cartel which charged fees to electronically file
federal tax returns.

Cooley & Handy partner Kevin Handy said, "The U.S. should join
other civilized nations in allowing its citizens to e-file tax
returns for free. The truth is it costs the government less to
process an e-filed return than a paper one."

The Free File Alliance said the suit is without merit.

The suit is "Byers v. Intuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
04753-MK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Marvin Katz.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Thomas More Marrone, Esq.
          Feldman Shepherd
          1845 Walnut Street
          25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-567-8300
          Fax: 215-567-8333
          E-mail: cherling@feldmanshepherd.com


ISRAELI BROADCASTING COS: Face Suit for Limiting Competitions
-------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney filed a NIS438 million ($111 million) class action
against competitors Sports Channel and the broadcast company
Charlton claiming the two coordinated broadcasting times of
Saturday sporting events in order to avoid competition, Arnon
Ben-Yair of Haaretz Daily reports.

Charlton owns the rights to Israeli and English soccer and
basketball games.  Its competitor, the Sports Channel,
broadcasts Spanish and Italian soccer games.

Attorney Shlomi Cohen said that under an October 2004 agreement
over broadcast rights, the Sports Channel may broadcast live
Spanish and Italian games only before 9:30 p.m. so that sports
lover would have fewer options on Saturday and so opt to watch
Charlton on pay-per-view.

Antitrust Commissioner Ronit Kan is supporting the suit
believing that the 2004 agreement is anticompetitive.  She
submitted her position to the Tel Aviv District Court.

"...[T]he companies' agreement constitutes a horizontal division
of the market between competitors, the most severe type.  The
commissioner says that the law clearly sees such a move as
harmful to competition," she said.

"The Sports Channel has simply denied consumers access to a
substantial part of the market," she added.


MEDCO HEALTH: Settles Mass. Suit Over PolyMedica Corp. Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., which Merck & Co., Inc. acquired
in 1993, has settled a class action over a merger agreement with  
PolyMedica Corp.

Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated Aug.
27, 2007, PolyMedica shareholders received $53 in cash for each
outstanding share of PolyMedica common stock.

The Company funded the transaction on Oct. 31, 2007 through a
combination of $1 billion in bank borrowings from its existing
$2 billion revolving credit facility and cash on hand.

In August 2007, a putative stockholder class action related to
the merger was filed by purported stockholders of PolyMedica
Corp. in the Superior Court of Massachusetts for Middlesex
County against, amongst others, the Company and its affiliate,
MACQ Corp.

The lawsuit captioned, “Groen v. PolyMedica Corp. et al.,”
alleges, among other things, that the price agreed to in the
merger agreement was inadequate and unfair to the PolyMedica
stockholders and that the defendants breached their duties to
the stockholders and/or aided breaches of duty by other
defendants in negotiating and approving the merger agreement.
Shortly thereafter, two virtually identical lawsuits (only one
of which named the Company as a defendant) were filed in the
same court.

The complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
seek injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the parties to these actions reached an
agreement in principle to settle the actions, 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. 29,
2007.

Medco Health Solutions Inc. -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a  
pharmacy benefit manager.  The Company provides traditional and
specialty prescription drug benefit programs and services for
its clients, members of client-funded benefit plans or those
served by the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program
(Medicare Part D), and individual patients.  


MEDCO HEALTH: Still Faces Several ERISA Complaints in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., which Merck & Co., Inc. acquired
in 1993, continues to face purported class actions, alleging
violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

                        Gruer Litigation

In December 1997, a lawsuit captioned, “Gruer v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C.,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Merck and the Company.

The suit alleges that the Company should be treated as a
“fiduciary” under the provisions of ERISA (the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) and that the Company had
breached fiduciary obligations under ERISA in a variety of ways.

After the Gruer case was filed, a number of other cases were
filed in the same court asserting similar claims.

In December 2002, Merck and the Company agreed to settle the
Gruer series of lawsuits on a class action basis for $42.5
million, and agreed to certain business practice changes, to
avoid the significant cost and distraction of protracted
litigation.

The release of claims under the settlement applies to plans for
which the Company has administered a pharmacy benefit at any
time between Dec. 17, 1994 and the date of final approval.  It
does not involve the release of any potential antitrust claims.

In May 2004, the U.S. District Court granted final approval to
the settlement and a final judgment was entered in June 2004.

Various appeals were taken and in October 2007, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit overruled all but one
objection to the settlement that had been the subject of the
appeals.

The appeals court vacated the lower court’s approval of the
settlement in one respect, and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings relating to the manner in which
the settlement funds should be allocated between self-funded and
insured plans.

The plaintiff in one of the Gruer series of cases discussed
above, “Blumenthal v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., et al.,”
has elected to opt out of the settlement.

Similar ERISA-based complaints against the Company and Merck
were filed in eight additional actions by ERISA plan
participants, purportedly on behalf of their plans, and, in some
of the actions, similarly situated self-funded plans.

The ERISA plans themselves, which were not parties to these
lawsuits, had elected to participate in the Gruer settlement
discussed above and, accordingly, seven of these actions had
been dismissed pursuant to the final judgment discussed above.

                        Jones Litigation

The plaintiff in another action, “Betty Jo Jones v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C., et al.,” has filed a Second Amended
Complaint, in which she seeks to represent a class of all
participants and beneficiaries of ERISA plans that required such
participants to pay a percentage co-payment on prescription
drugs.

The effect of the release under the Gruer settlement discussed
above on the Jones action has not yet been litigated.

                     United Food Litigation

In addition to these cases, a proposed class action complaint
against Merck and the Company has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by
trustees of another benefit plan, the United Food and Commercial
Workers Local Union No. 1529 and Employers Health and Welfare
Plan Trust.  This plan has elected to opt out of the Gruer
settlement.

The suit, “United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No.
1529 and Employers Health and Welfare Plan Trust v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc.,” has been transferred and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by order of the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

                        Miles Litigation

In September 2002, a lawsuit captioned, “Miles v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C.,” based on allegations similar to those in
the ERISA cases discussed above, was filed against Merck and the
Company in the Superior Court of California.  The theory of
liability in this action is based on a California law
prohibiting unfair business practices.

