CAR_Public/080115.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, January 15, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 10

                            Headlines


ANDERSON MERCHANDISERS: Sales Reps File Calif. Overtime Lawsuit
BANK JOS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Md. Court
BORDERS GROUP: Calif. Court Approves Labor Litigation Settlement
BEST BUY: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over "Price Match Guarantee"
BUSINESS COMPUTER: Faces Wash. Suit Over Alleged Student Fraud

CSK AUTO: March 2009 Trial Planned for Ariz. Securities Suit
CSX CORP: Suits Over October Ohio Train Accident Consolidated
DELPHI CORP: Mich. Court Okays $284M Securities Suit Settlement
GENESCO INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Tennessee
GENESCO INC: Settles Tenn. Suit Over Rejected Foot Locker Offer

GUESS? INC: Reaches Settlement in California Overtime Wage Suit
H&R BLOCK: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Peace of Mind Program
H&R BLOCK: Class Certified in Suit Over Electronic Filing Fees
H&R BLOCK: Mo. Securities Fraud Suit Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
H&R BLOCK: Still Faces Suit Over RSM Business Valuation Services

INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Appeal Waived in Securities Suit Nixing
LOUISIANA: Suit Over Toxic Fumes at NISH Settled for $1.7M
LOWE'S HIW: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in California
MONSANTO CO: W. Va. Suit Over Dioxin-Related Cancer Certified
NATIONAL CASH: Payday Loan Customers Allowed to Sue as Group

NEVADA: City, Developers Sued Over Rupture of Irrigation Canal
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Faces Suit Over Catterton Partners Merger
RETAIL VENTURES: Still Faces Suit Over Credit Card Data Thefts
REZULIN LITIGATION: $17M Fund Created in Rezulin Suit Settlement
STANDARD FIRE: Suit Claims Firm Conceals Lower-Price Policies

SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: $19M Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set March
UNITED STATES: Veterans Allowed to Sue Over Mental Health Care
WET SEAL: Settles Calif. Litigation Over Credit Rule Violations
WET SEAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Cal. Securities Suit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ACA CAPITAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Abraham Fruchter Files N.Y. Securities Suit
ULTA SALON: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Ill.


                            *********  


ANDERSON MERCHANDISERS: Sales Reps File Calif. Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anderson Merchandisers sales representatives filed a putative
collective action and overtime class action against the company
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Jan. 11.

The lawsuit alleges that Anderson violated the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by misclassifying its sales
representatives as exempt from the FLSA and the corresponding
state wage and hour laws.

The lawsuit was brought by several sales representatives who
worked for Anderson in California, Oregon and Georgia. They
brought the action as a nationwide collective action on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated as well as a class
action in California and Oregon.

The suit is “Carter et al. v. Anderson Merchandisers, L.P., Civ.
No. EDCV 08-00025 VAP (Opx),” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Donald Nichols, Esq.
          Paul Lukas, Esq.
          Matt Morgan, Esq.
          Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
          David Zoeller, Esq.
          Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP. Nichols, Kaster &
          Anderson
          Phone: (612) 256-3200 or (612) 256-3243


BANK JOS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Md. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.  The court has refused to dismiss the
case.

On July 24, 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and
Robert N. Wildrick, the company’s chief executive officer, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by Roy T.
Lefkoe, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN.

On Aug. 3, 2006, a lawsuit substantially similar to the Class
Action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland by Tewas Trust UAD 9/23/86, Civil Action Number 1:06-
cv-02011-WMN.

The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as
those in the Class Action and purported to assert the same
claims and seek the same relief.

On Nov. 20, 2006, the July lawsuit and the Tewas Trust Action
were consolidated under the Class Action case number (1:06-cv-
01892-WMN) and the Tewas Trust Action was administratively
closed.

Massachusetts Labor Annuity Fund has been appointed the lead
plaintiff in the Class Action and has filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.

R. Neal Black, the company’s president and David E. Ullman, the
Company’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
have been added as defendants.

On behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between Dec. 5,
2005 and June 7, 2006, the Class Action purports to make claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the Company's
disclosures during the Class Period.  

The Class Action seeks unspecified damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss.  However, the Motion
was not granted.

The company reported no development in the matter at its Dec.
13, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007.

The suit is “Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-01892-WMN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland under Judge William M. Nickerson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
         Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC
         John Wanamaker Bldg., Ste. 450, Juniper and Market Sts.
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 12155613600
         Fax: 12155613000
         E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 12129377220
         Fax: 12122308888
         E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com


BORDERS GROUP: Calif. Court Approves Labor Litigation Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco
granted preliminary approval to a settlement of a labor-related
class action filed against Borders Group, Inc.

Two former employees filed the suit, both individually and on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all current and former
employees who work or worked as inventory managers or sales
managers in company stores in the state of California at any
time from Sept. 30, 2001 through the trial date.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual
plaintiffs and the purported class members were improperly
classified as exempt employees and that the company violated the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code by failing to:  

      -- pay required overtime;  

      -- provide meal periods, rest periods, and accurate  
         itemized wage statements;  

      -- keep accurate records of employees' hours of work; and  

      -- pay all compensation owed at the time of termination of  
         employment to certain members of the purported class.  

The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such
other relief, as the court deems proper.  

In November of 2007, the Superior Court for the State of
California granted preliminary approval of a settlement that was
reached in the matter.

Borders Group, Inc., -- http://www.bordersgroupinc.com/--  
through its subsidiaries, operates book, music and movie
superstores, and mall-based bookstores.  


BEST BUY: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over "Price Match Guarantee"
------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co. Inc. is facing a class complaint in Manhattan
District Court alleging it fails to deliver on its "price match
guarantee," the CourtHouse News Service reports.  The company
allegedly promised to match any local competitor's prices and
refund the difference plus 10% if a Best Buy customer has
already bought the item.

Named plaintiff Thomas Jermyn claims Best Buy refused to match
an $860 price for a Nikon camera he paid Best Buy $1,200 for,
and charged him $180 to return it.

Best Buy Co., Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of consumer
electronics, home-office products, entertainment software,
appliances, and related services primarily in the United States,
Canada, and China. The Company is based in Richfield, Minn.


BUSINESS COMPUTER: Faces Wash. Suit Over Alleged Student Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defunct vocational school Business Computer Training Institute
in Gig Harbor is facing a lawsuit accusing it of defrauding
students in Oregon, The News Tribune reports.

