CAR_Public/071126.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 26, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 234

                            Headlines


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Still Faces Patient Overcharging Suit in Wash.
ATLAS ENERGY: Settles Royalty “Underpayments” Suit for $300T
BC HYDRO: B.C. Residents Plan to Sue Over Power Surge Damages
BLUE PLANET: Recalls Pie Crusts Containing Undeclared Content
CARRIER ACCESS: $7M Col. Securities Suit Deal Yet to be Approved

CHARLEMAGNE CHOCOLATIERS: Recalls Choco Bars for Undeclared Milk
CONNECTICUT: Thames River Tenants' Lawsuit Gets Certification
DISCOUNT SCHOOOL: Recalls Brushes on Paint's High Lead Content
ELECTRONIC DATA: Court Upholds $137M Securities Suit Settlement
ELECTRONIC DATA: Tex. Court to Hear Motions in ERISA Litigation

EL PASO: Tex. Court Considers Motions in ERISA Violations Suit
EL PASO: Colo. Court Nixes Claims in ERISA, Age Bias Litigation
EL PASO: Motion to Dismiss Nev. Natural Gas MDL Remains Pending
EL PASO: Kans. “Price” Antitrust Suit Awaits Certification
GENTA INC: March Hearing Set for N.J. Securities Suit Settlement

GOODMAN GLOBAL: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over $2.65B Sale to H&F
HERBALIFE INT'L: Still Faces Calif. Unfair Trade Practices Suit
HERBALIFE INT'L: $7M TCPA Suit Settlement Awaits Final Approval
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Exclusion Deadline Set for “Grider” Lawsuit
KENTUCKY: Final Payments in Covington Diocese Abuse Case Out

LA FEMME: Recalls Kids' Jewelry Set on High Lead Content
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Craft" Lights Suit Set January 2009
PHILIP MORRIS: “Curtis” Lights Lawsuit Sent to State Court
PHILIP MORRIS: Court Keeps Ruling Dismissing “Price” Lights Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces “Watson” Lights Case in Ark. Court

PURE ALLURE: Recalls Crystal Jewelry on High Lead Content
ROYAL AHOLD: Hakon Invest Receives $19.5M from Settlement Fund
SAILING INT'L: Recalls Flashing Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard
SOUTHERN CO: Ga. Court Gives Final OK to ERISA Suit Settlement


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
VIRGIN MOBILE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.


                            *********


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Still Faces Patient Overcharging Suit in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Response, Inc., a subsidiary of Emergency
Medical Services Corp., continues to face a purported class
action in Spokane County Superior Court in Washington, which
accuses the company of engaging in an ongoing practice of
overcharging patients under a contract sanctioned and monitored
by city government.

The suit was filed on Dec. 13, 2005 on behalf of Lori E. Davis-
Bacon and Lorraine and Doug Bacon, all residents of Spokane.  It
was certified as a class action in June 2006.

The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third party
payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at
higher rates than contractually permitted.  

The suit alleges that patients picked up within the city of
Spokane are billed for more-expensive “advanced life support”
(ALS) services when they only need cheaper “basic life support”
(BLS).  The ALS base rate is $480, compared with the BLS rate of
$348.

Though the court has certified a class, the size and membership
of said class has not been determined, according to the
company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

For more details, contact:

         [Plaintiffs] D. Roger Reed, Esq.
         Reed & Giesa, P.S.
         222 North Wall, Suite 410
         Spokane, Washington 99201
         Phone: 509-838-8341
         Fax: 509-838-6341

              - and -

         [Defendant] Paul J. Dayton, Esq.
         Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC
         Wells Fargo Center, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
         Seattle, Washington 98104-4088
         Phone: 206-682-3333
         Fax: 206-340-8856


ATLAS ENERGY: Settles Royalty “Underpayments” Suit for $300T
------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Energy Resources, LLC and its subsidiary have settled a
purported class action in New York over royalty revenues with
respect to natural gas produced from properties it had leased,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Initially, one of the Company’s subsidiaries, Resource Energy,
LLC, together with Resource America, Inc., (the former parent of
Atlas America, Inc)., was a defendant in a class action
originally filed in February 2000 in the New York Supreme Court,
Chautauqua County, by individuals, putatively on their own
behalf and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, who
leased property to the Company.

The complaint alleged that the Company was not paying landowners
the proper amount of royalty revenues with respect to natural
gas produced from the leased properties.

The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount for the
alleged difference between the amount of royalties actually paid
and the amount of royalties that allegedly should have been
paid.

In April 2007, a settlement of this lawsuit was approved by the
court.  Pursuant to the settlement terms, the Company paid
$300,000 in May 2007, upgraded certain gathering systems, and
capped certain transportation expenses chargeable to the land
owners.

Headquartered in Moon Township, Pennsylvania, Atlas Energy
Resources, LLC -- http://www.atlasenergyresources.com/-- is a  
limited liability company focused on the development and
production of natural gas and, to a lesser extent, oil
principally in the Appalachian Basin.  


BC HYDRO: B.C. Residents Plan to Sue Over Power Surge Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action is being planned by Gold Bridge, British Columbia
residents whose appliances were destroyed because of a power
surge on Nov. 15, Larry Pynn of Vancouver Sun reports.  The
residents are claiming that BC Hydro and Power Authority refused
to accept blame for the power surge.

The power surge to Gold Bridge and a nearby recreational
destination, Gun Lake, blew out all electrical devices and
appliances in the area, the report said.  The company has blamed
what happened on weather and not corporate negligence.

Hydro spokeswoman Gillian Robinson said in an interview that
Hydro is not responsible for losses or injuries as a result of
problems, failures or defects in the delivery of electricity.

BC Hydro and Power Authority, a provincial crown corporation, is
the third largest electric utility in Canada. It serves over 1.5
million customers in an area containing more than 94% of BC's
population.


BLUE PLANET: Recalls Pie Crusts Containing Undeclared Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Planet Foods Inc., of Collegedale, Tenn., is recalling
3,898 individual retail units of Heartland brand Graham Pie
Crusts because they contain undeclared almonds, milk and
coconut. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
almonds, milk or coconut run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The Heartland brand Graham Pie Crusts were distributed through
retail stores nationwide.

The Heartland brand Graham Pie Crust is a ready-to-eat pie
crust, packaged in a foil pie tin with clear plastic cover and
labeled “Heartland Graham Pie Crust.” The pie crust has a net
weight of 6 oz. (170g). Affected pie crusts are limited to those
with freshness dates reading: “Best By Oct 27 2008 1” or “Best
By Oct 27 2008 3.”

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

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing almonds, milk and coconut was distributed in
packaging that did not reveal the presence of almonds, milk and
coconut. Subsequent investigation indicates that the problem was
caused by a temporary application of an incorrect label.

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to contact
the company’s consumer affairs department toll-free at 1-877-
885-6650 for a full refund.