The Miles case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California and was later transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
consolidated with the ERISA cases pending against Merck and the
Company in that 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. 29, 2007.

The suit is “In Re: Medco Health ERISA Litigation, Case No.
7:03-md-01508-CLB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Charles L. Brieant.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Linda J. Cahn, Esq.
          Mark Gardy, Esq.
          Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700

               - and -         

          Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
          570 Lexington Avenue 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 446-2300

Representing the company are:

          Bruce B. Kelson, Esq.
          Kenneth M. Kramer, Esq.
          James P. Tallon, Esq.
          Shearman & Sterling
          555 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 616-1100
          E-mail: jtallon@shearman.com

    
MEDCO HEALTH: Still Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., and Merck & Co. Inc., which
acquired Medco in 1993, continues to face several class actions
that were consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

                   Brady Enterprises Lawsuit

In August 2003, a lawsuit "Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v.
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al." was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
the company and Merck.

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a national class of retail
pharmacies that had contracted with the company, allege that the
company has conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and
used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain
competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs.

The plaintiffs allege that, through the alleged conspiracy, the
company has engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct,
including, among other things, setting artificially low
reimbursement rates to such pharmacies.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act
and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is currently pending.

                North Jackson Pharmacy Lawsuit

In October 2003, a lawsuit captioned "North Jackson Pharmacy,
Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al." was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
against Merck and the company.

In their Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs allege that:

     -- Merck and the company have engaged in price fixing and
        other unlawful concerted actions with others, including
        other Pharmacy Benefit Managers, to restrain trade in
        the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs to
        customers of retail pharmacies who participate in
        programs or plans that pay for all or part of the drugs
        dispensed; and

     -- have conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and
        used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to
        restrain competition in the market for the dispensing
        and sale of prescription drugs.

The plaintiffs allege that, through such concerted action, Merck
and the company have engaged in various forms of anticompetitive
conduct, including, among other things, setting reimbursement
rates to such pharmacies at unreasonably low levels.  

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act
and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs'
motion for class certification has been granted.

                 Mike's Medical Center Lawsuit

In December 2005, a lawsuit captioned "Mike's Medical Center
Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al." was
filed against the company and Merck in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all pharmacies and
pharmacists that had contracted with the company and California
pharmacies that had indirectly purchased prescription drugs from
Merck and make factual allegations similar to those in the
Alameda Drug Co. action.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust law, and California law prohibiting unfair
business practices.  The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained
profits, and injunctive relief.

In April 2006, the Brady plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer
and consolidate various antitrust actions against Pharmacy
Benefit Managers, including North Jackson, Brady, and Mike's
Medical Center before a single federal judge.  The motion was
granted on Aug. 24, 2006.

These actions are now consolidated for pretrial purposes in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The consolidated action is known as "In re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation."

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. 29, 2007.

Medco Health Solutions Inc. -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a  
pharmacy benefit manager.  The Company provides traditional and
specialty prescription drug benefit programs and services for
its clients, members of client-funded benefit plans or those
served by the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program
(Medicare Part D), and individual patients.  


MEDCO HEALTH: Opposes Stay Recommendation in Pharmacies' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. is objecting to a recommendation by
a court to deny Medco’s motion to stay, pending arbitration, a
suit filed by a class of Oklahoma pharmacies.  

The suit was filed by Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC in February
2006, and seeks to represent a class of Oklahoma pharmacies that
have contracted with the company within the last three years.  

It alleges, among other things, that the company has contracted
with retail pharmacies at rates that are less than the
prevailing rates paid by ordinary consumers and has denied
consumers their choice of pharmacy by placing restrictions on
the plaintiff's ability to dispense pharmaceutical goods and
services.

The plaintiff asserts that the company's activities violate the
Oklahoma Third Party Prescription Act, and seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive
relief.  

On April 12, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On June 12, 2006, the company filed a motion to stay
the action pending arbitration.

On Sept. 21, 2007, the Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma recommended that the
District Court deny Medco’s motion to stay the action pending
arbitration.  

On Oct. 4, 2007, Medco filed an objection to the Magistrate’s
Report and Recommendation, 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. 29, 2007.

The suit is "Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv-00118-TCK-SAJ," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oklahoma under Judge
Terence Kern with referral to Judge Sam A. Joyner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Bradford D. Barron, Esq.
          Gibbon Barron & Barron, PA
          2 W. 6th St., Ste. 320
          Tulsa, OK 74119-1215
          Phone: 918-745-0687
          Fax: 9180745-0821
          E-mail: Bbarron@gbbfirm.com

               - and -

          Bobby Leon Latham, Jr., Esq.
          Latham Stall Wagner Steele & Lehman, PC
          1800 S. Baltimore, Ste. 500
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Phone: 918-382-7523
          Fax: 918-382-7541
          E-mail: blatham@lswsl.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark Banner, Esq.
          Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson
          320 S. Boston, Ste. 400
          Tulsa, OK 74103-3708
          Phone: 918-594-0432
          Fax: 918-594-0505
          E-mail: mbanner@hallestill.com

               - and -

          John Briggs, Esq.
          Howrey, LLP, 1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2402
          Phone: 202-783-0800


MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Suit Over Xbox Live
----------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. has asked a federal court in Georgia to dismiss
a purported class action filed by a Georgia man accusing it of
fraudulently inducing children to enter into unenforceable
contracts to subscribe to Xbox Live Internet services.

The suit was originally filed by Francisco Garcia on  Aug. 23 in
the Superior Court of Fulton County, in the State of Georgia
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007).

Mr. Garcia, on behalf of his minor child Silvario Garcia, claims
Microsoft knows its contracts with kids, for $49.99 a year,
which can be renewed online, without a written contract, are
illegal, deceitful and unenforceable.

Plaintiff brings this class action because of defendant's
alleged fraudulent inducement, conversion, fraud and deceit,
deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment.