The suit was filed in Pierce County Superior Court, Washington
on Jan. 3.  It claims BCTI falsely promised prospective students
it would train them for high-paying professional careers, but
instead, many graduates wound up working at department stores,
fast-food restaurants or telemarketing firms.

The suit claims the school recruited "vulnerable" people outside
welfare and unemployment offices, and enrolled students who
could barely read and write.  It further claims the school
graduated students regardless of academic performance and left
many with student loan debts.

BCTI provided computer training and had seven campuses in
Washington and Oregon when it closed in 2005.

For more information, contact the students' attorneys at 253-
620-6620.


CSK AUTO: March 2009 Trial Planned for Ariz. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative March 2009 is planned for a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against CSK Auto Corp. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.

On June 9 and 20, 2006, two shareholder class actions were filed
against the company and certain current and former officers, one
of whom is also a director.

The cases are:

      -- "Communications Workers of America Plan for Employees
         Pensions and Death Benefits v. CSK Auto Corporation, et
         al., No. Civ. 06-1503 PHX DGC;" and

      -- "Wilfred Fortier v. CSK Auto Corporation, et al., No.
         Civ. 06-1580 PHX DGC."

The cases were consolidated on Sept. 18, 2006, with the
Communications Workers case as the lead case.  The consolidated
actions have been brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's stock between March 20, 2003 and
April 13, 2006, inclusive.

The consolidated complaint, filed on Nov. 30, 2006, alleged that
the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company and the individual defendants filed motions to
dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead
violations of the federal securities laws.

On March 28, 2007, the court issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss, with leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint on April 26, 2007, alleging violations of
the same federal securities laws and adding additional factual
allegations.

The amended consolidated complaint names as defendants the
company and three individuals:

      -- Maynard Jenkins, chairman of the board and chief
         executive officer;

      -- Martin Fraser, former president and chief operating
         officer; and

      -- Don Watson; former chief financial officer and former
         chief administrative officer.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges that defendants
issued false statements before and during the class period about
the company's income, earnings and internal controls, allegedly
causing the company's stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices during the class period.  It seeks recovery of damages in
an unspecified amount.

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on May 25, 2007,
alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, against the same Defendants, except for James
Riley, whom the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on July 13, 2007.

On September 27, 2007, the court issued an order granting the
motion to dismiss of Mr. Fraser with prejudice and denying the
motions to dismiss of the Company and Messrs. Jenkins and
Watson.

The court has bifurcated discovery, with discovery related to
whether a class should be certified proceeding first and
concluding on Dec. 21, 2008.  

Merits discovery was set Jan. 7, 2008 to July 3, 2008.  A trial,
if necessary, is scheduled to begin in March 2009.

The suit is "Communication Workers of America Plan for
Employees' Pensions and Death Benefits v. CSK Auto Corp., Case
No. 2:06-cv-01503-DGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona under Judge David G. Campbell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

         Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq.
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC
         2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         Fax: 602-274-1199
         E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com

Representing the defendants are

         Donald Wayne Bivens, Esq.
         Snell & Wilmer
         400 E. Van Buren
         Phoenix, AZ 85004
         Phone: 602-382-6549
         Fax: 602-382-6070
         E-mail: dbivens@swlaw.com

              - and -

         Gareth T. Evans, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         333 S. Grand Ave., 51st Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-229-7734
         Fax: 213-229-6734
         E-mail: gevans@gibsondunn.com


CSX CORP: Suits Over October Ohio Train Accident Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two cases filed against CSX Corp. over an October train accident
in Painesville, Ohio have been consolidated, it emerged in a
report by John Arthur Hutchison of News-Herald.com.

The report states that after three months, the incident remains
under investigation by the  National Transportation Safety
Board.

Thirty-two train cars were involved in the Painesville
derailment, including five that caught fire, and about 1,300
residents were evacuated from the area, officials said.  

Two cases were subsequently filed by businesses and residents.  
One was filed in Lake County Common Pleas Court and one in U.S.
District Court in Cleveland.  Mr. Hutchison said the cases have
been consolidated.

         The Lake County Common Pleas Court Case

The suit was filed by Jonathan Hirsch on behalf of himself and
other persons, firms, and entities who owned or rented property
within the evacuation zone of the derailment (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 18, 2007).

Mr. Hirsch filed the suit on Oct. 11, 2007, the day after the
train cars jumped the tracks.  His lawyer, Patrick Perotti of
Dworken & Bernstein, says that Mr. Hirsch was exposed to the
smoke and fumes after being evacuated and required medical
attention.

According to the suit, other evacuees suffered physical and/or
mental damages, as well as various inconveniences to their lives
due to CSX's negligence.

The suit asks CSX Corp. to pay for home inspections, disruptions
to businesses and other expenses that arose for evacuated
residents after the derailment.

It specifically seeks to have a home inspector of the evacuees'
choice inspect the homes and soil to make sure the properties
are safe to live in again, and to accurately estimate the full
amount of property damage to their homes and other belongings.

In addition to a jury trial, Mr. Hirsch asked Judge Eugene A.
Lucci for immediate medical monitoring of residents, as well as
full compensation of property values, all out-of-pocket losses,
personal injury, pain, discomfort, inconvenience and the loss of
any pets.

The suit also wants CSX Corp. to pay all of the evacuees'
accountant, auditor and attorney fees.

For more details, contact:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Dworken & Bernstein Co. L.P.A.
          Suite 200, 60 S Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077-3949
          Phone: 440-946-7656, 440-352-3391 or (877) 299-7708
          Fax: (440) 352-3469
          Web site: http://www.dworken-bernstein.com


DELPHI CORP: Mich. Court Okays $284M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen granted final approval to a
potential $284.1 million settlement of a class action filed by
investors against bankrupt auto-parts maker Delphi Corp.,
Bloomberg News reports.  

Judge Rosen also approved a separate $47 million settlement for
current and former employees who invested in Delphi through
their retirement plans. The settlements will require approval
from the bankruptcy court.

The lead plaintiffs in the shareholder class include the
Mississippi Public Employees Retirees System and the Teachers
Retirement System of Oklahoma.

Class Action Reporter reported in September that the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division
preliminarily certified a class consisting of:

     -- all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
        acquired publicly traded securities of Delphi Corp.,
        including securities issued by Delphi Trust I and Delphi
        Trust II between March 7, 2000 and March 3, 2005,
        inclusive, and who suffered damages thereby, including

        * all persons and entities who acquired shares of Delphi
          common stock and preferred stock in the secondary
          market and all persons or entities who acquired debt
          securities of Delphi in the secondary market or
          pursuant to a registration statement.

