---

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

          Wednesday, December 19, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 251

                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: “Marcus” Suit Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Denies Review Petition in “Hoffman” Case
AMERICAN EXPRESS: $75M Settlement of Conversion Fees Suit Upheld
AMERICAN HOME: Asks Bankruptcy Court to Dismiss Labor Complaint
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: NAACP Amends Racial Discrimination Suit

ASARCO LLC: Seeks to Expunge Claims by Okla. Property Owners
ATHOME AMERICA: Recalls Decorative Candles Due to Fire Hazard
BANKERS LIFE: Court to Hear Appeal in Insurance Agent's Lawsuit
BEAR STEARNS: Navigator Says N.Y. High Ct. Should Hear Complaint
CALPINE CORP: Creditor & Equity Panel Backs Claims Objection

CHUBB CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions
CONSECO HEALTH: Appellate Briefing in Policyholder's Suit Done
DANA CORP: Pension Funds Oppose Reorganization Plan Confirmation
DELPHI CORP: Revised Plan Disregards ERISA Plaintiffs' Concerns
DELTA FINANCIAL: Workers File Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Layoffs

ENRON CORP: Shareholders' Lead Counsel Seeks $700M Legal Fees
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Cartridge Replacement
HOMEBANC: Judge Carey Allows Creditors Committee to Intervene
HOME DEPOT: Recalls Holiday Figurines Due to Lead Paint Hazard
INLAND WESTERN: Faces Stockholder's Litigation in N.D. Illinois

INFOSONICS CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Calif. Securities Lawsuit
NATIONAL RV: Laid-off Employee Sues Alleging WARN Act Violation
NAUTILUS INC: Recalls Home Gyms with Fasteners that can Detach
PARMALAT SPA: Judge Kaplan Denies Third-Party Action Dismissal
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Ranger UVs Due to Fire, Burn Hazards

PRODUCTIVITY CENTER: Sued Over Police Personal Data Theft
RODALE INC: 3rd Circuit Dismisses Suit Over Unordered Books
STOKKE LLC: Recalls Xplory Strollers with Wheels that can Detach


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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ISILON SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: “Marcus” Suit Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the antitrust suit "The Marcus Corp. v. American
Express Co., et al." asked the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to certify a class in the suit.

Initially, several cases were filed against the company:

      -- "Cohen Rese Gallery et al. v. American Express Co.,
         et al.," U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed July 2003);

      -- "Italian Colors Restaurant v. American Express Co.,
         et al.," U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed August 2003);

      -- "DRF Jeweler Corp. v. American Express Co., et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed December 2003);

      -- "Hayama Inc. v. American Express Co., et al.,"
         Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed
         December 2003);

      -- "Chez Noelle Restaurant v. American Express Co., et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed January 2004);

      -- "Mascari Enterprises d/b/a Sound Stations v. American
         Express Co., et al.," U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York (filed January 2004);

      -- "Mims Restaurant v. American Express Co., et al.,"
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York (filed February 2004); and

      -- "The Marcus Corp. v. American Express Co., et
         al.," U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed July 2004).

The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

Upon motion to the Court by the Company, the venue of the Cohen
Rese and Italian Colors actions was moved to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York in December 2003.

Each of the above-listed actions (except for Hayama) is now
pending in the Southern District of New York, consolidated as
“In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation.”

                     Dismissal and Arbitration

On April 30, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all the
actions filed prior to such date that were pending in the
Southern District of New York, and on March 15, 2006, such
motion was granted, with the Court finding the claims of the
plaintiffs to be subject to arbitration.

Plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider its dismissal.  That
request was denied.  The plaintiffs have appealed the Court’s
arbitration ruling.

                       Hayama Litigation

In addition, during the pendency of the motion in the Southern
District of New York, the Company had asked the California
Superior Court hearing the Hayama action referenced above to
stay that action pending resolution of such motion.

                    Marcus Corp. Litigation

The Company also filed a motion to dismiss the action filed by
the Marcus Corp., which was denied in July 2005.

On Oct. 1, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification
of a class.  

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The Company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the Company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.

    
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Denies Review Petition in “Hoffman” Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court denied a petition by American
Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. for review of a denial
of its motion to compel arbitration in a suit filed against the
company by charge card holders.

In January 2006, in a matter “Hoffman, et al. v. American
Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., No. 2001-02281,” the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda,
certified a class action against TRS.

Two classes were certified:

     -- all persons who held American Express charge cards with
        billing addresses in California who purchased American
        Express' fee-based travel-related insurance plans from
        Sept. 6, 1995, through a date to be determined; and

     -- all persons who held American Express charge cards with
        billing addresses in states other than California and
        who purchased American Express' fee-based travel-related
        insurance plans from Sept. 6, 1995, through a date to be
        determined.

Plaintiffs allege that American Express violated California and
New York law by allegedly billing customers for flight and
baggage insurance that they did not receive.

American Express denies the allegations and filed an
interlocutory appeal (petition for a writ of mandate) of the
class certification order.

In June 2006, the appellate court denied jurisdiction over that
interlocutory appeal.

American Express also appealed the denial of its motion to
compel individual arbitration of all non-California class
members.

In July 2007, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the
motion to compel arbitration.  The Company’s request for a
rehearing on that issue was denied by the appellate court.

The Company filed a petition for review to the California
Supreme Court, which was denied in late October 2007.

                   Environment Law Litigation

In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
a case making related allegations as those raised in “Hoffman”
is pending.  

That suit, “Environment Law Enforcement Systems v. American
Express et al.,” had effectively been stayed pending the
proceedings in the Hoffman action.  

In October 2006, the Court in the Environment Law action entered
an order scheduling a pre-motion conference on American Express'
anticipated motion to compel arbitration for Jan. 31, 2007.

That date was extended pending the decision by the California
appellate court in the Hoffman matter.  The Company advised the
Court in the Environment Law matter of the California appellate
court’s decision in the Hoffman matter and requested that the
stay of the Environment Law matter remain in effect until the
Company’s petition for review of the California decision by the
California Supreme Court could be considered.

With the California Supreme Court now having denied the
Company’s petition for review as described above, the parties
expect to report to the Court on the status of the matter,
according to the company's Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Sept. 30, 2007

American Express Travel is a subsidiary of American Express Co.
American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The Company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the Company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: $75M Settlement of Conversion Fees Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
A $75 million settlement of a suit over alleged hidden
fees charged by American Express Co. for converting foreign
currencies became final after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal against the settlement.

Amex agreed to pay the group more than $3 million to drop
appeals claiming that the deal shortchanged consumers, the
report stated (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 23, 2007).

According to a report, legal experts say the resolution
highlights two potential abuses in class action litigation:
“Objecting lawyers can obtain legal fees by standing in the way
of a settlement, whether or not their gripes about the deal have
merit.  And when a settlement is legally flawed, businesses can
avoid having an appeals court review the matter simply by
offering extra cash to those diligent enough to pursue an
appeal.”

The appeal was led by Texas lawyer Michael Caddell of Caddell &
Chapman in Houston.  The appeal was filed before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

                        Case Background

The company was named in several purported class actions in
various state courts alleging that the company violated the
respective state's laws by wrongfully collecting amounts
assessed on converting transactions made in foreign currencies
to U.S. dollars and/or failing to properly disclose the
existence of such amounts in its Cardmember agreements and
billing statements.

The plaintiffs in the actions seek, among other remedies,
injunctive relief, money damages and/or attorneys' fees on their
own behalf and on behalf of the putative class of persons
similarly situated.

In December 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida granted final approval of a nationwide class
action settlement to resolve all lawsuits and allegations with
respect to the company's collection and disclosure of fees
assessed on transactions made in foreign currencies in the case,
“Lipuma v. American Express Bank, American Express Travel
Related Services Co., Inc. and American Express Centurion Bank,”
which was filed in August 2003.

The settlement approved by the court calls for the company to:

      -- deposit $75 million into a fund that will be used to
         reimburse class members with valid claims, make certain
         contributions to charitable organizations to be
         identified later and pay attorneys' fees; and

      -- make certain changes to the disclosures in its
         Cardmember agreements and billing statements regarding
         its foreign currency conversion practices (which it has
         already done).

The company had previously established reserves to cover the
payment that will be made to reimburse class members and pay
attorneys' fees.

The court's approval order enjoins all other proceedings that
make related allegations pending a final approval hearing
including, but not limited to these cases:

      -- Environmental Law Foundation, et al. v. American
         Express Co., et al., Superior Court of Alameda
         County, California (filed March 2003);

      -- Rubin v. American Express Co. and American Express
         Travel Related Services Co., Inc., Circuit Court of
         Madison County, Illinois (filed April 2003);

      -- Angie Arambula, et al. v. American Express Co., et
         al., District Court of Cameron County, Texas, 103rd
         Judicial District (filed May 2003);

      -- Fuentes v. American Express Travel Related Services
         Co., Inc. and American Express Co., District
         Court of Hidalgo County, Texas (filed May 2003);

      -- Wick v. American Express Co., et al., Circuit Court
         of Cook County, Illinois (filed May 2003);

      -- Bernd Bildstein v. American Express Co., et al.,
         Supreme Court of Queens County, New York (filed June
         2003);

      -- Janowitz v. American Express Co., et al., Circuit
         Court of Cook County, Illinois (filed September 2003);

      -- Paul v. American Express Co., et al., Superior
         Court of Orange County, California (filed January
         2004); and

      -- Ball v. American Express, et al., Superior Court of San
         Joaquin, California (filed August 2004).

With the Company having reached a resolution with several who
had appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, that appeal has been dismissed and the settlement is
now final, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

American Express Co. -- https://home.americanexpress.com/ -- is
a global payments, network and travel company.  The Company has
four operating segments: Global Network & Merchant Services,
U.S. Card Services, International Card & Global Commercial
Services and Corporate & Other.  The products and services of
the Company include global card network services; charge card
and credit cards for consumers and businesses; consumer and
small business lending products; American Express travelers
cheques and gift cards; merchant acquiring and transaction
processing; business expense management products and services;
consumer travel services, and business travel and travel
management services, among others.