CARRIER ACCESS: $7M Col. Securities Suit Deal Yet to be Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to
approve a proposed settlement of a securities class action filed
in June 2005 against Carrier Access Corp., and certain of its
executive officers and directors upon the company's announcement
that it would restate financial statements.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Carrier Access would
pay $7.4 million in satisfaction of the claims, all of which
would be funded by proceeds of the company's directors and
officers insurance policy.

                        Case Background        

Beginning on June 2, 2005, three purported shareholder class
actions were filed against the company and certain company
officials.  

The cases were:

      -- "Croker v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case No.  
         05-cv-1011-LTB,"  

      -- "Chisman v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case  
         No. 05-cv-1078-REB," and  

      -- "Sved v. Carrier Access Corp., et al, Case No.  
         05-cv-1280-EWN."

On Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The action is purportedly brought on behalf of those who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Oct.
21, 2003 and May 20, 2005.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, purported to assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

The complaint was primarily based upon allegations of wrongdoing
in connection with the company's announcement of the company's
intention to restate previously issued financial statements for
the years ended Dec. 31, 2003 and 2004 and certain interim
periods in each of the years ended Dec. 31, 2003 and 2004.

On March 17, 2006, the company moved to dismiss on numerous
grounds, including:

      -- failure to state a claim;

      -- failure to adequately plead a claim based upon
         purported failure to disclose "saturation" and product
         development delays;

      -- failure to plead specific facts giving rise to a strong  
         inference that defendants knew or were reckless in not  
         knowing that the 2003 and 2004 Annual Reports on Form
         10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q contained
         materially false financial statements; and

      -- failure to plead motive for defendants to commit fraud  
         and failure to plead a violation of Section 20A of the  
         Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Section 78t-1(a)).

On July 18, 2006, the Court denied defendants’ motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 6, 2007, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated class actions for a payment of $7.4 million.  The
settlement will be funded in its entirety by the proceeds of the
Company’s directors and officers’ insurance policy.  

The parties’ agreement must be documented and submitted to the
court for its approval.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Croker v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-01011-LTB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Lewis T. Babcock.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kip Brian Shuman, Esq.
         Dyer & Shuman, LLP
         801 East 17th Avenue
         Denver, CO 80218-1417
         Phone: 303-861-3003
         Fax: 303-830-6920
         E-mail: Shuman@DyerShuman.com

         Matthew M. Wolf, Esq.
         Allen & Vellone, P.C.
         1600 Stout Street, #1100
         Denver, CO 80202     
         Phone: 303-534-4499
         E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com
      
              - and -
  
         Karen Jean Cody-Hopkins, Esq.
         Charles Walter Lilley, Esq.
         Lilley & Garcia, LLP
         1600 Stout Street #1100
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-293-9800
         Fax: 303-298-8975
         E-mail: kcody-hopkins@lilleygarcia.com
                 clilley@lilleygarcia.com

Representing the company is:
      
         Karen Thomas Stefano, Esq.
         Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-493-6811
         E-mail: kstefano@wsgr.com


CHARLEMAGNE CHOCOLATIERS: Recalls Choco Bars for Undeclared Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlemagne Chocolatiers of Belgium is voluntarily recalling its
dark chocolate organic bars currently on the U.S. market because
it may contain undeclared milk protein.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products. Charlemagne Organic Bars are distributed
in the US by Belgium’s Best Chocolates, Inc. and were shipped to
retail stores in the following states:

         -- Michigan,
         -- California,
         -- New Jersey,
         -- New York and
         -- Massachusetts

Approximately 5000 units of dark Charlemagne organic chocolate
bars were distributed. The following chocolate bars are
affected:

          - Charlemagne Dark with Coffee 50 gr.(1.75 oz.) (UPC=
            5 425001 204038)

          - Charlemagne Dark with Cinnamon 50 gr.(1.75 oz.)
            (UPC= 5 425001 204052)

          - Charlemagne Dark with Orange 50 gr.(1.75 oz.) (UPC=
            5 425001 204021)

          - Charlemagne Dark with Green tea 50 gr.(1.75 oz.)
            (UPC= 5 425001 204045)

          - Charlemagne Plain Dark with Belize Chocolate. 50
            gr.(1.75 oz.) (UPC= 5 425001 204014)

No illnesses have been reported to date in the US. The
Charlemagne Organic dark chocolate bars were tested for milk
protein in the US by FDA after a recall was initiated in Canada.
The organic dark chocolate bars were distributed in packaging
that did not list milk protein in the ingredients or allergen
statement.

Consumers that have purchased Charlemagne Organic Dark chocolate
products can return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the U.S.
distributor at 1-877-INDULGE.


CONNECTICUT: Thames River Tenants' Lawsuit Gets Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Robert E. Beach Jr. granted partial class-
action status to a lawsuit filed by tenants of the Thames River
housing complex.  The suit was filed against the New London
Housing Authority and city officials over what the tenants say
are deplorable living conditions at the high rise apartments on
Crystal Avenue, Karen Florin of TheDay reports.

The tenants have complained about a number of safety and
sanitation issues, including drug addicts in the hallways, urine
in the elevators, pests like cockroaches and skunks on the
premises, and an inoperable security system.

Tenants further claim that for the past several months, only one
of the complex's three laundry rooms has been operating, forcing
tenants of all three buildings to share six washing machines and
six dryers.

In a 17-page decision Judge Beach Jr. granted class-action
status that enables the tenants to seek injunctive relief but
not compensatory damages.

According to the report, New London attorney Robert I. Reardon
Jr., who is representing the low-income tenants pro bono, said
the ruling gives more impact to the lawsuit, which will now
proceed on behalf of the approximately 280 people who live in
Thames River Apartments.

“We can put pressure on the city and its housing authority to
take some action now,” Mr. Reardon said.

He said he was not seeking monetary damages, just safe and
habitable housing for the residents of the high-rise.


DISCOUNT SCHOOOL: Recalls Brushes on Paint's High Lead Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discount School Supply, of Monterey, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
20,000 of shaving paint brushes.

The company said surface paint on the brush handles can contain
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recall involves a set of six "shaving-style" brushes,
which are about 4-inches long. The brushes' handles are painted
blue, purple, orange, yellow, lime green, and pink. The item
number #SHVBRSH is printed on the product's packaging. Brush
sets with handles in brown, dark blue, red, green, blue, and
black are not included in this recall.

The recalled brushes were also included with the "BioColor(r)
Foam Paint Starter Kit" and "Colorations(r) Foam Paint Starter
Kit."

The brushes were made in China and sold by Discount School
Supply's catalog and Web site from May 2004 through August 2007
for about $5. The BioColor(r) kits were sold from May 2004
through June 2006 for about $60. The Colorations(r) kits were
sold from July 2006 through August 2007 for about $60.

Consumers are advised to stop using the brushes immediately and
contact Discount School Supply to receive a free replacement
brush set.

For more information, contact Discount School Supply
at (800) 293-9314 between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday; visit http://www.discountschoolsupply.comor e-mail the
firm at brushrecall@discountschoolsupply.com


ELECTRONIC DATA: Court Upholds $137M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
sole remaining appeal that challenges the approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas of a $137.5
million settlement in the consolidated securities fraud class
action, “Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS) Securities
Litigation, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512 + Lead Case 6:03-CV-110.”

