---

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

           Wednesday, November 21, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 231

                            Headlines

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: No Update on Col. Securities Suit Settlement
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Ill. Suit Over Credit Scoring System
AMERICAN JUSTICE SCHOOL: Faces $120M Lawsuit by Lawyer Owner
BAXTER INT'L: Investors' Bid to Certify Securities Suit Junked
BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Continues in Ill. ERISA Violations Suit

BON-TON DEPT: Recalls Children's Bath Robes Due to Burn Hazard
DAIRY COS: Face New “Grade A Milk” Price Fixing Complaint
DILLARD'S INC: Accused of Discriminating Afro-American Customers
EDO CORP: Faces Lawsuits in N.Y. Over ITT Corp. Merger Agreement
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: $2.3M Settlement Gets Preliminarily OK

GODADDY.COM INC: Escapes Default Judgment in Ad “Parking” Suit
GREAT PLAINS: Mo. Court Junks Suit Over Aquila-Gregory Merger
IDEARC INC: Still Faces Sales Representatives’ Suit in Calif.
IDEARC INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Part of FLSA Violations Suit
JARDEN CORP: Still Faces Securities Suit Over Holmes Acquisition

JETMAX INT'L: Recalls Storage Rack that can Dangerously Tip Over
KENNETH COLE: Parties Settle Credit Card Act Violations Suit
KRAFT FOODS: Sued in Cal. Over False Claims on “Calci-Yum!”
LOUIS VUITTON: Ill. Woman Files Suit Over Lipsticks' Lead Level
MANUFACTURER'S INDUSTRIAL: Tenn. Lawsuit Claims ADA Violations

MISSISSIPPI: Judge Commends Reforms at Unit 23 of Parchman Jail
MODINE MANUFACTURING: Discovery Ongoing in Personal Injury Suit
PARKER ITR: Seeks Dismissal of Fla., N.Y. Antitrust Lawsuits
POZEN INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in North Carolina
PREMCOR REFINING: Faces Suit Over Port Arthur Refinery Pollution

SOUTH CAROLINA: Limit on Rights-of-Way Class Under Appeal
STRATEGIC ENERGY: Still Faces Suit in Pa. Over Power Supply Deal
US GREENFIBER: Sued for Health Hazard of Cocoon Insulation
VIACOM INC: Motion to Stay Blockbuster Split-Off Suit Pending

* Class Actions Ready to Cross to Europe, Kendall Executive Says


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIGBAND NETWORKS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Suit in Calif.
COUNTRYWIDE CAPITAL: Schubert & Reed Files Securities Fraud Suit
FX ENERGY: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Utah


                          *********


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: No Update on Col. Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allos Therapeutics Inc. has yet to report that it has already
settled a purported securities class action filed against it and
one of its former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado in May 2004.

An amended complaint was filed in August 2004.  The lawsuit was
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's securities during the period from May 29, 2003 to
April 29, 2004.  

It sought unspecified damages relating to the issuance of
allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the cancer
drug EFAPROXYN during this period and subsequent declines in the
company's stock price.

On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  In an opinion
dated Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the
plaintiff's complaint failed to meet the legal requirements
applicable to its alleged claims.

On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

In October 2006, the parties held discussions to settle the
matter, although the terms of any such potential settlement
remain subject to negotiation and no binding agreement has been
reached.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 5,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01030-RPM,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado under Judge Richard P. Matsch.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq.
          Dyer & Shuman, LLP
          801 East 17th Avenue
          Denver, CO 80218-1417
          Phone: 303-861-3003
          Fax: 303-830-6920
          E-mail: jberens@dyershuman.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Tara L. Acton, Esq.
         Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C.
         370 - 17th Street, Republic Plaza #4800
         Denver, CO 80202-5698
         Phone: 303-825-0800
         Fax: 303-629-7610
         E-mail: tacton@bw-legal.com

              - and -

         Paul Howard Schwartz, Esq.
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         380 Interlocken, Crescent #900
         Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
         Phone: 720-566-4000
         Fax: 720-566-4099
         E-mail: schwartzph@cooley.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Ill. Suit Over Credit Scoring System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Co. is facing a federal class-action
complaint filed by four insurance policy holders claiming the
insurer charges different rates to individuals with similar
insurance risk, Steve Gonzales of The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Plaintiffs Robert Johnson, Anthony Richardson, Shelia Sydnor and
Deborah Sparks direct their complaints on Allstate's credit
scoring algorithms used to calculate insurance premiums that
allegedly produce vastly different results.  The practice is
allegedly continuous and systematic.

The class is represented by Stephen Tillery of St. Louis,
Stephen Swedlow of Chicago, Walt Roper of the Cochran Firm in
Dallas and David Burrow of Houston.  The complaint was filed in
East St. Louis on Nov. 5.

The practice allegedly violates the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
and caused measurable economic damages to as yet an
ascertainable class.  

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     -- whether Allstate's conduct constitutes an unfair or
        deceptive act or practice within the meaning of the
        Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
        Act;

     -- whether Allstate's practices violate the Illinois  
        Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act;

     -- whether plaintiffs and class members have sustained       
        damages and the proper measure of such damages; and

     -- whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
        punitive damages and/or civil penalties.

The plaintiffs are seeking a court declaration that the suit be
maintained as a class action.  They are also seeking
compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, and
attorneys' fees in excess of $5 million.

According to the complaint, all U.S. residents who purchased
Allstate insurance from Aug. 1, 1999 through Sept. 15, 2007, are
eligible to join the class if the insurance premium was
calculated based in part on an insurance scoring algorithm.

The suit is "Johnson et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., Case No.
3:2007cv00781," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court of Illinois under Judge Michael J.
Reagan with referral to Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier.


AMERICAN JUSTICE SCHOOL: Faces $120M Lawsuit by Lawyer Owner
------------------------------------------------------------
Two top administrators of the American Justice School of Law are
facing a $120 million purported class action in U.S. District
Court in Paducah, The (KY) Paducah Sun reports.

Paul Hendrick, the school's dean and founder; Jarrod Tuner,
associate dean; and Wayne Shelton, chairman of the board of
directors, are facing a suit filed by one of the owners of the
school.  The administrators are accused of engaging in criminal
activity that includes racketeering, conspiracy and abuse of
their offices "to enrich themselves at the expense of the
students."

Tom Osborne, a Paducah attorney, filed the class action on
behalf of students and himself as owner of 22.5 percent of the
school that opened two years ago.  The school in the Paducah
Information Age Park has about 200 students.  Mr. Osborne
resigned as board chairman two weeks ago after discovering what
he said were improprieties at the school.  His federal complaint
includes written details of verbal allegations he made
previously.

Specifically, according to the report, Mr. Osborne claims that:

     -- Messrs. Hendrick and Turner were involved in a scheme to
        delay distribution of student loan proceeds for living
        expenses to invest the funds and earn interest;

     -- Messrs. Hendrick and Turner applied for student loans of
        up to $20,000 without the student's knowledge;

     -- inaccurate information was intentionally included in the
        school's accreditation application filed with the
        American Bar Association;

     -- Mr. Turner was receiving a kickback for encouraging
        students to buy books from an Internet book company;

     -- grades were lowered to make students ineligible for
        scholarships and prevent them from transferring to other
        schools;

     -- Messrs. Hendrick and Turner improperly withdrew funds  
        from the school; and

     -- potential investors were given inaccurate information
        about the school's financial condition to entice them to
        invest in the school.