AMERICAN HOME: Asks Bankruptcy Court to Dismiss Labor Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. and its affiliates in
bankruptcy (Debtors) asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware to dismiss an amended class-action
complaint filed by seven former employees.   The complaint of
the class action was originally asserted by Ahmad Rasheed and
Michael S. Surowiec on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated former employees.

Kathy S. Koch, Chan Nguyen, Jarrett Perry, Gina Pulliam, Michael
S. Surowiec, Patricia Williams and Kathleen Wielgus contend that
the Debtors failed to pay them, and the other Former Employees,  
their wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay
and accrued vacation for 60 calendar days after their
terminations.  They add that the Debtors also failed to make
401(k) contributions and to provide them with health insurance
coverage and other employee benefits under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

James E. Huggett, Esq., at Margolis Edelstein, in Wilmington,
Delaware, says that the Plaintiffs sue under Rules 7023(a) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Rules
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on
behalf of a class of Former Employees, like themselves, and
other persons, who are affected employees within the meaning of
Section 210l(a)(5) of the Labor Code.

Mr. Huggett tells the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware that common questions of law and fact are applicable to
all members of the Class, and that the Class is so numerous,
approximately 4,000 persons, that it would be impractical for
each member to render joinders.  He assures the Court that:

     (i) the Class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) for
         class certification,

    (ii) no Class member has an interest in individually  
         controlling the prosecution of a separate action under
         the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act,  
         and

   (iii) no litigation concerning the WARN Act rights of any  
         Class member has been commenced.

Concentrating all the potential WARN Act litigation of the Class
members in the Court will avoid a multiplicity of suits, will
conserve judicial and the parties' resources, and is the most
efficient means of resolving the WARN Act issues, Mr. Huggett
notes.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the Class members ask the Court
to:

  -- grant an administrative priority claim, pursuant to Section
     503(b)(a)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, equal to the sum of:

     * unpaid wages;
     * salary
     * commissions
     * bonuses
     * accrued holiday pay
     * accrued vacation pay
     * pension and 401 (k) contributions;
     * other ERISA benefits for 60 days.

  -- alternatively, determine that the first $10,950 of the
     Class members' WARN Act claims is entitled to priority
     status, under Section 507(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, and
     the remainder as a general unsecured claim;

  -- certify that the Plaintiffs and the other Class members
     constitute a single class;

  -- appoint Mr. Huggett, and Margolis Edelstein, as Class
     Counsel;

  -- appoint the Plaintiffs as the Class representatives with
     reasonable compensation; and

  -- allow as administrative priority claim the reasonable
     attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

                        Debtors Respond

The Debtors tell the Court they did not make certain payments
under the WARN Act because no violation of the statute occurred.  
They note that they were not an employer or business enterprise
under the WARN Act at the time the alleged violations occurred,
as they were excused from giving notice under the unforeseeable
business circumstances and faltering company exceptions of the
WARN Act.

The Debtors further argue that the Amended Complaint, in whole
or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.  They insist that the Plaintiffs have failed to
mitigate their damages.

The Debtors say that to the extent that any of the Plaintiffs,
or Class members, are entitled to recover sums, then, the
Debtors are entitled to set-off or recoup against those amounts
previously paid to any of the Plaintiffs, including voluntary or
unconditional payments not required by legal obligation, or
payments made to third parties or trustees on behalf of, or
attributable to, the Plaintiffs.

The Debtors, therefore, ask the Court to dismiss the Amended
Complaint and award them attorney's fees with interest and
costs.

                      About American Home

Based in Melville, New York, American Home Mortgage Investment
Corp. (NYSE: AHM) -- http://www.americanhm.com/-- is a mortgage
real estate investment trust engaged in the business of
investing in mortgage-backed securities and mortgage loans
resulting from the securitization of residential mortgage loans
originated and serviced by its subsidiaries.

American Home Mortgage and seven affiliates filed for chapter 11
protection on Aug. 6, 2007 (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 07-11047
through 07-11054).  James L. Patton, Jr., Esq., Joel A. Waite,
Esq., and Pauline K. Morgan, Esq. at Young, Conaway, Stargatt &
Taylor LLP represent the Debtors.  Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC
acts as the Debtors' claims and noticing agent.  The Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors selected Hahn & Hessen LLP as
its counsel.  As of March 31, 2007, American Home Mortgage's
balance sheet showed total assets of $20,553,935,000, total
liabilities of $19,330,191,000.  The Debtors' exclusive period
to file a plan expires on Dec. 21, 2007.  (American Home
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 19, Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).  


AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: NAACP Amends Racial Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP), which filed a class action in July against a dozen
major subprime lenders alleging institutionalized racism in
lending practices, adds six additional lenders to the suit.

The new defendants are:

          -- CitiMortgage,
          -- Suntrust Mortgage,
          -- GMAC Rescap,
          -- JP Morgan,
          -- National City and
          -- First Horizon

"It's a case of too little too late," says Brian Kabateck, one
of lead the attorneys representing the NAACP and a partner with
the Los Angeles law firm of Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP.

"African Americans are at least 30% more likely to be placed
into subprime loans and the President's so-called solution does
nothing to help people who have been late on just one payment.
For those hurt the most by predatory lending, the proposal is
useless."

In July, NAACP filed a class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California accusing:

          -- Ameriquest Mortgage Co.,
          -- Fremont Investment & Loan,
          -- Option One,
          -- WMC Mortgage Corp.,
          -- Citigroup Inc.,
          -- BNC MOrtgage Inc.,
          -- Accredited Home Lenders,
          -- Bear Sterns Residential Mortgage Corp. d/b/a
             Encore Credit,
          -- First Franklin Financial Corp.
          -- HSBC Finance Corp.,
          -- Washington Mutual, Inc.,

of discriminating against black homebuyers, who are 30 percent
more likely to be charged higher rates for subprime mortgages
than white applicants “with the same qualifications” (Class
Action Reporter, July 16, 2007).

The NAACP accuses the lending industry, including 11 other named
defendants, of “institutionalized, systematic racism,” in
violation of fair housing, civil rights and credit laws. It
claims mortgage lenders were put on notice of this racist
behavior in 2004, but the problem has become even worse since
then.

The NAACP says President George Bush's plan to freeze
introductory mortgage rates for five years won't help the
majority of African Americans who have already been victimized
by discriminatory lending practices.

A report published by Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation) showed that minority borrowers pay higher annual
percentage rates on mortgage loans than non-minorities with
equal income and credit risk. For instance, in 2005, African
American borrowers paid an average of 128 basis points more for
loans than their white counterparts. In the subprime market, the
difference was event greater -- 275 basis points more.

"When African Americans pay hundreds of dollars each month on
their mortgages because of discriminatory lending it affects
everything -- retirement planning, college savings, consumer
spending and quality of life," says co-lead counsel Austin Tighe
of Feazell & Tighe. "Instead of home ownership being the
cornerstone of the American dream, it becomes a nightmare.
President Bush should have proposed a real solution. Instead, he
bowed to the interests of the lenders and put a band-aid on a
shotgun wound. We look forward to forcing real change and real
relief through our lawsuit."

The suit is "National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al., Case No.
SACV07-0794 AG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Brian S. Kabatek
          Richard L. Kellner
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Phone: (213) 217-5000
          Fax: (213) 217-5010
          E-mail: bsk@bklawyers.com

          - and -

          Austin Tighe
          Vic Feazell
          Feazell & Tighe, LLP
          6300 Bridgepoint Parkway
          Bridgepoint 1, Suite 220
          Austin, Texas 78730
          Phone: (512) 372-8100
          Fax: (512) 372-8140


ASARCO LLC: Seeks to Expunge Claims by Okla. Property Owners
------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC, its affiliates in bankruptcy (together, the Debtors)
and counsel for several toxic tort claimants conducted a
mediation on October 23 and 24, 2007.  Several claims were
resolved pursuant to a "Memorandum of Understanding" signed by
the attorneys at the mediation.  The terms of the MOU is
currently being finalized and will be filed for Court approval
soon, Ishaq Kundawala, Esq., at Baker Botts, L.L.P., in Dallas,
Texas, relates, on the Debtors' behalf.

Certain property damage claims related to the Debtors'
operations in Tar Creek, Oklahoma, remained outstanding after
the October mediation.  The mediation over the Tar Creek claims
took place on November 27, 2007.

Between the October 23 and November 27 mediations, Betty Cole
filed Claim No. 18281 to amend Claim No. 9974, and James Darnell
filed Claim No. 18280 to amend Claim No. 9986.

Mr. Kundawala says the November 27 mediation was unsuccessful
due in large part to the filing of the Amended Claims.  

The Debtors assert that the Amended Claims prejudice their right
to litigate the toxic tort claims at the estimation hearing
currently scheduled for January 14, 2008, and makes any dispute
resolution on the remaining toxic tort claims virtually
impossible.

As part of the Debtors' efforts to resolve duplicative toxic
tort related claims outside of the omnibus claims objection
process, the Debtors' counsel contacted various parties to
negotiate withdrawals of certain claims.