Electronic Data Systems, Inc. and certain of its former officers
are defendants in numerous shareholder class actions filed from
September through December 2002 in response to its Sept. 18,
2002 earnings pre-announcement, publicity about certain equity
hedging transactions that it had entered into, and the drop in
the price of EDS common stock.  

The cases allege violations of various federal securities laws
and common law fraud based upon purported misstatements or
omissions of material facts regarding the company's financial
condition.  

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities action filed a consolidated class action complaint.
The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Plaintiffs allege that the company and certain of its former
officers made false and misleading statements about the
financial condition of EDS, particularly with respect to the
Navy Marine Corps Intranet contract and the accounting for that
contract.  

On Nov. 1, 2005, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the lead plaintiff and class representative
to settle the consolidated securities action, subject to final
approval of the settlement by the District Court.  The District
Court approved that settlement on March 7, 2006.

The terms of the settlement provide for a cash payment of $137.5
million, substantially all of which was paid during the first
quarter of 2006.  

The amount paid by the Company aggregated $77.5 million, with
the remainder paid by its insurers (in addition to amounts paid
by such insurers in respect of legal fees related to this
action).

The Company recorded incremental reserves of $24 million in 2005
in connection with this settlement. The remaining cost of the
settlement was recognized in the Company's financial statements
prior to 2004.

Two appeals were filed with respect to the District Court's
approval of this settlement.  One appeal, which was dismissed in
June 2007, challenged the amount of attorneys fees awarded to
the counsel for plaintiffs.

The other appeal, which challenged the approval of the
settlement on the grounds that there is a subclass who receives
no economic benefit, the release is overbroad, and the claims
form was overly burdensome, was dismissed by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in September 2007.

For more details, contact:  

         EDS Corp. Securities Litigation
         c/o Poorman-Douglas Corporation, Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 3560
         Portland, OR 97208-3560  
         Phone: 888-230-9850
         Fax: 503-350-5890
         E-mail: edssecuritieslitigation@poorman-douglas.com
         Web site: http://www.edssecuritieslitigation.com

         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         12481 High Bluff Drive, Third Floor
         San Diego, CA 92130    
         Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com

              - and -

         Lowenstein Sandler P.C.,
         65 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Web site: http://www.lowenstein.com


ELECTRONIC DATA: Tex. Court to Hear Motions in ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is
expected to hear plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in the
lawsuit, “In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS) ERISA
Litigation, Case Mo. 6:03-MD-1512,” on January 2008.

Initially, five class action suits were filed on behalf of
participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan against the Company, certain
of its current and former officers and, in some cases, its
directors, alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
made misrepresentations to the class regarding the value of EDS
shares.  

All of the foregoing cases have been centralized in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA
action filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The consolidated complaint alleges violation of fiduciary duties
under ERISA by some or all of the defendants and violation of
Section 12(a)(1) of the U.S. Securities Act by selling
unregistered EDS shares to plan participants.

The defendants in the ERISA claims are EDS, certain current and
former officers of EDS, members of the Compensation and Benefits
Committee of its Board of Directors, and certain current and
former members of the two committees responsible for
administering the plan.

On Nov. 8, 2004, the District Court certified a class in the
ERISA action on certain of the allegations of breach of
fiduciary duty, of all participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan and
their beneficiaries, excluding the defendants, for whose
accounts the plan made or maintained investments in EDS stock
through the EDS Stock Fund between Sept. 7, 1999 and Oct. 9,
2002.

The court also certified a class in the ERISA action on the
allegations of violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities
Act of all participants in the Plan and their beneficiaries,
excluding the defendants, for whose accounts the Plan purchased
EDS stock through the EDS Stock Fund between Oct. 20, 2001 and
Nov. 18, 2002.

On Jan. 18, 2007, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal issued its
decision vacating the district court's class certification
decision and remanding the matter to the district court to re-
evaluate whether the action may be maintained as a class
certification in light of the Fifth Circuit's opinion and
instructions.  

The district court is expected to hear the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class consistent with the Fifth Circuit's ruling in
January 2008, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Leonard
Davis.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Barry C. Barnett, Esq.
         Susman Godfrey LLP
         901 Main Street, Suite 4100
         Dallas, Texas 75202-3775
         Phone: 214-754-1900
         Fax: 214-754-1933

Representing the defendants are:

         David J. Bailey, Esq.
         Michael McConnell of Jones Day
         1420 Peachtree Street Suite 800
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3053
         Phone: 214/969-3700
         Fax: 12149695100
         E-mail: djbailey@jonesday.com
                 mmcconnell@jonesday.com

              - and -
  
         Richard P. Keeton, Esq.
         Nickens Keeton Lawless Farrell & Flack
         600 Travis Suite 7500
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/571-9191
         Fax: 713/571-9652
         E-mail: rkeeton@nickenskeeton.com


EL PASO: Tex. Court Considers Motions in ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
yet to rule on various motions made in the class action,
“William H. Lewis, III v. El Paso Corp., et al.”

The suit was filed in December 2002, alleging generally that the
company's direct and indirect communications with participants
in the El Paso Corp. Retirement Savings Plan included
misrepresentations and omissions that caused members of the
class to hold and maintain investments in El Paso stock in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  

Various motions have been filed, and the company is awaiting the
court’s ruling, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Lewis, et al. v. EL Paso Corp., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-04860,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under Judge Lynn N. Hughes.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner and Bilek LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com

              - and -

         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         Three Bala Plz E., Ste. 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706

Representing the company is:

         Stephen D. Susman, Esq.
         Susman Godfrey, 1000 Louisiana Ste 5100
         Houston, TX 77002-5096
         Phone: 713-651-9366
         Fax: 713-654-6670
         E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com

    
EL PASO: Colo. Court Nixes Claims in ERISA, Age Bias Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed
certain claims in the purported class action, “Tomlinson et al.
v. El Paso Corp. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02686-WDM-OES.”

In December 2004, the purported class action lawsuit entitled
Tomlinson, et al. v. El Paso Corp. and El Paso Corp. Pension
Plan was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.

The lawsuit alleges various violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act as a result of its change from a final average earnings
formula pension plan to a cash balance pension plan.

Certain of the claims that said the company's cash balance plan
violated ERISA were recently dismissed by the trial court,
according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Tomlinson et al. v. El Paso Corp. et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-02686-WDM-OES,” filed in the U.S. District Court in
Denver, Colorado under Judge Walker D. Miller.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen R. Bruce, Esq.
         Stephen R. Bruce, Law Offices
         805 15th Street, NW #210
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-371-8013
         Fax: 202-371-0121
         E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net

              - and -

         Barry Douglas Roseman, Esq.
         Roseman & Kazmierski, LLC
         1120 Lincoln Street #1607
         Denver, CO 80203-2141
         Phone: 303-839-1771
         Fax: 861-9214
         E-mail: broseman@nela.org

Representing the company are:

         Raymond W. Martin, Esq.
         Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP
         1801 California Street #3600
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-244-1863
         Fax: 303-244-1879
         E-mail: martin@wtklaw.com

              - and -

         Christopher James Rillo, Esq.
         Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal
         685 Market Street, Sixth Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-882-5000
         Fax: 415-543-5472


EL PASO: Motion to Dismiss Nev. Natural Gas MDL Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corp., and certain of its affiliates, along with other
energy firms, continue to seek the dismissal of several lawsuits
accusing it of natural gas price manipulations.