In September, Microsoft filed a motion to have the case moved to
federal court.  Microsoft has asked the federal court to dismiss
the case, claiming it has paperwork that proves Silvario Garcia
misrepresented his age when he subscribed to Xbox Live by
falsely stating that he was at least 18 years old.

                         Allegations

The plaintiff is bringing the action on behalf of all who have
been charged fees for XBOX Live subscriptions of any length,
with accompanying automatic XBOX Live subscription renewals of
any length, where such contracts have been entered into by any
minor children in violation of O.C.G.A. Section 13-3-20.  

He also brings this action on behalf of all who have been
charged fees for XBOX Live subscriptions of any length, with
accompanying automatic XBOX Live subscription renewals of any
length, where such multiple-years contracts with adult class
members are not in writing as required under the applicable
Statute of Frauds, found in O.C.G.A. Section 13-5-30(5).

The plaintiff wants the court to rule:

     (a) whether the defendant fraudulently induced minor class
         members to enter into unenforceable contracts for XBOX
         Live subscription contracts of any length, and
         accompanying automatic XBOX Live subscription renewal
         contracts of any length, under the well-established
         "Infancy Doctrine" found in O.C.G.A. Section 13-3-20;

     (b) whether the defendant improperly charged initial XBOX
         Live subscription fees and subsequents automatic XBOX  
         Live subscription renewal fees to adult class members
         without securing written contracts with adult class
         members in violation of the Statute of Frauds, found in
         O.C.G.A. Section 13-5-30(5);

     (c) whether the defendant's actions constitute conversion;

     (d) whether the defendant's action constitute fraud and
         deceit;

     (e) whether the defendant's actions constitute deceptive
         trade practices; and

     (f) whether the defendant's actions constitute unjust
         enrichment.

Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

      -- that process issue and service be made according to
         law;

      -- that this complaint be served upon defendant in
         accordance with law;

      -- that the class be certified in accordance with law;

      -- for a declaration that defendant's acts complained of
         are unlawful under stated and/or federal law;

      -- for the entry of a permanent injunction ordering
         defendant to establish and properly maintain
         appropriate internal safeguards as to prevent a repeat
         of the fate suffered by the class members;

      -- for an award of pre-judgment interest in an amount to
         be determined at court;

      -- for an award of post-judgment interest in an amount to
         be determined at court;

      -- for an award of all costs of litigation, including
         without limitation, attorneys' fees, in an amount to be
         determined at court;

      -- for the creation of a court supervised fund to process
         and distribute awards to the class; and

      -- for all other relief the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Garcia v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 1:2007cv02363,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia under Judge Timothy C. Batter, Sr. and Judge Clarence
Cooper.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Christopher C. Taylor
          Hernan Taylor & Lee, LLC
          990 Holcomb Bridge Rd, Suite 3
          Roswell, Georgia 30076
          Phone: (770) 650-7200
          Fax: (770) 650-7211


NAPASTYLE: Recalls Pitchers, Tumblers for Possible Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
NapaStyle of Napa, California is recalling their Romano Pitchers
and Tumblers, because they may contain high levels of leachable
lead. No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was a result of an FDA test that showed that the
items may contain lead introduced by the manufacturing process
by our supplier.

Consumption of leachable lead from the ceramicware can cause
severe health problems; especially in infants, young children
and pregnant women. High lead exposures can cause a baby to have
low birth weight or be born prematurely, or can result in
miscarriage or stillbirth. Lead can cause damage to the central
nervous system, resulting in learning disabilities and
behavioral disorders that could last a lifetime. Children with
lead poisoning may not look or act sick.

The Romano Pitchers and Tumblers were distributed through our
retail stores in California and nationwide through our mail
order catalog.

These pieces are roughly glazed, with streaks of dark brown clay
showing through the variegated green finish.

Product Specs:

    * Pitcher, 44 oz., 7 1/2" h.
    * Four Tumblers, 145 oz., 4 1/4" h
    * SKU #’s: 4410, 4411, 4710

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
FDA, which revealed that the finished products contained
leachable lead that exceeded FDA guidelines. NapaStyle has
ceased the production and distribution of the product and will
not be reordering this product in the future.

Consumers are advised to return all such products a full refund
to:

          NapaStyle Distribution Center
          360 Industrial Court, Suite A
          Benicia, CA 94510

Customers with questions should contact NapaStyle Customer
Service at 1-866-776-1600.


NORTHERN TOOL: Recalls Wagons with Paint Exceeding Lead Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Tool & Equipment Co., of Burnsville, Minn., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 7,200 "Big Red" wagons.  

The company said the surface paints on the wagon and handle
contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead
paint standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recalled wagon has a red painted, steel deck with
removable wooden sides. The wheels have ball bearings and air-
filled tires.

The wagons were made in China and sold through Northern Tool &
Equipment catalog, Web site, and retail stores nationwide from
July 2007 through September 2007 for about $60.

Customers should immediately take the recalled wagon away from
children and return it to any Northern Tool store for a free
replacement.

For additional information, contact Northern Tool &
Equipment Co. at (800) 222-5381 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT
Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.northerntool.com.


PEOPLE'S CHOICE: ERISA Suit Class Certification Hearing Set Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on an Amended Motion for Class Certification of a suit
claiming Employee Retirement Income Security Act benefits
against People's Choice (in Bankruptcy) will be continued to
Dec. 4, 2007.

The parties are in the process of discussing a consensual
stipulation for class certification.  With Bankruptcy Judge
Robert Kwan's approval, the parties agree that the hearing on
the Amended Motion should be continued to December 4, 2007, to
allow them sufficient time to reach a stipulation in this
regard.

                       Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs John P. Salvador, Douglas McClary, Melinda McZiel,
Shane Fowler and Debbie Oliphant were employees of People's
Choice Home Loan, Inc. (PCHLI) and People's Credit and Finance
Corp., and were terminated as part of, or as a result of, mass
layoffs or plant closings ordered by the two Debtors.