The suit says that students are being harmed because they've
taken out large loans and that the prospects of them receiving
law degrees are remote because it is unlikely it will even be
accredited by the American Bar Association.

Mr. Osborne said the law violations include theft, wire fraud,
mail fraud, racketeering, bank fraud, extortion and tax evasion
by failing to report income.

The suit seeks $120 million in damages, a restraining order to
prevent the school from filing bankruptcy, a full accounting of
financial records and other action to protect students,
according to the report.

Speaking for the school, attorney Joseph Ardery of Louisville
said he had not seen the lawsuit.


BAXTER INT'L: Investors' Bid to Certify Securities Suit Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a  
challenge against an order that denied certification to a
securities fraud lawsuit filed against Baxter International,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

In August 2002, six purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois naming
the company and its then chief executive officer and then chief
financial officer as defendants.

These lawsuits alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making misleading statements regarding the
company's financial guidance that allegedly caused Baxter common
stock to trade at inflated levels.   

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a
trial court order granting the company's motion to dismiss the
complaint and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant
certiorari in March 2005.  

In February 2006, the trial court denied Baxter’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  

The court has twice denied Plaintiffs’ request for certification
of a class action based on the inadequacy of their class
representatives but allowed Plaintiffs a final chance to find
new ones.

In October 2006, separate plaintiffs’ law firms identified new,
different proposed class representatives, but in January 2007,
the trial court found both new proposed class representatives to
be inadequate.

In October 2007, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal of this decision, effectively
ending the suit as a class action, according to the company’s
Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007.

The suit is “Asher, et al. v. Baxter Int'l. Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-05608,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Blanche M. Manning
with referral to Judge Arlander Keys.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steven G. Schulman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: (212) 594-5300

Representing the defendants is:
       
         Matthew Robert Kipp Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 407-0700
         E-mail: mkipp@skadden.com


BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Continues in Ill. ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in an Illinois federal lawsuit  
alleging Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations
against Baxter International, Inc.

In October 2004, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
Baxter and its current chief executive officer and then current
chief financial officer and their predecessors for alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended.  

Plaintiff alleges that these defendants, along with the
Administrative and Investment Committees of the company's 401(k)
plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants
by offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each
of the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004.

Plaintiff alleges that Baxter common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during this period and seeks
unspecified damages and declaratory and equitable relief.  

In March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan
participants who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through
the plans between January 2001 and the present.  

The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but has allowed
Baxter to seek an interlocutory appeal of the decision, which it
has done.  Discovery has begun in this matter.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 5,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Rogers v. Baxter Int'l. Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-06476,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado under Judge Joan B. Gottschall.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert D. Allison, Esq.
         Robert D. Allison & Associates,  
         122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1850
         Chicago, IL 60603  
         Phone: 427-4500
         E-mail: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com

              - and -

         Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
         Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink  
         20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
         Chicago, IL 60603,  
         Phone: (312) 263-0272
         Fax: (312) 263-2942
         E-mail: mmmulder@mmbmlaw.com  

Representing the defendants is:
        
         Matthew Robert Kipp, Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 407-0700
         E-mail: mkipp@skadden.com


BON-TON DEPT: Recalls Children's Bath Robes Due to Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bon-Ton Department Stores Inc., of York, Pennsylvania, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 1,000 girls and boys bath robes.

The company said the recalled bath robes fail to meet the
children's sleepwear flammability standard, posing a risk of
burn injuries to children if the robe caught fire.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves “Miss Attitude” girls bath robes with GPU
#5500-K660504 (Solid purple with frog and rainbow applique) and
GPU # 5500-K660474 (Pink Leopard print) and “URIT” boys bath
robes with GPU # 5500-K660495 (Blue solid with sport applique)
and GPU# 5500-K660496 (Green camouflage print). “URIT,” “Miss
Attitude,” and the GPU# can be found in the tags sewn in the
center back neck of the garment.

These recalled bath robes were manufactured in China and are
being sold by Bon-Ton, Bergner's, Boston Store, Elder-Beerman,
Herberger's, Younkers, and Carson Pirie Scott stores nationwide
and Parisian (Detroit area only) from September 2007 through
October 2007 for between $25 and $40.

Picture of recalled bath robes:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08517.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these children's robes
immediately and return them to any of the stores listed above
for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Bon-Ton at (866) 798-2875
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bonton.com


DAIRY COS: Face New “Grade A Milk” Price Fixing Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Dairy farmers filed an antitrust class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee claiming
that:
          -- Dean Foods Company,
          -- National Dairy Holdings, L.P.,
          -- Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.,
          -- Mid-Am Capital, LLC
          -- Dairy Marketing Services, LLC,
          -- Southern Marketing Agency, Inc.,

conspired to fix Grade A milk prices, strangle competition and
restrict independent dairy farmers' and independent coops'
access to milk bottling plants.

Named plaintiffs James Farrar, Farrar & Farrar Dairy, Inc. and
Fred Jacques claim defendants conspire with others to:

     -- control access to bottling plants through long-term
        full-supply agreements;

     -- force independent producers to sell to DFA-controlled
        marketing entities, boycott milk producers who resist;

     -- flood the Southeast with milk to depress prices;

     -- punish independent producers by driving them out of
        business; and

     -- reap unjust profits from their illegal cartel.

They file this action on behalf of all independent dairy farmers
(whether individuals or entities) who produced Grade A milk
within Orders 5 or 7, and sold Grade A milk directly or thorough
an agent to defendants or their co-conspirators in Orders 5 or 7
during any time from Jan. 1, 2001 to the present.

This is an antitrust case arising out of a combination and
conspiracy among defendants to refuse to compete for the
purchase of raw Grade A milk produced, marketed and processed in
the Southeast United States.  Defendants allegedly fix,
stabilize, and maintain prices paid to dairy farmers for Grade
A milk and eliminate and stifle competition in the relevant
market.  

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
         stabilize, maintain, and/or artificially lower the
         price paid to Southeast dairy farmers for Grade A milk;

     (b) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to foreclose
         independent dairy farmers from access to fluid Grade A
         milk bottling plants in the Southeast;

     (c) whether defendants engaged in a conspiracy to foreclose
         dairy farmer members of independent cooperatives from
         access to fluid Grade A milk bottling plants in the
         Southeast;

     (d) whether, in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendants
         entered into full-supply agreements to foreclose such
         independent access;

     (e) whether, in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendants
         engaged in group boycott of independent dairy farmers
         and independent cooperatives;

     (f) whether DFA, and DFA, DMS and SMA collectively,
         exercise monopoly power in the production and marketing
         of Grade A milk in the Southeast United States;

     (g) whether DFA, and or DFA, DMS, and SMA collectively,
         have abused their monopoly power;

     (h) whether Dean, and/or Dean, DFA, and NDH collectively,
         have a monopsony in the purchase of Grade A milk in the
         Southeast United States;

     (i) whether Dean, and/or Dean, DFA, and NDH collectively,
         have abused and/or misused their monopsony;

     (j) whether defendants conspired to monopolize and/or
         monopsonize and/or restrain interstate trade of Grade A
         milk produced and marketed in the Southeast;

     (k) whether defendants' conduct has violated the Sherman
         Act;

     (l) whether Baird, Bos and Hanman participated in,
         authorized, directed and/or knowingly approved or
         ratified defendants' violation of the Sherman Act;

     (m) whether defendants caused injury to plaintiffs and
         proposed class members under the Sherman Act; and

     (n) whether plaintiffs and proposed class members are
         entitled to:

              (i) an injunction prohibiting the continuation of
                  defendants' violations, and ordering such
                  other and further injunctive relief as is
                  necessary to restore competition;

             (ii) a declaration of their eligibility to an award
                  of damages and other monetary relief,
                  including treble damages;

            (iii) interest from the date they should have
                  received all monies rightfully owed to the
                  actual date of payment as a result of this
                  lawsuit; and

             (iv) attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief
                  the court deems just and reasonable.

Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

     -- declare this action to be a proper class action
        maintainable pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure and declaring named plaintiff to be the
        class representative;

     -- adjudge and declare that defendants have engaged in
        unlawful conduct in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
        Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1-2;

     -- preliminary and permanently enjoin defendants from
        violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Sections 1-2;

     -- order defendants, their subsidiaries or joint ventures
        to divest fluid Grade A milk bottling plants necessary
        to restore competition in the Southeast;

     -- against all defendants, jointly and severally, award
        plaintiffs and the proposed class damages in an amount
        to be proven at trial, to be trebled with interest and
        the costs of this suit, including attorneys' fees; and

     -- award such further relief, including structural
        remedies, as the court deems just and proper.          

The suit is "James Farrar et al. v. Dean Foods Company, et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Thomas C. Jessee
          Jessee & Jessee
          P.O. Box 997
          Johnson City, TN 37605
          Phone: (423) 928-7175

          Gary E. Mason
          The Mason Law Firm, LLP
          1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, DC
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Fax: (202) 429-2294

          Alexander E. Barrnet
          The Mason Law Firm, LLP
          1120 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4019
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 362-5770
          Fax: (917) 591-0227

          Daniel K. Bryson
          Lewis & Roberts, PLLC
          1305 Navaho Drive, Suite 400
          Raleigh, NC 27609
          Phone: (919) 981-0191
          Fax: (919) 981-0199

          - and -

          John c. Whitfield
          Whitfield & Cox, PSC
          29 East Center Street
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Phone: (270) 821-0656
          Fax: (270) 825-1163


DILLARD'S INC: Accused of Discriminating Afro-American Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dillard's Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 15
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
accusing it of discriminatory pricing for hair styling services.

The suit claims the company charges black customers $35 for a
"wash and set" hair styling, but charge white customers only $20
for the same service, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Debbie Deavers Sturvisant brings this action as
a class action on behalf of all African-American persons who
have purchased salon services from one of the Dillard's salons
in the United States and who were thereby harmed by the
nationwide unconscionable scheme and common course of conduct
described.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Dillard's discriminated against class members
         by charging them a higher price for salon services than
         similarly situated Caucasian customers;

     (b) whether Dillard's discriminated by offering only higher
         priced salon services to class members;

     (c) whether Dillard's engaged in a common course of
         business which discriminated against class members on
         the basis of their race;

     (d) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         specific performance, injunctive relief or other
         equitable relief against Dillard's;

     (e) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to an
         award of punitive damages against Dillard's; and

     (f) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to an
         award of punitive damages against Dillard's.

Plaintiff demands judgment against Dillard's as follows:

      -- an order determining that the action is a proper class
         action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
         Civil Procedure;

      -- awarding the plaintiff and the class compensatory and
         punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial for
         the wrongful acts complained of;

      -- awarding plaintiff and the class their costs and
         disbursements incurred in connection with this action,
         including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness
         fees and other costs;

      -- granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive
         relief as permitted by law or equity;

      -- granting the declaratory, injunctive and equitable
         relief;

      -- granting of such other and further relief as the court
         deems just and proper.

The suit is "Debbie Deavers Sturvisant et al. v. Dillard's Inc.,
Case No. CV-05-TMP-0305-W," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Patrick C. Cooper
          W. Percy Badham III
          Robert W. Tapscott, Jr.
          Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC
          1901 Sixthg Avenue North
          Suite 2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham,AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 254-1000
          Fax: (205) 254-1999


EDO CORP: Faces Lawsuits in N.Y. Over ITT Corp. Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDO Corp. faces two purported class actions in New York with
regards to an agreement and plan of merger by and among ITT
Corp., Donatello Acquisition Corp., and the company.

                        First Litigation

On Oct. 15, 2007, one of the company’s shareholders, the City of
Bethlehem Aggregated Pension Fund, filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County, a putative shareholder
class action against the Company and the individual members of
the Board of Directors.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the proposed
acquisition of the Company by ITT substantially undervalues its
common shares and unfairly benefits the Company's insiders.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief with regard to the
proposed acquisition.

On Nov. 1, 2007 plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

                        Second Litigation

On Oct. 26, 2007, one of the company’s shareholders, Mr. Samuel
Pill, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County, a putative shareholder class action against the
individual members of its Board of Directors, the Company, ITT
and Merger Sub.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the $56.00 per
share merger consideration is inadequate and unfair to the
public shareholders of the Company and that the preliminary
proxy statement filed by the Company on Oct. 23, 2007 failed to
disclose material non-public information concerning the
financial position and prospects of the Company.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief with regard to the
proposed transaction.

EDO Corp. -- http://www.edocorp.com/-- designs and manufactures  
a range of products for defense, intelligence, and commercial
markets, and provides related engineering and professional
services.  


GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: $2.3M Settlement Gets Preliminarily OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
preliminarily approved settlements reached in pending securities
class action and a shareholder derivative action filed against
GlobeTel Communications Corp. (Pink Sheets: GTEM) and certain of
its current and former officers and directors.

On April 28, 2006, the law firm of Sarraf Gentile, LLP,  
commenced a securities fraud class action on behalf of those  
investors who acquired the securities of GlobeTel Communications  
Corp. from Dec. 30, 2005 to April 11, 2006.

In October, GlobeTel reached settlements in principle in pending
securities class action as well as shareholder derivative action
filed against certain of current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Florida (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2007).

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement in the
class action, the Company's D&O insurance carrier will make a
cash payment to the class of $2,300,000, less up to $100,000 for
potential counsel fees and expenses. All claims in the class
action will be dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the proposed settlement in the derivative action,
the Company's D&O insurance carrier will pay $60,000 in
attorneys' fees to plaintiff's counsel, the Company will
implement or maintain certain corporate governance changes, and
all claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

Settlements of both the class and derivative actions are subject
to final approval by the court. The resolution of these matters
will enable the Company to eliminate further expenses and
distractions that protracted litigation would cause to
GlobeTel's management team as it seeks to focus all of its
efforts on executing its business strategy.

The first identified complaint is "Richard Stevens, et al. v.  
GlobeTel Communications Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-21071,"  
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of  
Florida under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.
  