The Court also preliminarily approved a Settlement providing for
a recovery comprised of the following payments to be made by or
on behalf of the Settling Defendants:

     i) a claim in the Delphi Bankruptcy Case with a potential
        value of $204,000,000 in Delphi Plan Currency;

    ii) $78,600,000 in cash on behalf of the Delphi Officer and
        Director Defendants;

   iii) $1,500,000 in cash by or on behalf of certain of the
        Underwriter Defendants; and

    iv) contingent payments of a maximum of $11,000,000, also to
        be paid on behalf of the Delphi Officer and Director
        Defendants (collectively, the "Settling Defendants").

As Delphi is currently a debtor and debtor-in-possession in a
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, this Settlement is wholly
contingent upon approval by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D.
Drain, for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York of Delphi's Plan of Reorganization, which
was filed on September 6, 2007, and incorporates the Settlement.

If the Settlement and Delphi's Plan of Reorganization are
approved, the Settlement will resolve all of Lead Plaintiffs'
claims in this litigation against the Settling Defendants. The
Delphi Plan Currency will be paid by Delphi following its
emergence from the Delphi Bankruptcy Case in accordance with the
Delphi Plan of Reorganization. The Class will also receive
interest on the cash payments described herein.

Delphi intends to exit bankruptcy by the end of February.  A
hearing on the company's reorganization plan is set for Jan. 17
before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain in Manhattan.

                    Securities Fraud Lawsuit

A group of putative class actions against Delphi variously
alleges, among other things, that the company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers and others made
materially false and misleading statements in violation of
federal securities laws.

On Sept. 23, 2005, securities actions against Delphi were
consolidated before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly-traded securities of the company,
including securities issued by Delphi Trust I and Delphi Trust
II, during a putative class period of March 7, 2000 through
March 3, 2005.

The amended securities action names several new defendants,
including Delphi Trust II, certain former directors, and
underwriters and other third parties, and includes securities
claims regarding additional offerings of Delphi securities.

The securities actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (and a related securities
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida concerning Delphi Trust I) were subsequently
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan as part of the Multidistrict Litigation.

                       ERISA Litigation

One group of putative class actions, which are purportedly
brought on behalf of participants in certain of the company's
and its subsidiaries' defined contribution employee benefit
pension plans that invested in Delphi common stock, was brought
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs in the ERISA Actions allege, among others, that the
plans suffered losses as a result of alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  

On Oct. 21, 2005, the ERISA Actions were consolidated before one
judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  The ERISA Actions were subsequently transferred to
the Multidistrict Litigation.

On March 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint with a putative class period of May 28, 1999 to Nov.
1, 2005.  

                       Derivative Lawsuit   

Another group of lawsuits against certain current and former
directors and officers of Delphi is comprised of shareholder
derivative actions.

A total of four complaints were filed: two in the federal court
(one in the Eastern District of Michigan and another in the
Southern District of New York) and two in Michigan state court
(Oakland County Circuit Court in Pontiac, Michigan).

These suits alleged that certain current and former directors
and officers of the Company breached a variety of duties owed by
them to Delphi in connection with matters related to the
company's restatement of its financial results.

The federal cases were consolidated with the securities and
ERISA class actions before Judge Gerald E. Rosen in the Eastern
District of Michigan, described above.

Following the filing on Oct. 8, 2005 of the Debtors' petitions
for reorganization relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code, all the derivative cases were administratively closed.

The consolidated suit is "Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative
and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-01725-GER,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen.

Representing some of the plaintiffs are:

         Cari C. Laufenberg, Esq.
         Keller Rohrback
         1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-1900
         Fax: 206-623-3384
         E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com

              - and -

         Sara L. Madsen, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal
         100 S. Washington Ave., Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981
         E-mail: slmadsen@locklaw.com

Representing the company are:

         Stuart Baskin, Esq.
         Shearman & Sterling
         599 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-848-4000
         Fax: 212-848-7179
         E-mail: sbaskin@shearman.com

              - and -

         Joseph E. Papelian, Esq.
         Delphi Corporation Legal Staff,
         5825 Delphi Drive
         Troy, MI 48098-2815
         Phone: 248-813-2000
         E-mail: joseph.e.papelian@delphi.com





GENESCO INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc. faces a purported securities fraud class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee.

On Dec. 5, 2007, a class-action complaint, alleging violations
of the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company’s common stock between April 20, 2007 and Nov. 26,
2007 was filed against the Company and four of its officers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements about
the Company’s business during that period.

It seeks unspecified damages and interest, costs and attorneys’
fees and other relief.

The suit is “Roeglin v. Genesco Inc., et al.,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bernard M. Gross
         1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA, 19102
         Phone: 215.561.3600
         Fax: 215.561.3000
         E-mail: bmgross@BernardMGross.com

         Dreier LLP
         One Landmark Square. 20th Floor
         Stamford, CT, 06901
         Phone: 203.425.9500
         Fax: 203.425.9595
         E-mail: info@dreierllp.com

         Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
         One Corporate Center, 20 Church Street
         Hartford, CT
         Phone: 860.493.6292
         Fax: 860.493.6290
         E-mail: info@snlaw.net

         Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610.667.7706
         Fax: 610.667.7056
         E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com

              - and -
         
         Wolf Popper, LLP
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY
         Phone: 877.370.7703
         Fax: 212.486.2093
         E-mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com


GENESCO INC: Settles Tenn. Suit Over Rejected Foot Locker Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc. settled a purported class action in Tennessee
Chancery Court over a proposal by Foot Locker, Inc. to acquire
the company.

Maxine Phillips filed the suit captioned, “Phillips v. Genesco
Inc., et al.” on April 24, 2007.  Generally, the complaint
alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants
(directors of the Company) refused to consider properly the
proposal.

The complaint seeks class certification, a declaration that
defendants have breached their fiduciary and other duties, an
order requiring defendants to implement a process to obtain the
highest possible price for shareholders’ shares, and an award of
costs and attorney’s fees.

Following the execution of the merger agreement with The Finish
Line Inc., plaintiff’s counsel indicated, and continues to
indicate, that plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint
alleging breach of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants
in connection with the board of directors’ approval of the
merger agreement and the disclosures made in the preliminary
proxy statement related to the merger and seeking injunctive
relief.

The Company and the individual defendants reached an agreement
with plaintiff under which the Company agreed to include certain
additional disclosures in its definitive proxy statement related
to the merger which was filed on Aug. 13, 2007.

The parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding to formalize
the settlement on Sept. 10, 2007.