The Former Employees, on their own behalf and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, filed a class action for the
recovery of damages in the amount of 60 days pay and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act benefits by reason of PCFC's and
PCHLI's alleged violation of the Former Employees' rights under
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29
U.S.C., Section 2101 et seq. and its California counterpart,
California Labor Code Section 1400 et seq.

Pursuant to the WARN Act, PCHLI and PCFC constituted a single
employer.  

The Former Employees also filed an Amended Motion for Class
Certification based upon an agreement for a reconstituted class
reached regarding Adversary Proceeding No. 07-01987.  The
Bakhtlari Employee Group and Salvador Employee Group entered
into a tentative agreement to jointly represent the former
employees for their WARN and non-WARN wage claims.  The Amended
Motion added Shane Fowler and Debbie Oliphant from the Bakhtlari
Employee Group as additional class representatives, and Spiro
Moss Barnes, LLP, as additional class counsel.  

In the Amended Complaint, the Former Employees assert, among
others:

  (a) an administrative priority claim pursuant to Section 503
      of the Bankruptcy Code in favor of each Former Employee,
      equal to the sum of unpaid wages, salary, commissions,
      bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay pension
      and 401(k) contributions and other ERISA benefits, for 60
      days, that would have been covered and paid under the then
      applicable employee benefits plans had the coverage
      continued for that period, all determined in accordance
      with the WARN Act and California Labor Code.

      Alternatively, determining that the first $10,950 of the
      WARN Act claims of the Former Employees and each other
      Class member is entitled to priority status, under Section
      5007(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, and the balance in
      general unsecured claim;

  (b) certification that the Former Employees and the other
      Class members constitute a single class;

  (c) appointment of Lankenau & Miller, LLP, and The Gardner
      Firm as Class Counsel;

  (d) appointment of Messrs. Salvador, McClary, and Fowler, Ms.
      McZiel and Ms. Oliphant, as Class Representatives, and
      payment of reasonable compensation to them for their
      services; and

  (e) an allowed administrative priority claim under Section 503
      for the reasonable attorneys fees and the costs and
      disbursements that the Former Employees incur in
      prosecuting the action, as authorized by the WARN Act.

(People's Choice Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 18; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000)


PRISON HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Pa. Physician's Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action against Prison
Health Services, Inc., a unit of the America Service Group,
Inc., and the City of Philadelphia.

The suit was filed by Andrew Berkowitz, M.D., an individual
physician independent contractor in Philadelphia.  The plaintiff
filed the suit as a putative class action on or about Aug. 2,
2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Trial
Division.  

Plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages for the class, but
damages in the amount of at least $9,588, individually.  

The complaint alleges that plaintiff provided services to
inmates in the Philadelphia Prison System at the request of the
defendants and that the defendants breached the alleged
contractual duties owed to him by paying an amount alleged to be
less than the full amount Plaintiff billed for his medical
services.  

On Sept. 22, 2006, the City of Philadelphia filed a New Matter  
Cross claim against PHS alleging breach of contract, negligence  
and seeking indemnification.  

On Sept. 29, 2006, Prison Health filed its answer to plaintiff's
complaint, which answer included a crossclaim against the City
of Philadelphia for contribution and indemnification.  

The Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on Oct.
1, 2007; and PHS and the City have since responded to this
motion.  

The parties are presently involved in discovery proceedings,
according to America Service's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

America Service Group Inc. -- http://www.asgr.com/-- through  
its subsidiaries Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS), EMSA
Limited Partnership, Correctional Health Services, LLC (CHS) and
Secure Pharmacy Plus, LLC (SPP), contracts to provide and/or
administer managed healthcare services, including the
distribution of pharmaceuticals throughout the U.S.


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Ore. Suit Over Patient Data Theft Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Multnomah County Circuit Court (Ore.) dismissed a class
action against Providence Health System in connection with the
2005 theft of computer discs and tapes with records of 365,000
patients, Portland Business Journal reports.

Steven Shields, who was a Providence information systems
analyst, lost 10 computer discs and data tapes at his van in the
driveway of his Milwaukie home in December 2005.

The records, some going back 20 years, contained information
such as Social Security numbers and medical information. The
records were stored without protective encryption.  There have
been no reports of the stolen data being used for identity
theft.

Judge Marilyn Litzenberger dismissed all claims seeking damages
or equitable relief and ruled that Providence has taken the
necessary corrective steps.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: $2M Deal in Suit Over “Modal” Payment Ok'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Valencia County, New Mexico approved a
settlement that was reached in the purported national class
action, “Azar, et al. v. Prudential Insurance.”

The Prudential Insurance Company of America is a wholly owned
domestic insurance subsidiary Prudential Financial, Inc.

In August 2000, a suit was filed against the company based upon
an alleged failure to adequately disclose the increased costs
associated with payment of life insurance premiums on a "modal"
basis, i.e., more frequently than once a year.  Similar actions
were filed in New Mexico against over a dozen other insurance
companies.   

The complaint asserts claims for breach of the common law duty
to disclose material information, breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment and fraudulent concealment.  

It seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages,
both in unspecified amounts, restitution, treble damages,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.   

In March 2001, the court entered an order granting partial
summary judgment to plaintiffs as to liability.  

In January 2003, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed this
finding and dismissed the claims for breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case was remanded to the trial court and in November 2004,
it held that, as to the named plaintiffs, the non-disclosure was
material.

In July 2005, the court certified a class of New Mexico only
policyholders denying plaintiffs’ motion to include purchasers
from 35 additional states.

In September 2005, plaintiffs sought to amend the court’s order
on class certification with respect to eight additional states.

In March 2006, the court reiterated its denial of a multi-state
class and maintained the certification of a class of New Mexico
resident purchasers of Prudential life insurance.  The court
also indicated it would enter judgment on liability against
Prudential for the New Mexico class.

In May 2007, the matter was settled.  The settlement, which is
subject to final approval by the court, provides that Prudential
Insurance will pay the difference between the annualized modal
premium and the annual premium and attorneys’ fees.