The company is facing a set of cases filed on behalf of certain
purchasers of natural gas.  These include purported class
actions:

      -- "Leggett et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation et al."
         (filed in Chancery Court of Tennessee in January 2005);

      -- "Ever-Bloom Inc. v. AEP Energy Services Inc. et al."
         (filed in U.S. District for the Eastern District of
         California in June 2005);

      -- "Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Oneok Inc." (filed in
          state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas in July 2005);

      -- "Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok Inc." (filed in state court in
         Wyandotte County, Kansas in September 2005);

      -- "Breckenridge, et al v. Oneok Inc., et al." (filed in
         state court in Denver County, Colorado in May 2006);

      -- "Arandell, et al v. Xcel Energy, et al." (filed in the
         Circuit court of Dane County, Wisconsin in December
         2006); and  

      -- “Heartland, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.” (filed in the
         circuit court of Buchanan County, Missouri in March
         2007).

The Leggett case was dismissed by the Tennessee state court and
has been appealed.  The remaining cases have all been
transferred to a multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL) in
the U.S. District Court for Nevada and styled “In re: Western
States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation.”  

Cases within these MDL proceeding were dismissed.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, reversed the
dismissal and ordered that these cases be remanded to the trial
court.  Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration of
that ruling.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

El Paso Corp. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is an energy company  
that provides natural gas and related energy products.   


EL PASO: Kans. “Price” Antitrust Suit Awaits Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on
plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification of a second class
action filed against a number of El Paso Corp. subsidiaries and
other natural gas companies.

The suit “Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their
Predecessors, et al.” was originally filed in 1999, alleging
that the defendants mis-measured natural gas volumes and heating
content of natural gas on non-federal and non-Native American
lands.

Plaintiffs currently seek certification of a class of royalty
owners in wells on non-federal and non-Native American lands in
Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado.

The suit is seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages in
the form of additional royalty payments (along with interest,
expenses and punitive damages) and injunctive relief with regard
to future gas measurement practices.

Motions for class certification have been briefed and argued in
the proceedings and the parties are awaiting the court’s ruling.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

El Paso Corp. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is an energy company  
that provides natural gas and related energy products.  


GENTA INC: March Hearing Set for N.J. Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey set a
March 3, 2008 final fairness hearing for a proposed settlement
of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
Genta, Inc.

In 2004, numerous complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey against Genta and certain
of its principal officers on behalf of purported classes of the
company's shareholders who purchased its securities during
several class periods.

The complaints were consolidated into a single action and allege
that the company and certain of its principal officers violated
the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements regarding Genasenser for the treatment of
malignant melanoma that had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the company's securities.  

The shareholder class action complaint sought monetary damages
in an unspecified amount and recovery of plaintiffs’ costs and
attorneys’ fees.

The Company reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the
class action litigation in consideration for the issuance of 2.0
million shares of common stock of the Company (adjusted for any
subsequent event that results in a change in the number of
shares outstanding as of Jan. 31, 2007) and $18.0 million in
cash for the benefit of plaintiffs and the shareholder class.
The cash portion of the proposed settlement will be covered by
the Company’s insurance carriers.

Effective June 25, 2007, the Company and plaintiffs executed a
written Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement which was filed
with the Court on Aug. 13, 2007, seeking preliminary approval.

The unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement was
granted on Oct. 30, 2007, and the Settlement Fairness Hearing is
scheduled for March 3, 2008.

The suit is “In re: Genta, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:04-cv-02123-JAG-MCA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. with
referral to Judge Madeline C. Arleo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP
          10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 800.217.1522
          E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610.668.7987
          Fax: 610.660.0450
          E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          825 Third Avenue - 30th Floor
          New York, NY, 10022
          Phone: 212.838.7797
          Fax: 212.838.7745
          E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com

               - and -

          Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf
          Park 80 Plaza West-One
          Saddle Brook, NJ 7663
          Phone: 201845.9600
          E-mail: info@njlawfirm.com


GOODMAN GLOBAL: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over $2.65B Sale to H&F
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goodman Global, Inc. faces a purported class action in Harris
County District Court, Texas over an agreement wherein it agreed
to be acquired by affiliates of Hellman & Friedman LLC (H&F).

On Oct. 21, 2007, the Company signed a definitive agreement to
be acquired by affiliates of H&F in an all-cash transaction
valued at approximately $2.65 billion, on an enterprise value
basis.

The suit, styled, “Call4U Ltd. v. Carroll, Case Number 2007-
66888,” was filed on Oct. 26, 2007 on behalf of all similarly
situated stockholders of the Company.

It names as defendants the Company, all of its directors and
H&F, and it asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the directors and aiding and abetting such breaches against H&F.

The Company has not received service of process for this lawsuit
as of the date hereof.  

The plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the closing of the
merger, reimbursement of associated attorneys’ and experts’ fees
and other relief that the court deems proper.

Goodman Global, Inc. -- http://www.goodmanglobal.com/-- is a  
domestic manufacturer of heating, ventilation and air
conditioning products for residential and light commercial use.


HERBALIFE INT'L: Still Faces Calif. Unfair Trade Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its independent
distributors continue to face a class action in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court in California.

On Feb. 17, 2005, a suit, “Minton v. Herbalife International, et
al.,” was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco.  The suit was served on the company on March 14,
2005.  The company moved to transfer the case to the Los Angeles
County Superior Court.

The suit is challenging the marketing practices of certain
Herbalife International independent distributors and the company
under various state laws prohibiting “endless chain schemes,”
insufficient disclosure in assisted marketing plans, unfair and
deceptive business practices, and fraud and deceit.

Plaintiff alleges that the Freedom Group system operated by
certain independent distributors of Herbalife International
products places too much emphasis on recruiting and encourages
excessively large purchases of product and promotional materials
by distributors.

Plaintiff also alleges that Freedom Group pressured distributors
to disseminate misleading promotional materials.  Plaintiff
seeks to hold the company vicariously liable for the actions of
its independent distributors and is seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

The plaintiff seeks to hold Herbalife International vicariously
liable for the actions of its independent distributors and is
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Herbalife International, Inc. -- http://www.herbalife.com/-- is  
known for its weight loss products.  Herbalife also makes
dietary supplements as well as skin and hair care products.  Its
weight management products include dietary shakes, protein
snacks, energy enhancers, appetite suppressants, and digestive
supplements.  The company also offers a variety of supplements
that target men's and women's health, reduce stress, and support
immune system function.  Herbalife sells its plethora of
products through a network of more than 1 million independent
distributors located in more than 60 countries.