Under the terms of the Memorandum, the Company would pay
$450,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses if the settlement and
payment of fees are approved by the Court and certain other
conditions, including the consummation of the merger with Finish
Line, Inc., occur.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
13, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 3, 2007.

Genesco Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com-- is a retailer of  
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a
wholesaler of branded footwear.


GUESS? INC: Reaches Settlement in California Overtime Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guess?, Inc. settled a purported class action filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco,
alleging violations of the state's overtime laws.

Michele Evets filed the suit on Feb. 1, 2005.  The suit purports
to be a class action filed on behalf of current and former Guess
Inc. store managers in California.  Plaintiffs seek overtime
wages and a preliminary and permanent injunction.

The company answered the complaint on April 28, 2005.  The
parties participated in a voluntary mediation in August 2006 and
in February 2007 executed a settlement agreement, which became
effective upon final court approval on Nov. 1, 2007.

Guess?, Inc. -- http://www.guessinc.com/-- designs, markets,  
distributes and licenses a lifestyle collection of contemporary
apparel and accessories for men, women and children that reflect
the American lifestyle and European fashion sensibilities.


H&R BLOCK: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Peace of Mind Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., a unit of H&R Block, Inc., still
faces purported class actions in Illinois and Texas in relation
to the its Peace of Mind (POM) Program.

                      Illinois Litigation

One of the cases is the purported class action, "Lorie J.
Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil
Action 2003L000004," which was filed in the Circuit Court of
Madison County, Illinois.

The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2002 and granted class-action
status on Aug. 27, 2003.  Plaintiffs' claims consist of five
counts relating to the POM Program under which the applicable
tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for
additional tax assessments attributable to tax return
preparation error.

The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees
constitutes:

      -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license;

      -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it); and

      -- a breach of fiduciary duty.

In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes
consisting of all persons who from Jan. 1, 1997 to final
judgment:

      -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant H&R Block class member;

      -- reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R
         Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and

      -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block
Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded
from the plaintiff class.  

The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any
entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are
otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product.  

The trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion to
certify class certification issues for interlocutory appeal.  

Discovery is proceeding.  No trial date has been set.

                       Texas Litigation

There is one other putative class action pending against the
company in Texas that involves the POM guarantee.

This case involves the same plaintiffs’ attorneys that are
involved in the Marshall litigation, and contains similar
allegations.  No class has been certified in this case.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2007.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com-- is a financial  
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.  


H&R BLOCK: Class Certified in Suit Over Electronic Filing Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Please of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania
granted class-action status to the lawsuit, “Erin M. McNulty and
Brian J. Erzar v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-CIV-
4654.”

In the suit, filed on Aug. 30, 2002, plaintiffs allege that the
defendants deceptively portray electronic filing fees as a
necessary and required component of standard tax preparation
services and do not inform tax preparation clients that they
may:

       -- file tax returns free of charge by mailing the
          returns,
    
       -- electronically file tax returns from personal
          computers either free of charge are at significantly
          lower fees, and

       -- be eligible to electronically file tax returns free of
          charge via telephone.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and disgorgement of all
electronic filing, tax preparation and related fees collected
during the applicable class period.  

Class certification was granted in this case on Sept. 5, 2007.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com-- is a financial  
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.  


H&R BLOCK: Mo. Securities Fraud Suit Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against H&R Block, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri filed an amended complaint in the
matter.

On March 17, 2006, the first of three putative class actions
alleging violations of certain securities laws are were filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

The suits alleged, among other things, deceptive, material and
misleading financial statements, failure to prepare financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and concealment of the potential for lawsuits
stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the company's
operations.  They seek unspecified damages and equitable relief.

On Sept. 20, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri ordered all of the cases consolidated into
a single action, "In re H&R Block Securities Litigation."

On April 6, 2007, an amended complaint was filed in the matter,
which alleges, among other things, deceptive, material and
misleading financial statements, failure to prepare financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and concealment of the potential for lawsuits
stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the Company’s
operations.  It seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint and granted
the plaintiffs leave to re-file the portion of the complaint
pertaining to the Company’s financial statements.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed the complaint,
alleging, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading
financial statements and failure to prepare financial statements
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The suit is "In Re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-
0236-CV-W-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles F. Speer, Esq.
          Speer Law Firm
          104 West 9th Street, Suite 305
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 472-3560
          Fax: (816) 421-2150
          E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Sameer Advani, Esq.
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 7thAvenue
          New York, NY 10019-6099
          Phone: (212) 728-8000
          Fax: (212) 728-8111
          E-mail: sadvani@willkie.com

               - and -

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: (650) 320-4858
          Fax: (650) 565-5100
          E-mail: jbirn@wsgr.com


H&R BLOCK: Still Faces Suit Over RSM Business Valuation Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in
the California Superior Court, Orange County regarding business
valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc.

The suit is "Do Right's Plant Growers v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., RSM
McGladrey, Inc., H&R Block, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. 06 CC00137," filed July 11, 2006.

The complaint contains allegations regarding business valuation
services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., including fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
fiduciary duty and unfair competition and seeks unspecified
damages, restitution and equitable relief (Class Action
Reporter, July 9, 2007).

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec.
12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2007.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com-- is a financial  
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Appeal Waived in Securities Suit Nixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported securities fraud class action
against Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. agreed to waive any
appeal after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed a dismissal of the case.

                        Case Background

Between Aug. 20 and Oct. 4, 2004, five putative securities fraud
class actions were filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.  

The five lawsuits were consolidated as "In re Integrated
Electrical Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:04-
CV-3342" in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas

On March 23, 2005, the court appointed Central Laborer' Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel.  Pursuant to
the parties' agreed scheduling order, lead plaintiff filed its
amended complaint on June 6, 2005.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements during the
proposed class period of Nov. 10, 2003 to Aug. 13, 2004.

It also alleges that defendants misrepresented the company's
financial condition in 2003 and 2004 as evidenced by the
restatement, violated generally accepted accounting principles,
and misrepresented the sufficiency of the company's internal
controls so that they could engage in insider trading at
artificially-inflated prices, retain their positions at the
company, and obtain a credit facility for the company.

On Aug. 5, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  Defendants argued,
among other things, that the amended complaint fails to allege
fraud with particularity as required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to satisfy the heightened
pleading requirements for securities fraud class actions under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

Defendants also argued that the amended complaint does not
allege fraud with particularity as to numerous Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles violations and opinion statements
about internal controls, fails to raise a strong inference that
defendants acted knowingly or with severe recklessness, and
includes vague and conclusory allegations from confidential
witnesses without a proper factual basis.

The lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss
on Sept. 28, 2005, and defendants filed their reply in support
of the motion to dismiss on Nov. 14, 2005.  On Dec. 21, 2005,
the court held a telephonic hearing relating to the motion to
dismiss.  

On Jan. 10, 2006, the district court dismissed the putative
class action with prejudice, ruling that the amended complaint
failed to raise a strong inference of scienter and, therefore,
did not satisfy the pleading requirements for a securities class
action under the PSLRA.

The lead plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit arguing that the lower court erred substantively
and procedurally in its rulings.

Both plaintiff and defendants have filed their respective
briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard the matter under oral
argument on May 3, 2007, and on Aug. 21, 2007, the Court issued
its ruling in favor of Integrated Electrical Services.  

On Sept. 5, 2007, the plaintiff agreed to waive any appeal,
according to the company's Dec. 13, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 4:04-CV-3342," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge
Keith P. Ellison.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

         Roger B. Greenberg, Esq.
         Schwartz Junell, et al.
         909 Fannin, Ste. 2700
         Houston, TX 77010
         Phone: 713-752-0017
         Fax: 713-752-0327
         E-mail: rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com

         Mel E. Lifshitz, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard, et al.
         10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414
      
              - and -

         Steven J. Toll, Esq.
         Cohen Milstein, et al.
         1100 New York Ave., NW Ste. 500 W. Twr.
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

Representing the company is:

         N. Scott Fletcher, Esq.
         Vinson & Elkins, LLP
         1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
         Houston, TX 77002-6760
         Phone: 713-758-3234
         Fax: 713-615-5168
         E-mail: sfletcher@velaw.com


LOUISIANA: Suit Over Toxic Fumes at NISH Settled for $1.7M
----------------------------------------------------------
New Iberia lawyer David Groner said that a $1.7 million
settlement was reached in a class action over noxious fumes that
permeated the halls and classrooms of New Iberia Senior High
(NISH) in Louisiana, Jeff Moore of The Daily Iberian reports.

Six hundred former students and faculty at New Iberia Senior
High School stand to receive an average of about $1,400 as
compensation under the settlement.

The suit was filed on behalf of "anyone who experienced any
physical effect from breathing in the fumes" of the roofing
sealant Armor-Flex in September, October or November of 2003.   

The lawsuit alleges that fumes and vapors from the roofing  
sealant drifted or were transported into the halls and  
classrooms at NISH by air conditioning system.

Defendants in the class action include:  

     -- Iberia Parish School Board,  
     -- Crown Roofing Services, the company contracted to repair  
        the NISH roof; and  
     -- Honeywell, Inc., manufacturers of Armor-Flex.

The fumes were first reported at the school on Sept. 16, 2003,  
however the bulk of complaints from students, faculty and staff  
came only later.

It was determined that the fumes came from the Armor-Flex, which  
can cause eye and skin irritation and can also cause headache,  
dizziness, nausea, drowsiness and irritation to the respiratory  
system, the substance's warning label revealed.

The first lawsuit was filed on Sept. 22.  Subsequent suits have  
been consolidated into the class action.   

Defendants appealed the "class" distinction to the Third Circuit  
Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal.  Similar action was  
subsequently taken by the state Supreme Court.

Anyone who objects to the settlement must write a letter to the
judge by Feb. 15. A hearing is set before District Judge William
Hunter Feb. 21 to decide whether the settlement is fair.  
Objectors also must attend the Feb. 21 hearing.

For more details, contact:

          David Groner, P.L.C.
          230 W. Main St. P.O. Box 9207, New Iberia
          Louisiana 70562-9207
          E-mail: info@davidgroner.com
          Phone: (337) 364-3629
          Fax: (337) 367-2438
          Web site: http://www.davidgroner.com/  


LOWE'S HIW: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lowe’s HIW, Inc., a subsidiary of Lowe's Companies, Inc., faces
a class action, alleging failure to pay overtime wages pursuant
to the requirements of the California Labor Code.

The suit is entitled, “Cynthia Parris, et al. v. Lowe’s HIW,
Inc.”  This case was filed on Oct. 29, 2001 in Los Angeles
Superior Court on behalf of a class of all non-exempt hourly
employees who, since Oct. 11, 1997, have been employed or are
currently employed in California by Lowe’s HIW, Inc.  

As a result of a recent California appellate court decision, the
case is now proceeding in the trial court as a class action
seeking monetary and other relief, according to the company's
Dec. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 2, 2007.

Lowe's Companies, Inc. -- http://www.lowes.com-- is a home  
improvement retailer.  The Company offers a line of products and
services for home decorating, maintenance, repair, remodeling
and property maintenance.


MONSANTO CO: W. Va. Suit Over Dioxin-Related Cancer Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated lawsuit against Monsanto Co. and related
companies over health hazards resulting from the operation of
its defunct dioxin-producing plant in Nitro, has been granted
class action certification, UPI Business News reports.

According to the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette, Judge O.C.
Spaulding combined the original two suits as class action,
earlier.

The suits filed in Putnam Circuit Court on Oct. 1 accused
Monsanto and companies that have something to do with the
trichlorophenol plant of negligence and unlawful release of
dioxin from properties owned and/or controlled by them.  Among
the defendants are Pharmacia Corp., Akzo Nobel Inc., Flexsys
America, Solutia Inc., and Apogee Coal Co. (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 10, 2007).

According to the complaints, Monsanto owned and operated the
plant from 1934 to 2000.  Production of the dioxin was made from
1949 to approximately 1971 at the Monsanto Nitro plant.  The
plant closed in 2004.  In between those years, the plant merged
with Akzo Nobel, a Dutch company, and began operating as Flexsys
America Inc.  In 1997, Monsanto renamed a subsidiary as Solutia
Inc. and the Nitro was distributed to Solutia.

The complaints maintain the defendants knew or should have known
the Nitro plant site was contaminated and dangerous.  The
defendants acted carelessly, negligently, recklessly and/or
deliberately, the suits say.

The other suit includes owners of about 100 properties in the
Manila and Heizer Creek areas north of town, according to UPI
Business.

Based in St. Louis, Mo., Monsanto Co. applies biotechnology,
genomics, and molecular breeding technology to herbicide and
seeds.


NATIONAL CASH: Payday Loan Customers Allowed to Sue as Group
------------------------------------------------------------
A Palm Beach County Circuit judge ruled that payday loan
customers may organize as a group to sue McKenzie Check Advance
of Florida also known as National Cash Advance, Jane Musgrave of
Palm Beach Post reports.