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case are:  

          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, (LA)
          1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA, 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
  
          Howard G. Smith
          Attorney at Law
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA, 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847
          Fax: (215) 638-4867
  
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (Boca Raton)
          The Plaza - 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900
          Boca Raton, FL, 33486
          Phone: 561.361.5000
          Fax: 561.367.8400
          E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com
  
          - and -

          Sarraf Gentile, LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005
          New York, NY, 10018
          Phone: 212.868.3610
          Fax: 212.918.7967


GODADDY.COM INC: Escapes Default Judgment in Ad “Parking” Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Harry Barnes of the Western District of Arkansas
agreed to set aside an order for default judgment against
Internet domain name registrar GoDaddy.com, Inc. and The Go
Daddy Group, Inc. in a suit accusing the company of using domain
names without compensating owners, Lynn Larowe of Texarkana
Gazette reports.  

The judge has allowed the firm time to answer the lawsuit
instead of issuing the default judgment because of what the
report briefly says as “mistakes made by the company’s in-house
lawyer.”

The suit is a purported class action filed by Matthew McBride on
behalf of unknown number of individuals who have paid GoDaddy to
set up Web addresses.  The suit alleges that before the sites
were actually set up by the people who paid for them, GoDaddy
used them to “park” advertisements for companies that paid them
a fee to do so.  GoDaddy allegedly did not compensate the actual
owners for the revenue that visits on the Ad generated.

The suit seeks to hold GoDaddy accountable for the wrongdoing
and an injunction preventing GoDaddy from repeating the practice
in the future.

The suit is “McBride v. GoDaddy.com, Inc. et al., Case No.
4:2007-cv-04040,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas under Judge Harry F. Barnes.


GREAT PLAINS: Mo. Court Junks Suit Over Aquila-Gregory Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri granted a motion
to dismiss a consolidated class action filed against Aquila,
Inc., in in relation to its merger with Gregory Acquisition
Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Plains Energy, Inc.

Initially, two purported class actions were filed against Aquila
and certain of its individual directors and officers on Feb. 8,
2007, in Jackson County, Missouri, Circuit Court seeking, among
other things, an injunction against the consummation of the
proposed transaction.  

The lawsuits allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties and self-dealing by Aquila directors and officers.

In July 2007, the plaintiff in one of the suits amended his
petition to include Great Plains Energy and Black Hills as
defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the named Aquila directors and
officers.  

On July 26, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases and
directed plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Petition, which was
done on August 31, 2007.  

Aquila, Great Plains Energy and Black Hills filed motions to
dismiss this case, which were granted on Oct. 29, 2007.  

Great Plains Energy, Inc. -- http://www.greatplainsenergy.com/
-- a public utility holding company and does not own or operate
any significant assets other than the stock of its subsidiaries.


IDEARC INC: Still Faces Sales Representatives’ Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Idearc, Inc. continues to face a purported class action filed by
its current and former sales representatives in California.

The suit was filed on June 22, 2004, in the California Superior
Court, Orange County by from current and former sales
representatives located in California.

The plaintiffs in this case in which the class has been
certified, claim that the company reduced their incentive pay
through offsets for cancellations, non-renewals and credits on
customer accounts and shifted a general business risk of loss to
the company’s sales representatives through the assignment of
accounts which we allegedly knew would not renew their
purchases, or would renew them at a lower level.

The plaintiffs seek amounts they allege were unlawfully deducted
from their wages, civil penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and
costs.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 5,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Idearc Inc. -- http://www.idearc.com/-- is yellow pages  
directories publisher in the U.S.  Its products include print
yellow pages, print white pages, an Internet yellow pages
directory, Superpages.com and an information directory for
wireless subscribers, Superpages MobileSM.


IDEARC INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Part of FLSA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
dismissed part of a purported class action filed against Idearc,
Inc., over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit was filed on April 6, 2006 in by current and former
sales representatives located in New York, Pennsylvania and New
Jersey.

The plaintiffs in this case allege claims similar to those
described above in the California case regarding alleged
reductions in incentive pay.

The plaintiffs also have filed a FLSA collective action seeking
amounts for overtime they allege they worked for which they were
not paid.

On Oct. 27, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims alleged in this case other than the FLSA overtime claims.

On March 12, 2007, the plaintiffs in this case filed a motion
for conditional certification of the FLSA overtime claims as an
FLSA collective action.

On June 11, 2007, the court granted conditional certification of
the FLSA collective action.  

On July 25, 2007, the court granted the company’s motion to
dismiss all claims alleged in this case other than the FLSA
overtime claims, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Idearc Inc. -- http://www.idearc.com/-- is yellow pages  
directories publisher in the U.S.  Its products include print
yellow pages, print white pages, an Internet yellow pages
directory, Superpages.com and an information directory for
wireless subscribers, Superpages MobileSM.


JARDEN CORP: Still Faces Securities Suit Over Holmes Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarden Corp. has yet to report that the  U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York has certified a consolidated
securities fraud lawsuit filed against the company in relation
to its plan to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc.

In January and February 2006, purported class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain company officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

The actions are filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from June 29, 2005 through Jan.
12, 2006.  June 29, 2005 is the date the company announced the
signing of the agreement to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc.

Joint lead plaintiffs were appointed on June 9, 2006.  No class
has been certified in the actions.  The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 25, 2006, against the
company, Jarden Consumer Solutions and certain officers of the
company.  

The suit is alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs
were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits
of the THG Acquisition.  

The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20,
2006.  Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on Feb.
2, 2007.  

On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying Defendants’
motion to dismiss.

On July 3, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Defendants
answered the amended consolidated complaint on July 10, 2007.

On Sept. 5, 2007, the court granted Defendants’ motion for
reconsideration, but reaffirmed its May 31, 2007 denial of
Defendants’ motion to dismiss.  

On Sept. 10, 2007, Plaintiffs moved for class certification.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 5,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The first identified complaint is “Ernesto Darquea, et al. v.
Jarden Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

         Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212.279.5050
         Fax: 212.279.3655
         E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com

         Federman & Sherwood
         120 North Robinson, Suite 2720
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         E-mail: wfederman@aol.com

         Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C.
         60 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212.838.3221
         E-mail: gray@cjgraylaw.com

              - and -

         Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
         World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Ste. 2525
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 410.332.0030
         Fax: pivenlaw@erols.com


JETMAX INT'L: Recalls Storage Rack that can Dangerously Tip Over
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jetmax International Ltd., of Irving, Texas, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
36,000 boy's and girl's storage racks with canvas totes.

The company said the storage rack can tip over, posing an
entrapment and suffocation hazard to young children.

CPSC has received one report of a death involving an 8-month-old
boy who was asphyxiated after he pulled on the storage rack and
it fell over on him. The top rail landed on the infant's neck.
No other incidents have been reported.

The storage rack is wooden with three levels and nine removable
canvas totes. There are wooden handles on each side of the rack.
The boy's storage rack has natural color wood with red, yellow,
green, and navy canvas totes. The girl's storage rack has white
colored wood with pink, yellow, lime, and purple canvas totes.

Wal-Mart sold the storage rack under the brand “Home Trend Kids
9 Canvas Bin Boy's and Girl's Organizers.”

These recalled storage racks were manufactured in China and are
being sold at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from August 2004
through July 2005 and Ollie's stores nationwide from July 2006
through June 2007 for about $40.

Pictures of recalled storage rack:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08085a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08085b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop children from using
the recalled storage racks and contact Jetmax International to
receive a free repair kit that adds stability to the base.