In October 2007, the court approved the settlement of
approximately $2 million without any objections.  The settlement
is expected to become final in November 2007, 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.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a  
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
had approximately $616 billion of assets under management.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers an
array of financial products and services, including life
insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, asset management, banking
and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.  
  

PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Seeks Dismissal of Mutual Funds Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Securities, Inc. are
seeking for the dismissal of several purported class actions
that were consolidated as part of the multi-district proceeding,
"In re: Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-1586, Master
Docket Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md-15862, 04-md-15863, and 04-md-
15864."

In October 2004, Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential  
Securities, Inc. were named as defendants in several class  
actions brought on behalf of purchasers and holders of shares in  
a number of mutual fund complexes.   

The actions were consolidated as part of the multi-district  
proceeding, "In re: Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-  
1586, Master Docket Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md-15862, 04-md-15863,  
and 04-md-15864," which is pending in the U.S. District Court  
for the District of Maryland.   

The complaints allege that purchasers and holders of mutual  
funds were harmed by dilution of the funds' values and excessive  
fees caused by market timing and late trading.  It is seeking  
unspecified damages.   

In August 2005, the Company was dismissed from several of the
actions, without prejudice to repleading the state claims, but
remains a defendant in other actions in the consolidated
proceeding.

In July 2006, in one of the consolidated mutual fund actions,
“Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al.,”
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
granted plaintiffs leave to refile their federal securities law
claims against Prudential Securities.

In August 2006, the second amended complaint was filed alleging
federal securities law claims on behalf of a purported
nationwide class of mutual fund investors seeking compensatory
and punitive damages in unspecified amounts.

Motions to dismiss the other actions are pending, according to
Prudential Financial's Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a  
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
had approximately $616 billion of assets under management.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers an
array of financial products and services, including life
insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, asset management, banking
and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.  


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Settles Mortgage Securities Suit for $7.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action, “Capitol Life Insurance
Co. v. Prudential Insurance, et al.,” have reached a $7.5
million settlement in the matter.

The suit was filed The Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex
County against:

      -- Prudential Insurance Co. of America;
      -- Prudential Home Mortgage Co., Inc.; and  
      -- several other subsidiaries.  

The suit was filed in connection with the sale of certain
subordinated mortgage securities sold by a subsidiary of
Prudential Home Mortgage.   

In May 2000, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that
alleges violations of the New Jersey securities statute and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, fraud,
conspiracy and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks
compensatory as well as treble and punitive damages.   

In October 2002, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied.  Since that time, the court has permitted nine
additional investors to intervene as plaintiffs.   

In August 2005, the court dismissed the New Jersey Securities
Act and RICO claims and the negligent misrepresentation claim.

In April 2007, the matter settled for $7.5 million, 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.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a  
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
had approximately $616 billion of assets under management.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers an
array of financial products and services, including life
insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, asset management, banking
and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.  


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces Stockbrokers' Suits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. continues to face several purported
class actions accusing the company of improperly classifying
stockbrokers as exempt employees under state and federal wage
and hour laws.

The suits –- recently consolidated in California for coordinated
trial proceedings -- also name as defendants Prudential
Securities, Inc. and Prudential Equity Group LLC.  

Two of the complaints -- “Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC,
and Prudential Securities Incorporated,” and “Goldstein v.
Prudential Financial, Inc.” were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  

The “Goldstein” complaint purports to have been filed on behalf
of a nationwide class.  The “Janowsky” complaint alleges a class
of New York brokers.  

The three complaints filed in California Superior Court purport
to have been brought on behalf of classes of California brokers.  
The suits are captioned:

      -- “Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential
         Securities Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC;”
         
      -- “DiLustro v. Prudential Securities Incorporated,
         Prudential Equity Group, Inc. and Wachovia Securities;”  
         and

      -- “Carayanis v. Prudential Equity Group LLC and
         Prudential Securities Inc.”

The “Carayanis” complaint was subsequently withdrawn without
prejudice in May 2006.

In June 2006, a purported New York state class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, captioned, “Panesenko v. Wachovia Securities, et al.”

The Panesenko complaint is alleging that the Company failed to
pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal
law and that improper deductions were made from the
stockbrokers’ wages in violation of state law.  

In September 2006, Prudential Securities was sued in “Badain v.
Wachovia Securities, et al.,” a purported nationwide class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York.

The complaint alleges that Prudential Securities failed to pay
overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law
and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers’
wages in violation of state law.

In October 2006, a purported class action, “Bouder v. Prudential
Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America,”
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, claiming that the Company failed to pay overtime to
insurance agents who were registered representatives in
violation of federal and state law, and that improper deductions
were made from these agents’ wages in violation of state law.

In December 2006, the stockbrokers’ cases were transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.

The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages,
recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys’ fees.

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.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a  
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
had approximately $616 billion of assets under management.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers an
array of financial products and services, including life
insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, asset management, banking
and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.  


SAN DIEGO GAS: Accused of Negligence in Two California Fires
------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. is accused of playing a role in
starting the Witch Creek and Rice fires that caused an estimated
$20 million in property damages, San Diego Business Journal
reports.

The Rice Fire, which started Oct. 22, burned about 9,000 acres
in the Fallbrook area.  As of Oct. 28, the cost of the
destruction was $4.9 million, according to the report.

The Witch Creek Fire, which started Oct. 21, burned 197,990
acres from Santa Ysabel to Rancho Santa Fe. The cost as of Nov.
1 for the Witch Creek Fire was $16 million.

Three San Diego County residents filed two class actions on Nov.
13 in San Diego Superior Court seeking economic damages from
what the lawsuits call the utility’s “gross negligence” in
keeping its installation safe from possible fires.

The Witch Creek Fire suit was filed by San Diego firm Zachary
Lemley of Macaluso & Associates on behalf of Kenyon and Kath
Clark of Rancho Santa Fe.

Michael Downing, a homeowner on Reche Road in Fallbrook who lost
his home, is the plaintiff in the Rice Canyon suit.

