---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 9, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 134

                            Headlines


ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
APOLLO GROUP: Sept. 4 Trial Set for Consolidated Securities Suit
ASURION CORP: Cell Phone Insurance Suit Settlement Gets Final OK
AT&T INC: Manager Files Conn. Suit Alleging Wage-law Violations
BEARINGPOINT INC: Tellabs Ruling Could Affect Securities Suit

BROWN-FORMAN: Nixing of Alcohol Marketing Cases Still on Appeal
CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Sued over Allegedly Deceptive Drink Labels
CAGLES INC: Favored by Three-judge Panel, Workers File Appeal
COAST FINANCIAL: Fla. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
C.R. ENGLAND: Court Favors Owner-operators in OOIDA Federal Suit

DOLLAR TREE: Seeks to Dismiss Store Mangers’ Lawsuit in Calif.
EXTREME NETWORKS: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Stock Option Grants
FLOWERS FOODS: Lawsuit in Ala. Alleges Violations of Wage Laws
FOREIGN TIRE: Recalls China-Made Tires Distributed in U.S.
FUTURE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Kids’ Jewelry with High Lead Content

GATE SAFE: Sued in Calif. Over Alleged Unpaid Overtime Wages
HOST AMERICA: Settles Securities, Derivative Lawsuits in Conn.
IBASIS INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Prepaid Calling Cards
INDIANA: Gibson County Settles Suit Over Jail’s Poor Conditions
JACKSON FEDERAL: Faces Suits Over Insurance Products, “Junk Fax”

JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Litigation in N.J. Over “Gold Guarantee”
JACKSON HEWITT: Oct. 3 Hearing Set for Calif. RALs Litigation
JACKSON HEWITT: Appeals Remand of “Brown” Suit to County Court
KIPP BROTHERS: Recalls Toys with Magnets that can Fall Out
MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Blocks Transfer of Sick Prisoners

NVE CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Minn. Dismissed
NXCARE INC: Faces Mass. Suit Over Bogus Claims for Diet Pills
OCWEN LOAN: Appeals Court Keeps Mortgage Servicing Litigation
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Nov. Hearing Set for $13.75M Settlement
PHH CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Md. Litigation Over $1.8B Buyout

TYCO INT'L: PwC Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $225M
RED ROBIN: Sept. 28 Hearing Set for $1.5M Colo. Suit Settlement
RETAILERS: Cal. Judge Refuses to Certify Three FACTA Lawsuits
RSM EQUICO: Faces Calif. Suit Over Business Valuation Services
UNITED STATES: Agriculture Sec. Sued Over Gender Discrimination

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Settles Part-time Lecturers’ Lawsuit
VANGUARD GROUP: Sued in Calif. Over Fraud, Breach of Contract
VERISIGN INC: Faces Unfair Competition Charges in Calif. Lawsuit
VISA USA: Ia. High Court Junks Southard et al. Antitrust Lawsuit
WASHINGTON: Judge Denies Tacoma Man’s Electronic Info Request


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit


                            *********


ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allot Communications, Ltd. faces purported securities fraud class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
the company’s June 28, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In May and June 2007, the company and certain of its officers and directors
were named as defendants in a number of purported securities class actions.

The lawsuits, which are substantially identical, allege that we failed to
disclose in the registration statement for its initial public offering that
at the time of the initial public offering the company were experiencing
declining sales “in our indirect distribution channels, such as enterprise,
education and smaller ISP customers, in North America,” and on that basis the
complaints assert violations of U.S. federal securities laws.

Allot Communications Ltd. -- http://www.allot.com-- is a designer and  
developer of broadband service optimization solutions using deep packet
inspection (DPI) technology.  The Company's solutions provide broadband
service providers and enterprises with real-time, granular visibility into
network traffic, and enable them to manage and optimize their networks.


APOLLO GROUP: Sept. 4 Trial Set for Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona set a Sept. 4, 2007 trial
for summary judgment motions in a consolidated securities class action filed
against Apollo Group, Inc. and certain of its officers on behalf of
purchasers of the company's stock between Mar. 12, 2004 and Sept. 14, 2004.

On Oct. 12, 2004, a complaint captioned, "Sekuk Global Enterprises et al. v.
Apollo Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 04-2147 PHX NVW," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Another class action complaint, "Christopher Carmona, et al. v. Apollo Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. CV 04-2204 PHX EHC," making similar allegations was
filed on or about Oct. 18, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona.

A third class action complaint, "Jack B. McBride, et al. v. Apollo Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. CV 04-2334 PHX LOA," which made similar allegations
was filed on or about Oct. 28, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

The court consolidated the three pending complaints and the newly named lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 16, 2005.  

Lead plaintiff purports to represent a class of the company's shareholders
who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004 and Sept. 14, 2004, and seeks
monetary damages in unspecified amounts.  

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Exchange Act, by the company for their issuance of allegedly materially false
and misleading statements in connection with their failure to publicly
disclose the contents of the U.S. Department of Education's program review
report.  

A motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint was filed on Jun.
15, 2005, on behalf of Apollo Group, Inc. and the individual named
defendants.  The Court denied the motion to dismiss on Oct. 18, 2005, and
discovery commenced.

The parties conducted discovery from October 2005 until discovery closed on
Feb. 16, 2007.  On March 9, 2007, both parties filed motions for summary
judgment.

Opposition briefs were filed on May 11, 2007, and reply briefs were filed on
June 8, 2007.  The summary judgment motions are to be heard on Sept. 4,
2007.  

The case remains set for trial on Nov. 14, 2007, according to the company’s
June 28, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2007.

The consolidated action is "In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-02147," filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge James A. Teilborg.  

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert D. Mitchell, Esq.
         Mitchell & Forest
         2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 618
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Phone: 602-468-1411
         Fax: 602-468-1311
         E-mail: robertmitchell@mitchelllaw.com

              - and –

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph G. Adams, Esq.
         Snell & Wilmer LLP
         1Arizona Ctr., 400 E. Van Buren
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
         Phone: 602-382-6207
         Fax: 602-382-6070
         E-mail: jgadams@swlaw.com

              - and -

         Maureen Beyers, Esq.
         Osborn Maledon P.A.
         2929 North Central Avenue
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794
         Phone: 602-640-9305
         Fax: 602-664-2053
         E-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com


ASURION CORP: Cell Phone Insurance Suit Settlement Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patricia Seit of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted final approval to a settlement by certain defendants of the
class action, "Prohias, et al. v. Signal & Signal Hold, et al.," which
accuses cell phone equipment insurers of promoting cell phone insurance in
a "deceptive and outrageous" manner, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

                       Case Background

According to the suit, which was filed on behalf of a Dade County, Florida
resident, the insurance usually costs $4 or $5 per month and covers a lost,
damaged or stolen phone with a deductible of $35 to $100, (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 7, 2005).  

The suit names major cell phone insurance companies Signal Holdings of Wayne,
Pa., and the settling defendants, Asurion Corp. of Nashville, Tenn., and
Lock\line LLC of Kansas City, Mo.

Signal Holdings did not settle and is still in the lawsuit.  No trial date
has been set for the case, which will now continue against Signal Holdings
alone.

Generally, the suit alleges that a consumer could easily pay up to $120 over
two years for insurance and have purchased only $20 in actual coverage when
the $100 deductible is subtracted.  In many cases, according to the suit, the
insurance actually costs more than the purchase price of a new phone.

In addition, the suit also alleges that replacement telephones are often
cheap, used, or refurbished models which further decrease the value of the
insurance and monthly premiums are misleading since they don't really insure
the phone in the event of a loss.

Plaintiffs claim unfair trade practices and other violations against the
company for falsely representing that the purchase of wireless phone
protection provides a benefit (Class Action Reporter, June 26, 2006).

They also accused insurers of imposing unlawful and unfair conditions for
filing a claim, including requiring a police report even if a phone is lost
instead of stolen.

Damages sought include refunds for monthly premiums and reimbursement of any
deductibles paid that exceed the actual cost of replacement phones, plus
interest, costs and attorney fees.

                  Asurion & Lock\line Settlement

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted
preliminary approval to the settlement earlier this year (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 31, 2007).

The settlement between the plaintiffs, Asurion, and Lock\line, will affect as
many as 13 million cell phone customers.  Under its terms, all Asurion
brochures, advertisements and marketing materials will state that claims may
be fulfilled with "new and/or refurbished equipment" and that each
replacement is subject to a non-refundable deductible per loss.

Asurion has also agreed that if the value of the replacement phone is less
than the deductible, customers will be told so they can decide whether to pay
the deductible and proceed with the claim.

The nationwide class consists of all former and current Asurion or Lock\line
customers who made premium payments, filed a claim, and received a
refurbished phone between Jan. 20, 2004 and Jan. 26, 2007.  

They will get a phone card worth at least $5.  This will cost Asurion at
least $1.5 million and potentially as much as $60 million.

The 15,000 or so customers who submitted a claim during this time period and
got a refurbished phone -- generally worth $3 to $6 less than the deductible -
- will get a voucher for a new phone worth $75 to $100.  No other purchase is
required to use this voucher, which is fully transferable.