For additional information, contact Jetmax at (800) 689-2168
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT, visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.jlwoodenmfg.com,or email: info@jlwoodenmfg.com


KENNETH COLE: Parties Settle Credit Card Act Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a purported class action alleging violations of the
Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.
have reached a tentative settlement in the matter.

The class action was filed in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of San Diego on April 17, 2007.  It
alleges that the company's policies and practices regarding the
request of personal information during credit card purchases
violate the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.  

The complaint seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On Oct. 29, 2007, the parties participated in mediation and
reached an agreement in principle to settle the dispute.

Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. -- http://www.kennethcole.com/--
designs, sources and markets a range of fashion footwear and
handbags.  Through license agreements, the company designs an
markets apparel and accessories under its Kenneth Cole New York,
Kenneth Cole Reaction, Unlisted and Tribeca brand names.  In
addition, Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. through a license
agreement has the rights to use the Bongo trademark for
footwear, as well as Gentle Souls for footwear under a
trademark.  


KRAFT FOODS: Sued in Cal. Over False Claims on “Calci-Yum!”
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kraft Foods, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed on
Nov. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern California
alleging it made bogus claims on the calcium content of its
products, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Adrianne Smith alleges Kraft deceives consumers
by pushing its products, including Jell-o pudding and pie
filling, under the words "Calci-Yum!" and "A good source of
calcium as prepared," though the products have "absolutely no"
calcium -- the only calcium coming from the milk the customer
adds to them.

She alleges that the total claims of individual class members in
the action are well in excess of $5,000,000 in the aggregate as
required by 28 USC Section 1332(d)(2),(5).

Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to California Civil Code
Section 1781, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of all other
consumers who purchased Kraft's deceptively labeled products
during the class period.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's practices and representations made
         in connection with the labeling, advertising,  
         marketing, promotion and sales of the deceptively
         labeled products were deceptive, unlawful or unfair in
         any respect, thereby violating California's Unfair
         Competition Law, Cal.Bus.&Prof.Code Section 17200 et
         seq.;

     (b) whether defendant's practices and representations made
         in connection with the labeling, advertising,
         marketing, promotion and sales of the deceptively
         labeled products were deceptive, unlawful or unfair in
         any respect, thereby violating California's False
         Advertising Law (FAL), Cal.Bus.&Prof.code Section 17500
         et seq.;

     (c) whether defendant's practices and representations made
         in connection with the labeling, advertising,
         marketing, promotion and sales of the deceptively
         labeled products were false and/or misleading;

     (d) whether defendant's conduct in connection with the
         practices and representations made in labeling,
         advertising, marketing, promotion and sales of the
         deceptively labeled products unjustly enriched  
         defendant at the expense of and to the detriment of
         plaintiff and class members;

     (e) whether defendant's conduct in connection with the
         practices and representations made in the labeling,
         advertising, marketing, promotion and sales of the
         deceptively labeled products breached express
         warranties with regard to the products;

     (f) whether defendant have violated California's Consumer
         Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code
         Section 1750, et seq., by the practices and
         representations made in connection with the labeling,
         advertising, marketing, promotion and sales of the
         deceptively labeled products within the State; and

     (g) whether defendant's conduct as set forth injured
         consumers and if so, the extent of the injury.

Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

      -- for an order certifying that the action may be
         maintained as a class action;

      -- for an award of equitable relief pursuant as follows:

         (1) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in
             the unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business
             practices and deceptive labeling and advertising
             described in the complaint;

         (2) requiring defendant to make full restitution of all
             monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the
             conduct described;

         (3) requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten
             gains flowing from the conduct described;

         (4) enjoining defendant from marketing and selling the
             deceptively labeled products;

      -- for actual punitive damages under CLRA in an amount to
         be proven at trial, including any damages as may be
         provided for by statute upon the filing of a First
         Amended complaint should the demanded corrections not
         take place within the 30-day notice period;

     -- for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to, inter alia,
        Section 1780(d) of the CLRA and Code of Civil Procedure
        Section 1021.5;

     -- for actual damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- for an award of costs and any other award the court
        might deem appropriate; and

     -- for pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
        awarded.

The suit is "Adrianne Smith et al. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., Case
No. 07 CV 2192," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Howard Rubinstein
          914 Waters Avenue, Suite 20
          Aspen, Colorado 81611
          Phone: (832) 715-2788

          - and -

          Harold M. Hewell
          Hewell Law Firm, APC
          402 W. Broadway, Fourth Floor
          San Diego, California 92101
          Phone: (619) 235-6854
          Fax: (619) 235-9122
          E-mail: hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com


LOUIS VUITTON: Ill. Woman Files Suit Over Lipsticks' Lead Level
---------------------------------------------------------------
LVMH Perfumes and Cosmetics (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy) USA,
Inc. are facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 16 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging its lipsticks, including Christian Dior "Addict
Positive Red," contain dangerous levels of lead.

The suit was filed by Cook County resident Pamela Stella, who
bought the lipstick in question from a Nordstrom store this
summer.  She is seeking class-action status for the suit filed
in federal court.  According to the report, Ms. Stella claims
the company knew or should have known that the Christian Dior
"Addict Positive Red" lipstick had dangerous levels of lead and
LVMH has failed to list lead as an ingredient and has not issued
a recall.

Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rules
23(a),(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons who purchased lipstick that
manufactured, marketed, and/or distributed by LVMH, from the
offering of sale of the concerned lipstick products to the
present, containing lead.

She wants the court to rule on"

     (a) whether the concerned lipstick products are defective;

     (b) whether the concerned lipstick products are inherently
         dangerous;

     (c) whether, as a result of LVMH's conduct, plaintiff and
         the other members of plaintiff class have been exposed
         to a known hazardous substance;

     (d) whether early detection, through medical testing, of
         lead poisoning is made necessary and advisable by
         LVMH's manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of
         lipstick products containing lead;

     (e) whether LVMH is refusing to pay for the costs of lead
         testing;

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

     (g) whether LVMH has been unjustly enriched; and

     (h) whether LVMH's conduct is such that it is appropriate
         that there be final injunctive relief to enjoin its
         conduct with respect to plaintiff class as a whole
         pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).

Plaintiff requests that the court enter an order of judgment
against LVMH, including the following:

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

     -- damages in the amount of monies paid for the concerned
        lipstick products;

     -- damages in the amount of monies paid or to be paid for
        medical testing for lead poisoning of plaintiff and
        other members of plaintiff class;

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

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

     -- injunctive relief enjoining LVMH from distributing,
        selling, and/or manufacturing adulterated cosmetics;

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

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

LVMH is an American subsidiary of the French corporation that
also make Hennessy cognac, Dom Perignon champagne and Christian
Dior perfumed and cosmetic.

The suit is "Pamela STella et al. v. LVMH Perfumes and Cosmetics
USA, Inc., Case No. 07CV6509," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Bucklo.

Representing plaintiffs are:

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

          Kevin Rogers
          Law Offices of Kevin Rogers
          307 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 305
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 332-1188
          Fax: (312) 332-0192

          - and -

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


MANUFACTURER'S INDUSTRIAL: Tenn. Lawsuit Claims ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer's Industrial Group, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee accusing it of violating the Americans
with Disabilities Act by giving applicants a nerve conduction
test and refusing to hire them if MIG believes they are
susceptible to carpal tunnel syndrome.