HERBALIFE INT'L: $7M TCPA Suit Settlement Awaits Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Ohio County in the State of West Virginia
has yet to grant final approval to a settlement of a purported
class action filed against Herbalife International, Inc. and
certain of its distributors, according to the company's Nov. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Filed on July 16, 2003, the complaint, “Mey v. Herbalife
International, Inc., et al.,” alleges that certain telemarketing
practices of certain company distributors violate the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint seeks to hold the
company vicariously liable for the practices of its
distributors.  

More specifically, the plaintiffs' complaint alleges that
several of the company's distributors used pre-recorded
telephone messages and autodialers to contact prospective
customers in violation of the TCPA's prohibition of such
practices.

The company's distributors are independent contractors and, if
any such distributors in fact violated the TCPA, they also
violated the company's policies, which require its distributors
to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws.

On Apr. 21, 2006, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification in West Virginia (Class Action Reporter, May 25,
2006).

The Company and the other defendants have reached a binding
settlement with the plaintiffs.  Under the terms of the
settlement the defendants collectively will pay $7 million into
a fund to be distributed to qualifying class members.

The settlement has received the preliminary approval of the
Court and final approval is expected to be received in January
2008.

Herbalife International, Inc. -- http://www.herbalife.com/-- is    
known for its weight loss products.  Herbalife also makes
dietary supplements as well as skin and hair care products.  Its
weight management products include dietary shakes, protein
snacks, energy enhancers, appetite suppressants, and digestive
supplements.  The company also offers a variety of supplements
that target men's and women's health, reduce stress, and support
immune system function.  Herbalife sells its plethora of
products through a network of more than 1 million independent
distributors located in more than 60 countries.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Exclusion Deadline Set for “Grider” Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma set a Jan. 21,
2008 deadline for requesting exclusion from the class that was
certified in the class action, “Grider, et al. v. Compaq
Computer Corp., Case No. CJ-03-969 L.”

The suit was filed by Stephen and Beverly Grider on June 2003,
accusing Compaq, now a part of Hewlett-Packard Co., of selling
defective computers that it then refused to repair.  It
generally seeks among other things, specific performance,
declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

On Sept. 23, 2005, the District Court granted the “Grider”
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class action, which
the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed on Oct. 13, 2006.

On Nov. 5, 2006, defendants filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari with the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking reversal of
the lower courts' decisions.  Defendants argued in court papers
filed with the Supreme Court that a virtually identical lawsuit
was brought in Texas in 2000, which was captioned, “LaPray v.
Compaq.”

That suit was filed in the District Court of Jefferson County,
Texas.  The basic allegation is that HP and Compaq sold
computers containing floppy  disk controllers that fail to alert
the user to certain floppy disk controller errors.  That failure
is alleged to result in data loss or data corruption.  

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray
case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the certification and remanded
to the trial court in May 2004.

In “Grider,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court not only certified the
class, but said that Texas law should be applied in the case
because, among other things, Compaq was headquartered in Texas.

The class has been defined as all persons who on or before Oct.
31, 1995, purchased any one or more of the following Compaq
model computers:

PRESARIO DESKTOPS

       -- 2266        -- 2275
       -- 2281        -- 2285V
       -- 2286        -- 2412ES
       -- 2416ES      -- 5070
       -- 5148        -- 5185
       -- 5301        -- 5304
       -- 5304B       -- 5340
       -- 5345        -- 5360
       -- 5365        -- 5410
       -- 5440        -- 5441
       -- 5451        -- 5452
       -- 5460        -- 5461
       -- 5465        -- 5710

PRESARIO LAPTOPS

       -- 17XL266        -- 17XL274
       -- 17XL264        -- 17XL260
       -- 17XL261        -- 17XL262
       -- 17XL275        -- 17XL265
       -- 1700T[CTO]

For more details, contact:

          Gary Neale Reger, Esq.
          Orgain Bell & Tucker, LLP
          470 Orleans Street, P.O. Box 1751
          Beaumont, TX 77704-1751
          Phone: (409) 838-6412
          Fax: (409) 838-6959

               - and -  

          Jimmy K. Goodman, Esq.
          Crowe & Dunlevy
          20 North Broadway, Suite 1800
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: 405-235-7717
          Fax: 405-272-5272
          Web site: http://www.crowedunlevy.com


KENTUCKY: Final Payments in Covington Diocese Abuse Case Out
------------------------------------------------------------
Final payments are going out to plaintiffs in a sex abuse class
action  filed against the Roman Catholic Diocese of  
Covington, Brett Barrouquere of The Associated Press reports.
  
In 2003, Cincinnati-based attorney Stan Chesley filed the class
action in Boone County Circuit Court, claiming that 21 priests  
and some other workers abused more than 150 victims in the  
Diocese of Covington for decades while church officials did  
nothing to stop the misconduct (Class Action Reporter, February
18, 2003).

According to court filings, from about 1956, information on the
sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been concealed
from the public, including parents of children in schools and
parishes where the alleged perpetrators were assigned, as well
as from family members of employees of the diocese.  The suit
accuses the diocese of a 50-year cover-up of sexual abuse by
priests and others.

In July 2005, a judge granted approval to a settlement between
victims of sexual abuse and the Diocese of Covington (Class
Action Reporter, November 8, 2005).

The settlement announced in June 2005 calls for the Northern
Kentucky diocese to contribute $40 million to the fund. The
diocese's insurance carriers would contribute up to $80 million.
It would compensate victims who were fondled, raped or sodomized
by priests and other church employees. The amounts paid out to
plaintiffs will depend on the size of the settlement fund, the
number and nature of claims and the severity of each victim's
abuse.

In recent development, lawyer Stan Chesley, who represents the
victims in the case said the settlement master in the case
approved the final payments.

According to Mr. Barrouquere, the settlement is between the
diocese and more than 350 people abused by priests and diocese
employees since the 1950s in 57 counties across a large swath of
Kentucky. It calls for victims to receive from $5,000 to $1
million based on the severity and duration of the abuse they
suffered. Some money has also been set aside to pay for
counseling for abuse victims.

David Clohessy, national director of SNAP, said the payments do
compensate victims, but are also a business decision by the
church to "prevent embarrassing trials.," Mr. Barrouquere said.


LA FEMME: Recalls Kids' Jewelry Set on High Lead Content
--------------------------------------------------------
La Femme NY 2 Inc., of Brooklyn, N.Y., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 4,500 La
Femme NY Children's Necklace and Earring Sets.

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

No incidents/injuries has been reported so far.

The recalled necklace and earring sets have a silver metal
chain and a round pendant with a light blue jewel and three
jeweled dangling charms.

The necklace and earring sets were made in China and sold at
various dollar stores nationwide from October 2005 to April
2007 for about $1.

Consumers are advised to stop using this product immediately and
return it to the store where it was purchased to receive a full
refund.

For additional information, please contact La Femme NY
2 Inc. at (866) 667-5369 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday or visit http://www.lafemmeny.comor e-mail the  
firm at corp@lafemmeny.net


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Craft" Lights Suit Set January 2009
------------------------------------------------------------
A January 2009 trial is set in the lights suit, "Craft v. Philip
Morris USA Inc., No. ED85142, 2005 WL 1944333," which is pending
in Missouri court.