One of those agreements was reached with certain claimants
represented by the "Speer Law Firm, P.A."  Those claimants
filed, by and through their counsel, what appeared to be
duplicative proofs of claim.  Among the duplicative claims are:

     Claimant                      Claim Nos.
     --------                      ----------
     City of Picher                   9972
     Baughman H.C.                    9973
     Betty Jean Cole                  9974
     John Frazier                     9975
     Rayma Grimes                     9976
     Patsy Huffman                    9977
     Edwin Kerley                     9978
     Larry Olds                       9979
     Lloyd Stone                      9980
     Picher-Cardin School Board       9981
     City of Quapaw                   9982
     Quapaw School Board              9983
     Darlene Evans                    9985
     Dennis Earp                      9986
     Neal Watson                      9987
     Connie Wisdom                    9988
     James Darnell                    9989

The Debtors reached an agreement with the Claimants where the
Claimants agree to withdraw certain of their duplicative claims
and consolidate those claims into two amended proofs of claims:

  (a) The Claimants who held Claim Nos. 9972, 9973, 9975, 9976,
      9977, 9978, 9979, 9980 and 9981 would consolidate their
      claims by amending Claim No. 9974 to include as creditors
      the holders of the withdrawn claims and to increase the
      amount of their aggregate claim from $50,000,000 to
      $100,000,000.

  (b) The Claimants who held Claim Nos. 9982, 9983, 9985, 9987,
      9988, and 9989 agree to consolidate their claims by
      amending Claim No. 9986 to include as creditors the
      holders of the withdrawn claims without increasing the
      amount of the original claim.

  (c) The Debtors agreed not to object to the amendments.  They,
      however, reserved their rights to object to Surviving
      Claims Nos. 9974 and 9986, as may be amended, at any time
      and for any reason.

Mr. Kundawala asserts that Claim Nos. 18280 and 18281 should
have amended Claim Nos. 9986 and 9974 by only including as
creditors the holders of the withdrawn claims.  Instead, Claim
Nos. 18280 and 18281 included new creditors that were not part
of the withdrawn claims.

Accordingly, the Debtors ask the Court expunge the Amended
Claims.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the Asbestos
Subsidiary Debtors and Robert C. Pate, the Court-appointed
Future Claims Representative, support the Debtors' request to
expunge the Amended Claims.

The Asbestos Committee and the FCR state that the Amended Claims
"were a central stumbling block" to a successful reorganization
process.

                      Creditors Respond

The Claimants who filed Claim Nos. 18280 and 18281 tell the
Court that they never received actual notice of the Bar Date
from the Debtors.  The Claimants explain that though the Debtors
published the Bar Date Notice in USA Today, the news source was
not available for purchase in the areas near Picher Or Quapaw,
Oklahoma, where they reside.  

The Claimants argue that expunging their Claims would violate
their due process rights, Dennis C. Reich, Esq., in Reich &
Binstock, LLP, in Houston, Texas, asserts.

The Claimants are plaintiffs in two litigations against ASARCO
LLC pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma.  The litigations were filed as class action cases
brought on behalf of residential, commercial and governmental
property owners in the Picher and Cardin, Oklahoma, Quapaw,
Oklahoma and surrounding areas.

Claim Nos. 18280 and 18281 are based on the history of lead and
zinc mining in the area, which was designated as the Tar Creek
Superfund Site by the EPA, Mr. Reich relates.

ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 61, Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).  


ATHOME AMERICA: Recalls Decorative Candles Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
AtHome America Inc., of Alsip, Ill., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
6,300 four-wick decorative candles.

The company said the candle's wicks are in close proximity
causing the candle to burn unevenly and faster than expected,
posing a potential fire hazard.

The firm has received one report of melted wax on a table. No
injuries or property damage have been reported.

The recall involves four-inch, square-shaped candles with four
wicks. The candles were sold in three styles: the Earth Hue
Toasted Nutmeg and Spice candle, the Holiday Hue candle, and the
Golden Metallic candle.

The candles were made in Vietnam and sold by AtHome America
consultants from the 2007 Fall & Holiday Catalog from August
2007 through October 2007 for about $17.

Pictures of the recalled candles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08523a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08523b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08523c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the candles immediately and
contact their AtHome consultant for a full refund. The company
has sent direct notices to sales consultants and candle owners.

For additional information, contact AtHome America at 800-928-
4663 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.athome.com.


BANKERS LIFE: Court to Hear Appeal in Insurance Agent's Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is set to hear
in 2008 an appeal against a ruling certifying as class action a
suit filed against Bankers Life & Casualty Co. over alleged
misclassification of California insurance agents as independent
contractors.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, “Holly Walker, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public
v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company, an insurance company
domiciled in the State of Illinois, and Does 1 to 100, Case No.
BC358690.”

In her complaint, plaintiff alleged Bankers Life and Casualty
Company intentionally misclassified its California insurance
agents as independent contractors when they should have been
classified as employees.

Plaintiff sought relief on behalf of the class alleging claims
for preliminary and permanent injunction, misclassification,
indemnification, conversion and unfair business practices.

Bankers Life & Casualty Co. caused the case to be removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Oct. 18, 2006.  

An order was entered on Nov. 20, 2006 transferring the case to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
under Case No. 06C6906.  

The Court has dismissed with prejudice plaintiff's allegations
of preliminary and permanent injunction and misclassification.

A first amended complaint was filed on June 12, 2007 adding
Carole Paradise as the new class representative and naming Holly
Walker as an individual plaintiff.

This complaint alleges claims of indemnification, conversion,
and unfair business practices.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  

On Oct. 16, 2007, Bankers Life and Casualty Company filed a
petition for permission to appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.  The matter has been placed on the June
2008 trial calendar.

The suit is “Walker v. Bankers Life And Casualty Company et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-06906,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel A. Crawford, Esq.
          Quisenberry Law Firm
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 220
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 785-7966
          E-mail: dcrawford@quislaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Shanthi V. Gaur, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson, P.C.
          200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 372-5520
          E-mail: sgaur@littler.com


BEAR STEARNS: Navigator Says N.Y. High Ct. Should Hear Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navigator Capital Partners, L.P., filed a memorandum supporting
its argument that its class action complaint against the Bear
Stearns Entities -- Bear Stearns Asset Management, Bear, Stearns
Securities Corp., The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bear,
Stearns & Co., Inc., Ralph Cioffi, Raymond McGarrigal, and
Matthew Tannin, and Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit
Strategies, L.P., as nominal defendant -- should be adjudicated
in the New York Supreme Court.

Navigator asserts that it is undisputed that the Bear Stearns
Entities have the burden of convincing the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York that the case has been
properly removed from the NY Supreme Court, and that they must
establish their right to a federal forum by competent proof.

Navigator maintains that the Bear Stearns Entities' removal was
improper under the U.S. Securities Litigation Uniform Standards
Act.  The Bear Stearns Entities fail to identify a single
alleged misrepresentation or omission in connection with
purchases or sales of "covered securities" to support removal
under the SLUSA.

Instead, they point to the Master Fund's proportionately
miniscule "holdings" of covered securities and disingenuously
argue that these "holdings" are somehow "directly" connected to
the wrongdoing alleged in Navigator's Complaint, Andrew J.
Entwistle, Esq., at Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP, in New York,
notes.

Mr. Entwistle tells the District Court that Navigator's
Complaint makes plain that the alleged failures to disclose
simply have nothing to do with the handful of equity positions
held by the Master Fund.

The small equity positions are irrelevant and entirely
tangential to the claims in Navigator's Complaint, as the
disclosure failures all concern the Management Defendants'
mismanagement of the Partnership and their failure to adequately
assess, monitor and hedge the risks associated with non-covered
instruments like collateralized debt obligations exposed to the
sub-prime mortgage markets, Mr. Entwistle maintains.

In addition, Navigator asserts that, in attempting to support
their fallback argument for removal under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, the Bear Stearns Entities merely retreat
from CAFA's plain language to the statute's putative
"legislative history."

Mr. Entwistle notes that the Bear Stearns Entities have not
stated any persuasive grounds for why the statutory exceptions
to CAFA jurisdiction in Section 1332(d)(9)(c) of the Judiciary
and Judicial Procedures Code does not apply to Navigator's
Complaint.

Failing to cite a single case supporting their unduly narrow
interpretation of Section 1332(d)(9)(c), the Bear Stearns
Entities instead rely exclusively on legislative history to
argue that the CAFA exception is inapplicable to Navigator's
fiduciary duty claims, Mr. Entwistle further notes.  The Bear
Stearns Entities ignore the basic principles of statutory
construction and the clear weight of judicial authority holding
that the exception precludes CAFA jurisdiction over breach of
fiduciary duty cases.

For these reasons, Navigator maintains that the NY Supreme Court
should hear its Complaint.

In addition, Navigator asks the District Court to award it its
costs and attorneys' fees resulting from the Bear Stearns
Entities' improper removal of the Complaint.

                  About Bear Stearns Funds

Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands-based Bear Stearns High-Grade
Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund Ltd.
and Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master
Fund Ltd. are open-ended investment companies, which sought high
income and capital appreciation relative to the London Interbank
Offered Rate, and designed for long-term investors.

On July 30, 2007, the Funds filed winding up petitions under the
Companies Law (2007 Revision) of the Cayman Islands.  Simon
Lovell Clayton Whicker and Kristen Beighton at KPMG were
appointed joint provisional liquidators.  The joint liquidators
filed for Chapter 15 petitions before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York the next day.  On August
30, 2007, the Honorable Burton R. Lifland denied the Funds
protection under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Fred S. Hodara, Esq., Lisa G. Beckerman, Esq., and David F.
Staber, Esq., at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, represent
the liquidators in the United States.  The Funds' assets and
debts are estimated to be more than $100,000,000 each.  (Bear
Stearns Funds Bankruptcy News; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).  


CALPINE CORP: Creditor & Equity Panel Backs Claims Objection
------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the Official
Committee of Equity Security Holders inform the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York that they support
Calpine Corp. and its debtor-affiliates' objection to Claim No.
5166 filed by Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund.

               Hawaii Structural's Lawsuit

Calpine had said in March 2003 that it was restating its net
income for 2000, 2001 and a portion of 2002 by an immaterial
amount, ranging from approximately 1.5% to 3% of income, to
reflect a different accounting treatment of sale/leaseback
transactions for two power plants as recommended by its
auditors.