The plaintiffs are accusing SDG&E of being negligent, failing to
comply with state and federal laws requiring clear zones around
transmission lines and poles.

The company denied the allegations in a statement.


SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls Music Box on Paint's Lead Level
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schylling Associates Inc., of Rowley, Mass., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 1,300 Dizzy Ducks Music Box.

The company said surface paints on the wooden base of the music
box contain excessive levels of lead, which violates the federal
lead paint standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The Dizzy Ducks Music Box is a wind-up music box with ducks
that spin as music plays.

The music boxes were made in China and sold at specialty toy
stores and gift shops nationwide from March 2007 through October
2007 for about $12.

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

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


SCOTTISH RE: N.Y. Court Partially Dismisses Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
partially granted and partially denied a motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
Scottish Re Group Ltd.

On Aug. 2, 2006, putative class actions were filed against:

     -- the company;
     -- Glenn Schafer, the chairman of its board of directors;
     -- Dean E. Miller, chief financial officer;
     -- Scott E. Willkomm, former chief executive officer; and
     -- Seth Vance, former chief executive officer - North
        America.

Between Aug. 7, 2006 and Oct. 2, 2006, seven additional related
class actions were filed against the company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and certain third
parties.  

Each of the complaints allege that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning the company's business and operations, thereby
causing investors to purchase the company's securities
at artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934 Act.

Two of the complaints also allege violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, related to a 2005 preferred
stock offering.  Each of the class actions filed seek an
unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief.

On Oct. 12, 2006, all of the class actions were consolidated.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 4, 2006.

On March 7, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
putative class action.

On Nov. 2, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York issued a split verdict,
agreeing to toss claims relating to Scottish Re accounting firm
Ernst & Young, but denying the defendants' bid to dismiss the
entire securities fraud suit.  Judge Scheindlin dismissed two of
the claims filed against E&Y on the grounds that the plaintiffs
had not adequately established scienter.

The is suit is "Zuckerman v. Scottish Re Group Ltd. et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-05853-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Representing the plaintiff are:

         Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 889-3700
         Fax: (212) 684-5191
         E-mail: aabbey@abbeygardy.com

              - and -

         Max W. Berger, Esq.
         Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P.
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 554-1400
         Fax: (212) 554-1444

Representing the company is:

         George E. Anhang, Esq.
         LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.
         1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1200
         Washington, DC 20009
         Phone: (202) 986-8052


SOLUTIA INC: Plaintiffs in SIP Plan Suit Appeal Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit filed to recover alleged losses to the
Solutia Inc. Savings and Investment Plan (SIP Plan) are
appealing the dismissal of the case.

On October 7, 2004, a purported class action, “Dickerson v.
Feldman, et al.” was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against a number of
defendants, including former officers and employees of Solutia
and Solutia’s Employee Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and
Savings Funds Committee.  

Solutia was not named as a defendant.  The action alleged breach
of fiduciary duty under ERISA and sought to recover alleged
losses to the SIP Plan during the period December 16, 1998 to
the date the action was filed.  

The investment of SIP Plan assets in Solutia’s common stock is
alleged to have been imprudent because of the risks and
liabilities related to Solutia’s legacy environmental and
litigation liabilities and because of Flexsys' alleged
involvement in the matters described above under "Flexsys
Antitrust Litigation."  

The action sought monetary payment to the SIP Plan to recover
the losses resulting from the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties, as well as injunctive and other appropriate equitable
relief, reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses, costs and
interest.  In addition, the plaintiff in this action filed a
proof of claim for $269 against Solutia in the Bankruptcy Court.

On March 30, 2006, the District Court granted the defendants’
motion to dismiss on grounds that the Dickerson plaintiffs
lacked standing to sue and that the complaint failed to state a
claim on which relief could be granted.  The dismissal of
Dickerson's cause of action resulted in dismissal of the entire
purported class action, including claims asserted on behalf of
the unnamed purported class members.  

On April 3, 2006, Dickerson filed an appeal of this dismissal
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  
The parties have fully briefed the appeal, and oral arguments
were heard on May 21, 2007.

The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 6,
2007 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Dickerson v. Feldman et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
07935-LAP," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York Under Judge Loretta A. Preska.

Representing plaintiff is:

         Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
         Sarraf Gentile, LLP
         485 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10018
         Phone: (212) 868-3610
         Fax: (212)918-7967
         E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com

Representing the Employee Benefits Plan Committee is:

         Robert M. Stern, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         1625 Eye Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20006
         Phone: (202) 383-5328
         Fax: (202) 383-5396
         E-mail: rstern@omm.com


SPIN MASTER: Recalls Beads that Caused Child's Hospitalization
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spin Master, of Toronto, Canada, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 4.2
million Aqua Dots.

The company said the coating on the beads that causes the beads
to stick to each other when water is added contains a chemical
that can turn toxic when many are ingested. Children who swallow
the beads can become comatose, develop respiratory depression,
or have seizures.

CPSC has received two reports over the past several days of
children swallowing Aqua Dots. A 20-month-old child swallowed
several dozen beads. He became dizzy and vomited several times
before slipping into a comatose state for a period of time, was
hospitalized, and has since fully recovered. A second child also
vomited and slipped into a comatose state and was hospitalized
for five days.

The recalled toy is a craft kit which allows children to create
various multi-dimensional designs using small colored beads. The
beads fuse together when sprayed with water. The recall applies
to all models of Aqua Dots. The product is available in various
different kits with accessories such as a drying fan, applicator
pen, design templates for the beads, and spray bottle. The
product is labeled for ages 4+.

The Aqua Dots were made in China and sold at mass merchandisers
nationwide from April 2007 through November 2007 for between $17
and $30.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toy away
from children and contact Spin Master to return for free
replacement beads or a toy of equal value.

For additional information, contact Spin Master at
(800) 622-8339 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.aquadotsrecall.com.