The suit filed in 2000 alleged that Missouri consumers did not
receive "the qualities and economic value of low-tar, low-
nicotine cigarettes."  It said light cigarettes, when used
normally, actually deliver higher levels of tar and nicotine
than demonstrated in machine testing conditions.

Judge Michael David of the St. Louis Circuit Court certified a
class of plaintiffs consisting of state "residents who had
purchased [Philip Morris brand] lights in Missouri since 1971
but who do not have a claim for personal injury relating to
smoking." . . .

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In September 2005, PM USA removed Craft to
federal court based on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in another
lights suit "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284" in
Arkansas state.  

In March 2006, the federal trial court granted plaintiffs’
motion and remanded the case to the Missouri state trial court.
In May 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review the
trial court’s class certification decision. Trial has been set
for January 2009.


PHILIP MORRIS: “Curtis” Lights Lawsuit Sent to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A district court has remanded the light/ultra lights case,
“Curtis, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al.” to
Minnesota state court.

The suit was filed  November 28, 2001 in the Fourth Judicial
District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota.  In general, the
Lights/Ultra Lights class actions, allege, among other things,
that the uses of the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights”
constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law
fraud, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including
restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages.

These class actions have been brought against Philip Morris USA
and, in certain instances, Altria Lights Group and Philip Morris
International Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals
who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes,
including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims
Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights.

Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the
statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and implied preemption by
the policies and directives of the Federal Trade Commission,
non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct
that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First
Amendment.

In January 2004, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification and defendants’ motions for summary judgment. In
November 2004, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for
reconsideration and ordered the certification of a class. In
April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied defendants’
petition for interlocutory review. In July 2005, the trial court
granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending the
outcome of the appeal of the dismissal of the lights case,
“Dahl. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.”

In September 2005, PM USA removed Curtis to federal court based
on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in "Watson v. Philip Morris,
Case No. 05-1284" in Arkansas, which upheld the removal of a
Lights case to federal court based on the federal officer
jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission.

In February 2006, the federal court denied plaintiffs’ motion to
remand the case to state court. The case was stayed pending the
outcome of “Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” which was
argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit in December 2006.

In February 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit issued its ruling in Dahl, and reversed the
federal district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to remand
that case to the state trial court. On October 17, 2007, the
district court remanded the Curtis case to state court.


PHILIP MORRIS: Court Keeps Ruling Dismissing “Price” Lights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court granted Philip Morris USA’s motion
for supervisory order in the “lights” class action “Price v.
Philip Morris, Inc.,” and a trial court dismissed plaintiff’s
motion to vacate judgment dismissing the case.

The case was filed on February 10, 2000, in the Circuit Court
for the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.  Trial
in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in
January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the
plaintiff class and awarded approximately $7.1 billion in
compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against
PM USA.

In April 2003, the judge reduced the amount of the appeal bond
that PM USA must provide and ordered PM USA to place a pre-
existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from Altria Group Inc.
(ALG) to PM USA in an escrow account with an Illinois financial
institution.  The judge’s order also required PM USA to make
cash deposits with the clerk of the Madison County Circuit Court
in the following amounts:

     -- beginning October 1, 2003, an amount equal to the
        interest earned by PM USA on the ALG note ($210 million
        every six months),

     -- an additional $800 million in four equal quarterly
        installments between September 2003 and June 2004 and
        the payments of principal on the note, which are due in
        April 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Plaintiffs appealed the judge’s order reducing the bond. In July
2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that
the trial court had exceeded its authority in reducing the bond.
In September 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the reduced
bond set by the trial court and announced it would hear PM USA’s
appeal on the merits without the need for intermediate appellate
court review.

In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial
court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the
case to the trial court with instructions that the case be
dismissed.

In May 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’
motion for rehearing. In June 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court
ordered the return to PM USA of approximately $2.2 billion being
held in escrow to secure the appeal bond in the case and
terminated PM USA’s obligations to pay administrative fees to
the Madison County Clerk.

In November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied
plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari and, in December
2006, the Circuit Court of Madison County entered final judgment
in favor of PM USA and dismissed the case with prejudice.

In December 2006, the pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term
note from ALG to PM USA that was in escrow pending the outcome
of plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court was returned to PM USA. Plaintiffs filed a
motion to vacate or withdraw the Price decision based upon the
United States Supreme Court’s grant of the petition for writ of
certiorari in another lights class action, "Watson v. Philip
Morris, Case No. 05-1284" in Arkansas.

In May 2007, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion to
certify certain questions to the Illinois Fifth District
Appellate Court, and plaintiffs petitioned the Fifth District to
review the certified questions.

In May 2007, PM USA filed applications for writ of prohibition
and writ of mandamus with the Illinois Supreme Court seeking an
order compelling the lower courts to deny plaintiffs’ motion to
vacate and/or withhold final judgment.

In June 2007, the appellate court granted PM USA’s motion to
stay plaintiffs’ appeal pending resolution of related matters
before the Illinois Supreme Court.

In August 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court granted PM USA’s
motion for supervisory order and the trial court dismissed
plaintiff’s motion to vacate or withhold final judgment.

The suit is "Sharon Price and Michael Fruth, et al. v. Philip
Morris Incorporated, No. 00-L-112."

Class counsel is:

          Stephen Tillery, Esq.
          Korein Tillery
          10 Executive Woods Court
          Belleville, IL 62226
          Phone: (618) 277-1180
          Fax: (618) 222-6939
          E-mail: contact@koreintillery.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces “Watson” Lights Case in Ark. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA continues to face the lights class action,
"Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284" in Arkansas state
court.

The suit was filed by two Little Rock women, Lisa Watson and
Loretta Lawson in 2003 in Pulaski County Circuit Court in
Arkansas.  

In June 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed rulings by lower
federal courts in the case and remanded it to Arkansas state
court (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2007).  The Supreme Court
rejected defendants’ contention that the case must be tried in
federal court under the “federal officer” statute.

In considering the issue of federal jurisdiction in the Watson
case, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit earlier had ruled that because Philip Morris USA
tested and marketed its “Lights” cigarettes under the Federal
Trade Commission’s “direct and comprehensive control,” a federal
court should hear the case.  On June 11, 2007 the U.S. Supreme
Court reversed that decision, holding that the company’s
compliance with federal regulations did not confer exclusive
jurisdiction on federal courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to reverse rulings by lower
federal courts in the Watson case and remand it to state court
does not negatively affect the ultimate outcome of the case or
that of other “Lights” cases, Philip Morris USA had said in a
statement.

“[The] ruling is narrow and merely determined whether the Watson
case should be heard in federal court or state court.  We have
compelling defenses to the Watson claim that have been advanced
in state courts,” said William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA
vice president and associate general counsel.

Mr. Ohlemeyer added that the Watson case will have minimal
effect on “Lights” or other class actions filed against the
company after enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act in
2005, which requires most class actions to be heard in
federal court.