The suit is "Prohias, et al. v. Signal & Signal Hold, et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Patricia
A. Seitz with referral to Judge Chris M. McAliley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lance August Harke
          Harke & Clasby
          155 S Miami Avenue, Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-536-8222
          Fax: 536-8229
          E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com

          - and -

          Frank J. Janecek, Jr.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
          655 W Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 231-7423

Representing the defendants are:

          Brett Alan Barfield
          Holland & Knight
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-789-7661
          Fax: 789-7799
          E-mail: brett.barfield@hklaw.com

          Hilarie Bass
          Greenberg Traurig
          1221 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-579-0745
          Fax: 579-0717
          E-mail: bassh@gtlaw.com


AT&T INC: Manager Files Conn. Suit Alleging Wage-law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon L. Perkins, a manager at AT&T Inc. for 27 years, filed a lawsuit on
June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut claiming
the telecommunications giant violated state and federal wage laws by
designating her as manager in order to avoid paying her overtime, the New
Haven Register reports.

According to Edmond Clark, the plaintiff's Madison-based attorney, the
lawsuit seeks to have the court certify the case as a state and federal class
action.

The lawsuit contends that Ms. Perkins "customarily and regularly" performs
routine clerical and maintenance work as part of her job.

The designation, if approved by the court, would open the case up to at least
150 AT&T employees in Connecticut who have a similar title and employment
status, Mr. Clark said.

"Nationally, we could be talking about thousands of people who work for the
company who would be affected by this," he said.

Mr. Clark said the managers worked 60 hours a week on average. He
acknowledged that some of the individuals who would be affected by the
lawsuit if class-action status is achieved make as much as $70,000 a year.
But he said any attempts to portray them as disgruntled white collar workers
would be inaccurate.

"These are people who are working hard out there in the field," he said.

Mr. Clark is seeking $15 million, which factors in the number of AT&T
managers in Connecticut and the amount of overtime they worked over the past
two years, the report said.

The suit is “Perkins v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00967-JCH,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Janet C.
Hall.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Edmond Clark
          83 Scotland Avenue
          P.O. Box 133
          Madison, CT 06443-2501
          Phone: 203-245-4602
          E-mail: eclarkmadisonlaw@aol.com


BEARINGPOINT INC: Tellabs Ruling Could Affect Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in another case could affect the
outcome of a motion to dismiss filed by Bearingpoint Inc. in securities fraud
class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.

The suits filed after April 2005 claim that the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by, among other things, making materially misleading statements
between Aug. 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005 with respect to the company's
financial results in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings
and press releases.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court certified a class, appointed class counsel and
appointed a class representative.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on March 10, 2006 and the defendants, including the company, subsequently
filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, which was fully briefed and heard
on May 5, 2006.  

The Company was awaiting a ruling when, on March 23, 2007, the court stayed
the case, pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of “Makor
Issues & Rights, Ltd v. Tellabs,” argued before the Supreme Court on March
28, 2007.

On June 21, 2007, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Tellabs case,
holding that to plead a strong inference of a defendant’s fraudulent intent
under the applicable federal securities laws, a plaintiff must demonstrate
that such an inference is not merely reasonable, but cogent and at least as
compelling as any opposing inference of non-fraudulent intent.

The Supreme Court decision is expected to significantly inform the court’s
decision regarding the complaint and the company’s motion to dismiss the
complaint, according to the company’s June 28, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31,
2006.

The suit is "In Re BearingPoint, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00454-TSE-TCB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under Judge T. S.
Ellis, III with referral to Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steven Jeffrey Toll, Esq.
         Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
         1100 New York Ave., Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005-3965
         Phone: (202) 408-4600

Representing the defendant is:

         Charles William McIntyre, Jr., Esq.
         McGuireWoods, LLP
         1050 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1200
         Washington, DC 20036-5317
         Phone: (202) 857-1742


BROWN-FORMAN: Nixing of Alcohol Marketing Cases Still on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in some of the dismissed class actions against Brown-
Forman Corp. and many other manufacturers of spirits, wine, and beer, are
appealing the respective rulings, according to the company’s June 28, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2007.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged
marketing of beverage alcohol to underage consumers.

Nine lawsuits have been filed to date, the first three against eight
defendants, including Brown-Forman are:

      -- "Hakki v. Adolph Coors Company, et al.," District of
         Columbia Superior Court No. CD 03-9183  (November
         2003);

      -- "Kreft v. Zima Beverage Co., et al.," District Court,
         Jefferson County, Colorado, No. 04cv1827 (December
         2003); and

      -- "Wilson v. Zima Company, et al., U.S. District Court
         for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
         Division, No. 3:04cv141 (January 2004)."

Two virtually identical suits with allegations similar to those in the first
three lawsuits were filed in Cleveland, Ohio, in April and June 2004,
respectively, against the original eight defendants as well as an additional
nine manufacturers and are now consolidated as "Eisenberg v. Anheuser-Busch,
Case No.
1:04cv1081," pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern
Ohio.  

Five similar suits were filed in 2005:

      -- "Elizabeth H. Sciocchette v. Advanced Brands," Albany
         County, New York Supreme Court No. 102205 (Feb. 16,
         2005);

      -- "Roger and Kathy Bertovich v. Advanced Brands," Hancock
         County, West Virginia, Circuit Court No. 05-C-42M,
         (Feb. 17, 2005);

      -- "Jacquelin Tomberlin v. Adolph Coors," Dane County
         (Madison, Wisconsin) Circuit Court (Feb. 23,
         2005);"

      -- "Viola Alston v. Advanced Brands," Wayne County,
         Michigan, Circuit Court No. 05-509294, (March, 30,
         2005), and

      -- "Craig Konhauzer v. Adolph Coors Company," Broward
         County, Florida Circuit Court, No. 05004875 (March 30,
         2005).

In addition, Brown-Forman received in February 2004, a pre-lawsuit notice
under the California Consumer Protection Act indicating that the same lawyers
intend to file a lawsuit in California against many industry defendants,
including Brown- Forman, presumably on the same facts and legal theories.

The suits allege that the defendants have engaged in deceptive marketing
practices and schemes targeted at underage consumers, negligently marketed
their products to the underage, and fraudulently concealed their alleged
misconduct.

Plaintiffs seek class action certification on behalf of:

      -- a guardian class consisting of all persons who were or
         are parents of children  whose funds were used to
         purchase beverage alcohol marketed by the defendants
         which were consumed without their prior knowledge by
         their children under the age of 21 during the period
         1982 to present; and

      -- an injunctive class consisting of the parents and
         guardians of all children currently under the age of
         21.

The lawsuits seek:

      -- a finding that defendants  engaged in a deceptive  
         scheme to market alcoholic beverages to underage
         persons and an injunction against such alleged  
         practices;
    
      -- disgorgement and refund to the guardian class of all
         proceeds resulting from sales to the underage since
         1982; and

      -- judgment to each guardian class member for a trebled  
         award of actual damages, punitive damages, and
         attorneys fees.

The lawsuits, either collectively or individually, if ultimately successful,
represents significant financial exposure.

The company, in coordination with other defendants, is vigorously defending
itself in these cases.  

Brown-Forman and the other defendants have successfully obtained orders to
dismiss five of the pending cases:

      -- Kreft (Colorado) in October 2005,
      -- Eisenberg (Ohio) in February 2006,
      -- Tomberlin  (Wisconsin) in March 2006,
      -- Hakki (D.C.) in March 2006,
      -- Alston (Michigan) in May 2006, and
      -- Bertovich (West Virginia) in August 2006.  

In addition, Konhauzer (Florida), and Sciocchette (New York) voluntarily
withdrew their respective suits.   

Wilson (North Carolina) is pending decision on defendant's motion to dismiss.

The respective plaintiffs in the involuntarily dismisses case are appealing.  

The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the Hakki dismissal in June 2007.

Brown-Forman Corp. -- http://www.brown-forman.com/-- is a diversified  
producer and marketer of consumer beverage products, including Jack Daniel's
and its family of brands, Southern Comfort, Finlandia, Tequila Herradura, el
Jimador Tequila, Canadian Mist, Fetzer, Bolla, Sonoma-Cutrer wines and Korbel
Champagne.  The Company markets and sells various categories of beverage
alcohol products, such as Tennessee, Canadian, and Kentucky whiskies;
Kentucky bourbon; California sparkling wine; tequila; table wine; liqueurs;
vodka; rum; gin, and ready-to-drink products.


CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Sued over Allegedly Deceptive Drink Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Snapple, maker of teas and juice drinks, and its parent company Cadbury
Schweppes Americas Beverages, are facing a federal class action for labeling
Snapple drinks “all natural”, NJ.com’s Greg Saitz reports.

East Brunswick attorney Philip Tortoreti filed the complaint, which seeks
class-action status on behalf of Stacy Holk.  It was initially filed in
Superior Court in Monmouth County, New Jersey and was eventually moved to
federal court.

The suit claims that using high-fructose corn syrup in the drinks makes
the "all natural" label false and deceptive.

It aims to represent all New Jersey residents who drank certain Snapple teas
and juice drinks for the past six years.  It asks a judge to order the
company to change the products’ labeling and refund consumers.

Cadbury Schweppes could lose millions of dollars if the suit succeeds.

High-fructose corn syrup is derived from corn starch processed with enzymes
to produce glucose and fructose.  Thus, the sweetener charge is not natural
because of the several processes it undergoes.