SPIN MASTER: Faces Suit Over Toys Coated with “Date Rape Drug”
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spin Master Ltd., of Canada is facing a class-action complaint
filed Nov. 9, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging it imported "Aqua Dots" toys from
China, which are coated with the chemical 1,4-butanediol that,
upon being ingested, turns into the "date rape drug" gamma-
hydroxybutyric acid, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

On Nov. 7, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission  
announced a recall of the Aqua Dots products. Despite the
recall, defendant has not offered to reimburse plaintiff or
other members of the plaintiff class for the costs of the Aqua
Dots. Rather, defendant is offering to provide for replacement
toys. Defendant's offer is inadequate and fails to compensate
plaintff and other members of the plaintiff class for their
damages or make them whole, the complaint says.

The complaint claims despited marketing its Aqua Dots as safe
for young children, defendant distributed this product with a
chemical that, if ingested, is poisonous and banned for
distribution in the United States and Canada.

Named plaintiff Robyn Williams alleges Spin Master had 4.2
million of the toys for young children made in China since
April, using 1,4-butanediol because the nontoxic chemical 1,5-
pentanediol is three to seven times more expensive.

She brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rules
23(a),(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons who purchased Aqua Dots
manufactured, marketed, and/or distributed by Spin Master, Ltd.,
between April 2007, to the present.

Ms. Williams want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the products are defective;

     (b) whether the products are inherently dangerous;

     (c) whether, as a result of defendant's negligent and
         reckless conduct, children have been exposed and
         continue to be exposed to a known hazardous substance;

     (d) whether plaintiff and other members of the plaintiff
         class are entitled to injunctive relief;

     (e) whether defendant has been unjustly enriched; and

     (f) whether plaintiff and plaintiff class members were
         damaged and in what amount.

Plaintiff request that court enter an order or judgment against
defendant including the following:

     -- certification of the action as a class action pursuant
        to Rule 23(b)(1),(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure, and appointment of plaintiff as class
        representative and plaintiff's counsel of record as
        class counsel;

     -- damages in the amount of monies paid for the Aqua Dots
        toys;

     -- actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble
        damages, and such other relief as provided by the
        statutes cited;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary
        relief;

     -- other appropriate injunctive relief;

     -- the cots of bringing this suit, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses; and

     -- all other relief to which plaintiff and members of the
        plaintiff class may be entitled at law or in equity.

The suit is "Robyn Williams et al. v. Spin Master, Ltd., Case
No. 07CV6387," file in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Ben Barnow
          Sharon Harris
          Erich Schork
          Barnow and Associates, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 621-2000
          Fax: (321) 641-5504

          - and -

          Aron D. Robinson
          The Law Office of Aron D. Robinson
          19 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 857-9050
          Fax: (312) 857-9054


TITAN CORP: Col. Court Dismisses Suit Over Abu Ghraib “Abuses”
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, in a ruling filed Nov. 6, ordered in the
suits:

     -- “Ilham Nassir Ibrahim et al. v. Titan Corp., et al.
        (Civil Action No. 04-1248);” and

     -- “Saleh, et al. v. Titan Corp. et al. Civil Action No.   
         05-1165,”

that Titan Corp.'s motion for summary judgment be granted and
CACI International's motion for summary judgment be denied.

Named plaintiffs in both of these cases are Iraqi nationals who
allege that they or their late husbands were tortured or
otherwise mistreated while detained by the U.S. military at Abu
Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq. Defendants are government
contractors who provided interpreters or interrogators to the
U.S. military in Iraq.  The defendants have moved for summary
judgment, asserting that plaintiffs’ common law tort claims
should be preempted under the government contractor defense.

When these suits were originally filed, Titan was a publicly
traded company called The Titan Corporation. In July 2005, L-3
Communications Corporation acquired Titan and renamed it L-3
Communications Titan Corporation. The renamed entity is now a
wholly owned subsidiary of L-3 Communications Corporation.

In 1999, the U.S. Army awarded a contract to Titan’s
corporate predecessor for the provision of civilian linguists.  
This contract did not request a set number of linguists but
instead allowed for individual delivery orders to be made as the
need arose. Such needs became quite urgent following the
deployment of military personnel into Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Saleh plaintiffs have sued both CACI Premier Technologies,
Inc., and its parent company, CACI International.  CACI provided
interrogators at Abu Ghraib under two delivery orders.  The
Statement of Work for one Delivery Order asserted that personnel
hired for these interrogator positions would be “integrated
into” various intelligence and interrogation teams, but it also
provided that “[t]he Contractor is responsible for providing
supervision for all contract personnel.”

On August 12, 2005, the judge dismissed the Ibrahim plaintiffs’
claims under the Alien Tort Statute, RICO, various international
laws and agreements, and U.S. contracting laws.  Judge Robertson  
also dismissed their common law claims for false imprisonment
and conversion.

This left the plaintiffs with four common law claims: assault
and battery, wrongful death and survival, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, and negligence.

On June 26, 2006, Judge dismissed the Saleh plaintiffs’ federal
claims.  That disposition rendered Saleh virtually
indistinguishable from Ibrahim, because the Saleh plaintiffs
also bring a number of common law claims, including assault and
battery, sexual assault, wrongful death, negligent hiring and
supervision, and intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress. The cases were consolidated for discovery
purposes only.

The judge made different judgments in the cases because of
critical differences between the ways that contract translators
and contract interrogators were managed and supervised.  He said
that because the facts on the ground show that Titan linguists
performed their duties under the exclusive operational control
of the military, the remaining state law claims against Titan
are preempted and must be dismissed.

Whereas, because a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that
CACI retained significant authority to manage its employees, the
judge was unable to conclude at the summary judgment stage that
the federal interest underlying the combatant activities
exception requires the preemption of state tort claims against
CACI.  The judge reserved the task of sorting through the
disputed facts regarding the military's command and control of
CACI's employees for the jury.

Judge Robertson granted Titan's summary judgment motion, and
denied CACI's.

A status conference is set for the parties approximately 30 days
after the date of the memorandum order.