After that announcement, Hawaii Fund, on behalf of itself and a
putative class of shareholders, commenced a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of the state of California,
County of San Diego against Calpine, certain directors and
officer defendants and certain underwrites of Calpine Corp.'s
stock offering in 2002.

The Hawaii Fund asserted that the statements that Calpine Corp.
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2002
were materially false and misleading because they concealed the
fact that the company's financial results and projections were
overstated and concealed adverse trends that the company was
then experiencing.

In the California Lawsuit, the Hawaii Fund alleged that:

* a registration statement and prospectus for Calpine's April
   2002 follow-on offering of shares contained false or
   misleading material statements;

* a forecast for 2002 earnings included in the April 2002
   offering documents turned out to be incorrect at the end of
   2002, eight months later;

* Calpine's former chief executive officer, Peter Cartwright,
   one of the Individual Defendants, intended to sell shares
   within 90 days of the 2002 Offering but failed to disclose
   the intent in the offering documents; and

* Calpine failed to disclose 31 purported "wash" trades
   between 2000 and 2001.

                       $60-Million Claim

In August 2006, the Hawaii Fund filed, on behalf of itself and
the Class, Claim No. 5166 asserting "at least $60,000,000" in
damages against Calpine Corporation.  In June 2007, the Hawaii
Fund asked the Bankruptcy Court to certify its class for
purposes of the Class Claim.  The request is still pending with
the Bankruptcy Court.

In August 2007, the Debtors, the Individual Defendants, the
Underwriters and the Hawaii Fund participated in a mediation
designed to facilitate a consensual resolution of Claim No.
5166. The mediation was not successful.

               Adjustments were Immaterial

Mark E. McKane, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, in New York,
asserted that slight adjustments associated with the 2003
Restatement were immaterial.  He adds that the decline in
Calpine's share price between April 2002 and March 2003 happened
before the restatement was confirmed and is attributable to
factors other than the restatement, none of which can subject
the Debtors to any liability.

The Hawaii Fund further sought to use 20/20 hindsight to recover
damages on the basis that the Debtors failed to meet good faith
projections.  Mr. McKane said that it is blackletter law that,
absent fraud, a company is not liable for failing to meet good
faith projections.  The burden then, he said, is on Hawaii Fund
to prove that the forecast was made with actual knowledge of its
falsity.

With regards to Mr. Cartwright's stock sales, Mr. McKane noted
that the offering documents explicitly stated that any sale
would occur only after Mr. Cartwright obtained certain consents.  
Mr. Cartwright indisputably secured those consents and advised
the market months before the offering of his intent to sell
shares, Mr. McKane further said.

Moreover, Mr. McKane asserts that Calpine need not disclose the
purported "wash" trades because they were not "wash" trades.  
Even if the trades had been "wash" trades, they represented, in
the aggregate, approximately 0.001% of Calpine's revenues and
had no impact whatsoever on the company's gross profits, Mr.
McKane added.

Thus the Debtors requested the Court to expunge Claim No. 5166.

              Hawaii Fund's Request for Abstention

Hawaii Fund asked the Bankruptcy Court to abstain from hearing
the Debtors' objection to its Claim No. 5166, on the basis that:

(a) abstention will not negatively impact the administration
     of the estate;

(b) the consideration and application of non-bankruptcy laws
     predominate over any bankruptcy issues that may exist with
     respect to the claim objection;

(c) the Hawaii Litigation was commenced in the California
     State Court in 2003, and therefore has jurisdiction over
     the claims asserted in the Hawaii Litigation;

(d) the Debtors' filing of their objection in the Bankruptcy
     Court is an attempt at forum shopping to avoid a
     determination by the California State Court that has
     already granted relief in favor of Hawaii Structural; and

(e) the Hawaii Litigation contains a jury demand and involves
     non-Debtor parties.

Hawaii Fund wants the California State Court to determine
the Debtors' objection where the Hawaii Litigation has been
pending for almost three years before the bankruptcy filing and
over four years in total.

          Debtors Want Abstention Plea Denied

The Bankruptcy Court has acknowledged that permissive abstention
is "appropriate only in certain narrowly tailored exceptional
circumstances" because federal courts have a virtually
unflagging obligation to exercise the jurisdiction given to
them, Richard M. Cieri, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, in New
York, notes.  Hawaii Structural has filed its claim in the
Bankruptcy Court, thus this Court is the appropriate forum to
determine the Debtors' liability, Mr. Cieri asserted.

Mr. Cieri further asserted that permissive abstention is
inappropriate in complex reorganization cases like the Debtors'.  
The Debtors have set Jan. 31, 2008, as target deadline for
emergence.  The Hawaii Claim is one of the largest disputed
litigation claims pending against the Debtors and therefore will
have to be estimated or resolved before emergence to avoid
disproportionately large reserves of stock held back on account
of the Claim, Mr. Cieri pointed out.

Thus, the Debtors ask the Court to deny Hawaii Structural's
request for abstention.

                 About Calpine Corporation

Based in San Jose, California, Calpine Corporation (OTC Pink
Sheets: CPNLQ) -- http://www.calpine.com/-- supplies customers
and communities with electricity from clean, efficient, natural
gas-fired and geothermal power plants.  Calpine owns, leases and
operates integrated systems of plants in 21 U.S. states and in
three Canadian provinces.  Its customized products and services
include wholesale and retail electricity, gas turbine components
and services, energy management and a wide range of power plant
engineering, construction and maintenance and operational
services.

The company and its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection
on Dec. 20, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 05-60200).  
Richard M. Cieri, Esq., Matthew A. Cantor, Esq., Edward
Sassower, Esq., and Robert G. Burns, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis LLP
represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  Michael
S. Stamer, Esq., at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  As of
Aug. 31, 2007, the Debtors disclosed total assets of
$18,467,000,000, total liabilities not subject to compromise of
$11,207,000,000, total liabilities subject to compromise of
$15,354,000,000 and stockholders' deficit of $8,102,000,000.

On Feb. 3, 2006, two more affiliates, Geysers Power Company,
LLC, and Silverado Geothermal Resources, Inc., filed voluntary
chapter 11 petitions (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case Nos. 06-10197 and 06-
10198).  On Sept. 20, 2007, Santa Rosa Energy Center, LLC,
another affiliate, also filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 07-12967).

On June 20, 2007, the Debtors filed their Chapter 11 Plan and
Disclosure Statement.  On Aug. 27, 2007, the Debtors filed their
Amended Plan and Disclosure Statement.  Calpine filed a Second
Amended Plan on Sept. 19, 2007 and on Sept. 24, 2007, filed a
Third Amended Plan.  On Sept. 25, 2007, the Court approved the
adequacy of the Debtors' Disclosure Statement and entered a
written order on September 26.  The hearing to consider
confirmation of the Plan is scheduled on Dec 18, 2007.  (Calpine
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 67; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).  


CHUBB CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Chubb Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries continue to face
purported class actions arising out of investigations into the
payment of contingent commissions to brokers and agents in the
property and casualty insurance industry.

Purported class actions arising out of the investigations into
the payment of contingent commissions to brokers and agents have
been filed in a number of state and federal courts.

                     August 2005 Litigation

On Aug. 1, 2005, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a putative class action entitled, In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

This action, brought against several brokers and insurers on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased insurance through the
broker defendants, asserts claims under the Sherman Act and
state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act arising from the alleged unlawful use of contingent
commission agreements.


               Florida, Massachusetts Litigation

Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries have also been named as
defendants in two putative class actions relating to allegations
of unlawful use of contingent commission arrangements that were
originally filed in state court.  

The first was filed on February 16, 2005 in Seminole County,
Florida.  The second was filed on May 17, 2005 in Essex County,
Massachusetts.

Both cases were removed to federal court and then transferred by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey for consolidation
with “In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”

Since being transferred to the District of New Jersey, the
plaintiff in the former action has been inactive, and that
action currently is stayed.  The latter action has been
voluntarily dismissed.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismissed the second amended complaint filed by the
plaintiffs in “In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation”
in its entirety.  

In so doing, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Sherman Act and
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims with
prejudice for failure to state a claim, and it dismissed the
plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice because it
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their second
amended complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, and that appeal is currently pending.

                    December 2005 Litigation

In December 2005, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a putative class action similar to “In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”  

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and has been assigned to the judge who is
presiding over “In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”

The complaint has never been served in this matter.  

                     April 2006 Litigation

Separately, in April 2006, Chubb and one of its subsidiaries
were named as defendants in an action similar to “In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”  

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia and subsequently was transferred by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated
with “In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”  This
action currently is stayed.

                        2007 Litigation

On May 21, 2007, Chubb and one of its subsidiaries were named as
defendants in another action similar to “In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and consolidated with “In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”  This action currently is
stayed.

On Oct. 12, 2007, certain of Chubb’s subsidiaries were named as
defendants in an action similar to “In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation.”  This action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

This action has been identified to the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation as a potential “tag-along action” to
“In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”

Chubb currently anticipates that this action will be transferred
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated
with “In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.”

In these actions, the plaintiffs generally allege that the
defendants unlawfully used contingent commission agreements and
conspired to reduce competition in the insurance markets.  

The actions seek treble damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief, and attorneys’ fees.

The Chubb Corp. -- http://www.chubb.com-- is a holding company  
for a family of property and casualty insurance companies known
as the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies.  The P&C Group is
divided into three business units: Chubb Commercial Insurance,
Chubb Commercial Insurance and Chubb Specialty Insurance.  Chubb
Commercial Insurance offers a range of commercial customer
insurance products, including coverage for multiple peril,
casualty, workers compensation, property and marine.  Chubb
Specialty Insurance offers a variety of specialized professional
liability products for privately and publicly owned companies,
financial institutions, professional firms and healthcare
organizations.  Chubb Specialty Insurance also includes the
Companys surety business.  Chubb Personal Insurance offers
products for individuals.  The P&C Group provides insurance
coverages principally in the United States, Canada, Europe,
Australia, and parts of Latin America and Asia.