Cadbury Schweppes spokesman Chris Barnes said "the plaintiff's claims are
without merit and we plan to defend against them vigorously."

Plaintiff’s counsel:

          Philip A. Tortoreti, Esq.
          Tortoreti, Tomes & Callahan, P.C.
          150-B Tices Lane
          East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816
          Phone: 732-257-9100
          Fax: 732-257-9012
          Web Site: http://www.lawyers.com/ttc


CAGLES INC: Favored by Three-judge Panel, Workers File Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eight workers who filed a suit against Cagle's Inc. are appealing a recent
ruling by a three-judge panel to deny class-action status to the case,
according to WALB News.

In its decision last month, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Atlanta, Georgia said workers must not receive compensation for time spent in
preparing for work.

The seven-year legal battle was originally brought by a dozen poultry workers
at six plants in Georgia owned either by Atlanta-based Cagle or its
subsidiary.

The suit obtained a class-action status from the lower court on behalf of
about 2,200 workers.  But the Appeals Court’s decision on June 12 removed its
class-action status, reaffirming a district court’s decision in December 2005
to trash the case.

The workers argued they deserve to be paid for what they call "donning and
doffing time," the time spent in putting on and taking off protective clothes
required for work.

Cagle’s Inc. had settled but the affiliate Cagle Foods, now Equity Group
Georgia Division, continued to contest the issue.  

Not giving up, the workers’ attorneys filed a motion to have the Eleventh
Circuit review and reconsider its decision or have the full appellate court
go over the case.

Attorney Howard Rosenthal represents Equity Group.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Herman N. (Rusty) Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC
          The Kress Building, 301 Nineteenth Street North
          Birmingham, Alabama 35203
          Phone: 205-314-0500
          Fax: 205-254-1500
          Web Site: http://www.wcqp.com


COAST FINANCIAL: Fla. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Tampa consolidated into one case three stockholder
lawsuits against Coast Financial Holdings Inc., according to John Hielscher
of the Herald Tribune.

The judge named Daniel Altenburg, who says he lost $48,030 on Coast's stock;
and Troy Ratcliff, who claims an $18,334 loss, as lead plaintiffs.

Coast Financial and certain of its present and former officers were named as
defendants in three purported class action complaints filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suits are:

     * "Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania v. Brian P. Peters, et al.,
        Case No. 8:07-cv-00479-RAL-EAJ," filed with the Court on
        March 20, 2007;

     * "Troy Ratcliff v. Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 8:07-cv-00504-RAL-MAP," filed on March 26,
        2007; and

     * "Daniel Altenburg v. Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., et
        al., Case No. 8:07-cv-642-T-17TGW," filed on April 13,
        2007.

Each complaint is brought by purchasers of the Company’s common stock on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the
Company’s common stock during a class period defined in each complaint.  

The class period in the Grand Lodge complaint is October 28, 2005 through
January 19, 2007; the class period in the Ratcliff complaint is October 5,
2005 through January 25, 2007; and the class period in the Altenburg
complaint is January 21, 2005 through January 19, 2007.

The judge in the case is Richard A. Lazzara.

Coast is operating under a federal cease-and-desist order.  It is facing
financial and legal problems in relation to a $110 million in loans it
granted to nearly 500 customers of Construction Compliance Inc. of St.
Petersburg, which is now in bankruptcy proceedings.
    

C.R. ENGLAND: Court Favors Owner-operators in OOIDA Federal Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Ted Stewart ruled that motor carrier C.R. England
violated truth-in-leasing regulations between June 1998 to August 2002 by
failing to specify charge-back items and forcing purchase of services in its
contracts with owner-operators.  

The judge also found that the motor carrier had improperly managed truckers’
escrow accounts.  He ordered C.R. England to provide an accounting of
disbursements of truckers’ escrow funds, which amount to more than $6.3,
according to the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.  He gave the
motor carrier 30 days from June 20 to file a written proposal regarding the
accounting of the truckers’ escrow money.

“...[T]his is really the first suit that has gone to trial on the merits on
the merits -– the merits being the actual wording of the truth-in-leasing
regulations..,” according to Jim Johnston, president and chief executive of
OOIDA.

OOIDA filed the case against the carrier in June 2002 along with five of its
owner-operator members. It was certified as a class action in August 2005 on
behalf of owner-operators who entered into a lease agreement with C.R.
England from June 1998 to August 2002.

C.R. England has since amended its lease document and required all of its
owner-operators to sign a new agreement.

The suit is “OOIDA vs. C.R. England,” filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah.


DOLLAR TREE: Seeks to Dismiss Store Mangers’ Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California federal court has yet to hear a motion seeking to dismiss a
purported class action filed against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. by one present
and one former store manager.

The suit was served on the company on 2007.  In it, plaintiffs claim that
they should have been classified as non-exempt employees under both the
California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act.  

They filed the case as a class action on behalf of California based store
managers.  

The company responded with a motion to dismiss, which has not yet been heard
by the court, according to the company’s June 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
May 5, 2007.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com-- operates discount  
variety stores, offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar.  As of
Feb. 3, 2007, the company operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Stock Option Grants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc. faces a litigation filed as a derivative action and as
a class action regarding its stock option granting practices.

On April 25, 2007, an individual identifying herself as a shareholder of the
Company filed a derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California purporting to assert claims on behalf of and in the
name of the Company against various of its current and former directors and
officers relating to the company’s stock option granting practices for stock
options issued from 2000 to 2003.

The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and other obligations to the Company and violated federal securities
laws in connection with the company’s historical stock option granting
process and its accounting for past stock options.

The plaintiff has asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) (including
Rule 10b-5 thereunder), 14(a), and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting
such breach, rescission, and a claim for an accounting of all stock option
grants made to the named defendants.

On behalf of Extreme Networks, Inc., the plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary
and other relief against the named defendants.  The plaintiff is Yenna Wu.  

Extreme Networks, Inc. is named as a nominal defendant in these actions.  The
individual named defendants are:

      -- Gordon L. Stitt,
      -- Herb Schneider,
      -- Stephen Haddock,
      -- Paul Romeo,
      -- Vito Palermo,
      -- Harold Covert,
      -- Darrell Scherbarth,
      -- Christopher N. Todd,
      -- Alexander J. Gray,
      -- Frank C. Carlucci,
      -- William R. Slakey,
      -- Charles Carinalli,
      -- Harry Silverglide,
      -- Michael West,
      -- Kenneth Levy,
      -- Robert L. Corey,
      -- Peter Wolken, and
      -- Promod Haque.

On June 15, 2007, Yenna Wu filed an amended complaint in her action.  The
amended complaint names one additional individual defendant, Mark Canepa, as
well as the individual defendants named in the derivative complaints filed on
April 25, 2007 and May 2, 2007.

Extreme Networks, Inc. -- http://www.extremenetworks.com/-- is a provider of  
network infrastructure equipment for corporate, government, education and
healthcare enterprises and metropolitan telecommunications service
providers.  The Company's principal products are the Summit Stackable Product
Family, BlackDiamond Modular Chassis, Alpine Modular Chassis and ExtremeWare
Software.  Extreme's Layer 3 Summit, BlackDiamond and Alpine products share
the same common hardware and operating system, enabling businesses to build a
network infrastructure that is simple and easy to manage.


FLOWERS FOODS: Lawsuit in Ala. Alleges Violations of Wage Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 2 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Charles Morrow and Michael Overton allege denial of overtime
compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Morrow et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
00617-ID-TFM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, under Judge Ira De Ment with referral to Judge Terry F. Moorer.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Greg Louis Davis
          6987 Halycon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Phone: 334-832-9080
          Fax: 334-409-7001
          E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr.
          Whatley Drake LLC
          PO Box 10647
          Birmingham, AL 35202-0647
          Phone: 205-328-9576
          Fax: 328-9669
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleydrake.com

          - and –

          E. Kirk Wood
          Law Office of Archie Lamb
          2017 2nd Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35201
          Phone: 205-324-4644


FOREIGN TIRE: Recalls China-Made Tires Distributed in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------
A Philadelphia attorney filed a class action over recalled China-made tires
that lack safety component and de-tread, Nydia Han of 6abc.com reports.  The
federal government is recalling about half a million of these tires.

The report quotes Jeffrey Killino of the law firm Woloshin and Killino: "So
that this manufacturer and other manufacturers in China and throughout the
world can learn that you can't come to where America started here in
Philadelphia and put a dangerous tire on the road without consequences."

According to the report, the federal government said the tires' U.S.
importer, Foreign Tire Sales, is responsible for the U.S. recall.


FUTURE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Kids’ Jewelry with High Lead Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Future Industries, of Cliffwood Beach, N.J., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling nearly 20,000
Essentials for Kids Jewelry Sets.

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

Future Industries have not received injury or incident reports.

The recalled jewelry sets include a necklace, bracelet and pair of earrings
made of green, blue or pink plastic beads.  The necklaces have painted
metallic pendants in the shape of shoes, girls, blackboards with “ABCD,” or
school buses.  The other recalled jewelry sets include a necklace and seven
pendants, one for each day of the week.  The pendants are shaped as sandals,
purses or butterflies.  “Essentials for kids” is printed on the packaging.

These jewelry sets were manufactured in China and were sold at Gift stores,
dollar stores, and small discount stores nationwide from August 2005 through
April 2007 for about $1.