Named plaintiff Eric Julian brings this action for
discrimination in employment by:

     (a) subjecting prospective employees to medical    
         examinations without first making an offer of
         employment; and/or

     (b) taking adverse employment action against individuals at
         its Lexington, Tennessee plant based upon these
         individuals' nerve conduction studies.

These nerve conduction studies purport to indicate these
individual had a propensity to develop cumulative trauma
disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, and defendant thereby
mistakenly perceived them to be undesirable hires who were
substantially limited in the major life activity of working.

The ADA states that no covered entity shall discriminate against
a qualified individual with a disability because of the
disability of such individual in regard to job application
procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees,
employee compensation, job training and other terms, conditions,
and privileges of employment.

Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a),(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all applicants with apparent or actual
disabilities, or a history of being disabled, who have been
denied employment based upon nerve conduction studies purporting
to indicate they had a propensity to develop cumulative trauma
disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, and therefore should
not be hired for what amount to a "class or range of jobs."

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's policies, procedures, acts and
         omissions violated (and/or continue to violate) the
         ADA; and

     (b) whether plaintiff and the class have sustained injury
         by reason of defendant's acts or omissions.

Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment as follows:

     -- determining that this is a proper class action to be
        certified under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its
        directors, officers, employees, agents from engaging in,
        ratifying, or refusing to correct the employment
        practices which discriminate in violation of the ADA;

     -- order defendant to make plaintiffs and the class whole
        by providing appropriate back-pay with prejdugment
        interest, in amounts to be proven at trial, instatement
        or reinstatement to positions with defendant;

     -- awarding extraordinary, equitable and/or injuntive
        relief as permitted by law, equity and the federal
        statutory provisions sued pursuant to Rule 65 and 65 of
        the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- awarding plaintiff and class members restitutionary
        and/or remedial relief;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class members pre-judgment
        and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable
        attorneys fees, expert witness fees and other costs; and

     -- award such other legal and equitable relief as the court
        deems appropriate and just.

The suit is"Eric Julian et al. v. Manufacturer's Industrial
Group, Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Justin S. Gilbert
          Michael L. Russell
          Gilbert & Russell, PLC
          2021 Greystone Park
          P.O. Box 11357
          Jackson, Tennessee
          Phone: 731-664-1340
          Fax: 731-664-1540


MISSISSIPPI: Judge Commends Reforms at Unit 23 of Parchman Jail
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Jerry A. Davis has approved a consent decree
settling a 2005 class action over conditions in the maximum
security unit of the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman,
reports say.

The settlement entered between American Civil Liberties Union
and the state Department of Corrections sets guidelines for the
treatment of mentally ill convicts, the prison's use of force
policy and the classifications of prisoners in Unit 32 of the
penitentiary.

In approving the agreement, Davis said he had identified "a
tremendous step forward" in corrections in the state and praised
Michigan Dept. of Corrections Commissioner Chris Epps and his
staff for successfully implementing the needed reforms.

However, according to a report by the Jackson Clarion Ledger,
Mr. Epps still faces a challenge in both seeking additional
funding and urging lawmakers to change the state's sentencing
guidelines so fewer people will be incarcerated.   More than
50,000 people are in prison or on parole and under Mr. Epps'
supervision.


MODINE MANUFACTURING: Discovery Ongoing in Personal Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action pending against
Modine Manufacturing Co., Rohm & Haas Co., Morton International,
and Huntsman Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The case, “Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Co., et al., Case No.
06-1743,” involves allegations of personal injury from exposure
to solvents that were allegedly released to groundwater and air
for an undetermined period of time.  

It seeks damages for medical monitoring and property value
diminution for a putative class of residents of a community that
are allegedly at risk for personal injuries as a result of
exposure to this same allegedly contaminated groundwater and
air.  

The company is in the discovery stage with the case, according
to Modine's Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 26, 2007.

The suit is “Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company, et al.,
Case No. 06-1743,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Gene E.K. Pratter.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq.
         Layser & Freiwald PC
         1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 215-875-8000
         E-mail: ajf@layserfreiwald.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Albert G. Bixler, Esq.
         Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
         1515 Market Street, 9th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 215-851-8412
         E-mail: abixler@eckertseamans.com


PARKER ITR: Seeks Dismissal of Fla., N.Y. Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Parker ITR, a subsidiary of Parker-Hannifin Corp., is seeking to
dismiss several purported antitrust class actions filed in
Florida and New York with regards to its marine oil and gas hose
business, according to the Parker-Hannifin's Nov. 5, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

There are currently four class actions pending in the Southern
District of Florida and one in the Southern District of New York
alleging that the Company, Parker ITR and a number of other
defendants engaged in violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.

The class action complaints allege that Parker ITR and the other
defendants, for a period of at least eight years, conspired with
competitors in unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially
raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate
markets and customers for marine oil and gas hose in the U.S.

The Company, which is only named in one case in the Southern
District of Florida, was served on July 13, 2007 and had filed
its answer denying the allegations.

Parker ITR has filed a motion to dismiss in each of the four
cases in which it is a defendant.  No decisions on such motions
have been issued.

Parker-Hannifin Corp. -- http://www.parker.com-- is a worldwide  
full-line diversified manufacturer of motion control products,
including fluid power systems, electromechanical controls and
related components.


POZEN INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
POZEN, Inc. faces a purported securities class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in
relation to statements it made regarding its migraine drug
candidate, Trexima.

The suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2007 by a holder of the company’s
securities against POZEN, its chairman and chief executive
officer and one of its directors.  

The complaint alleges, among other claims, violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising
out of allegedly false and misleading statements made by the
Company concerning its migraine drug candidate, Trexima, during
the purported class period, July 31, 2006 through Aug. 1, 2007.

The suit is “Brian Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-00559,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423


PREMCOR REFINING: Faces Suit Over Port Arthur Refinery Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Premcor Refining Group Inc. is facing a class action filed
by about 100 Port Arthur (Tex.) residents claiming the company
has polluted the area's neighborhoods, schools and churches,
David Yates of Southeast Texas Record reports.

The suit "Eva Brown et al. v. The Premcor Refining Group Inc.,"
was filed in the Jefferson County District Court on Nov. 16.  It
claims the refinery's toxic releases have inflected them or
their children with asthma.  The pollution allegedly dates back
to at least the last seven years.  

Premcor operated the refinery until Valero took ownership in
2005.  Other owners of the plant, which was built shortly after
1901, were Chevron, and Clark.

The suit accuses Premcor of causing and/or exacerbating the
plaintiffs' asthma, upper respiratory, sinus, bronchitis,
pneumonia, allergy and rhinitis conditions.  It is also claiming
Premcor negligently failed to prevent the release of the
dangerous-toxic emissions.  It further claims nuisance and
trespass.

Premcor attorney Michael Eaves has already submitted an answer
in response, denying "each and every allegation" and demanding
strict proof of the plaintiffs' accusations.

The plaintiffs are suing for punitive damages, plus mental
anguish, medical expenses and loss of earning capacity damages.

The suit is "Eva Brown et al. v. The Premcor Refining Group
Inc., Case No. E180-771," filed in the Jefferson County District
Court before Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District.