The decision clarified the procedural issue of when defendants,
who are acting under a federal agency like the FTC and sued in
state court, can remove the case to federal court.  While
[Mon]day’s decision does not directly address the issue of
whether the federal labeling act or agency regulation of a
defendant's advertising and marketing activities prevents
plaintiffs from suing under state consumer fraud laws, the Court
did note that Philip Morris USA was acting pursuant to
“...considerable regulatory detail and supervision...”

Philip Morris USA has long maintained that Congress and the FTC
created a comprehensive regulatory scheme for marketing "low
tar" and "Lights" cigarettes and, that these types of class
actions are pre-empted by federal law or exempted from state
consumer fraud laws.  Many courts have so held and this recent
decision adds further support to those rulings.

Altria Group Inc., the parent of Philip Morris, reported no
development in the case at its Nov. 6 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284."  The
plaintiffs' lawyer is:

          Steven E. Cauley, P.A.
          Cypress Plaza
          Suite 218
          2200 Rodney Parham Rd
          Little Rock, AR 72212-4155
          Fax: (501) 312-8505


PURE ALLURE: Recalls Crystal Jewelry on High Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------
Pure Allure, of Oceanside, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 200,000
Crystal Innovations jewelry.

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

No incidents/injuries has been reported so far.

The recalled products are metal jewelry components. The SKU
numbers can be located on the products' packaging above the
barcode. The following Crystal Innovations products are included
in the recall:

     Butterfly Charm SKU# 10369903
     Flip Flop Charm SKU# 10369909
     Heart Crystal Closure SKU# 10391027
     Heart Princess Closure SKU# 10391029
     Seabreeze Clasps SKU# 10391040
     Flower HK Crystal/AB Closure SKU# 10391046
     Flower HK Princess Closure SKU# 10391048
     Flower Rope Seabreeze Toggle SKU# 10391050
     Toggles w/Heart Crystal AB SKU# 10391052
     Toggles w/heart Princess SKU#10391054
     Princess Earring Set SKU# 10391076
     Slider Metal Rectangle Abalone SKU#10369900
     Charm Open Flower SKU# 10370038
     Earring Set Drop Crystal/AB SKU# 10391065
     Earring Set Drop Seabreeze SKU# 10391067
     Flower Charm SKU# 10369907
     Purse-Sunglasses Charm SKU# 10369910
     Heart Seabreeze Closure SKU#10391028
     Crystal/AB Clasps SKU# 10391039
     Princess Clasps SKU# 10391041
     Flower HK Seabreeze Closure SKU# 10391047
     Flower Rope Crystal/AB Toggle SKU# 10391049
     Flower Rope Princess Toggle SKU# 10391051
     Toggles w/heart Seabreeze SKU# 10391053
     Crystal/AB Earring Set SKU# 10391074
     Seabreeze Earring Set SKU# 10391075
     Toggle Bracelet SKU# 10370037
     Charm Open Cross SKU# 10370039
     Earring Set Drop Princess SKU# 10391066

No other Crystal Innovations products or SKU numbers are
included in this recall.

The jewelry were made in China and sold at Michaels Stores
nationwide from April 2006 to September 2007 for about $5.

Consumers are advised to immediately take these jewelry pieces
away from young children and return it to the store where
purchased for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Pure Allure at
(800) 536-6312 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday; visit http://www.pureallure.com/recallor e-mail the  
firm at info@pureallure.com


ROYAL AHOLD: Hakon Invest Receives $19.5M from Settlement Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swedish investor Hakon Invest AB has received payment from a  
settlement fund that was set up in connection with a settlement
of a class action against the Dutch company Royal Ahold in the
U.S.

The amount reportedly paid to Hakon Invest was $19.5 million and
corresponds to approximately 95% of the company's total claim in
the settlement.

The remaining 5% is expected to be paid out within twelve
months, the company added.

Hakon Invest, headquartered in Solna, Sweden, invests mainly in
unlisted companies in the Nordic retail sector. The company's
main investment is its 40% ownership in the retail group ICA AB.
Hakon Invest is listed on the Nordic Exchange in Stockholm.

                       Case Background

The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the
company to restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years.
Most of the problems were related to inflated earnings at the
company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in Columbia.  It alleged
that Ahold N.V. misled investors by presenting an inaccurate
financial picture of the company to stockholders and inflating
the price of its common stock.

It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA
Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven,
Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller,
Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William
J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild,
Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International,
ING Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based
upon the matters that Ahold first announced on Feb. 24.

The settlement of the suit covers Ahold, its subsidiaries and
affiliates, the individual defendants and the underwriters.   

It resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all
other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities.  The
settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a
recovery to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or
American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999 through Feb. 23,
2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased
their Ahold shares.

The settlement must be approved by at least 180 million shares
from about 800 million qualifying shares.  The average payment
is estimated to be $1.51 per Fund A share and 40 cents per share
for Fund B shares, according to court documents.  Claims are to
be made about 12 months after the court's final approval (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006).  The company denies any
wrongdoing in the settlement.

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
issued an order on Oct. 3 authorizing Lead Counsel and the
Claims Administrator to begin making Settlement payments to
Class Members of the class action against Royal Ahold N.V. in
the U.S. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 15, 2007).

For more information, contact the Claims Administrator by
calling one of the numbers provided below or writing to the
address below:

    In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities and Erisa Litigation
    c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
    Claims Administrator
    P.O. Box 9000 #6378
    Merrick, NY 11566-9000
    U.S.A.

    Country                   Toll Free Number

    Australia                 0011-800-1020-4060
    Austria                   0800-296107
    Belgium                   00-800-1020-4060
    Canada                    1-888-410-0027
    Denmark                   00-800-1020-4060
    England                   00-800-1020-4060
    Finland                   00-800-1020-4060
    France                    00-800-1020-4060 (France Telecom)
                              40-800-1020-4060 (TELE 2)
                              50-800-1020-4060 (Omnicom)
                              70-800-1020-4060 (Le 7 Cegetel)
                              90-800-1020-4060 (9 Telecom)
    Germany                   00-800-1020-4060
    Hong Kong                 001-800-1020-4060
    Ireland                   00-800-1020-4060
    Italy                     00-800-1020-4060
    Japan                     010-800-1020-4060
    Liectenstein              809-2288, ask to be connected
                              to 800-467-8208
    Luxembourg                00-800-1020-4060
    Netherlands               00-800-1020-4060
    Norway                    00-800-1020-4060
    Portugal                  00-800-1020-4060
    Scotland                  00-800-1020-4060
    Singapore                 001-800-1020-4060 (Singtel IDD)
                              002-800-1020-4060 (MobileONE IDD)
                              008-800-1020-4060 (Starhub IDD)
                              013-800-1020-4060 (Singtel
                              Budget Call)
                              018-800-1020-4060 (Starhub
                              I-Call)
                              019-800-1020-4060 (Singtel
                              V019)
    Spain                     00-800-1020-4060
    Sweden                    00-800-1020-4060
    Switzerland               00-800-1020-4060
    United States             1-888-410-0027
    International Toll Number +1-941-906-4864


SAILING INT'L: Recalls Flashing Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sailing (U.S.) International Corp., of Hackensack, New Jersey,
in connection with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling about 8,000 flashing pacifiers or 2-in-1 flashing
pacifiers with whistle necklaces.