CONSECO HEALTH: Appellate Briefing in Policyholder's Suit Done
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Health Insurance Co. is appealing before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit a certification of the suit  
“Doiron v. Conseco Health Ins., Case No. 3:04-cv- 00784-JJB-CN.”    
Appellate briefing has been concluded, according to the company.

Initially, on Sept. 24, 2004, a purported statewide class
action, captioned, “Diana Doiron, et al. v. Conseco Health
Insurance Company, Case No. 61,534” was filed in the 18th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana.

In her complaint, plaintiff claims that she was damaged due to
Conseco Health Insurance Co.'s failure to pay claims made under
her cancer policy, and seeks compensatory and statutory damages
along with declaratory and injunctive relief.

Conseco caused the case to be removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana on Nov. 3, 2004.

An order was issued on Feb. 15, 2007 granting plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  The order specifically certifies two
sub-classes identifying them as the radiation treatment sub-
class and the chemotherapy treatment sub-class.

The company has appealed the certification order and on April
23, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
accepted jurisdiction over the company’s appeal.  The appellate
briefing has been concluded, according to Conseco, Inc.'s Nov.
8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Doiron v. Conseco Health Ins., Case No. 3:04-cv-
00784-JJB-CN,” on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana under Judge James J. Brady with
referral to Judge Christine Noland.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stanley P. Baudin, Esq.
         Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP
         P.O. Drawer 71, 24110 Eden St.
         Plaquemine, LA 70764-0071
         Phone: 225-687-6396
         Fax: 225-687-6398
         E-mail: sbaudin@pbclawfirm.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Raymond J. Pajares, Esq.
         Pajares & Schexnaydre, LLC
         103 Northpark Boulevard, Suite 110
         Covington, LA 70433
         Phone: 985-292-2000
         Fax: 985-292-2001
         E-mail: rpajares@pajares-schexnaydre.com


DANA CORP: Pension Funds Oppose Reorganization Plan Confirmation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos PI Committee, the lead plaintiffs in the securities
fraud class action against Dana Corp., and the U.S. government
are objecting to the confirmation of Dana's reorganization plan.

(a) Asbestos PI Committee

The Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants
dispute the Debtors' contention that the asbestos personal
injury claimants are not impaired by the Third Amended Joint
Plan of Reorganization.

According to Douglas T. Tabachnik, Esq., at Law Offices of
Douglas T. Tabachnik, in Freehold, New Jersey, the Debtors have
failed to demonstrate that the asbestos personal injury
claimants are not impaired.  He elaborates that under the Plan,
the Debtors can engage in Court-sanctioned Restructuring
Transactions that could readily leave holders of asbestos
personal injury claims with little or no meaningful remedy for
injuries.  

A Restructuring Transaction can extinguish a Reorganized
Debtor's obligation to pay asbestos injury claims and the
successor Acquiring Entity would have no obligation to assume
those liabilities, Mr. Tabachnik points out.  Accordingly, the
Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants asserts
that the Plan should not be confirmed.

(b) Lead Plaintiffs

The SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust, West Virginia Laborers'
Pension Trust Funds and Plumbers and Pipefitters National
Pension Fund -- the lead plaintiffs in the securities fraud
class action entitled Howard Frank, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Dana Corporation, et al,
Case No. 3:05-cv-07393 -- filed a proof of claim on behalf of
the Securities Class in an undetermined amount for damages
arising out of the purchase of certain debt and equity
securities of Dana and for violations of the federal securities
laws.  

Michael Etkin, Esq., at Lowenstein Sandler, P.C., in New York
points out that the Debtors maintain liability insurance
policies in favor of the their directors and officers for claims
asserted in the Securities Litigation.  Thus, the Lead
Plaintiffs maintain that the Securities Class is entitled to
look to the proceeds of the insurance for payment of the Class
Claim and may, at least, pursue their claim  to the extent of
the available insurance, if the Class Claim is not paid in full
under the Plan.

Because Lead Plaintiffs may not have a direct action against the
D&O insurance carrier under the D&O Policies, the proceeds f the
D&O Policies may only be accessed through the Securities
Litigation, Mr. Etkin says.

Thus, the Lead Plaintiffs assert that the Plan should not impact
their rights or the Securities Class, either through injunctive
relief or discharge, to pursue their claims against the Debtors
to the extent of any proceeds of the Directors and Officers
Policies.  

Furthermore, the Lead Plaintiffs assert that while the Plan has
been amended to clarify that the Insurance Contracts will remain
in place post-Effective Date, the Plan's language does not
sufficiently allow them to pursue their claims against the
Debtors to the extent of available insurance.  

(c) U.S. Government

The United States of America, on behalf of the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service, objects to the confirmation of the Debtors'
Plan of Reorganization.  

The Plan cannot be confirmed because its terms would permit the
Debtors to defer payment of IRS' $85,000,000 priority tax claims  
for many months after the Effective Date without paying IRS
interest, Pierre G. Armand, Esq., Assistant United States
Attorney, asserts.

Thus, the U.S. Government asks the Court not to confirm the Plan
unless the Debtors agree that, to the extent any portion of IRS'
priority tax claims is paid after the effective date, IRS will
receive interest, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621.

Furthermore, Dallas County and Gregg County, holders of tax
claims totaling $282,000, support the U.S Government's
objection.

(d) Ogre Holdings

Ogre Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Acraline Products, Inc.,
objects to the confirmation of the Debtors' Plan of
Reorganization.

The Debtors used to own a commercial property located at 641
Cleveland Street, Tipton County, Tipton, Indiana, where they
performed both piston ring machining and plating operations.  
The property was eventually sold to Acraline which has engaged
in manufacturing for commercial electrical generators.

The Debtors and Acraline entered into a Settlement Agreement
where the Debtors agreed to pay 77.50% of all remedial work that
Acraline has to undertake pursuant to the Indiana Voluntary
Remediation Program.  However, the Debtors failed to comply with
the provisions of the settlement agreement, Paul T. Deignan,
Esq., at Sommer Barnard, P.C., in Indianapolis, Indiana relates.

Acraline then filed a proof of claim against the Debtors,
asserting $11,000,000, for the remediation costs.

Mr. Deignan asserts that the Plan should not be confirmed
because it attempts to satisfy and release Acraline's claim
without Acraline's consent.  He adds that the Debtors have not
offered Acraline to satisfy or release its claims against the
Debtors nor has Acraline accepted any offer.  

Furthermore, Mr. Deignan argues that the Plan should not be
confirmed because it interferes with the right of a creditor to
accept or reject a plan by providing that each claim holder that
votes in favor of the Plan will be deemed to forever release,
waive and discharge all liabilities in any way relating to a
Debtor.

Furthermore, Edward and Wendy Couch filed a claim against the
Debtors on account of tort damages for $250,000, join in
Acraline's objection to the Debtors' Plan of Reorganization.

(e) Wilmington Trust

Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as successor indenture
trustee to Citibank, N.A., under four Indentures dated as of
Dec. 15, 1997, Aug. 8, 2001, March 11, 2002 and Dec. 10, 2004,
respectively between Dana Corporation and Citibank, N.A., for a
multiple series of fixed-rate unsecured notes in excess of
$1,600,000,000 principal amount outstanding, says that it is
hopeful that their issues in connection with the indentures will
be resolved prior to the Plan Confirmation hearing, and that it
is currently working with the Debtors ans their professionals in
an effort to reach a consensual resolution with respect to the
outstanding issues.  

Wilmington Trust's issues on the provisions of the Plan include
the indentures and certain rights under the indentures and
dealing with the indentures trustee on a post-confirmation
basis.  

Wilmington Trust filed its objection for it to preserve its
rights to address its issues and concerns wither by further
submission to the Court or at the oral hearing to confirm the
Plan in the event the Debtors and Wilmington Trust fail to reach
an agreement.

(f) Veyance Technologies, Inc.

Veyance Technologies, holder of an administrative claim that was
not filed on time, asserts that the Plan fails to provide any
treatment for tardily filed administrative expense claims, and
does not provide for payment in full as required for
administrative expense claims by Section 1129(a)(9).

The Debtors' refusal to pay the tardily filed administrative
claims results in junior claims receiving property while higher
priority claims, including the Veyance Claim, would not receive
anything, Veyance Technologies further asserts.  Thus, Veyance
Technologies objects to the confirmation of the Debtors' Plan of
Reorganization.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 64, Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).


DELPHI CORP: Revised Plan Disregards ERISA Plaintiffs' Concerns
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action
entitled “In re Delphi Corp. Securities Litigation, Master Case
No. 05-md-1725 (GER) (E.D.Mich.),” pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, inform the
Bankruptcy Court that the Dec. 3, 2007 versions of the Debtors'
Disclosure Statement and Joint Plan of Reorganization still do
not address all of their concerns.

The lead plaintiffs, as well as the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act plaintiffs in the Securities Litigation, had agreed
to reduce the allowed amount of the Section 510(b) Note Claims
and the Section 510(b) Equity Claims under the Plan from $204
million to $179 million in exchange for the Debtors' cooperation
in the monetization of the Allowed Amount.  The lead plaintiffs
are the holders of Section 510(b) Note Claims while the ERISA
plaintiffs are the holders of the Section 510(b) Equity Claims.

The Lead Plaintiffs agreed that the claim reduction will be
deemed a non-material modification to their Multi-District
Litigation Settlement with the Debtors.  The Debtors disclosed
the Claim Reduction in their Dec. 3 Disclosure Statement.  On
Dec. 4, 2007, the District Court tentatively approved the
modification of the parties' MDL Settlement subject to certain
notice requirements intended to allow class members the
opportunity to review and take a position on the proposed
modification, Michael S. Etkin, Esq., at Lowenstein Sandler PC,
in New York, informs the Bankruptcy Court.