TOWN SPORTS: Faces Suits in N.Y. Alleging Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International, Inc., the parent of New York Sports
Club chains, faces two purported class actions in New York
alleging violations of various overtime provisions of state
labor law by the company.

                       First Litigation

One suit is “Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports International,
Inc.”  It was filed on March 1, 2005 in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County.  The plaintiffs are Sarah
Cruz of Union City, New Jersey, and Mathew Dockswell of Forest
Hills, New York.

Plaintiffs contend that they and many other employees routinely
worked more than 40 hours in a week but didn't earn overtime
because the company deliberately misclassified them as managers.

According to court documents, the lawyers are seeking class-
action status for the lawsuit, which they say could involve
hundreds of personal trainers and assistant fitness managers at
65 New York Sports Clubs in the state, including in New York
City and on Long Island.

The suit covers the past six years.  It states that Ms. Cruz,
30, who has worked for the chain since 1999, often has worked
13-hour days, five days a week, or about 65 hours, and Mr.
Dockswell, who has worked for New York Sports Club since 2002,
has regularly worked more than 40 hours a week.

On or about Nov. 2, 2005, the lawsuit was stayed upon agreement
of the parties pending mediation.  On or about Nov. 28, 2006,
the plaintiffs gave notice that they wished to lift the stay.

On or about Feb. 7, 2007, the plaintiffs made a motion
requesting leave to file a second amended complaint, which seeks
to add to the purported class all New York hourly employees and
alleged additional violations of the provisions of the New York
State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages.

                       Second Litigation

On or about June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a
second purported class action against the Company in the Supreme
Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that
TSI LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of
the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of
wages to all New York purported hourly employees.

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

New York, New York-based Town Sports International Holdings,
Inc. -- http://www.mysportsclubs.com-- is an owner and operator  
of fitness clubs in the northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of
the United States. It owns and operates 141 fitness clubs in the
United States and Switzerland.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Nov. Settlement Hearing Set in Waxler's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative November 2007 fairness hearing is set for a  
settlement of a purported class action against Trinity
Industries, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Trinity
Marine Products, Inc. (TMP), with regards to barges it sold that
were allegedly applied with defective coatings.

Waxler Transportation, Inc. filed the suit against Trinity
companies and certain material suppliers.  The plaintiff has
petitioned the court for certification of a class, which, if
certified, could significantly increase the total number of
barges at issue.

The current class representative owns four tank barges on which
allegedly defective coatings were applied.  These four barges
were sold at an approximate average price of $1.4 million.

Legal counsel for the Company and TMP have each advised that
factual disputes exist regarding the legal merits of class
certification.

Discovery is underway in the case and the court has scheduled
the class certification hearing for December 2007.  

Independent experts investigating the claims for the Company and
TMP have opined that the plaintiff’s assertion the coating
applied to the barges is a food source for microbiologically
influenced corrosion is without merit.

While the Company and TMP have continued to vigorously defend
the Waxler Case, in order to avoid the commitment of management
and executive time and the legal, expert, and transactional
costs associated with litigating the claims alleged, the Company
and TMP have reached an agreement with the class representative
and their counsel to resolve the litigation, which agreement has
been preliminarily approved by the court.

We reserved an additional $15.0 million for the three months
ended June 30, 2007, bringing the total reserve to $18.0 million
to cover our probable and estimable liabilities assuming this
settlement is implemented.  

The deadline for putative class members to opt-out of the class
or object to the settlement was in October 2007, and as of 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, there were no opt-outs or objections filed.

The court has scheduled the fairness hearing for November 2007,
at which time the court will hear arguments from putative class
members, if any, who object to the settlement.

Trinity Industries, Inc. -- http://www.trin.net-- is a holding  
company of diversified industrial companies.  Trinity
manufactures and sells railcars and railcar parts, inland
barges, concrete and aggregates, highway products, beams and
girders used in highway construction, tank containers and
structural wind towers.  


YAMAHA CORP: Recalls Power Adaptors Due to Electric Shock Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yamaha Corp. of America, of Buena Park, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 49,000 Yamaha AC power adaptors.

The company said the housing of the power adaptor can separate,
posing an electric shock hazard to consumers. Yamaha has
received five reports of units separating. No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves the Yamaha PA-3C power adaptor with a date
code of 0624. The adaptor is used with Yamaha keyboards and
digital drum sets. The model number is written in white print on
the front of the plug of the adaptor and the date code is etched
into the plastic at the bottom of the plug panel. The adaptor
can be purchased as part of a set or separately.

These recalled power adaptors were manufactured in China and are
being sold at musical instrument retailers nationwide from July
2006 through September 2007 for about $20.

Picture of recalled AC power adaptor:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08078.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled power adaptor
immediately and contact Yamaha to return the power adaptor and
obtain a free replacement.

For more information, contact Yamaha Corporation of America
toll-free at (866) 509-0320 Monday through Friday between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. PT, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.yamaha.com/warranty_safety.asp


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Sanofi-Aventis
publicly traded stock or American Depository Receipts between
February 17, 2006 and June 13, 2007.

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

According to the complaint, in 2002, Sanofi began testing a new
drug, Zimulti, which is designed to fight obesity by reducing
appetite. As the first drug of its class, Zimulti was projected
to become extremely profitable for Sanofi. Sanofi submitted its
New Drug Application (NDA) for Zimulti in April 2005 and on June
23, 2005, the Company announced that the Food and Drug
Administration had accepted it for filing. The complaint alleges
that defendants' statements regarding Zimulti were materially
false and misleading when made because defendants concealed data
concerning Zimulti's propensity to cause depression.

On June 13, 2007, the committee met and made a unanimous
decision that Zimulti could not be recommended for approval.
After the FDA's decision on June 13, 2007, Sanofi's securities
declined $1.87, or 4.16%, closing at $43.07 on heavy trading
volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Sanofi publicly traded stock or ADRs during the Class Period.

Sanofi-Aventis engages in the research, development,
manufacture, and marketing of healthcare products worldwide.
Sanofi is the third largest pharmaceutical company in the world.

For more information, contact:

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


                           *********


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  * * *