The company said the nipple can detach from the base, posing a
choking hazard to young children.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled pacifier necklace has a 28-inch multicolored cord
with a 3- inch plastic pacifier that comes in assorted colors. A
hole at the tip of the nipple is used as a blow hole for the
whistle. The pacifier handle operates as the on-off button for
the flashing light on both pacifiers. ?Flashing Pacifier? or ?2-
in-1 Flashing Pacifier with Whistle Necklace? is printed on the
packaging of the pacifiers.

These recalled pacifiers were manufactured in China and are
being sold at various retail stores nationwide during the month
of June 2007 for about $5 per dozen.

Pictures of the recalled flashing pacifiers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08099a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08099b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the pacifiers
and return them to the store where purchased to receive a full
refund or discard the pacifiers.

For additional information, contact Sailing (U.S.) International
Corp. at (800) 643-6134 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sailingusintl.com


SOUTHERN CO: Ga. Court Gives Final OK to ERISA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Atlanta gave final approval to a proposed settlement of the
ERISA class action, “Spivey v. Southern Co. et al.”

The suit was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs and a class of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Southern Company Employee Savings Plan from April 2, 2001 to
July 26, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2007).

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the
Class members by:

     -- failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan’s
        assets;

     -- failing to provide participants with complete and
        accurate information regarding Mirant stock sufficient
        to advise participants of the true risks of investing
        their retirement savings; and

     -- failing to properly monitor the performance of their
        fiduciary appointees, and remove and replace those whose
        performance was inadequate.

Not all claims were brought against every Defendant.

On Oct. 4, 2005, the District Court issued an order in this
matter in which it denied Southern Company’s motion to dismiss
the three claims alleged in the Southern ERISA Complaint.

The Court also allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with the lawsuit
against all of the Defendants named in the Southern ERISA
Complaint.

By order entered June 12, 2007, Judge Richard W. Story of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
preliminarily certified Plaintiff’s claims as a Class Action,
preliminarily approved a Settlement Agreement that was reached,
and appointed Mark T. Spivey as Class Representative of the
Settlement Class.

Judge Story certified the following Settlement Class: “All
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Southern Company Employee Savings Plan at any time between April
2, 2001 and July 26, 2006 and whose Plan accounts held Mirant
Stock in the Plan’s Mirant Stock Fund, excluding the Southern
Defendants and the Immediate Family, beneficiaries, alternate
payees, Representatives, or Successors-in-Interest in connection
with their accounts in the Plan.”

On Aug. 14, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia issued a final order and judgment approving
the December 2006 settlement agreement.

The Southern Co. -- http://www.southerncompany.com/-- owns all  
the common stock of Alabama Power Co., Georgia Power Co., Gulf
Power Co., Southern Power Co., and Mississippi Power Co., each
of which is an operating public utility company.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of its client and on
behalf of other similarly situated purchasers of Dyadic
International, Inc. (AMEX: DIL - News) common stock between
April 5, 2006 through and including April 23, 2007.

The complaint charges Dyadic and one of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). It is
alleged that defendants omitted or misrepresented material
adverse facts about the Company's financial condition, business
prospects, and revenue expectations during the Class Period.

Dyadic is a biotechnology company with operations in the U.S.
and abroad. The Company purports to use its patented and
propriety technologies to conduct research and development
activities for the discovery, development, and manufacture of
products enabling solutions to the bioenergy, industrial enzyme,
and pharmaceutical industries, and was actively traded on the
American Stock Exchange.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued numerous materially false and misleading statements which
caused Dyadic's securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices.

More specifically, the complaint alleges operational and
financial improprieties perpetrated by the Company and its Asian
subsidiaries, and knowingly and/or recklessly approved by the
defendants, which culminated in an internal investigation and
subsequent firing of the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer Mark A. Emalfarb.

As a result of the improprieties in the Company's Asian
subsidiaries and the subsequent internal investigation, the
Company has abandoned its Asian operations and the Company's
stock, which was artificially inflated as a result of the
material omissions and misstatements contained within the
Company's publicly-filed financial statements and reports, has
not been publicly-traded since April 24, 2007 and is at risk of
being delisted, resulting in total loss of equity for owners of
Dyadic's securities.

According to the complaint, on April 24, 2007, the Company
shocked the market and announced that it discovered potentially
material operational and financial improprieties at its Asian
subsidiaries. As a result of these findings, the complaint
alleges that the Company began an independent investigation and
placed the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman on
leave. The complaint also alleges that the Company announced
that its "previously filed financial statements, including those
contained in its Annual Reports on Forms 10-KSB and Quarterly
Reports on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the SEC, should no longer
be relied upon."

Finally, the complaint alleges that all trading in the Company's
securities was halted because of the alleged improprieties.
Thus, the complaint alleges that the Company's shares have still
not yet had an opportunity to lose their artificial inflation.

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

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Robert Smits
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
          Email: stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com


VIRGIN MOBILE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has filed the first class action
against Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock of VM USA in connection with the
Company's IPO on or about October 11, 2007, or who purchased
shares thereafter in the open market.

VM USA, certain of its officers and directors, certain
controlling majority shareholders, and the Company's
underwriters are charged with including, or allowing the
inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Complaint charges that VM USA raised over $412.5 million
through the issuance of 27.5 million shares, despite the
Registration Statement's false and misleading statements.

Specifically, defendants each failed to conduct an adequate due
diligence investigation into the Company prior to the IPO, and
they also each failed to reveal, at the time of the IPO, that
Virgin Mobile was also not performing according to plan and that
results for the third quarter of 2007 -- the period ended a full
2 weeks prior to the VM USA IPO -- showed growing losses as
expenses rose and business slowed, indicating that the Company
would be forced to revise downward its near-term forward
financial and operational guidance.

On November 16, 2007, approximately one month after the IPO,
investors learned the truth about VM USA's financial and
operational condition, after defendants revealed that the
Company had suffered a widening loss for the third quarter, the
period ended September 30, 2007, as a result of rising expenses
-- a loss of $7.3 million, or ($0.15) per share, compared with a
loss of only $5.1 million, or ($0.10) per share, in the same
period the prior year. These results also contrasted the $28.9
million in net income, and profits of $0.55 per share reported
in the first six months of 2007, reported prior to the IPO.
Further, Defendants also revealed that fourth-quarter 2007
outlook called for between 350,000 and 400,000 net customer
additions, an anemic amount analysts described as "weak," and
that 4Q:07 guidance would be what was described as "well below"
expectations.

On this news, shares of VM USA fell nearly 30% in intra-day
trading, from an opening trading price of $11.09 per share to a
trading low of $8.07 per share before closing the trading day at
$9.10 per share, on exceedingly high volume of 6.512 million
shares.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 22,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.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  * * *