Nonetheless, the lead plaintiffs and the Debtors have yet to
reach agreement on certain of the Lead Plaintiffs' proposed
revisions to the Disclosure Statement and Plan involving third-
party releases and conditions to the Plan's effectiveness,
Mr. Etkin relates.  The lead plaintiffs, he says, have provided
the Debtors with suggested language that will resolve their
dispute and discussions between the parties are continuing.

The lead plaintiffs consist of Teachers' Retirement System of
Oklahoma, Public Employees' Retirement System Of Mississippi,
Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.H., and Stichting
Pensioenfonds ABP.

                     About Delphi Corp.

Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Delphi Corporation (OTC: DPHIQ)
-- http://www.delphi.com/-- is the single supplier of vehicle
electronics, transportation components, integrated systems and
modules, and other electronic technology.  The company's
technology and products are present in more than 75 million
vehicles on the road worldwide.  Delphi has regional
headquarters in Japan, Brazil and France.

The company filed for chapter 11 protection on Oct. 8, 2005
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 05-44481).  John Wm. Butler Jr.,
Esq., John K. Lyons, Esq., and Ron E. Meisler, Esq., at Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, represent the Debtors in their
restructuring efforts.  Robert J. Rosenberg, Esq., Mitchell A.
Seider, Esq., and Mark A. Broude, Esq., at Latham & Watkins LLP,
represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  As of
March 31, 2007, the Debtors' balance sheet showed
$11,446,000,000 in total assets and US$23,851,000,000 in total
debts.

The Debtors' exclusive plan-filing period expires on Dec. 31,
2007.  On Sept. 6, 2007, the Debtors filed their Chapter 11 Plan
of Reorganization and a Disclosure Statement explaining that
Plan.  (Delphi Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 101; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or
215/945-7000)


DELTA FINANCIAL: Workers File Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Layoffs
----------------------------------------------------------
Delta Financial Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
Dec. 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York charging that the company had failed to provide proper
advance notice of layoffs since August, Mark Harrington of
Newsday reports.

Former employee Laura Bressmer, who worked in the Woodbury
headquarters, filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and fired
co-workers, charging Delta did not provide the federally
mandated 60-days' notice for layoffs, which took place Aug. 22
and Nov. 8.

According to the suit, Delta failed to pay Ms. Bressmer and
other employees salary, commissions, bonuses and accrued holiday
and vacation pay for the mandated 60 calendar days after their
firings. Delta also failed to make 401(k) contributions and
provide health benefits for the 60 days.

Ms. Bressmer's suit says employees of Delta Financial and its
subsidiaries, Delta Funding Corp. and Fidelity Mortgage, were
covered by the WARN Act.

Delta hasn't said how many employees were affected by its
shutdown, and the lawsuit doesn't specify a number.

Jack Raisner, an attorney for Ms. Bressmer at the firm Outten &
Golden in Manhattan said it will be determined during discovery
in the case.  According to him, employees released in the final
layoff on Dec. 6 also could be eligible to join the suit.

The suit is "Bressmer v. Delta Financial Corp. et al., Case
Number: 2:2007cv05183," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District Court of New York under Magistrate Judge A.
Kathleen Tomlinson.


ENRON CORP: Shareholders' Lead Counsel Seeks $700M Legal Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiffs counsel for the Enron Corp. securities
litigation indicated in its Nov. 20, 2007 filing in federal
court in Houston that it will seek almost $700,000,000 in legal
fees, or just under one tenth of the $7,200,000,000 in
settlements recovered from several bankers, accountants and
lawyers alleged to have participated in a scheme to defraud
Enron shareholders.

Trial attorney William S. Lerach, who is currently representing
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, in San Diego,
California, is in line to recover as much as $50,000,000 in fees
from the litigation, the Wall Street Journal reports, citing
people with knowledge of the projected fee distribution.

Mr. Lerach resigned from his firm, Milberg Weiss LLP, earlier
this year and pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge in
connection with the firm's long-running prosecution.  Milberg
Weiss has denied wrongdoing.

According to the Houston court filing, the plaintiffs, led by
the Regents of the University of California, will seek approval
of the legal fees early next year.

The fee compensation, if approved, would be the largest ever in
a securities class action, the Journal says.

The Enron fee "in absolute terms is a large number but
everything about the Enron case involves large numbers," the
Journal quoted UC spokesman Trey Davis as saying.  "When you
look at work the legal team has conducted and the results, I
think most people would objectively consider this a very
reasonable fee request."

"This is the largest recovery ever obtained for shareholders
victimized by corporate fraud," Coughlin spokesman Dan Newman
told the Journal, adding that, "the bottom line is that the
defrauded shareholders will recover more than 90 percent of the
settlement."

On April 5, 2007, Enron shareholders filed a petition with the
U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices for a review of their
class action lawsuit against several banks whose active and
knowing participation in the Enron fraud led to more than
$40,000,000,000 in investor losses.  The petition seeks to
overturn the March 19, 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is currently revaluating
the long history of "supporting scheme liability," including in
the Enron case.

Although some of the bank defendants have settled with the SEC,
forfeiting nearly a half billion dollars in illegal profits, and
some banks have reached settlements with the plaintiffs, certain
banks have still not repaid any funds to the Enron shareholders.

To date, the University of California has obtained
$2,400,000,000 from Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce;
$2,200,000,000 from JPMorganChase; $2,000,000,000 from
Citigroup; $222,500,000 from Lehman Brothers; $69,000,000 from
Bank of America; $168,000,000 from Enron's outside directors,
and $32,000,000 from Andersen Worldwide.

(Enron Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 199, Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).  


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Cartridge Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. and Staples Inc. are facing a class-action
complaint filed Dec. 17 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts alleging they broke antitrust laws in
collaborating on the sale of replacement ink-jet printer
cartridges, Reuters reports.

Named plaintiff Ranjit Bedi charged that the two companies had
reached "an illegal agreement between competitors to stop
competing" when HP paid Staples, the biggest U.S. specialty
retailer of office supplies, "market development funds" to stop
selling non-HP-branded ink-jet printer cartridges for HP
printers.

The suit contends that HP, the world's largest personal computer
maker, paid Staples more than $100 million to stop selling
lower-priced printer cartridges for HP printers.

The suit does not make clear how Mr. Bedi, of Pacific Palisades,
California, determined the $100 million number.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, claims that the
actions violated the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, which prohibit
noncompetitive behavior. It seeks unspecified money damages and
asks the court to stop HP and Staples from engaging in
noncompetitive acts.

The suit is "Bedi v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., Case
Number: 1:2007cv12318," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, under Judge Rya W. Zobel.


HOMEBANC: Judge Carey Allows Creditors Committee to Intervene
----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2007, Hiwot Mekonnen, Kyiesha Shepard and Sharon
Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, commenced Adversary Proceeding No. 07-51695, a
complaint asserting various claims under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.  Shortly after the Debtors'
answer and defense to the Complaint, the Official Committee of
Unsecured Creditors contacted the parties regarding its request
to formally intervene.

The Debtors and the Former Employees have consented to the
Creditors Committee's intervention.  

Accordingly, Judge Kevin J. Carey approved the Creditors
Committee's intervention.

            Former Employees Want Class Certification

The Former Employees ask the Court to:

  (a) certify a class, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure Rule 23 and Bankruptcy Rule 7023, comprised of
      former employees of the Debtors (i) who worked at or
      reported to one of the Debtors' facilities and were
      terminated without cause on or about August 10, 2007,
      within 30 days of August 10, or in anticipation of or as
      the foreseeable consequence of the mass layoff or plant
      closing ordered by the Debtors on August 10, and who are
      affected employees within meaning of Section 2101(a)(5) of
      the Labor Code, and (ii) who have not filed a timely
      request to opt-out of the class;

  (b) appoint Outten & Golden, LLP, Nichols Kaster & Anderson
      PLLP, and Monzack, Mersky, McLaughlin and Browder P.A., as
      class counsel;

  (c) appoint Mr. Mekonnen, Ms. Shepard and Ms. Thompson as
      class representatives; and

  (d) approve the form and manner of notice to the Class.

The Former Employees claim that they and other Class Members
were terminated as part of a common plan stemming from the
Debtors' decision to discontinue business operations and close
their Facilities.  Rachel B. Mersky, Esq., at Monzack, Mersky,
McLaughlin and Browder P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware, says that
the factual and legal questions stem from a common core of facts
regarding the Debtors' actions and a common core of legal issues
regarding every Class Member's rights.

Virtually all the issues are common to the Class and the only
differences are minor, namely, the rate of pay and the date of
termination, Ms. Mersky says.

As previously noted, there is ample precedent for class actions
in bankruptcy courts in the specific context of WARN Act
litigation.  Since the requirements of Rule 23 have all been
met, class certification should be granted, Ms. Mersky asserts.

The proposed Class Counsel are highly experienced in class
action litigation and experience prosecuting claims under the
WARN Act, having been appointed class counsel in some 30 WARN
class actions, Ms. Mersky tells the Court.  The proposed Class
Representatives have been diligent in pursuing the Class claim
and have worked with counsel in initiating and prosecuting the
action; they have no conflict of interest with other Class
Members; and they have and will fairly and adequately represent
the interests of the Class, she continues.

The names and addresses of all the putative Class Members are
contained in the Debtors' records.  Once the Former Employees
have been provided with those, their counsel will mail the
notice of class action  to the last known address of each of the
putative Class Members.  The Class Members will have at least 30
days from the date of the mailing to object to Class
certification and to opt-out of the Class.  Ms. Mersky avers
that it is the best practicable notice under the circumstances.

(Homebanc Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 14, Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or  
215/945-7000).


HOME DEPOT: Recalls Holiday Figurines Due to Lead Paint Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------   
The Home Depot, of Atlanta, Ga., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling
about 64,000 holiday figures made by Creative Design, of Hong
Kong.

The company said surface paint on the holiday figurines contains
lead.

No incidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recalled holiday figurines are painted plastic snowmen and
bears. The SKU number is printed on the bottom of the product.

Produc                            Size          SKU Number
Holiday Bear Door Greeter        17 x 16        894-825
Snowman with "Let it Snow" Sign  Tabletop item  894-893
Three Snowmen with "Joy" Sign    13 x 17        898-964
Snowman Votive Holder            7.5 x 7.5      967-467

The figures werwe made in China and sold exclusively at The Home
Depot stores from October 2007 through November 2007 for between
$10 and $20.

Pictures of the recalled figurines:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08122a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08122b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the holiday
figurines and return them to any Home Depot store for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact The Home Depot at (800) 394-
2064 or visit http://www.homedepot.com.


INLAND WESTERN: Faces Stockholder's Litigation in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. faces a purported
class action and derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  The suit was filed
against the company, its current Business Manager/Advisor and
Property Managers, and certain of its officers and directors.

The case was filed on Nov. 1, 2007 by a company stockholder.  It
attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of all persons
who are entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 10, 2007, as
amended or supplemented, and derivative claims on its behalf.  

The complaint alleges, among other things:

       -- that the consideration to be paid for the Business
          Manager/Advisor and Property Managers as part of the
          proposed internalization transaction is excessive;

       -- that the company's proxy statement relating to the
          transaction violates Section 14(A), including Rule
          14a-9 thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the Securities
          Exchange Act of 1934, based upon, allegations that the
          proxy statement contains false and misleading
          statements or omits to state material facts relating
          to the proposed internalization;

       -- that its directors and its Business Manager/Advisor
          and Property Managers breached their fiduciary duties
          to the members of the class and to us; and

       -- that the proposed internalization transaction will
          unjustly enrich certain of our directors and officers.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

       -- certification of the class;

       -- an order declaring the proxy statement false and
          misleading;

       -- an order declaring the conduct of the defendants to be
          in violation of law;

       -- nullification of any authorizations secured by the
          defendants pursuant to the proxy statement to be null
          and void (including the rescission of all employment
          agreements entered into in furtherance of the
          internalization);
  
       -- unspecified monetary damages for the class and
          derivatively for the company;

       -- nullification of the proposed mergers and the merger
          agreement; and

       -- the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, experts’
          fees, interest and costs of suit.

The suit is “City Of St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System, et al. v. Inland Western Retail Real Estate
Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-06174,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge
Robert W. Gettleman.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: 888.805.7848
          Fax: 610.649.3633
          E-mail: mail@chimicles.com

          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212.907.0700
          Fax: 212.818.0477
          E-mail: info@labaton.com

               - and -

          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212.545.4600
          Fax: 212.686.0114
          E-mail: newyork@whafh.com


INFOSONICS CORP: Seeks to Dismiss Calif. Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
InfoSonics Corp. is seeking to dismiss a consolidated securities
fraud class action pending against it in the Southern District
of California.

Six securities actions, originally filed between June and July
2006, were recently consolidated as "In Re: InfoSonics Corp.
Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231."

Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14, 2007,
which assert claims for violation of section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A in
connection with the company's restatement announced June 12,
2006 and allegedly false and/or misleading statements and
accounting related to the company's distribution agreement with
VK Corp.  

The suit seeks a declaration that their action is a proper class
action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), unspecified damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert
witness fees, other costs, and other unspecified relief.  

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006 to Aug. 9, 2006.  

On Oct. 1, 2007, the defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended consolidated complaint on the grounds, among
others, that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead
violations of the securities laws.  

Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss was due Nov. 21,
2007, and defendants’ reply in support of the motion to dismiss
was due Nov. 30, 2007.  The hearing on the motion to dismiss was
set for Dec. 7, 2007.

An early neutral evaluation conference before Magistrate Judge
William McCurine was set for Nov. 16, 2007.  

As of the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, discovery has not begun and
no trial date has been set.

The suit is “In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead
Case No. 06 CV 1231,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California under Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz
with referral to Judge William McCurine, Jr.

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
          Fax: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq.
          Latham and Watkins
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101-3375
          Phone: (619) 236-1234
          Fax: (619) 696-7419
          E-mail: kimberly.hicks@lw.com


NATIONAL RV: Laid-off Employee Sues Alleging WARN Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
National RV Holdings, Inc. is being sued by an employee laid
off two weeks ago, seeking two months' pay and benefits, The
Press-Enterprise reports.

According to the report, National RV laid off 600 employees
Nov. 30 without warning or severance pay, citing a "faltering
company" exception to a labor law. The company said it was
actively seeking funding during the two months prior to
shutting its doors.

National R.V. Holdings Inc. and National R.V. Inc., its
subsidiary, filed voluntary petitions under the provisions of
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United
States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California,
Riverside Division (Troubled Company Reporter, Dec. 3, 2007)

Henry Caouette, who worked at the company for two years as a
production supervisor, initiated the complaint, which was
filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Riverside.

The complaint, which is seeking class-action status, alleges
that under the Worker Adjustment and Training Notification
Act, companies are required to give either 60 days' warning or
60 days of severance.

David Humphreys, the company's chief executive, referred press
inquiries on the complaint to National RV's general counsel,
Jonathan Corn, who declined to comment, the report said.

Headquartered in Perris, California, National R.V. Holdings
Inc. (Pink Sheets: NRVH) -- http://www.nrvh.com/-- through  
its wholly owned subsidiary, National RV Inc., is a producer
of motorized recreational vehicles, often referred to as RVs
or motorhomes.  National RV designs, manufactures and markets
Class A gas and diesel motorhomes under model names Surf Side,
Sea Breeze, Dolphin, Tropi-Cal, Pacifica and Tradewinds.  NRV
began manufacturing RVs in 1964.


NAUTILUS INC: Recalls Home Gyms with Fasteners that can Detach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nautilus Inc., of Vancouver, Wash., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Safety Commission, is recalling about 68,000 Bowflex
Ultimate 2 Home Gyms made by Land America Ltd., of China.

The fasteners used to secure the rod box to the frame of the
equipment can come loose, allowing the resistance rods or rod
box to separate and strike the user or a bystander.

Nautilus has received ten reports of rod box separation,
including three reports of consumers suffering bruised arms,
sore elbows, and a sore back.

The recalled home gyms are equipped with pulleys, resistance
rods, and other equipment, which allow the user to perform a
variety of exercises. \u201cBowflex Ultimate 2\u201d is written
on the vertical part of the frame.

The gyms were made in the U.S. and sold at specialty fitness
retailers nationwide and through direct sales from June 2005 to
August 2007 for about $2,300.

To see picture of the product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08520.jpg

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled home gym
until a repair kit is installed. Registered owners are being
sent a free repair kit. Owners who have not received a repair
kit by the end of the first week in January 2008 should contact
the firm.

For additional information, contact Nautilus at (800) 259-9019
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.bowflex.com.


PARMALAT SPA: Judge Kaplan Denies Third-Party Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York found that the request of Dr. Enrico Bondi,
Extraordinary Administrator of Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A., to
dismiss Grant Thornton International's third-party complaints
lacks merit, and, thus denied the request in all respects.

The reorganized Parmalat SpA previously told the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York that a
third amended complaint filed against it should be dismissed, as
it disallowed the claims against its co-defendants, Grant
Thornton, Deloitte & Touche, Bank of America, Citigroup, Credit
Suisse, and BNL.

Joseph Hammond, Esq., at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges
LLP, in New York states that the Foreign Plaintiffs offer no
U.S.-grounded conduct by Reorganized Parmalat or Old Parmalat
that constitutes a substantial act in connection with the
alleged fraud.

The District Court, Mr. Hammond relates, ultimately determined
that (i) the Foreign Plaintiffs' central allegations were
overwhelmingly foreign, (ii) any U.S. based conduct was merely
peripheral to the fraud, and (iii) the plaintiffs had not
demonstrated subject matter jurisdiction.

Mr. Hammond insists that, for those same reasons, the District
Court should dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

(Parmalat Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 94; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or   
215/945-7000).  


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Ranger UVs Due to Fire, Burn Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minn., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 330
units of Model Year 2008 Polaris Ranger RZR 800 EFI Utility
Vehicles.

The company said the utility vehicle's fuel tank can leak,
posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.  The firm has
received four reports of the fuel tank leaking. No injuries have
been reported.

Model Year 2008 Polaris Ranger RZR 800 EFI utility vehicles with
model number R08VH76AD (red), and model number R08VH76AG (green)
are included in this recall. They were manufactured between
August 21, 2007 and October 3, 2007. The model number decal is
located under the passenger seat.

The UVs were made in the U.S. and sold by Polaris dealers
nationwide from August 2007 through November 2007 for about
$10,300.

To see picture of the recalled UV
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08521.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled utility
vehicles immediately and contact their local Polaris dealer to
arrange for a fuel tank inspection free of charge, and if
necessary, a free repair.

For additional information, contact Polaris at (888) 704-5290
between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT every day, or visit
http://www.polarisindustries.com.


PRODUCTIVITY CENTER: Sued Over Police Personal Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------------
The Productivity Center, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas alleging
it allowed personal information about 229,000 Texas police
officers to be stolen, including their Social Security numbers,
drivers license numbers, names, addresses, telephone numbers and
birthdays, the CourtHouse News Service Reports.

Named plaintiff Randy Stevens brings this class action on behalf
of over 229,000 Texas peace officers, jailers and
telecommunicators to redress the PCI's failure to adequately
safeguard and the Doe defendants' theft of certain highly
personal and sensitive information including, without
limitation, the class members' "Sensitive Personal Information."

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants acted wrongfully by failing to
         monitor, store and/or safeguard the class members'
         Sensitive Personal Information;

     (b) whether the plaintiff and class members have been
         damaged and, if so, the appropriate relief.