Click on the link below to view photo of recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07232.html

Consumers should immediately take the recalled jewelry away from children.  
Return it to the store where purchased for a full refund, or contact Future
Industries for information on receiving a full refund.

For additional information, contact Future Industries at (800) 929-0006
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


GATE SAFE: Sued in Calif. Over Alleged Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Gate Safe, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 14 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Patricia Struthers alleges denied overtime compensation, a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit is “Patricia Struthers v. Gate Safe, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
03879-GW-RZ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge George H. Wu with referral to Judge Ralph Zarefsky.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Roger R. Carter
          Carter Law Firm
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: 949-260-4737

          Scott B Cooper
          Cooper Jones and Cooper
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: 714--724-9200
          E-mail: scooper@cooperjones.com

          - and -

          Jose R. Garay
          Jose Garay Law Offices
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: 949-260-9193


HOST AMERICA: Settles Securities, Derivative Lawsuits in Conn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Host America Corp., its past and present directors and officers named as
defendants in a federal securities class action and a related shareholders
derivative action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut filed on May 22, 2007 agreements to settle and fully resolve all
claims against the defendants.

The actions concern allegations stemming from a press release issued by the
Company on July 12, 2005.  In general, plaintiffs alleged that Host's July
12, 2005 press release contained materially false and misleading statements
regarding Host's commercial relationship with Wal-Mart.  

The complaints alleged that these statements harmed the purported class by
artificially inflating the price of Host's securities and that certain
defendants personally benefited from the inflated price by selling stock
during the alleged class period.

The parties have asked the Court to grant preliminary approval of the
settlements.  The settlements remain subject to additional contingencies,
including final approval by the Court.

If the settlement agreement is approved in its present form, the Host
defendants will use all of the available proceeds from a directors and
officers insurance policy to partially fund the settlement, and will release
the carrier from further liability for claims concerning the Company’s July
12, 2005 press release.  

The Company has not settled two other actions also concerning the July 12,
2005 press release, which remain pending in Connecticut Superior Court.  The
settlement agreements are available to the public at the Clerk’s Office, U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, Abraham Ribicoff Federal
Building, 450 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06103.  

The case is “Yorks v. Host America Corp., et al. (In re Host America Corp.
Securities Litigation), Case No. 3:05-cv-01250 (VLB)(District of
Connecticut).”


IBASIS INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Prepaid Calling Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
iBasis, Inc. is a defendant in a purported consumer fraud class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California regarding
prepaid calling cards.

The suit, “Nora Monday v. iBasis Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-03802 MMM,” was filed
on June 12, 2007, alleging violations of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

The putative class action plaintiff asserts that prepaid phone cards that the
company sells often expire without notice and without the consumer’s
knowledge, charge rates that are frequently higher than stated in the uniform
representations of the cards and include hidden charges.  

The suit is “Nora Monday v. iBasis, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-03802-MMM-SH,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


INDIANA: Gibson County Settles Suit Over Jail’s Poor Conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gibson County Commissioners signed a settlement ending a four-year old class
action brought by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union over poor conditions at
the county jail, The Daily Clarion’s Andrea Howe reports.

ICLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of inmates in U.S. Southern Indiana District
Court in Evansville nearly four years ago.  

The complaint claimed that the jail constantly operates beyond the 109 bed
capacity.  In fact, in an Indiana Department of Corrections June 2002
inspection report, the jail was overcrowded 80 percent of the time and was
short of staff.

The proposed settlement is between ICLU, the sheriff's department and the
commissioners for the jail.

Except for a November 2004 payment of $13,000 for attorneys’ fees, the
settlement does not include monetary damages for plaintiffs.  However, it
does cover costs as part of a provision that the suit would end in private
settlement rather than complainants seeking a preliminary injunction.

The key stipulations in the settlement includes completion of the new work
release center by fall, 137 beds in maximum security with 120 work release
beds and eight detox units.

The settlement allows the jail population to go beyond 137 prisoners in some
conditions and hiring one more staff member to the jail, which was already
done last June.

It also enumerates the improvements made in providing health care and
recreation.


JACKSON FEDERAL: Faces Suits Over Insurance Products, “Junk Fax”
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Federal Bank, which is owned by the Jackson National Life Insurance
Co., a subsidiary of British insurance company, Prudential plc, is involved
as a defendant in class action litigation substantially similar to class
action litigation pending against many life insurance companies that allege:

     -- misconduct in the sale and administration of insurance
        Products; and

     -- class action litigation that alleges violation of law
     forbidding unsolicited mass facsimile transmission.

Jackson with respect to pending litigation generally accrues a liability for
legal contingencies once management determines that the contingency is
probable and estimable.

Accordingly, Jackson on Dec. 31, 2006 had recorded an accrual of 11.0 million
for class action litigation, according to the Prudential plc’s June 28, 2007
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Prudential plc -- http://www.prudential.co.uk-- is an international retail  
financial services group.  Its products include retail products, which
include annuities, corporate pensions, with-profits and unit-linked bonds,
savings and investments, protection, equity release and health insurance, and
wholesale products, which include bulk annuities and annuity back-books.  The
company’s primary segments are long-term business, banking, and broker-dealer
and fund management.  


JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Litigation in N.J. Over “Gold Guarantee”
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey with regards to its “Gold
Guarantee.”

On June 22, 2007, James Chapman brought a purported class action complaint
against Jackson Hewitt Inc. and certain unknown franchisees on behalf of
customers whose returns were deemed improper by the IRS and then were denied
Gold Guarantee claims for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and
the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act as well as breach of contract
and unjust enrichment.

The suit is “Chapman v. Jackson Hewitt Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02910-
KSH-PS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Hagens Berman, P.S.
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: (206) 623-7292

              - and -

         Simon B. Paris
         Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.
         One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: (215) 496-8282
         Fax: (215) 496-0999
         E-mail: sparis@smbb.com


JACKSON HEWITT: Oct. 3 Hearing Set for Calif. RALs Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 3, 2007 class certification hearing has been tentatively scheduled
for a lawsuit filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., Santa Barbara
Bank & Trust (SBB&T), and Cendant Corp. in relation to Refund Anticipation
Loans (RALs).

On March 18, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors brought
the purported class action in the Superior Court of California (San
Francisco), subsequently adding Cendant, in the Superior Court of California
(Santa Barbara, following a transfer from San Francisco).

The suit seeks declaratory relief in connection with the provision of RALs,
as to the lawfulness of the practice of cross-lender debt collection, as to
the validity of Santa Barbara's cross-lender debt collection provision and as
to whether the method of disclosure to customers with respect to the
provision is unlawful or fraudulent.

It is also seeking injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory
damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses.

The company is a party in the action for allegedly collaborating, and aiding
and abetting, in the actions of SBB&T.

The trial court granted a motion by Santa Barbara and third-party bank
defendants on federal preemption grounds, and stayed all other proceedings
pending appeal.  

The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's preemption
decision.  The California Supreme Court denied review.

SBB&T and third-party banks moved in the California Court of Appeal to stay
remittitur pending certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 4, 2007, the U.S Supreme Court denied certiorari, and the purported
class action suit is proceeding in the trial court.

A class certification hearing has been tentatively scheduled for Oct. 3,
2007, according to the company’s June 29, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2007.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/-- provides  
computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual income tax
returns through a network of franchised and company-owned tax offices
operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The
Company provides its customers with accurate tax return preparation services
and electronic filing.  Its customers may select various financial products
to suit their needs, including refund anticipation loans (RALs).  During the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2006 (fiscal 2006), the Company's network
consisted of 6,022 franchised and company-owned offices and prepared 3.7
million tax returns.  Jackson Hewitt generates revenues from fees paid by its
franchisees, service revenues earned at company-owned offices and financial
product related revenues.


JACKSON HEWITT: Appeals Remand of “Brown” Suit to County Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal
by Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. on a decision to remand the purported
class action, "Brown v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-02632-PAG," to
the Cuyahoga County (O.) Court of Common Pleas.  

Initially, on Sept. 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported class action
complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
County, in connection with an alleged failure to comply with Ohio's Credit
Services Organization Act, and for alleged unfair and deceptive acts in
violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act, and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

On Oct. 30, 2006, the company filed a notice removing the complaint to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss, and a motion to stay
proceedings and to compel arbitration.  On Dec. 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a
motion to remand the case to the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
which the company opposed on Jan. 16, 2007.

On Feb. 27, 2007 the Court entered an order remanding the case to the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, without ruling on the other pending
motions.

On March 6, 2007, the company filed for permission to appeal the remand
decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  

A decision by the court is currently pending, according to the company’s June
29, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2007.

The suit is "Brown v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-02632-PAG," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge
Patricia A. Gaughan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
         The Law Office of Ronald I. Frederick
         Ste. 1300, 55 Public Square
         Cleveland, OH 44113
         Phone: 216-502-1055
         Fax: 216-781-1749
         E-mail: RonF@ClevelandConsumerLaw.com

              - and -

         Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
         Dworken & Bernstein
         Painesville, 60 South Park Place
         Painesville, OH 44077
         Phone: 440-352-3391
         Fax: 440-352-3469
         E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:
         
         G. Karl Fanter, Esq.
         Baker & Hostetler
         3200 National City Center, 1900 East Ninth Street
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 216-861-7918
         Fax: 216-696-0740
         E-mail: kfanter@bakerlaw.com


KIPP BROTHERS: Recalls Toys with Magnets that can Fall Out
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kipp Brothers, of Carmel, Ind., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of about 800 Mag Stix
Magnetic Building Sets.