Judge Elizabeth Maass ruled that a condition prohibiting loan
customer from joining others in a lawsuit to challenge fees on
payday loans is illegal.  The fees have already been declared by
state lawmakers as exorbitant and predatory.

According to Ms. Musgrave, the ruling paves the way for
customers who were charged such fees on payday loans to join
with others in a class action against McKenzie Check Advance.  
Judge Maass found that the ban on participating in a class
action violates public policy by giving consumers no remedy
against the companies they suspected were violating state law.

Ms. Musgrave mentioned a case of Tiffany Kelly of Fort Prince
who got $300 after agreeing to pay $338 for the so-called payday
loan.  She made 22 loans failing to note that her contract
prevented her from suing together with a group.

Palm Beach Gardens attorney Theodore Leopold said that with
Judge Maass' ruling, he will now seek class-action status for
the lawsuit he filed on behalf of Ms. Kelly.

Two other cases are pending in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

For more information, contact:

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          2925 PGA Boulevard
          Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
          Phone: (561) 684-6500
          Fax: (561) 697-2383
          Web site: http://www.riccilaw.com


NEVADA: City, Developers Sued Over Rupture of Irrigation Canal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three law firms have filed a class action on behalf of victims
of a recent flood in Fernley in Nevada, according to the San
Diego Union Tribune.  The flood was caused by the rupture of an
irrigation canal during a storm on Jan. 5.  

The case was the second such complaint, according to the report.  
Earlier, Reno lawyer Robert Hagar filed a negligence suit in
Washoe County District Court on behalf of Judy Kroshus.  The
Reno firms are seeking unspecified damages from:

     -- Truckee-Carson Irrigation District,
     -- city of Fernley and Lyon County,
     -- developers CRCH Ltd. and other real estate developers

for failing to notify new buyers of the potential risk,
according to Associated Press.

The second lawsuit was filed by Reno firms of Maddox &
Associates, Leverty & Associates and Dunlap & Laxalt in Lyon
County District Court in Yerington on Jan. 11.

Both lawsuits allege that the irrigation district did not
properly maintain the canal and failed to minimize damage once
the breach occurred.


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Faces Suit Over Catterton Partners Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Hardware, Inc. faces a purported class action in
California over the merger between the Company and certain
affiliates of Catterton Partners.

On Nov. 28, 2007, a stockholder complaint was filed by Richard
Hattan as a purported class action on behalf of all of the
Company’s stockholders against:

     -- the Company,
     -- each of the Company’s directors,
     -- Catterton Partners,
     -- Glenhill Capital LP,
     -- Vardon Capital Management LLC,
     -- Palo Alto Investors LLC, and
     -- Reservoir Capital Management LLC

in Superior Court of the State of California in the County of
Marin, under Case No. CV 075563.

The plaintiff alleges that he is an owner of the Company’s
common stock.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company’s
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger transaction between the Company and affiliates
of Catterton Partners by approving a sale process that fails to
maximize stockholder value.

Among other things, the complaint seeks to enjoin the Company,
its directors and the other defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the merger between the Company and certain
affiliates of Catterton Partners.

Corte Madera, California-based Restoration Hardware, Inc. --
http://www.restorationhardware.com/-- is a specialty retailer  
of hardware, bathware, furniture, lighting, textiles,
accessories and gifts.


RETAIL VENTURES: Still Faces Suit Over Credit Card Data Thefts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Ventures, Inc. continues to face a purported class action
arising from the theft of credit card and other purchase
information from its database.

On March 8, 2005, Retail Ventures announced that it had learned
of the theft of credit card and other purchase information from
a portion of DSW, Inc.'s customers.

On April 18, 2005, Retail Ventures issued the findings from its
investigation into the theft.  The theft covered transaction
information involving approximately 1.4 million credit cards and
data from transactions involving approximately 96,000 checks.

DSW and Retail Ventures contacted and continue to cooperate with
law enforcement and other authorities with regard to this
matter.

The company is involved in several legal proceedings arising out
of this incident, including a putative class action, which seeks
unspecified monetary damages, credit monitoring and other
relief.  

The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of consumers that is
limited geographically to consumers who made purchases at
certain stores in Ohio.

The company reported no development in the case at its Dec. 13,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007.

Retail Ventures, Inc.  -- http://www.retailventuresinc.com--  
operates its business in three segments: Value City Department
Stores LLC (Value City), DSW Inc. (DSW), and Filene’s Basement,
Inc. (Filene’s Basement).  Value City is a full-line, value-
price retailer carrying men’s, women’s and children’s apparel,
accessories, jewelry, shoes, home fashions, electronics and
seasonal items.  DSW is a specialty branded footwear retailer
operating 223 shoe stores in 35 states as of Feb. 3, 2007.
Filene’s Basement stores offer designer and name brand apparel,
home goods and accessories.  


REZULIN LITIGATION: $17M Fund Created in Rezulin Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raleigh Circuit Judge John Hutchison said there were no
objections to a $17.1 million settlement of a class action over
the diabetes drug Rezulin by a Dec. 21 deadline to do so, Cheryl
Caswell of Charleston Daily Mail reports.  

The settlement was reached in a class action filed against
Warner-Lambert Company and Parke Davis, makers of the diabetes
drug that was linked to injuries and deaths.  The lawsuit claims
that Rezulin, a prescription medication previously sold by
Warner-Lambert and Parke-Davis, did not contain adequate labels
and warnings. The Defendants deny all these claims.

The Court has not decided who is right in the lawsuit. Instead,
the parties agreed to settle the case.

    *  Class Members who do not agree to give up their claims
       for personal injury from Rezulin will get $200,

    * Class Members who agree to give up their claims for
      personal injury from Rezulin will get $1,500.

Claims filing deadline is Feb. 4.  

The settlement will give attorneys who worked on the case about
$6 million.  Medical programs at West Virginia University and
Marshall University could get up to $4.5 million.

Attorneys working on the settlement were Marvin W. Masters,
Anthony Majestro and Scott Segal of Charleston, and Carl
Frankovich of Weirton.

The case was filed on behalf of class representatives Frances
Richards, Marilyn Walker and the estate of William O'Neill.

The settlement on the Net: http://www.wvrezulinclassaction.com

The suit is "In Re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, Civil
Action No. 00-C-1180-H." The case is in the Circuit Court of
Raleigh County, West Virginia.