Plaintiff requests that the court:

     -- certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
        42(b)(10) and/or (b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Civil
        Procedure, appoint the plaintiff as the representative
        of the class, and appoint plaintiffs' counsel as class
        counsel;

     -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class
        against the defendants under the legal theories alleged;

     -- award plaintiff and the class actual damages,
        consequential damages and/or equitable relief in an
        amount to be determined by the trier of fact;

     -- award plaintiff and the class attorneys' fees, expenses
        and costs of suit;

     -- award plaintiff and the class attorneys' fees, expenses
        and costs of suit;

     -- award plaintiff and the class pre-judgment and post-
        judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;
        and

     -- award plaintiff and the class such other and further
        relief to which they are justly entitled.

The suit is "Randy Stevens et al. v. The Productivity Center,
Inc. et al., Case No. B180899," filed in the U.S. District Court
of the County of Jefferson County, Texas.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
          The Coffman Law Firm
          505 Orleans Street, Suite 505
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Phone: (409) 833-7700
          Fax: (866) 835-8250
          E-mail: rc@cofflaw.com

          - and -

          John R. Wylie, Esq.
          Futterman Howard Watkins Wylie & Ashely, Chtd.
          122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 427-3600
          Fax: (312) 427-1850
          E-mail: jwylie@futtermanhoward.com


RODALE INC: 3rd Circuit Dismisses Suit Over Unordered Books
-----------------------------------------------------------
The 3rd Circuit dismissed a class action that accused publisher
Rodale, Inc. of mailing books that customers never ordered and
demanding payment, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit, filed in 2003, alleged that Rodale had a practice of
sending unordered books to customers, then billing the
customers, violating federal and state consumer protection laws.
The suit further alleged that Rodale had a program in which it
sent mailings to consumers, asking them to buy an initial book.
After the customer bought and paid for the first book, Rodale
allegedly sent additional books that were not ordered (Class
Action Reports, Aug. 9, 2005).

In 2005, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond dismissed the case on
procedural grounds, saying that the section of the Postal
Reorganization Act cited in the suit does not give private
individuals the right to sue (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27,
2005). The act sets conditions for sending unsolicited
merchandise to consumers. The Federal Trade Commission would be
the appropriate party to file such a suit, Judge Diamond
concluded.

The recent 2-1 ruling hinged on whether the Postal
Reorganization Act implies a private right of action. The
circuit ruled that it does not.

According to the report, customers can send Rodale an order card
to enroll in a "negative option" plan, whereby Rodale ships them
books and bills any recipients who do not return the books
within a certain time period.

Lead plaintiff David Wisniewski claimed he paid for an
unsolicited book to avoid damage to his credit rating. Rodale
argued that Mr. Wisniewski consented by sending in the negative
option plan. He responded by saying the cards do not meet
objective disclosure standards and are "inadequate as a source
of consent.

Judges Smith and Weiss found that "the language and structure of
the statute provide no support for a private right of action."
Judge Sloviter dissented.

The suit, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania is "David Wisniewski et al. v. Rodale,
Inc., Case No. 06-1305."


STOKKE LLC: Recalls Xplory Strollers with Wheels that can Detach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stokke LLC, of Kennesaw, Ga., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling
about 2,000 Xplory Baby Strollers.

The company said a bolt that attaches each front wheel to the
stroller can loosen, causing one of the front wheels to fall
off, posing a fall hazard to young children.

The firm has received 14 reports of one of the front wheels
falling off, including one incident where a child received a
scratch when she toppled out of the stroller. In addition, there
were 244 reports outside of the United States of one of the
front wheels falling off.

Only Xplory baby strollers with serial numbers between 1 and
28,097 and with grey handles are included in the recall. The
serial number is located under the foot plate. Strollers with
white handles are not included in this recall.

The recalled front wheels were manufactured in China and the
strollers were made in Norway.  The strollers were sold through
Stokke distributors, Web site and juvenile product retailers
nationwide from September 2003 through December 2006 for about
$770.

To see pictures of the product:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08113a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08113b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08113c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled strollers
immediately and contact Stokke to arrange for a free replacement
of the front wheels. Stokke will contact all known purchasers by
e-mail or regular mail. Stokke notified its retailers and posted
a recall notice on its Web site in May 2007.

Note: Some consumers have already received a repair to their
stroller or are in the process of receiving replacement wheels.
These consumers do not need to contact Stokke again.

For more information, contact Stokke toll-free at (877) 978-6553
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.stokkeusa.com


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

December 14, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey's Seminars
Four Seasons Hotel, Miami
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 14, 2008
MEALEY'S CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey's Seminars
Ritz-Carlon Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 23-24, 2008
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

January 29-30, 2008
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS AND LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 7-8, 2008
DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT CASES
ALI-ABA
Washington, DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 11-12, 2008
MEALEY'S REINSURANCE LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey's Seminars
The Westin, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

February 27-28, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

February 28-29, 2008
FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 27-28, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 9-12, 2008
MEALEY'S 15TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE
Mealey's Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 10-11, 2008
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227

May 1-2, 2008
SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES
ALI-ABA
Boston, Massachusetts
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 29-31, 2008
MASS LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Charleston, South Carolina
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 25-28, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Boulder, Colorado
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

July 10-11, 2008
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu

July 30, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION:
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, Illinois
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu

October 23-24, 2008
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227


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

December 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "WHAT EVERY BUSINESS LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT
BANKRUPTCY"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-31, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 1-31, 2007
CONFIDENTIALITY IN CIVIL LITIGATION: ASSUMED NAMES, SEALED
DISCOVERY,
PRIVATE SETTLEMENTS, ARBITRATION AND APPEALS IN FEDERAL AND
TEXAS STATE COURTS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 23, 2008
MOORE'Sâ\u201e¢ RULES OF FEDERAL PRACTICE TELECONFERENCE:
TUTORIAL OF PROCEDURAL FEDERAL PRACTICE IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT
RULE CHANGES
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 7, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PRODUCT RECALLS
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 13, 2008
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WEATHERING MASS TORT AND
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS & NEGOTIATIONS
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 27, 2008
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS GASKETS TELECONFERENCE: EXPOSURE AND STATE OF
THE ART
Mealey's Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BUSINESS LITIGATION
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 24TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2006)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2007)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

COMPLEX LITIGATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS
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 MOTIONS
TO COMPEL
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: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2006)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ISILON SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on behalf of all purchasers of common
stock of Isilon Systems, Inc. from pursuant or traceable to the
Company's December 14, 2006 Initial Public Offering through
October 3, 2007, inclusive.

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

Isilon engages in the design, development, and marketing of
clustered storage systems for storing and managing digital
content in the United States and internationally.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company's clustered storage solutions were not
         differentiated enough to provide the Company with the
         ability to effectively compete with established
         competitors in the market;

     (2) that the Company's historic business and financial
         results were not a reliable predictor of the Company's
         future business operations and financial results, given
         the Company's over-reliance upon certain customers
         including Eastman Kodak;

     (3) that the Company was not meeting internal expectations,
         and would not reach profitability in 2007; and

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On February 7, 2007, the Company announced its fourth quarter
and full year 2006 financial and operational results. For the
quarter, the Company reported a net loss of $10.4 million, or
$(0.72) per share, compared with net loss of $4.1 million, or
$(0.78) per share for the same period of 2005. For 2006, the
Company reported a net loss of $25.4 million, or $(3.02) per
share, compared with net loss of $19.2 million, or $(3.95) per
share for 2005. Despite these results, the Company stated that
it expected revenue of between $115 million to $125 million for
2007, and that it expected "to reach breakeven and profitability
on a non-GAAP basis in the second half of 2007."

This was the first of a series of partial disclosures about the
Company's true business operations, future business and
financial prospects. On this partial disclosure, the Company's
shares declined $4.48 per share, or 17.7 percent, to close on
February 8, 2007 at $20.83 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The following day, the Company's shares declined an
additional $0.98 per share, or 4.7 percent. However, the
Company's shares continued to trade at artificially inflated
values.

On April 25, 2007, the Company reported a first quarter net loss
of $3.8 million, or $(0.06) per share. On this disclosure, the
Company's shares declined an additional $5.25 per share, or 29
percent, to close on April 26, 2007 at $12.86 per share, again
on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then on July 26, 2007, the Company reported a declining gross
margin, and a second quarter net loss of $3.6 million, or
$(0.06) per share. While the Company announced that it expected
to report revenue for the third quarter of 2007 in the range of
$25 million to $27.5 million, it also significantly lowered its
full year 2007 revenue guidance into the range of between $98
million to $105 million. On this disclosure, the Company's
shares declined an additional $5.37 per share, or over 36
percent, to close on July 27, 2007 at $9.54 per share, again on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Finally, on October 3, 2007, the Company announced further gross
margin erosion and that its preliminary third quarter 2007
results would be in the range of $23.2 million to $23.7 million.

As a result, the Company stated that it expected to report a net
loss for the year, in the range of $(0.10) to $(0.12) per share.

On this disclosure, the Company's shares declined an additional
$1.34 per share, or over 19 percent, to close on October 4, 2007
at $5.66 per share, again on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 2,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Popper Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a securities fraud lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of investors who purchased Navistar International Corp. (Pink
Sheets: NAVZ) securities on the open market from February 14,
2003 through July 17, 2006.

The action is against Navistar, certain of its current and
former senior management and Deloitte & Touche LLP, Navistar's
former outside auditing firm. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that the defendants knowingly and
fraudulently misrepresented Navistar's financial results during
the class period. When the truth began to be revealed to the
market, beginning on December 14, 2005 and continuing through
July 17, 2006, Navistar's stock price fell from $30.28 to
$20.95, a 30% drop.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 15,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          E. Elizabeth Ferguson, Esq.
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel.: 212.759.4600
          Toll Free: 877.370.7703
          Fax: 212.486.2093
          Toll Free Fax: 877.370.7704
          Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com or
eferguson@wolfpopper.com
          Website: http://www.wolfpopper.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  * * *