According to the company, small magnets inside the plastic sticks can fall
out.  Magnets found by young children can be swallowed or aspirated.  If more
than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause
intestinal perforation or blockage, which can be fatal.

CPSC has received one report of an eight-year-old girl who was hospitalized
after swallowing loose magnets.  Extensive surgery was required to remove the
magnets and repair intestinal perforations.

The recalled Mag Stix sets contain 24 pieces including twelve 1-inch sticks,
four 2.25-inch sticks, and eight metal balls.  The sticks are yellow, green,
blue and rust-colored.  “Item No. 40330 Made in China” and UPC number 7 7704
40330 1 are printed on the packaging.

These toys were manufactured in China and were sold through Kipp Brothers’
showroom, Fall 2005 catalog and Web site (order # NB8141) from September 2005
through March 2006 for about $3.

Click on the link to view photo of recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07231.html

Consumers should immediately take these recalled toys away from children and
contact Kipp Brothers for instructions on returning the product for a full
refund (including shipping).

For additional information, call Kipp Brothers at (800) 428-1153 between 8:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the Web site at
http://www.kipptoys.com.


MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Blocks Transfer of Sick Prisoners
---------------------------------------------------------
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Michigan Department of
Corrections to transfer only healthy inmates at the Southern Michigan
Correctional Facility to other prisons, David Eggert of Associated Press
reports.

The court allowed the transfer of about 300 healthy inmates but kept some 700
sick prisoners beyond July the 15 schedule to close the prison.

The state announced a plan to shut down the facility on July 15 as part of
its cost-cutting plan because it said the old prison was too expensive to
operate, but a legal fight over concerns about prisoner health care has
complicated the state's plans.

Inmates involved in the class action argue that the planned closure of
Southern Michigan is an attempt to escape long-standing federal oversight,
according to the report.

The case filed in the 1980s against the prison system alleges that the
hospital and other medical units in the Jackson prison complex are
understaffed with doctors and nurses.  As a result, written requests by
inmates for medical help often are delayed for several days or ignored;
referrals to outside medical specialists are routinely delayed for weeks and
even months while sick inmates get sicker and, in some case, die; and
prescriptions for serious illnesses often go unfilled for several days (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 18, 2006).

U.S. District Judge Richard Enslen had blocked the closure and ordered the
state to revise plans for moving inmates to other prisons around the state,
citing concerns that they would not get necessary medical care and could die
en route.  A stay on the ruling was subsequently requested and the appeals
court ruling was sought.

The case is named "USA v. Michigan, State of, et al., Case No.
1:84-cv-00063-RAE", filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan under the above mentioned judge,
Mr. Richard Enslen.

The lead attorneys for the case are:

          Elizabeth Alexander, Esq.
          National Prison Project of the ACLUF
          915 15th St., NW, 7th Fl.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 393-4930
          E-mail: ealexander@npp-aclu.org
          
                    - and -

          Michael Barnhart, Esq.
          221 North Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48103
          Phone: (734) 213-3703
          Fax: (734) 213-3704
          E-mail: michaelbarnhart@comcast.net


NVE CORP: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Minn. Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has dismissed with
prejudice the consolidated shareholder class action filed in 2006 against NVE
Cor. and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors.

On Feb. 10, 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its
current and former executive officers and directors by an individual
shareholder seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the company's
common stock between May 22, 2003 and Feb. 11, 2005.

On Mar. 6 and Mar. 7, 2006, two additional lawsuits were filed in the same
court by two additional NVE shareholders, with the same proposed class
period, purporting to represent the same class.

These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single case and a
consolidated complaint was filed (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2007).  The
consolidated complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing material misrepresentations
concerning NVE's projected revenues and product technology, which
artificially inflated the market price of the company's common stock.

"The court order to dismiss supports our long-standing position that the
lawsuits were wholly without merit," said NVE President and Chief Executive
Officer Daniel A. Baker, Ph.D.

NVE is a leader in the practical commercialization of spintronics, a
nanotechnology that many experts believe represents the next generation of
microelectronics. NVE licenses its MRAM intellectual property and sells
spintronic products, including sensors and couplers, to revolutionize data
sensing and transmission.

The suit is "In re: NVE Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:06-cv-00574-
MJD-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
under Judge Michael J. Davis with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregg M. Corwin
          Gregg M. Corwin & Associates Law Office, PC
          1660 S Hwy 100, Ste. 508
          St. Louis Park, MN 55416-1534
          Phone: 952-544-7774
          Fax: 952-544-7151
          E-mail: gcorwin@gcorwin.com

          William B. Federman
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 N., Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405-235-1560
          Fax: 405-239-2112
          E-mail: wfederman@aol.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Peter W. Carter
          Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
          50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
          Phone: 612-340-2600
          Fax: 612-340-2868
          E-mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com


NXCARE INC: Faces Mass. Suit Over Bogus Claims for Diet Pills
-------------------------------------------------------------
NxCare, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 29 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts accusing it of deceiving
consumers by making false claims about its products, “Slimquick –- the Female
Fat Burner” and “NV–Rapid Weight-Loss Beauty Pill,” the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The suit also accuses company directors Derek Woodgate, Brad Woodgate and
Scott Welch of deceptive trade by stating, for example, that their
products’ “revolutionary formula is scientifically developed to overcome the
physiological and hormonal barriers women face in losing fat,” and that
their “breakthrough formula contains six exclusive complexes” to reduce fat.

Named plaintiff Robyn Cassidy, claim the Slimquick package insert contains a
testimonial from “Kerrie Lee Brown,” who claims she lost 35 lbs. in nine
weeks with the product, but does not reveal that she is the wife of NxCare
marketing director Craig Stevenson; and another statement by “Nadine Erin,”
who does not reveal she is the girlfriend of defendant Scott Welch, NxCare
vice president of marketing.

Ms. Cassidy brings this suit as a class action pursuant to Deceptive Trade
Practices under Massachusetts General Law C. 93A (The Consumer Protection
Act) of the Massachusetts General Laws on behalf of themselves and a class
composed of all Massachusetts residents who purchased either of the NxCare
products (SLIMQUICK and NV) in the State of Massachusetts when defendants
started to market the product and began committing the deceptive trade
practices and other acts described herein.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) Whether the Defendants knowingly made false
         representations as to the characteristics, ingredients,
         uses and benefits of the SLIMQUICK and NV products;

     (b) Whether the defendants represented that SLIMQUICK and
         NV were of a particular standard, quality or grade,
         when they knew or should have known that they were of
         another standard quality or grade;

     (c) Whether the defendants knowingly failed to disclose
         material facts in connection with the sale of SLIMQUICK
         and NV;

     (d) Whether the defendants made assertions of scientific,
         clinical or quantifiable fact in advertisements (the
         SLIMQUICK and NV packages and package inserts) which
         would cause a reasonable person to believe the
         assertion to be true, when the defendants did not have
         in their possession at the time of making those   
         assertions factually objective scientific, clinical or
         quantifiable evidence which substantiated the
         assertions made; and

     (e) Whether the defendants knowingly made other false
         representations.

Plaintiff prays for the following relief which relief shall, in the aggregate
exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs:

     -- That this Court certify this action as a class action
        pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, appoint
        the plaintiff as class representative and undersigned
        counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- That the plaintiff class recover damages under the First
        Cause of Action against NxCare according to proof;

     -- That the plaintiff class recover treble damages under
        its First Cause of Action against NxCare;

     -- That the plaintiff class recover all profits made by
        defendant NxCare from the sale of SLIMQUICK and NV in
        Massachusetts;

     -- That the plaintiff class recover damages under its
        Second Cause of Action against defendants Derek
        Woodgate, Brad Woodgate and Scott Welch, jointly and
        severally according to proof;

     -- That the plaintiff class recover treble damages under  
        its Second Cause of Action against defendants Derek
        Woodgate, Brad Woodgate and Scott Welch;

     -- That the plaintiff class recover all profits distributed
        to defendants Derek Woodgate, Brad Woodgate and Scott
        Welch which were derived from or are attributable to the
        sale of SLIMQUICK and NV in the State of Massachusetts;

     -- That the plaintiff class recover damages against all
        defendants for punitive damages under its Third Cause of
        Action according to proof;

     -- That pending the trial of this action, the Court issue a
        preliminary injunction under the Fourth Cause of Action
        prohibiting the defendants from making the above-
        detailed false statements in connection with the sale of
        SLIMQUICK and NV products in the State of Massachusetts,
        and prohibiting the further sale of SLIMQUICK and NV
        products containing these false statements;

     -- That following the trial of this matter, the Court issue
        an injunction under the Fourth Cause of Action
        permanently enjoining the defendants from making the
        above-detailed false statements in connection with the
        sale of SLIMQUICK or NV in the State of Massachusetts,
        and prohibiting the further sale of SLIMQUICK and NV
        products containing these false statements;

     -- That the plaintiff class recover its cost and attorneys’
        fees; and

     -- For such other and further relief deemed proper.