For more information, contact:

         Rezulin Settlement Administrator
         P.O. Box 849
         Hurricane, WV 25526

Class Counsel at:

         Rezulin Litigation
         Marvin W. Masters, Esq.
         The Masters Law Firm lc
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301


STANDARD FIRE: Suit Claims Firm Conceals Lower-Price Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Standard Fire Insurance Co. is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Circuit Court for Pulaski County,
Arkansas claiming that the company conceals lower-price
insurance policies for the same coverage, resulting to
overcharges to homeowners.

Named plaintiff Joe Feldman brings this action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
persons who purchased an Arkansas homeowner's insurance policy
from defendant prior to Sept. 1, 2003.

He wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant has a duty to disclose to consumers
         the lowest available price for defendant's homeowners
         insurance;

     (b) whether defendant developed and carried out a scheme to
         conceal from consumers the lowest available price for
         defendant's homeowners insurance;

     (c) whether defendant induced its authorized agents to
         conceal from consumers the lowest price available for
         defendant's homeowners insurance;

     (d) whether defendant failed and refused to train,
         supervise, monitor and discipline its authorized agents
         who concealed from consumers the lowest available price
         for defendant's homeowners insurance;

     (e) whether defendant disseminated insurance applications
         that did not disclose to consumers the option of paying
         lower premiums for identical policies;

     (f) whether defendant implemented a scheme designed to
         conceal the availability of lower priced homeowner's
         insurance policies for identical coverage;

     (g) whether defendant sold homeowner insurance policies and
         did not disclose to consumers the option of paying
         lower premiums for identical coverage;

     (h) whether the conduct of defendant, supports plaintiff's
         claims for fraudulent concealment, the Arkansas
         Deceptive Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment and
         fraud; and

     (i) whether the class is entitled to compensatory and
         punitive damages and/or injunctive relief against
         defendant.

Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

      -- for an order certifying the class and appointing
         plaintiff and her counsel to represent the class;

      -- for an order finding defendant liable under each of the
         causes of action pleaded;

      -- for an order awarding plaintiff and class members
         restitution and/or disgorgement and other equitable
         relief as the court deems appropriate;

      -- for compensatory damages for plaintiff and the class;

      -- for an order enjoining defendant from continuing the
         misconduct described;

      -- for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the pursuit
         of their action; and

      -- for an order awarding such other and further relief as
         the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Joe Feldman et al. v. The Standard Fire Insurance
Company, Case No. CV08-461," filed in the Circuit Court for
Pulanski County, Arkansas.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Thomas P. Thrash
          Thrash Law Firm
          101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 374-1058
          Fax: (501) 374-2222


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: $19M Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set March
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has set a
hearing on March 17, 2008, 10:00 a.m., for a $19 million
settlement of the class action “In Re: Suprema Specialties Inc.,
Master File No. 02-168 (WHW).”

The class is composed of all persons or entities who purchased
or acquired common stock of Suprema Specialties, Inc. from Spet.
27, 2000 through Dec. 21, 2001, inclusive.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on March 3,
2008. Deadline to file claims is on April 10, 2008.

The hearing will be held at the  U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey in the courtroom of the Honorable William
H. Walls.

                         Case Background

Suprema is accused of inflating sales by $560 million in the
seven years before its collapse by entering into a series of
fake transactions with its major customers, boosting sales, and
allowing Suprema to borrow more and more money from lenders.  
The fraud also helped it sell some $41 million in stock to
investors during a November 2001 stock offering.

In September 2007, the former auditor of the cheese company, as
well as several former company board members and underwriters,
signed a memorandum of understanding to pay $19 million to
settle a class action in relation to the collapse of the company
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2007).

The settlement was reached between lead plaintiff Teachers'
Retirement System of Louisiana and Suprema's underwriters Janney
Montgomery Scott LLC, Pacific Growth Equities Inc. and Roth
Capital Partners LLC, as well as former directors Rudolph Acosta
Jr., Paul Desocio and Barry S. Rutcofsky.

The suit is “In Re: Suprema Specialties Inc., Master File No.
02-168 (WHW)” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, under the Honorable William H. Walls.

Plaintiffs' lead counsel:

          Jeffrey N. Leibell, Esq.
          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Matthew C. Moehlman, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (800) 380-8496
          Website: http://blbglaw.com


UNITED STATES: Veterans Allowed to Sue Over Mental Health Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti allowed a class action
filed by veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
to go ahead against the Department of Veterans Affairs, Aaron
Glantz of OpEdNews reports.

Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, against the
Department of Veterans Affairs for allegedly failing to help
veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who suffer from
post-traumatic stress disorder (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22,
2007).

The lawsuit seeks to be a nationwide class action on behalf of
an estimated 320,000 to 800,000 post-9/11 vets with post-
traumatic stress disorder, which is commonly known as PTSD.

Melissa Kasnitz, an attorney with the Disability Rights
Advocates, previously said that the Veterans Affairs is
abandoning disabled veterans.  The veterans groups say the
Veterans Affairs bureaucracy in Washington has exerted pressure
on local officials to deny valid claims or deliberately
underrate the severity of disabilities in an effort to save
money, according to the report.  At the same time, Veterans
Affairs officials have not asked Congress for more money.

The veterans groups are asking the federal courts to force the
Veterans Affairs to clear the backlog of disability claims and
make sure that returning veterans receive immediate medical and
psychological help.  They also want the judge to force the
Veterans Affairs to screen all vets returning from combat to
identify those at greatest risk for PTSD and suicide, according
to the report.  

The Veterans Affairs now has a backlog of over 600,000
applications for claims, according to the recent report.  
Reportedly, data obtained in November by McClatchy Newspapers,
veterans must wait an average of 183 days for a claim to be
decided.

The Veterans Affairs sought to dismiss the lawsuit claiming that
the groups bringing the suit, Veterans for Common Sense and
Veterans United for Truth, were simply "advocacy organizations"
and did not have standing to sue on behalf of the group.

Judge Conti disagreed, ruling that the federal system for
weighing individual veterans' claims "does not provide an
adequate alternative remedy for Plaintiffs' claims for several
reasons.

A first court hearing is scheduled for next month.


WET SEAL: Settles Calif. Litigation Over Credit Rule Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a purported class action filed against The Wet Seal
Inc. over alleged violations of credit rules have reached a
settlement in the matter.

In January 2007, a class-action complaint was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging violations of The Fair Credit Reporting.

In February 2007 a class-action complaint was filed against the
company alleging similar violations in the same court.  Both
parties in the February 2007 complaint have agreed to dismiss
the complaint with prejudice.  

The Act provides in part that portions of the credit card number
may not be printed together with expiration dates on credit or
debit card receipts given to customers.  

It imposes significant penalties upon violators of these rules
and regulations where the violation is deemed to have been
willful.  Otherwise, damages are limited to actual losses
incurred by the card holder.

On Dec. 11, 2007, the Company reached a tentative agreement to
settle this complaint for less than $0.1 million.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a  
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items designed for female consumers.  The Company
operates two, primarily mall-based, chains of retail stores
under the names, Wet Seal and Arden B.  

    
WET SEAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Cal. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against The Wet Seal, Inc. are appealing a dismissal of their
amended complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

Between Aug. 26, 2004 and Oct. 12, 2004, six securities class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, or the Court, on behalf of persons who
purchased our common stock between Jan. 7, 2003 and Aug. 19,
2004.

The company and certain of its former directors and executives
were named as defendants.  

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, on the
grounds that, among other things, the company failed to disclose
and misrepresented material adverse facts that were known to the
company or disregarded by the company.

On Nov. 17, 2004, the court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel.  On Jan. 29, 2005, the
lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint
with the court, which consolidated all of the previously
reported class actions.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the company violated the
federal securities laws by making material misstatements of fact
or failing to disclose material facts during the class period,
from March 2003 to August 2004, concerning its prospects to stem
ongoing losses in its Wet Seal concept and return that business
to profitability.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that the company's
former directors and La Senza Corp., a Canadian company
controlled by them, unlawfully utilized material non-public
information in connection with the sale of its common stock by
La Senza.

The consolidated complaint seeks class certification,
compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees and
injunctive relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in April 2005.  On Sept. 15, 2005, the consolidated class action
was dismissed against the company in the lawsuit.

However, plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended
complaint, which they did file on Nov. 23, 2005.  The company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Jan. 25,
2006.

A court hearing on the motion was held on Oct. 23, 2006.  On
Aug. 28, 2007, the consolidated class action complaint was
dismissed without leave to amend.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the plaintiff appealed this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The suit is “Alexander Vinokurov v. Wet Seal Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:04-cv-07159-GAF-CT,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess
with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
         Barrack Rodos and Bacine
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 850
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-230-0800
         E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com

              - and -

         William J. Doyle, II, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the defendants are:

         Seth A. Aronson, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers, 400 S. Hope St., 15th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
         Phone: 213-430-6000
         E-mail: saronson@omm.com

              - and -

         Charles Avrith, Esq.
         Nagler and Associates
         2300 South Sepulveda Boulevard
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-473-1200
         Fax: 310-473-7144


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ACA CAPITAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a class-action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of ACA Capital Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:ACA) common stock
from November 2, 2006 through November 20, 2007, inclusive,
including purchasers who purchased shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about
November 10, 2006.

The complaint charges ACA Capital and Alan S. Roseman, its
President and CEO, with violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

ACA Capital is a holding company that provides financial
guaranty insurance products to participants in the global credit
derivative, structured finance capital, and municipal finance
capital markets.

On or about November 9, 2006, ACA Capital priced its IPO of
6,875,000 shares of newly issued common stock and 23,541 shares
of existing common stock at $13 per share, generating gross
proceeds of $89.4 million. The Registration Statement for the
IPO described positively ACA Capital's business and the
Company's collateralized debt obligation ("CDO") asset
management business.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the
IPO contained inaccurate statements of material fact because it
failed to disclose that the Company's CDO assets were materially
impaired and overvalued. On November 19, 2007, after the market
closed, the Company belatedly disclosed the full extent of its
collateralized debt impairment, the high likelihood that its
credit rating would be cut, and the high likelihood that it
would be unable to post collateral on various debt obligations.

On November 20, 2007, as a result of this news, the price of the
Company's stock fell to $1.10 per share.

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

For more information, contact:

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


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Abraham Fruchter Files N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP commenced a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (NASDAQ Global
Select Market: IBKR) in the Company's initial public offering,
which commenced on May 4, 2007, through July 5, 2007.

The claims asserted arise under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. section section 77k and
77l(a)(2), and have been asserted against Interactive Brokers.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant made materially
misleading statements and otherwise failed to disclose that it
had incurred material trading losses at the time of the IPO and
that its proprietary pricing model was unable to prevent such
material trading losses. The subsequent disclosure of these
facts after the close of trading on July 5, 2007 resulted in the
price of the Company's common stock declining, causing Plaintiff
and the other members of the Class to suffer damages.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 11,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jack Fruchter, Esq.
          Larry Levit, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, New York
          Telephone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655
          E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com or llevit@aftlaw.com


ULTA SALON: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock of Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.  
pursuant or traceable to the Company's October 25, 2007 Initial
Public Offering through December 10, 2007 inclusive.

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

Ulta is a retailer of beauty products which includes fragrances,
skin care, cosmetics, styling and salon tools, and haircare.

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 was unable to effectively manage
         inventory, resulting in a 40% increase of inventory;

     (2) that the Company's SG&A, as a percentage of net sales,
         had increased in the third quarter, largely a result of
         previously undisclosed increased advertising expenses;

     (3) that the Company did not reveal any significant
         information about third quarter 2007 earnings in their
         Registration Statement, despite the fact that the third
         quarter was to end nine days after the filing of the
         Registration Statement; and

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls.

On October 25, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO. In
connection with its IPO, the Company filed a Registration
Statement and Prospectus (collectively referred to as the
"Registration Statement") with the SEC. The IPO was a financial
success for the Company, as it sold 8.54 million shares of stock
at $18 per share, raising over $153 million. At the close of
business on October 25, 2007, Ulta's stock had increased $11.82
per share to $29.82, representing a 65.67% increase from the IPO
price.

In its Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period,
Ulta reported and alluded to financial results from its 2007
first and second quarters, implying that consistent trends in
expenses and inventory levels would continue. The Company failed
to make any significant reference to the third quarter 2007,
which was to close on November 9, 2007, nine days after the
Registration Statement was issued.

Then on December 11, 2007, Ulta shocked investors when it
released its third quarter 2007 fiscal results. Therein, the
Company revealed that it had an additional $15 million of
seasonal inventory, and that its selling, general, and
administrative expenses ("SG&A") had increased 36% to $55.6
million, due largely to increased expenditure for advertising.

On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $6.59 per
share, or 23.96 percent, to close on December 11, 2007 at $20.91
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 19,
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


                           *********


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 2008.  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  * * *