Premcor's attorney is:

          Michael Eaves, Esq.
          Calvert Eaves Clarke & Stelly, L.L.P.
          The Beaumont Tower, 2615 Calder Avenue, Suite 1070
          Beaumont, Texas  77702
          (Jefferson Co.)
          Phone: 409-832-8885
          Fax: 409-832-8886
          Web site: http://www.calvert-eaves.com

Plaintiffs are represented in part by:

          James Blackburn, Jr., Esq.
          Wiseman, Blackburn & Futrell
          240 West Broughton Street, P.O. Box 8996
          Savannah, Georgia  31412
          (Chatham Co.)
          Phone: 912-232-2136
          Fax: 912-238-9810; 912-232-6246
         http://www.lawyers.com/WisemanBlackburn&Futrell


SOUTH CAROLINA: Limit on Rights-of-Way Class Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a rights-of-way lawsuit filed against South
Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (SCE&G) and SCANA Corp. are
appealing an order limiting the class in the suit.  The class  
was restricted to owners of easements situated in Charleston
County, South Carolina.  

In May 2004, SCANA, and SCE&G were served with a purported class
action filed by Douglas E. Gressette, individually and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated against the companies. The
case was filed in South Carolina's Circuit Court of Common Pleas
for the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

The plaintiff alleges that SCANA and SCE&G made improper use of
certain easements and rights-of-way by allowing fiber optic
communication lines and/or wireless communication equipment to
transmit communications other than SCANA’s and SCE&G’s
electricity-related internal communications.

The plaintiff asserted causes of action for unjust enrichment,
trespass, injunction and declaratory judgment.  The plaintiff
did not assert a specific dollar amount for the claims.  

SCANA and SCE&G believe their actions are consistent with
governing law and the applicable documents granting easements
and rights-of-way.  The Circuit Court granted SCANA’s and
SCE&G’s motion to dismiss and issued an order dismissing the
case in June 2005.

The plaintiff appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.  The
Supreme Court overruled the Circuit Court in October 2006 and
returned the case to the Circuit Court for further
consideration.  

In July 2007, the Circuit Court issued a ruling that limits the
plaintiff’s purported class to owners of easements situated in
Charleston County, South Carolina.  

The plaintiff has appealed this ruling to the South Carolina
Court of Appeals.  It is anticipated that this case may not go
to trial before 2008.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.  

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. -- http://www.sceg.com/--  
generates and sells electricity to retail and wholesale
customers, and purchases, sells and transports natural gas to
retail customers.


STRATEGIC ENERGY: Still Faces Suit in Pa. Over Power Supply Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Energy, L.L.C., a business segment of Great Plains
Energy, Inc., continues to face a purported class action over
its Power Supply Coordination Service Agreements.

In 2005, a class action complaint for breach of contract was
filed against the company in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs purportedly represent the interests of certain
customers in Pennsylvania who entered into the agreement or a
certain product in Pennsylvania.

The complaint seeks monetary damages alleged to be in excess of
$25,000, attorney fees and costs and a declaration that the
customers may terminate their Agreements with Strategic Energy.

In response to Strategic Energy’s preliminary objections,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in July 2006, and
Strategic Energy filed its preliminary objections in July 2007.

Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to file an additional amended
complaint in response to Strategic Energy’s preliminary
objections.

Great Plains reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
5, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Great Plains Energy, Inc. -- http://www.greatplainsenergy.com/
-- is a public utility holding company and does not own or
operate any significant assets other than the stock of its
subsidiaries.  


US GREENFIBER: Sued for Health Hazard of Cocoon Insulation
----------------------------------------------------------
Three companies in California are facing a purported class
action in relation to "wet blown cellulose insulation," The
CourtHouse News reports.

U.S. Greenfiber, Pulte Home Corp. and Quality Interiors are
accused of endangering public health by making and installing
the insulation known as Cocoon insulation, which allegedly
promotes mold growth.

Schimmel & Parks filed the suit in Superior Court on behalf of
"thousands" of homeowners in California.  The law firm accuses
the defendants of "unlawful, unfair, and misleading business
practices in the residential insulation industry".  Its suit
seeks disgorgement and punitive damages.

U.S. GreenFiber -- http://www.us-gf.com-- makes cellulose  
insulation from 100% recycled newsprint and other paper
products. The venture markets its Cocoon cellulose insulation to
residential construction, retail, and manufactured housing
operations. U.S. GreenFiber distributes its products throughout
the U.S. and in Canada and operates plants in 13 states.

Schimmel & Parks on the Net: http://www.spattorneys.com/.


VIACOM INC: Motion to Stay Blockbuster Split-Off Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to stay action in favor of a consolidated securities
action and Employee Retirement Income Security Act action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is
pending in the Court of Chancery of Delaware.

Viacom, Inc. continues to face purported class actions in Texas
and Delaware over the 2004 split-off of Blockbuster, Inc.,
according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filling with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The former Viacom entity, National Amusements, Inc.,
Blockbuster, and Viacom, Inc., and certain of the company's
respective present and former officers and directors, are
defendants in three putative class actions relating to the 2004
split-off of Blockbuster from the former Viacom pursuant to an
exchange offer.

The lawsuits now pending are a consolidated securities action
and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and a
state law action in the Court of Chancery of Delaware.

The lawsuits seek damages in unspecified amounts and other
relief on behalf of various classes of Blockbuster and former
Viacom stockholders and, in the ERISA case, participants in the
Blockbuster Investment Plan and the Plan itself.

The lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action allege
that the defendants in that case made untrue statements of
material facts and concealed and failed to disclose material
facts in the Prospectus-Offer to Exchange and elsewhere during
the alleged period.

The plaintiff in the ERISA action alleges that the defendants in
that case breached fiduciary obligations to the Blockbuster
Investment Plan by continuing to offer to plan participants
Blockbuster stock from and after November 2003 and by offering
to plan participants the opportunity to exchange their shares of
Former Viacom common stock for the shares of Blockbuster common
stock.

The plaintiff in the Delaware case alleges that the Former
Viacom Board member defendants breached fiduciary duties to
Former Viacom shareholders in connection with the split-off and
that the Blockbuster Board member defendants breached fiduciary
duties to Blockbuster shareholders by disproportionately
favoring Former Viacom in the split-off transaction.

On Sept. 24, 2007, defendants’ motion to dismiss the ERISA
action was granted in part and denied in part, without prejudice
to defendants’ right to re-file a motion to dismiss after the
plaintiff files an amended complaint.

A motion to dismiss the Delaware case, or stay action in favor
of the Texas case, is pending in the Court of Chancery of
Delaware.

Viacom, Inc. -- http://www.viacom.com/-- is a global  
entertainment content company.  The Company operates through two
segments: Media Networks (formerly Cable Networks), which
includes MTV Networks (MTVN) and BET Networks, and Filmed
Entertainment (formerly Entertainment), which includes Paramount
Pictures Corp. and Famous Music.


* Class Actions Ready to Cross to Europe, Kendall Executive Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A.M. Best Co.'s BestWeek Europe stated that for years newspapers
in U.K. have reported on some of the more fantastic decisions to
emerge from law courts in the United States with a certain smug
sense that this kind of nonsense could never happen in Europe.

It might not be very long before they're proved wrong, BestWeek
reported, quoting Laurence Harris, London managing partner at
London based law firm Kendall Freeman.  Mr. Harris who believes
it's no longer a question of if but rather when such litigation
will make the trek over the Atlantic.