The suit is “Cassidy v. NxCare, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-11217-RCL,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under
Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael C. Costello, Esq.
          Ferriter & Costello, Esq.
          171 Third Street
          Cambridge, MA 02141
          Phone: 617-547-5600
          Fax: 617-547-4719
          E-mail: mcostello@fclegal.net


OCWEN LOAN: Appeals Court Keeps Mortgage Servicing Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit refused to dismiss a consumer
class action against Ocwen Loan Servicing, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act.

Ocwen, a federal savings and loan that services home mortgages, said the
claims were pre-empted by the Home Owners Loan Act.  The circuit said the
defendants should have deferred their motion until they could determine what
the plaintiffs were charging, because the case is largely unripe for a
determination of pre-emption, according to the report.

                        Case Background

On April 13, 2004, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation granted the company's petition to transfer and consolidate a
number of lawsuits against Ocwen Federal, Ocwen Financial and various third
parties in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
under the caption, "In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1604," (MDL Proceeding).

There were approximately 58 lawsuits consolidated in the MDL Proceeding
involving 74 mortgage loans that the company currently or previously
serviced.  Additional similar lawsuits have been brought in other courts,
some of which may be transferred to and consolidated in the MDL Proceeding.

The borrowers in many of these lawsuits seek class-action certification.  
Others have brought individual actions.  No class has been certified in the
MDL Proceeding or any related lawsuits.

On May 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint containing various claims under federal statutes, including the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
federal bankruptcy laws, state deceptive trade practices statutes and common
law.

The claims are generally based on allegations of improper loan servicing
practices, including:

      -- charging borrowers allegedly improper or unnecessary
         fees such as breach letter fees, hazard insurance
         premiums, foreclosure-related fees, late fees, property
         inspection fees and bankruptcy-related fees;

      -- untimely posting and misapplication of borrower
         payments; and

      -- improperly treating borrowers as in default on their
         loans.  

On April 25, 2005, the court entered an opinion and order granting the Bank
partial summary judgment finding that, as a matter of law, the mortgage loan
contracts signed by plaintiffs authorize the imposition of breach letter fees
and other legitimate default or foreclosure related expenses.

The court explained that it's ruling was in favor of defendants to the
specific and limited extent that plaintiffs' claims challenge the propriety
of the above-mentioned fees.  

On May 16, 2006, after having denied defendants' motions to dismiss various
portions of the consolidated complaint on federal preemption and procedural
grounds, as well as the company's motion to dismiss Ocwen Financial from the
case for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court granted the company's
motion to take an interlocutory appeal on the federal preemption issue.  

On July 29, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit granted the
company's request to hear its appeal on the federal preemption issue.

The suit is "In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL-
1604, Master Docket No. 04cv2714," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Nov. Hearing Set for $13.75M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a
hearing on Sept 7, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $13.75 settlement in
the matter, "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-CV-2297."

The fairness hearing will be held at the U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, San Francisco, California.

Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on Aug. 14, 2007.  Deadline
to file claims is Oct. 9, 2007.

                         Case Background

On June 10, 2004, the first of several putative class actions were filed
against the company and certain of its present and former directors and
officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's common stock at
various times from February 2003 to June 9, 2004.

Those actions were consolidated as, "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No.
C-04-2297-SC."  It asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between June 11, 2003 and June 9, 2004.  It is seeking
unspecified damages.

The suit generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly engaging in improper
accounting practices that purportedly led to the company's financial
restatement.  

On July 29, 2005, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss the
complaint and discovery commenced thereafter.  

The parties engaged in settlement discussions and in November 2006, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation (Class
Action Reporter, March 26, 2007).

For more details, contact:

          In re OmniVision Securities Litigation
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 990 Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990
          Phone: (800) 447-7657
          Web site: http://www.gilardi.com

The suit is "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-CV-2297," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California under Judge Samuel L. Conti with referral to Judge Joseph C.
Spero.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP
          One California Plaza, 300 South Grand Ave., Ste. 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 617-1200
          Fax: (213) 617-1975


PHH CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Md. Litigation Over $1.8B Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------------
PHH Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a Maryland consolidated class action
opposing the sale of the company to General Electric Capital Corp., and The
Blackstone Group.

Following the announcement of the $1.8 billion buyout in March 2007, two
purported class actions were filed against the Company and each member of its
Board of Directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, the
first of these actions also named GE and Blackstone.

The plaintiffs seek to represent an alleged class consisting of all persons
(other than the Company’s officers and Directors and their affiliates)
holding the Company’s Common stock.

In support of their request for injunctive and other relief, the plaintiffs
allege that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in approving the transaction.

On April 5, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the first filed complaint.  
On April 10, 2007, the claims against Blackstone were dismissed without
prejudice.

On May 11, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases into one action and
made the first filed complaint the operative one.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated action is still pending,
according to the PHH Corp.’s June 27, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.

PHH Corp. -- http://www.phh.com-- is an outsource provider of mortgage and  
fleet management services.  The Company operates in three segments: Mortgage
Production, Mortgage Servicing and Fleet Management Services.  


TYCO INT'L: PwC Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $225M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd.’s auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, has agreed to pay
$225 million to settle securities and accounting fraud claims relating to
Tyco’s securities class action presently pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire before Judge Paul Barbadoro.

This settlement with PwC, combined with the recent settlement with Tyco --
the largest ever by a single corporate defendant -- will bring the total
settlement to more than $3.2 billion by the time it is presented to the court
for final distribution, inclusive of interest.

The settlement with PwC, reached after four years of hard-fought litigation
and extensive mediation, represents one of the largest recoveries on record
from an outside auditor in the history of securities class action litigation.
Investors who purchased or acquired Tyco securities from December 13, 1999
through and including June 7, 2002 are covered by the settlement.

"This settlement with PwC serves as an exclamation point for our litigation
over what was one of the most egregious corporate frauds of our time. This
result is significant because investors in public markets need to have
confidence in the truth of what is reported, said Richard Schiffrin, founding
partner of Schiffrin Barroway.

"When there is a breakdown, this settlement shows that investors will not be
satisfied until there is accountability and responsibility on behalf of not
just the company at issue, but also the purported corporate watchdogs," added
Jay Eisenhofer of Grant & Eisenhofer.

Sanford Dumain of Milberg Weiss further stated, "We are pleased that this
settlement represents by far the largest settlement ever agreed to by PwC.
The amount of the settlement is especially significant in light of the claim
by securities fraud defendants that recent court decisions have erected
enormous obstacles to proving loss causation and damages."

Several union and public pension funds, including the United Association
General Officers Pension Plan, United Association Office Employees Pension
Plan, United Association Local Union Officers & Employees Pension Fund,
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Teachers Retirement System of
Louisiana and Louisiana State Employees Retirement System served as class
representatives certified by the court in this litigation.

                       Case Background

Initially, the company and certain of its former directors and officers were
named as defendants in over 40 securities class actions.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire most of the securities class
actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On Jan. 28, 2003, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the New Hampshire
securities actions filed, "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-
PB," a consolidated securities class action complaint against the company
certain of the company's former directors and officers and its former
auditors. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire.

As to the company and certain of its former directors and officers, the
complaint asserts causes of action under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 14(a)
of that Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Claims against the company's former directors and officers are also asserted
under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint asserts that the Tyco defendants violated the securities laws
by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning, among others:

      -- Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting  
         therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed  
         acquisitions;  

      -- misstatements of Tyco's financial results;  

      -- the impact of a new accounting standard (SAB 101,  
         promulgated in 1999) on the company's earnings  
         performance;  

      -- compensation of certain of the company's former  
         executives;  

      -- their improper use of the company's funds for personal  
         benefit and their improper self-dealing real estate  
         transactions;  

      -- their sales of Tyco shares;  

      -- payment of $20 million to one of the company's former  
         directors and a charity of which he is a trustee; and  

      -- the criminal investigation of the company's former  
         chief executive officer.

On June 12, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class "consisting
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tyco
securities between Dec. 13, 1999 and June 7, 2002, and who were damaged
thereby, excluding
defendants, all of the officers, directors and partners thereof, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors
or assigns, and any entity in which any of the foregoing have or had a
controlling interest."

In May, Tyco agreed to immediately fund $2.975 billion in cash to settle
securities and accounting fraud claims relating to the Kozlowski era (Class
Action Reporter, May 16, 2007).  

The case caption is: In re: Tyco International, Ltd. Multidistrict
Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No.  1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.

For more information, contact:

          Katharine Ryan, Esq.
          Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
          Darren Check
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (Toll Free) or 1-610-822-2223 or           
                 1-610-822-2203 or 1-610-822-2235
          E-mail: kryan@sbtklaw.com or myarnoff@sbtklaw.com or
                  dcheck@sbtklaw.com


RED ROBIN: Sept. 28 Hearing Set for $1.5M Colo. Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado will hold a final
fairness hearing on Sept. 28, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for a proposed $1.5mililon
settlement in the matter, “Andropolis v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01563-EWN-BNB.”


The fairness hearing will be held at 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles,
California 90012, in Courtroom 7 on the Second Floor of the U.S District
Court for the Central District of California.

Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on Aug. 28, 2007.  Deadline
to file claims is Oct. 27, 2007.

                         Case Background

The consolidated shareholder class action was filed against Red Robin Gourmet
Burgers Inc., its former chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2007).

On Aug. 15, 2005, Andre Andropolis filed the suit on behalf of himself and
all other purchasers of the company's common stock during the putative class
period of Nov. 8, 2004 through Aug. 11, 2005.  

On Sept. 30, 2005, Mark Baird filed a similar purported class action
complaint in the same court on behalf of himself and the same class of
stockholders as defined in the Andropolis Complaint.  

Both complaints allege that the company and defendants Michael J. Snyder and
James P. McCloskey violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) adopted pursuant to the U.S. Exchange
Act by disseminating false and misleading financial reports on behalf of the
company, by withholding adverse financial information on behalf of the
company from the class, and the individual defendants were control persons
who caused the company to engage in such acts for their own benefit.

The plaintiffs further allege that, because of the actions of the company's
former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, the
company's stock price became inflated between Nov. 8, 2004 and Aug. 11, 2005,
and on Aug. 12, 2005, the company's stock price fell sharply following their
departures from their positions with the company.

The class has not been certified and no discovery has occurred. Lead counsel
and lead plaintiff were appointed and have received an extension to Feb. 28,
2006 to file a consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the lead plaintiff, City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions
and Retirement, filed a consolidated complaint.  In addition to the
allegations in the initial Andropolis complaint against the company and the
company's former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer,
the consolidated compliant:

     -- alleges that the company and the company's current chief  
        executive officer and current chief financial officer  
        violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange  
        Act in connection with the company's announcement on  
        Jan. 10, 2006 that it was lowering its guidance for the  
        quarter ended Dec. 25, 2005; and

     -- alleges claims against the company's former controller  
        and alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S.  
        Exchange Act.  

The consolidated complaint seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during the putative class period of
Aug. 13, 2004 and Jan. 9, 2006, inclusive.

All defendants have filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On Jan. 2, 2007, the Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss all
claims with prejudice. Final judgment was entered on Jan. 17, 2007 and
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on Feb. 14, 2007.

After a mediation session the parties to the Andropolis matter reached an
agreement to settle, subject to approval by the Court.

The proposed settlement involves a payment of $1.5 million, covered by
insurance, to the putative class and its counsel.  

The Court preliminarily approved the agreement on May 31, 2007.

The suit is "Andropolis v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-01563-EWN-BNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado under Judge Edward W. Nottingham with referral to Judge Boyd N.
Boland.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Gerald L. Bader, Jr., Esq.
         Renee Beth Taylor, Esq.
         Bader & Associates, P.C.
         14426 East Evans Avenue #200
         Denver, CO 80014-1160
         Phone: 303-534-1700
         Fax: 303-534-1701
         E-mail: gbader@bader-associates.com
                 rtaylor@bader-associates.com

              - and -

         F. James Donnelly, Esq.
         The Law Offices of F. James Donnelly, P.C.
         6076 South Chester Way
         Greenwood Village, CO 80111
         Phone: 720-493-9814
         Fax: 720-493-9815
         E-mail: fjamesdonnelly@comcast.net

Representing the defendants are:  

         Andrew Ryan Shoemaker, Esq.
         Thomas Lee Strickland, Esq.
         Coates Lear, Esq.
         Hogan & Hartson, LLP
         Phone: 720-406-5360, 303-899-7300 and 303-454-2479
         Fax: 720-406-5301 and 899- 7333
         E-mail: arshoemaker@hhlaw.com
                 tlstrickland@hhlaw.com
                 CLear@hhlaw.com

              - and -

         Rachel M. Vorbeck, Esq.
         Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP
         525 West Monroe Street #1600
         Chicago, IL 60661-3693
         Phone: 312-902-5200
         Fax: 902-1061
         E-mail: rachel.vorbeck@kattenlaw.com


RETAILERS: Cal. Judge Refuses to Certify Three FACTA Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a key set of decisions in June, a federal judge in Los Angeles denied
class certification to three Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
lawsuits:

     -- “Taline Soualian v. International Coffee and Tea,”

     -- “Frida Najarian v. Charlotte Russe,” and

     -- “Fredrick Najarian v. Avis Rent-A-Car”

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman represented the defendants in “Taline
Soualian v. International Coffee and Tea LLC (CV 07-502-RGK).

Taken together, along with a May 25 decision on “Spikings v. Cost Plus, Inc.
(CV 06-8125-JFW),” also denying class certification, the cases establish a
precedent that could impact more than 200 lawsuits that have been filed in
recent months alleging that retailers and restaurants provided too much
information on customers’ credit card receipts in violation of the law,
Pillsbury Winthrop said in a statement.

Effective December 4, 2006, FACTA requires that retailers provide no more
than the last five digits of the card number or the expiration date on any
receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.
Since that time, the plaintiffs’ bar has filed hundreds of suits seeking
class status. If any retailer is found in willful violation of that rule,
each class member would be eligible to receive between $100 and $1000 in
statutory damages, which for larger retailers found to be in violation could
cost tens of millions or even billions of dollars.

“The decisions [] are highly significant in that the court recognized that
certifying class actions in these FACTA cases could result in serious
financial hardship for the retailers, and makes no sense given that no harm
has been done to the plaintiffs in terms of identity theft or any other
damage,” says Robert Wallan, a partner with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
in Los Angeles, who lead the defense team representing International Coffee
and Tea. “These decisions reach a common sense result.”

In the Soualian suit, during a credit card transaction with one of the
Defendant’s Coffee Bean stores, the Plaintiff received an electronically-
printed receipt that contained the card’s expiration date. Plaintiff sought
to certify the class of individuals who made purchases at the Defendant’s
stores between December 24, 2006 and January 24, 2007, who also received
receipts containing expiration dates.

U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California
found that due to the enormous damages requested and the lack of harm
suffered by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs failed to pass the superiority
test which is required for class certification. In addition, the defendants
investigated and removed expiration dates on credit card receipts as soon as
they were made aware of the alleged technical violation.

“There is no evidence that any customer making a purchase from the
Defendant’s stores…suffered any actual harm due to the inclusion of the
expiration date on credit card and debit card receipts,” Judge Klausner wrote
in his decision.

“Furthermore, it appears virtually impossible for the inclusion of the
expiration date on a credit card or debit card receipt to result in identity
theft or any other actual harm... Given the disproportionate consequences to
Defendant’s business (if class was certified, statutory damages could be as
high as $48 million), and the lack of any actual harm suffered by members of
the potential class, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to meet the
superiority requirement.”

The judge also noted that he denied class because upon learning it was in
technical violation of FACTA, International Coffee and Tea immediately
investigated and rectified the situation, demonstrating good faith and no
willful intent.

The other two FACTA cases in which Judge Klauser denied certification
targeted Avis Rent A Car and clothing retailer Charlotte Russe.

The suit “Taline Soualian v. International Coffee and Tea LLC et al., Case
No. 2:2007cv00502” was filed January 19, 2007 in California Central District
Court under Judge R. Gary Klausner with referral to Judge Jacqueline
Chooljian.


RSM EQUICO: Faces Calif. Suit Over Business Valuation Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
RSM EquiCo, Inc. is facing a class action filed on July 11, 2006 in the
California Superior Court, Orange County, captioned, “Do Right’s Plant
Growers v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., RSM McGladrey, Inc., H&R Block, Inc. and Does 1-
100, inclusive, Case No. 06 CC00137.”

The complaint contains allegations regarding business valuation services
provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc. including fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition and seeks
unspecified damages, restitution and equitable relief.

The company reported no development in the case at its June 29, 2007 Form 10-
K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2007.

RSM EquiCo, Inc. -- http://www.rsmequico.com/-- is a financial services firm  
dedicated to serving the needs of owners, shareholders and managers of
privately owned midsized businesses and mid-cap public companies.


UNITED STATES: Agriculture Sec. Sued Over Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns is facing a class-action complaint
filed June 27 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, over
alleged discrimination against women and Indian-born applicants for federal 8
(a) small-business contracts.

Named plaintiffs -- Archana Sagar, Ajay Sagar, and Pixl, Inc. -- bring this
action on their own behalf and pursuant to Rule 8 (a), 23(b) (2), 57 and 65
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) on behalf of similarly
situated woman and minority U.S.A. citizens to secure rights arising from
federally awarded 8(a) contracts, federal statutes, and the U.S.
Constitution.

Archana and Ajay Sagar are representative of their class as owners and
operators of a Woman and Minority 8(a) owned firm under Federal and District
of Columbia law.

Archana Sagar is representative of her class as the principal owner of a
woman owned 8(a) firm under Federal and District of Columbia law.

The suit alleges the U.S. Department of Agriculture has denied plaintiffs
procedural due process and substantive property right guarantees regarding
their respective individual rights and their firm’s contractual rights doing
business as Pixl Inc., a Woman and Minority owned enterprise

Plaintiffs demand judgment:

     -- granting plaintiffs and the class they represent a
        preliminary and permanent injunction infringing upon
        both Woman and Minority business 8(a) contractual awards
        by the USDA Forest Service;

     -- granting the plaintiffs and the class they represent a
        preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the USDA
        Forest Service from maintaining and continuing a policy
        of discrimination against Woman and Minority owned firms
        with 8(a) contractual awards;

     -- granting plaintiffs a preliminary and permanent
        injunction against any contractual award in solicitation
        AG 3187-S-07-005 that would interfere with their current
        expectation regarding the FY 2007 and FY 2008
        contractual continuance;

     -- granting plaintiffs judgment for punitive or exmeplary
        damages in the amount of $300,000;

     -- awarding plaintiffs reasonable costs and expenses;

     -- awarding plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees in
        accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c);

     -- granting relief for $5.7 million in damages for tortious
        interference with contract under the Federal Tort Claims          
        Act (FCTA) and disparagement of business reputation
        through fraudulent misrepresentations under the laws of
        the District of Columbia;

     -- granting treble damages under RICO upon proof at trial
        in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); and

     -- granting the plaintiffs and the class they represent
        such other and further relief as the court may deem and
        proper.

The suit is “Sagar et al. v. Johanns, Case No. 1:07-cv-01150-RCL,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, under Judge Royce C.
Lamberth.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          David B. Nolan
          8310 Wagon Wheel Road
          Alexandria, VA 22309-2175
          Phone: (703) 780-1864
          Fax: (703) 780-1434
          E-mail: dbnesq1@aol.com


UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Settles Part-time Lecturers’ Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A King County Superior Court judge has approved a settlement between the
University of Washington and its part-time faculty members, Judy Chia Hui Hsu
of The Seattle Times reports.

Susan Helf, a part-time business lecturer at the university, brought the suit
in May 2006.

The suit claimed that school officials promised in January 2000 to provide
faculty members with 2 percent merit raises.  

Ms. Helf's suit sought to force the university to compensate part-time
faculty members, including her, for failing to provide the promised pay
raises in 2001 and each of the following academic years.  It also asked the
court to direct the university to provide the merit raise for the upcoming
academic year and each subsequent one (Class Action Reporter May 24, 2006).

The settlement provides that the university should pay part-time lecturers
$500,000 in merit raises for the last six years, and also stipulates that the
university will provide returning part-time instructors a 6 percent pay
increase in 2008.  The amount could reach up to $290,000.

Nearly $195,000 will go to the attorneys’ fees.

About 1,000 part-time lecturers, who have been with the university for at
least one quarter for two consecutive years from 2000 to 2007, are covered in
the settlement.

Attorney Rick Gautschi represented the plaintiffs.


VANGUARD GROUP: Sued in Calif. Over Fraud, Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Vanguard Group is facing a class-action complaint filed June 19 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Joel Hornstein accuses Vanguard of deceit, fraud and breach
of contract: promising but failing to transfer money into investors’ accounts
within one business day.

The suit is “Hornstein v. Vanguard Group, Inc., The, Case No. 4:07-cv-03239-
SBA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          John Balestriere
          Craig Stuart Lanza
          Balestriere PLLC
          225 Broadway, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-374-5400
          Fax: 212-208-2613
          
          - and -

          Matthew A. Siroka
          Law Office of Matthew A Siroka
          600 Townsend Street, Suite 329E
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Phone: 415-522-1105
          Fax: 415-522-1506
          E-mail: mas@defendergroup.com


VERISIGN INC: Faces Unfair Competition Charges in Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 28 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California over its alleged
improper billing practice.

Named plaintiff Babak Pishvaee accuses VeriSign and m-Qube, Inc. of competing
unfairly and falsely billing people for mobile phone charges based on phone
numbers rather than current customer information, so that people with
previously owned numbers are billed for services they don’t want and never
ordered.

She brings this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 239b)(2) and (b)(3) on
behalf of a class consisting of all wireless telephone subscribers in the
nation who were billed by defendants for products or services not authorized
by the existing owner of the telephone number.

Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

     -- that the court certify this case as a class action,
        appoint the undersigned as class counsel, and appoint
        plaintiff as the class representative;

     -- that the court declare that the actions of defendants
        constitute unjust enrichment, and tortious interference
        with contract;

     -- that the court enter judgment against defendants for all
        economic, monetary, actual, consequential, and
        compensatory damages caused by defendant's conduct, and
        if defendant's conduct is proved willful award plaintiff
        and the class exemplary damages;

     -- that the court award plaintiff and the class reasonable
        costs and attorney's fees;

     -- that the court award plaintiff and the class pre- and
        post-judgment interest, including interest not paid on
        any credits previously provided;

     -- that the court enter judgment for an injunctive and/or
        declaratory relief as is necessary to protect the
        interests of plaintiff and the class; and

     -- that the court award such other and further relief as
        equity and justice may require.

The suit is “Pishvaee v. VeriSign, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-03407-PVT,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
under Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          William M. Audet
          Audet & Partners, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-568-2555
          Fax: 415.568-2556
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com

          - and -

          Adel A. Nadji
          Audet & Partners, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-982-1776
          Fax: 415-576-1776
          E-mail: anadji@audetlaw.com


VISA USA: Ia. High Court Junks Southard et al. Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa’s Supreme Court dismissed the class action “Jeff Southard et al. v. Visa
USA Inc. and MasterCard International Inc. (docket # 137/04-1972).”

The court said the plaintiffs' injuries are too "remote."   

The suit was filed in September 2003, alleging the defendants violated Iowa's
competition law.  It sought relief against unjust enrichment.

Defendants filed for dismissal on the basis that plaintiffs "[can] not
recover for derivative or remote injuries."  Judge Darrell J. Goodhue of the
Dallas County District Court had issued a ruling favoring the defendants.  In
the latest development, the state’s Supreme Court agreed with the ruling.

The opinion, authored by Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, was based on the
interpretation of an Iowa Supreme Court opinion in a 2002 lawsuit against
Microsoft that states: "Iowa's competition law does not provide a remedy to
every person who can trace an injury to a defendant's anticompetitive
conduct."  

"The plaintiff consumers' injuries are remote, and therefore, the plaintiffs
lack antitrust standing," Judge Ternus wrote.  

"Moreover, the plaintiffs are not indirect purchasers of the defendants'
services; they are non-purchasers. Consequently, they cannot benefit from our
[ruling in the Microsoft suit] to allow indirect purchasers to bring suit
under Iowa's competition law."

The Supreme Court also ruled that "the plaintiffs cannot recover under a
theory of unjust enrichment because their injuries are too remote," she added.


WASHINGTON: Judge Denies Tacoma Man’s Electronic Info Request
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Thurston County judge ruled that the state Department of Corrections is not
obliged to provide an electronic copy of information regarding state workers
and their health-insurance status in relation to a class action over health
benefits to seasonal employees.

Superior Court Judge Christine Pomeroy ruled that state public-disclosure
laws do not require Washington government agencies to release information in
electronic form if the material is offered on paper, The Olympian reports.

An attorney for a Tacoma man who wants to find out how many hours part-time
agency employees of the state Department of Corrections must work in order to
qualify for health insurance asked the county judge to provide electronic
records of the information, Amy Rolph of SeattlePI reports.

Doug Moore’s attorney, Steve Festor, requested payroll databases in November
2005, citing the state Public Disclosure Act. Corrections offered to produce
hard copies of the databases, but Mr. Moore and Mr. Festor balked at the
proposal because it would mean a stack of 38,000 papers and about $5,700 in
fees.

Mr. Festor requested the records for use in a pending class action against
state agencies that don't give seasonal employees health benefits during
their downtime.

Mr. Moore is a plaintiff in the case. He works for the Washington Horse
Racing Commission as a racing steward, and often doesn't work during winter,
according to the report.

"There is no clear right to electronic copies under the Public Disclosure
Act,” Jude Pomeroy said in her oral ruling on June 30.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. common stock during the period
between February 4, 2005 and July 14, 2006, including purchasers in
Threshold's February 4, 2005 $37 million initial public offering and its
October 12, 2005 $65 million follow-on offering.

The complaint charges Threshold and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act
of 1933.

The complaint alleges that in preparation for the Company's February 2005
IPO, defendants conducted a so-called "Phase II" study of TH-070 on 30 men at
Bari University in Italy. Based on the purported success achieved in the Bari
Phase II study, the Company completed its $37 million IPO in February 2005,
conducted additional clinical trials, filed a new drug application with the
FDA in late 2005, and completed the $65 million follow-on offering in October
2005. However, on May 11, 2006, defendants were forced to disclose that the
FDA had placed the TH-070 program on partial clinical hold as a result of
abnormalities observed in liver enzyme levels in six subjects in ongoing
clinical trials and had requested that the Company provide additional
information related to the drug's acceptable dose and duration of treatment
in BPH patients.

According to the complaint, while defendants had known for years of TH-070's
propensity to cause liver toxicity, the IPO and follow-on offering
prospectuses concealed it.

Then, on July 17, 2006, the Company was forced to concede that TH-070
provided no benefit whatsoever in the alleviation of prostate enlargement and
that Threshold planned to discontinue development of TH-070 for BPH
altogether. The complaint alleges that as a result of the defendants' false
and misleading statements issued during the Class Period, Threshold stock
traded as high as $16.52 per share. After the Company's July 17, 2006
announcement, however, Threshold stock fell to $1.55 per share.

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

Threshold discovers, develops, and commercializes small molecule therapeutics
based on "Metabolic Targeting." During the Class Period, the Company's lead
product candidate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic
hyperplasia ("BPH") was TH-070, a drug which utilized Threshold's patented
Metabolic Targeting process.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com
          Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                        


                            *********


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, and Mary
Grace Durana, 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  * * *