Famous U.S. cases include the woman who sued McDonalds after
spilling hot coffee on herself when the car she was in stopped
(claiming that the coffee should have come with a warning) and
the obese man who sued a string of fast food chains because they
didn't warn him that eating their products several times a week
could make him obese. Other cases involve larger groups of
people, with the most infamous mass tort in recent history being
the ongoing tidal wave of cases involving people diagnosed with
an asbestos-related condition and who have banded together to
sue a wide range of defendants.

Mr. Harris told BestWeek Europe there are two specific areas
that have previously prevented the bringing of these kinds of
cases in Europe. The first is a formal framework that doesn't
allow such cases. But Harris pointed out that there have been
recent moves by the European Union to change the regulatory
framework and, in the process, possibly allow mass torts and
class actions.

The second is the difficulty that most litigants have in funding
their actual litigation. But new ways around this may open the
door to more mass torts, he said.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

November 29 - 30, 2007
PREPARING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LIABILITY
American Conference Institute
New Orleans
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

December 10-11, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TRIAL STRATEGIES SEMINAR & EXPO
PREPARING AND DEFENDING THE ULTIMATE CATASTROPHIC PERSONAL
INJURY CASE
Mealeys Seminars
Sheraton City Center, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 10, 2007
MEALEY'S SECURITIZATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Marriott Financial Center, NYC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 10-11, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Madison, Washington, D.C.
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-12, 2007
MEALEY'S VIATICAL SETTLEMENTS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12-14, 2007
DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Waldorf Astoria, New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480


February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 10-11, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

October 23-24, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

December 13, 2007
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Bigband Networks, Inc. NASDAQ: BBND), between
March 14, 2007, and September 27, 2007, inclusive and alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by Bigband and certain of its executives.

The proposed Class includes those who purchased Bigband common
stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on or about March 14, 2007 (the "IPO").

The Complaint alleges that on March 14, 2007, Bigband and
Company insiders completed the IPO, selling 7.5 million shares
of Bigband common stock from the Company and 4.8 million shares
of Bigband common stock from selling stockholders, for a total
of 12.3 million shares at $13 per share for gross proceeds
totaling $159.9 million.

The Complaint also alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects, financial results
and forward guidance. Specifically, defendants allegedly failed
to disclose:

     i) that the Company had achieved revenue growth and
        profitability at the end of 2006 only as a result of
        non-recurring orders from Verizon Communications Inc.
        ("Verizon") and as a result, Bigband would not achieve
        further revenue growth from Verizon until Verizon worked
        off the inventory purchased in late 2006 and early 2007;

    ii) that material delays were occurring in the customization
        of certain customer specific products involving switched
        digital video technology; and iii) that the viability of
        the Company's cable modem termination system was in
        doubt.

It is further alleged that, after the market closed on September
27, 2007, Bigband disclosed that it was revising its revenue
outlook for the third quarter ending September 30, 2007 and that
the Company expected to report revenue for the third quarter in
the range of $35 million to $39 million, as much as $23 million
below the Company's previous guidance of $54 million to $58
million. According to the Complaint, Bigband allegedly
attributed the material decline in expectations to one customer,
not named but assumed to be Verizon, having excessive inventory
of Bigband's products and with no expectation to increase its
purchases in the immediate future and that Bigband was having
difficulty obtaining customer acceptance of other products.

On September 28, 2007, the following trading day, shares of the
Company's stock declined $2.67 per share, or approximately 29%,
to close at $6.40 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 3,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox
          Joel B. Strauss
          Jeffrey P. Campisi
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714

          - and -

          Laurence D. King
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax: (415) 772-4707


COUNTRYWIDE CAPITAL: Schubert & Reed Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schubert & Reed LLP filed a class action in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the 7% Capital Securities of Countrywide
Capital V (CCV) from the date of CCV’ s public offering on
November 1, 2006 to August 16, 2007.

Plaintiff alleges claims for violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77k et seq.

The Capital Securities at issue in the complaint filed by
Schubert & Reed LLP represent an undivided beneficial interest
in the assets of CCV. The only assets of CCV are junior
subordinated deferrable interest debentures issued by
Countrywide Financial Corporation (NYSE:CFC), a holding company
that engages in mortgage lending and other finance-related
operations.

The Capital Securities trade on the New York Stock Exchange and
may be found under the symbol CFC-PB (Yahoo Finance); CFC.PRB
(CBS Marketwatch); CFC-B (Google Finance); CFC-B (AOL Finance);
or CFCB (WSJ.com). The offering price was $25.00.

The Complaint alleges that CCV’ s Registration Statement and
Prospectus contained material misstatements and omissions. At
the time of the offering, Countrywide was suffering from adverse
factors, which were not properly disclosed. In particular, the
Registration Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose
Countrywide’ s exposure to massive losses caused by its subprime
lending practices. Such matters were causing a material adverse
affect on Countrywide’ s business at the time of CCV’ s November
1, 2006 offering. According to Countrywide’ s recent statements,
these matters will continue to affect its business going
forward.

Certain of the adverse factors affecting Countrywide’ s business
were first revealed on July 24, 2007, when the Company forecast
a weak second half of 2007 due to adverse market conditions,
which caused the price of the Capital Securities to decline from
$24.46 on July 23, 2007 to $20.85 on July 31, 2007. As the
Company continued to issue negative developments, the price of
the Capital Securities continued to fall to just $13.85 on
August 16, 2007, the end of the Class Period.

Plaintiff and the Class have suffered serious financial damage
as a result of defendants’ material misstatements and omissions
in the Registration Statement and Prospectus. Had plaintiff and
the class known the truth, they would not have purchased CCV’ s
Capital Securities, nor purchased them at the inflated prices
that were paid.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 18,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Robert C. Schubert
          Juden Justice Reed
          Schubert & Reed LLP
          Phone: (415)788-4220
          E-mail: rschubert@schubert-reed.com or
                  jreed@schubert-reed.com
          Webmail: http://www.schubert-reed.com


FX ENERGY: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, LLP, filed a class action against FX Energy, Inc.
(Nasdaq:FXEN) and certain officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah.

The action is on behalf of FX Energy common stock purchasers
during the period March 30, 2004, through January 5, 2006,
inclusive, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the Company's
business and operations and that, as a result, the price of the
Company's securities was inflated during the Class Period,
thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding oil and gas
reserve estimates in the Company's exploration areas located in
the western part of Poland in a geological zone known as the
Permian Basin. As late as July 2005, the Company reiterated
overly aggressive and objectively baseless claims of gas reserve
estimates, exceeding one trillion cubic feet of gas in its
various finds.

On December, 20 2005, the Company began to communicate lowered
expectations and estimates for its yet undrilled wells. Finally,
on January 4, 2006, the Company's CEO admitted to its prior
false and misleading interpretations of the available data,
resulting in new "estimates" for oil and gas reserves that were
orders of magnitude less than those disclosed during the Class
Period. As a result of the shocking news, the price of FX Energy
stock plunged more than 26.5%, falling from $8.26 per share on
January 4, 2006, to close at $6.07 per share on January 5, 2006,
for a loss of $2.19 per share on heavy volume of 3.9 million
shares, more than ten times average trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 18,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

FX Energy operates an independent oil and gas exploration and
production company. It engages in the exploration, development,
and production of oil and gas in the Republic of Poland and the
United States.

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


                           *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *