CAR_Public/080506.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 6, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 89

                            Headlines

ALABAMA: R.C. Case Against Dept. of Human Resources Has Ended
ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Lawsuit Over 10% Drink Tax Launched
AMERICAN AIR: To Appeal Ruling in Skycaps' $2-Per-Bag Fee Suit
ARAMARK CORP: Employees Sue in Philadelphia Over Wage Issues
ARKANSAS: Little Rock School Board Faces Discrimination Raps

BELL CANADA: Clients Seek Refund for Internet Hijacking Fees
BLOOMBERG LP: Number of Women with Discrimination Claims Rises
BRIGHT HORIZONS: Settles Suit in Mass. Over Bain Capital Merger
CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Hard-Drive Media Player Capacity
DAN FRAZIER: Couple Wants to Expand T-Shirt Suit to Class Action

FLORIDA INSURANCE: Policy-Owners Sue Over June Claims Deadline
FORCE PROTECTION: May 9 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
GEORGIA NATURAL: Faces Ga. Suits for Overcharging of Customers
INTERNET GOLD: Subsidiary Sued Over International Calling Cards
LEE PUBLICATIONS: CA Suit Alleges Misclassification of Workers

MAT FIVE: Coughlin Stoia Files PPM-Related Lawsuit in New York
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Certifies Class in "Bouder"
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Court Mulls "Badain" Certification Motion
RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Natural Gas Prices
SCIELE PHARMA: Expects Approvals for $4.7M Settlement in 2008

SMART DOCUMENT: Sued Over Medical Record Copying Service Fees
SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: California Lawsuit Claims Lemonade Is "Fake"
SPRINT NEXTEL: Sales Reps Seek Certification of Suit in Kansas
TIME WARNER: 9th Circuit Dismisses "Slamming" Lawsuit in Calif.
WARNER MUSIC: Faces Copyright Infringement Lawsuit in California

WILLIAMS COS: Awaits Kansas Court Decision in Royalties Lawsuit
WILLIAMS COS: Colo. Royalty Interest Owners' Suit Still Stayed
YARD HOUSE: Fakhimi & Associates Files Overtime Suit in Calif.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARBITRON INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in New York
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
CANDELA CORP: Brualdi Law Files Securities Suit in Massachusetts
CREDIT SUISSE: Brualdi Law Firm Files N.Y. Securities Suit
WENDY'S INTL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Ohio



                           *********


ALABAMA: R.C. Case Against Dept. of Human Resources Has Ended
-------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation in the long-running R.C. case, which placed the
Alabama Department of Human Resources under federal oversight
from 1991 to January 2007, has ended, Lisa Osburn writes for the
Birmingham News.

According to the report, the plaintiffs' attorney, James Tucker,
Esq., said they will not pursue a full review of the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the 2007 removal of
the federal oversight.  "Twenty years of class action litigation
has been ended by federal courts and we respect the decision of
the courts," he said.

Birmingham News recounts that DHR entered into the so-called
R.C. consent decree in 1991 to settle a lawsuit brought on
behalf of children in the state's child welfare system.  The
child at the core of the case was known by his initials, R.C.

In January 2007, a U.S. district judge terminated the decree,
finding that after 18 years of supervision, "the Alabama child
welfare system had undergone radical changes and was on secure
footing to continue its progress in the years to come, without
court supervision."

The plaintiffs appealed that decision, but the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the district court's
decision.

Mr. Tucker told Birmingham News that the plaintiffs still have
serious concerns about the department's ability to provide
permanency for children in its care on a timely basis.  However,
after consulting with other attorneys, they decided not to
pursue further litigation in the R.C. case.  They will continue
their role as advocates for foster children and state families,
he said.

DHR Commissioner Page Walley heard of the plaintiffs' recent
decision, and said, "I am pleased and believe that the
plaintiffs should take great satisfaction in the fact that they
were a vital element of the radical improvements in Alabama's
child welfare services."


ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Lawsuit Over 10% Drink Tax Launched
-----------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit has been filed over Allegheny County's
10% drink tax, according to WPXI Pittsburgh.

The report relates that the lawsuit includes all of Allegheny
County's 1,900 liquor license holders and claims that the tax is
unlawful and discriminates against the hospitality industry.

WPXI Pittsburgh says that opponents of the drink tax have been
fighting to have it repealed or reduced since its inception in
January 2008.  One opposing establishment, the Church Brew
Works, hopes that a court action or even a voter referendum in
November this year might end the controversial tax.

Church Brew Works Supervisor Bill Pawlikowski told WPXI
Pittsburgh, "The Church, as a body and a staff, have been
against it from the get-go.  With rising prices on everything,
the 10 percent tax is hurting not only our tip, but on the
number of people coming in."

"I'll fight them all the way.  We're going to keep this county
competitive.  We're going to keep property taxes down.  We're
not raising them for transit," Allegheny County Chief Executive
Dan Onorato replied.

Mr. Onorato explained that the only alternative to the drink tax
would be a raise in property taxes like all other counties in
Pennsylvania.

Currently, only Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have 10% drink
taxes, the report says.


AMERICAN AIR: To Appeal Ruling in Skycaps' $2-Per-Bag Fee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on April 9, 2008, that a
federal jury has awarded more than $325,000 to nine Logan
International Airport skycaps for American Airlines who claimed
that they lost tips when the airline instituted a $2 fee for
checking a bag at curbside.

The report noted that American Airlines had earlier explained
its decision to impose the baggage fee in 2005 was an attempt to
bolster its finances after it lost $821 million in 2004.  The
fee is split between the airline and the contractor it hires to
operate its curbside check-in service.

In the suit, skycaps had complained that many passengers were
confused and thought the $2 fee was going to them as a tip,
while others saw the new fee as a forced tip and therefore were
not willing to give them a gratuity on top of that.

In an update, Annette Santiago of Aviation Week writes that
American Air plans to appeal the jury decision.

Moreover, the report notes that American Air had also announced
it would immediately implement a no-tipping policy for skycaps
at Logan Airport.  

The airline has posted signage at the airport stressing "tipping
is prohibited for all assistance with baggage" and that "no
portion of [American's $2 per bag curbside check-in fee] will go
to service personnel," American spokesman Tim Smith told Ms.
Santiago.

To offset the potential for lost wages, G2 services, which
provides the airline with skycap and other staff, is raising the
hourly wages it pays the skycaps to between $12 and $15 per
hour, Aviation Week points out.  Skycaps were previously paid
below minimum-wage -- $5.15 an hour -- because of the tip-based
nature of their jobs.

According to the report, the no-tipping policy is a pre-emptive
strike of sorts.  Massachusetts currently requires full
restitution plus 12% annual interest on tips accepted,
distributed or retained in violation of the state law.  But, as
American Air points out, an amendment that becomes effective
July 13, 2008, will triple damages for those violations.

"Our concern is that the Massachusetts state law is complex and
is made more complex by the amendment," Mr. Smith said.
Implementing a no-tips policy and raising wages will get the
airline out from under the tipping law, he added.

Aviation Week further notes that Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq., who
brought the case on behalf of the Boston skycaps, is moving for
an injunction against American Air's new tipping policy.  She
said the airline is retaliating against the skycaps for winning
their case and called the appeal a "direct response" to the
verdict.  "It's a red herring" to argue the verdict should be
overturned because American Air did not directly employ the
skycaps, she said, explaining that Massachusetts state law
requires anything understood to be a tip, gratuity, or service
charge to be paid directly to the person doing the service.

According to Ms. Santiago, Ms. Liss-Riordan is bringing similar
cases on behalf of skycaps against United Airlines, U.S. Airways
and JetBlue at Logan and is seeking to have all four lawsuits
certified as class action cases.  

"Given the way the evidence was presented in trial, we think
we've got a good chance of getting the cases certified," Ms.
Liss-Riordan told Ms. Santiago.


ARAMARK CORP: Employees Sue in Philadelphia Over Wage Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
Two employees of the Pennsylvania Convention Center have filed a
lawsuit with the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court against their
employer, Philadelphia-based Aramark Corp., alleging violations
of state and federal labor and wage laws, the Philadelphia
Inquirer reports.

According to the report, the employees are backed by their union
-- Service Employees International Union.  The union, a
spokeswoman told Philadelphia Inquirer, hopes to see the suit
granted with class-action status to include other Aramark
workers.

The suit alleges that the international food service company
violated provisions of (i) the federal Labor Standards Act, (ii)
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and (iii) the Pennsylvania Wage
Payments and Collections Act on several occasions since Jan. 1,
2005.

Aramark, according to the report, denied to comment on the suit.


ARKANSAS: Little Rock School Board Faces Discrimination Raps
------------------------------------------------------------
The Little Rock School District Board of Education (Arkansas) is
facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging it racially
discriminated in a district-wide reorganization that eliminated
jobs predominantly held by black employees, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Michelle Bonds brings this action on behalf of
those African American employees who were employed by the Little
Rock District on of before May 1, 2005, whose positions were
adversely affected as a consequence of recommendations of the
Little Rock District Reorganization Audit of 2005.

The plaintiff asks the court that:

     -- after an appropriate hearing, the court certify
        this matter as a class action and designate the
        plaintiff to be the appropriate class representative;

     -- after the court rules with respect to the plaintiff's
        timely motion for class certification, it enter a
        declaratory judgment and order granting relief to
        plaintiff and the class which enjoins the defendant
        School District from continuing to engage in unlawful
        practices;

     -- back pay and compensation for rejected African
        American applicants and deterred applicants be awarded;

     -- mandatory injunctive relief which affords the plaintiff
        and the class retroactive seniority and any other
        benefits of employment which they lost due to the School
        District's discriminatory practices be granted; and

     -- class damages as authorized by the Civil Rights Acts
        of 1866 and 1964 be awarded.

The suit is "Michelle Bonds et al v. The Board of Education of
the Little Rock School District, et al., Case No. 4:08-CV-0372,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          John W. Walker, Esq. (johnwalkeratty@aol.com)
          John W. Walker, PA
          1723 Broadway
          Little Rock, Arkansas 72206
          Phone: (501) 374-3758
          Fax: (501) 374-4187


BELL CANADA: Clients Seek Refund for Internet Hijacking Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Canada is facing a class action lawsuit filed by Quebec
customers who want refunds for being victims of Internet
hijacking, CJAD.com reports.

According to CJAD.com, the lawsuit was given the go-ahead by the
Quebec Superior Court last month.

The fraud victims contend that without their knowledge or
consent their computers downloaded a hidden program which caused  
their computers to place expensive, long distance phone calls.

The report notes that one plaintiff's computer had been
programmed to dial up New Zealand and Sao Tome, a tiny island
off the coast of west Africa.  Guy Lachapelle never heard of it
until he got his phone bill which reflected an amount of over
CDN$500.

CJAD.com relates that the class action suit seeks refunds plus
damages and CDN$200 compensation per plaintiff plus interest for
the hassles they went through.  The suit covers the period from
March 10, 2003, until April 30, 2008.

Lawyers noted in the complaint that there could be thousands of
Quebeckers included in the class action.

The report notes that Bell Canada has argued that customers --
even victims -- must pay the bills.

However, the plaintiffs' lawyers countered that the company has
known about the modem dialing scam for at least four years but
continued to collect for the overseas calls, arguing it has no
choice under international agreements.  

Bell's lawyers argued that the company makes a profit on all of
the calls -- whether they're legitimate or not.

The judge authorizing the class action ruled that as soon as a
subscriber is billed for long distance charges made without
their knowledge, they have to evaluate the responsibility of
those issuing the bills.


BLOOMBERG LP: Number of Women with Discrimination Claims Rises
--------------------------------------------------------------
The number of women accusing Bloomberg LP of discrimination has
risen from three to 58, with more likely to be added, the
Associated Press notes, citing a lawyer telling a judge on
May 1, 2008.

This disclosure, AP relates, widens the scope of a lawsuit
against the financial data and news service company founded by
Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission senior trial attorney
Raechel Adams, Esq., told a judge presiding over the case that
the number of women joining the class-action lawsuit will rise
as the EEOC continues to interview 478 women at the Bloomberg
agency who have gone on maternity leave since 2002, AP writes.

The EEOC contended that New York-based Bloomberg, which has
about 9,000 employees, engaged in a pattern of demoting women,
diminishing their duties and excluding them from job
opportunities after they disclosed they were pregnant.

AP says that the company, however, has argued that the
allegations are without merit.

Bloomberg lawyer Anna Conlon Aguilar, Esq., told AP that the
company has turned over to the EEOC more than a million pages of
data related to Bloomberg employees over the last 10 years.  She
said the company also planned to turn over e-mails related to
women who went on maternity leave.

Attorney William J. Dealy, Esq., who represents the original
plaintiffs, said his clients were pleased that other women were
coming forward.  "They're encouraged because in unity there's
strength," he said.

AP notes that the next hearing on the matter was set for
September 2008.

According to AP, the suit became a distraction for Mayor
Bloomberg during his second term.  AP recounts that Mr.
Bloomberg resigned as chief executive officer of Bloomberg LP to
run for mayor in 2001.  He retains a 68% stake in the company,
though.

AP further recalls that before he became mayor, Mr. Bloomberg
was the target of a lawsuit by a female sales executive who
accused him of sexual harassment while he was Bloomberg's chief
executive officer.

It also claimed that Mr. Bloomberg and other male managers at
the company made "repeated and unwelcome" sexual comments,
overtures and gestures, contributing to an offensive, locker-
room culture.  The suit also alleged that he displayed a
discriminatory attitude toward pregnant women and new mothers
and that this culture was fostered at the company.

Mr. Bloomberg adamantly denied the accusations, and the suit was
later settled in 2000.


BRIGHT HORIZONS: Settles Suit in Mass. Over Bain Capital Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., reached a tentative
settlement for the consolidated class action suit filed with the
Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts over the
proposed merger between the company and Bain Capital Partners,
according to the company's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

In connection with the proposed merger between the company and
affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, the company has been named
as a defendant, along with the company's Board of Directors, and
Bain, in putative class action suits filed with the
Massachusetts state court.

The suits are:

       -- "Aaron Solomon, on behalf of himself and all others
          similarly situated v. Bright Horizons Family
          Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-0214," filed with
          the Middlesex County Superior Court; and

       -- "William Smith, individually and on behalf of all
          other similarly situated shareholders, v. Bright
          Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-
          0467," filed with the Middlesex County Superior Court.

On Feb. 26, 2008, the Massachusetts state court consolidated
these lawsuits into a single action.  

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the merger is
the product of a flawed process and that the consideration to be
paid to the company's stockholders is unfair and inadequate.

The lawsuits further allege that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, ignoring
certain alleged conflicts of interest of one of the special
committee's financial advisors, taking steps to avoid a
competitive bidding process, and improperly favoring a merger
over other potential transactions.

The lawsuits further allege that Bain aided and abetted the
directors' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties.

The lawsuits seek, among other things, class certification,
injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger, and
monetary relief.

A Memorandum of Understanding dated April 24, 2008, has been
agreed to with plaintiffs' counsel.  The MOU reflects an
agreement-in-principle to settle and provide a complete release
of all claims asserted in the litigation on the basis of certain
disclosures which were made in the definitive proxy statement
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 4, 2008.  

It provides that plaintiffs' counsel will not seek reimbursement
of attorneys' fees and expenses above a certain amount.  It also
provides that any settlement and payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses is contingent upon, among other things, the closing of
the Merger and approval by the Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Business Litigation Section, for
Middlesex County.

Watertown, Massachusetts-based Bright Horizons Family Solutions,
Inc. -- http://www.brighthorizons.com/-- is a provider of    
workplace services for employers and families.  Workplace
services include center-based child care, education and
enrichment programs, elementary school education, back-up care,
before and after school care, summer camps, vacation care,
college preparation and admissions counseling, and other family
support services.  


CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Hard-Drive Media Player Capacity
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action suit was filed against Creative Technology Ltd.
regarding the advertised capacity of its hard-drive based media
players, Slippery Brick reports.

The report relates that the suit could potentially result in a
huge settlement for anybody who bought a device between May 5,
2001, and April 30, 2008.  However, Creative denies any wrong-
doing.

According to Slippery Brick, the suit alleges that Creative
knowingly misled users by promising 7% more capacity from their
PMPs than was actually even possible, and that they exaggerated
the number of songs and the total length of playback in hours.

The report says that nothing has hit court yet, but if customers
can prove they bought a Creative hard-drive based player in the
seven year period, will be eligible for either a 50% discount on
the price of a new 1GB PMP, or 20% off a single item bought from
Creative's U.S. online store.


DAN FRAZIER: Couple Wants to Expand T-Shirt Suit to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A couple whose soldier son was killed in Iraq want to expand
their lawsuit against an Arizona-based online merchant of anti-
war T-shirts to cover more than 4,000 casualties and seek more
than $40 billion in damages, the Associated Press reports.

According to AP, an amended complaint filed on behalf of Robin
and Michael Read of Greeneville, Tennessee, seeks to make the
lawsuit against Dan Frazier of Flagstaff a class-action case.

The amended suit seeks to cover the heirs of all U.S. service
members killed in the Middle East since Sept. 11, 2001, and
seeks $4 billion of compensatory damages and $36.5 billion of
punitive damages, the report relates.

AP says that the Read couple's original lawsuit named only
themselves as plaintiffs and sought $10 million in compensatory
and punitive damages.

The report points out that Mr. Frazier's "Bush lied - They died"
T-shirts list Iraq war casualties' names, and Mr. Frazier
contends that he is covered by First Amendment free-speech
protections.

"We think it will be clear that this is political expression and
not done for profit," Lee Phillips, Esq., who represents Mr.
Frazier, told AP.

The amended complaint, filed on April 29, 2008, with the federal
court in Tennessee, says that Mr. Frazier has no right to make a
profit from commercial sale of products using the casualties'
names without permission.

Once served with the suit, Mr. Frazier will ask it be
transferred to the federal court in Arizona, which has already
begun considering his challenge to an Arizona law barring use of
slain service members' names for commercial purposes without
permission, Mr. Phillips said.

A federal judge in Arizona said in a preliminary ruling that a
portion of the Arizona law making violations a misdemeanor crime
violates the First Amendment, AP recounts.  Arizona is among
several states that have enacted similar laws.

Mr. Phillips further expressed that though it would be as hard
for the Reads to have their case decided in Arizona as it would
be for Mr. Frazier to have it heard in Tennessee, it makes sense
for the Arizona court to handle the case because of related work
done on the Frazier lawsuit.

The Reads' attorney, Frank Santore, Esq., said in an e-mail to
AP that court rules barred him from issuing comments.


FLORIDA INSURANCE: Policy-Owners Sue Over June Claims Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Property owners who had policies with the now-bankrupt Poe
Financial Group did not receive sufficient notice of a June 2008
deadline to dispute claims in court, the Associated Press notes,
citing lawyers as arguing last week after filing a class-action
lawsuit.

According to AP, the class action suit names Florida Insurance
Guaranty Association, a backup fund that temporarily handles
policies for insolvent companies, and requests a one-year
extension of the deadline.

People typically have five years to file and settle claims for
hurricane damage, said Alan Garfinkel, Esq., whose firm filed
the suit in Palm Beach County on behalf of a Wellington couple
whose house was damaged by Hurricane Wilma in 2005.  But because
Poe Financial Group became defunct in 2006, people had one year
to file a claim and one year to file a lawsuit for any disputes.

"My beef is, gosh, you just have to give notice for when the
steps of the courthouse have closed," Mr. Garfinkel said.

Mr. Garfinkel showed AP a letter from the association addressed
to the Wellington couple, Richard and Judith Palma, that was
incomplete, showing a blank line in the place where the deadline
date was supposed to be noted.

The association's deputy director Michelle Lovern agreed the
form letter did fail to note the deadline, but she told AP that
the company's records show the pages attached to it did mention
the date.  

The law surrounding claims for insolvent companies has been on
the books for 37 years, Ms. Lovern noted.  "It's not like it's
brand new," she said.  "Most businesses aren't required to tell
people the law over and over."

Ms. Lovern also noted that the association has handled 48,000
claims for Poe customers since its insolvency -- 20,000 who had
claims on file and another 28,000 who filed claims or reopened
existing claims after the company went bankrupt.


FORCE PROTECTION: May 9 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Pomerantz Firm reminds investors of Force Protection, Inc.
(Nasdaq: FRPT) that the deadline to apply for lead plaintiff
appointment is on May 9, 2008.  

Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court, District of South
Carolina, Charleston Division, against the Company and certain
officers of the Company.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company during the period from August 14,
2006, to February 29, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
there under.

The complaint alleges that prior to and during the Class Period,
defendants continually boasted that Force Protection's dominance
in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles market was due
to its superior product design and rapid delivery rates.

In June 2007, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense
questioned both of these claims and criticized the awarding of
contracts to Force Protection on a sole source basis and without
competitive bidding.  The report noted that there were other
U.S. companies that could have competed with Force Protections
on both product capability and faster delivery schedules.

The complaint further alleges the following facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the class period:

     (1) As a result of the Company's ongoing problems in
         meeting contractual delivery deadlines, the Company
         would have trouble competing in the MRAP market;

     (2) In audit reports, the Defense Contract Audit Agency had
         been critical of the Company's finances and financial
         accounting system, which threatened the Company's
         eligibility to compete for government contracts;

     (3) The Company's accounting department suffered from
         material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the
         necessary staff and resources to perform its required
         functions;

     (4) Contrary to the representations contained in the
         Company's SEC filings, the Company's internal controls
         were inadequate and easily manipulated, and, as a
         result, multiple areas of the Company's internal
         controls suffered serious deficiencies, including:

           (i) the financial closing process;

          (ii) accounting for inventory and the associated
               accounts payable expenses;

         (iii) stock-based compensation; and (iv) deferred tax
               balances;

     (5) The Company lacked effective internal controls in its
         financial reporting process, required to enable it to
         properly analyze and estimate Force Protection's
         future financial and operational performance; and

     (6) Defendants had caused the Company to falsely report at
         least its third quarter 2007 financial results.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Force
Protection's stock price traded at inflated levels during the
Class Period and defendants were able to sell $87.4 million in
Force Protection Stock.  However, when the truth about the
Company's operations and financial statements were revealed, the
Company's shares were hammered by massive sales, sending them
down 88% from their Class Period high.

Force Protection and its subsidiaries engage in the manufacture
of ballistic and blast protected vehicles. The company is based
in South Carolina.

For more information, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: (888) 476.6529
                 (888) 4.POMLAW


GEORGIA NATURAL: Faces Ga. Suits for Overcharging of Customers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Natural Gas, which is owned by AGL Resources, Inc.,
faces two purported class action suits basically alleging that
it overcharged customers, according to AGL's May 1, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

In February 2008, a class action complaint was filed with the
Superior Court of Fulton County in the State of Georgia against
GNG containing similar allegations to those asserted by the
Georgia Commission staff and seeking damages on behalf of a
class of GNG customers.

In March 2008, a second class action was filed against GNG in
the State Court of Fulton County in the State of Georgia,
regarding monthly service charges.

This lawsuit alleges that GNG arbitrarily assigned customer
service charges rather than basing each customer service charge
on a specific credit score.

GNG asserts that no violation of law or Georgia Commission rules
has occurred and that both lawsuits are without merit.  

AGL Resources, Inc. -- http://www.aglresources.com/-- is an  
energy services holding Company whose principal business is the
distribution of natural gas in six states: Florida, Georgia,
Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee and Virginia.  It is involved in
various related businesses, including retail natural gas
marketing to end-use customers in Georgia; natural gas asset
management and related logistics activities for its own
utilities, as well as for non-affiliated companies; natural gas
storage arbitrage and related activities, and the development
and operation of high-deliverability underground natural gas
storage assets.  It owns and operates a small telecommunications
business that constructs and operates conduit and fiber
infrastructure within select metropolitan areas.  It manages its
businesses through four segments: distribution operations,
retail energy operations, wholesale services and energy
investments, and a non-operating corporate segment.  


INTERNET GOLD: Subsidiary Sued Over International Calling Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. reported that its subsidiary,
012 Smile.Communications -- a growth-oriented provider of
communication services in Israel -- received a monetary claim
and an application for permission to file a class action lawsuit
against it, as well as against Netvision 013 Baraq Ltd.

The claim was filed with the Petach Tikva District Court by a
citizen of the Philippines who is employed in Israel, and who
claims to have used the international calling cards of two
international telephony companies to call abroad.

The purported plaintiff claims that the two international
telephony companies improperly calculated the length of the
international calls in whole-minutes units rather than in one-
second units.  The purported plaintiff also alleges that he and
others were over charged due to a longer call duration
calculation than the actual duration of the calls and that he
and others were not informed about the per-minute calculation
policy.

The purported plaintiff seeks court permission to file the claim
as a class action lawsuit by virtue of Israel's Class Actions
Law on behalf of groups of persons that include anyone who
purchased calling cards distributed by one of the two
international telephony companies during the seven year period
prior to filing the claim or during the term of the proceedings.

The purported plaintiff has alleged that the damages caused to
all members of the purported class by both companies total
approximately ILS158 million.

The company has not had an opportunity to review the claims with
its counsel and is unable to provide any comments at this time.

Internet Gold is one of Israel's leading communications groups
with a major presence across all Internet-related sectors.  Its
72.4% owned subsidiary, 012 Smile.Communications Ltd., is one of
Israel's major Internet and international telephony service
providers, and one of the largest providers of enterprise/IT
integration services.  Its 100% owned subsidiary, Smile.Media
Ltd., manages a growing portfolio of Internet portals and e-
Commerce sites.


LEE PUBLICATIONS: CA Suit Alleges Misclassification of Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Publications, Inc., and the North County Times are facing a
class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego, claiming the
newspaper misclassifies its newspaper delivery workers as
independent contractors to avoid paying them overtime and to
duck other obligations of the Labor Code, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is a class action brought pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Section 382.

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to:

     -- Labor Code Sections 201, 204, 226, 226.7, 1174, 1194,
        1197, 1199, 2802 and 3751; and

     -- California Wage Order No, 1-2001 (8 Cal. Code Reg.
        Section 11010.

The plaintiffs seek:

     (1) unpaid regular and overtime wages,

     (2) unpaid rest break and meal period compensation,

     (3) reimbursement of all illegal deductions made from their
         wages,

     (4) payment of all wages and tips earned,

     (5) reimbursement of expenses and losses incurred by them
         in discharging their duties,

     (6) payment of a minimum wage to all employees who failed
         to receive a minimum wage for all hours worked in each
         payroll period,

     (7) penalties,

     (8) injunctive and other equitable relief, and

     (9) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is "Yvonne Dalton et al. v. Lee Publications, Inc. et
al., Case No. 37-2008-00053545-CU-OE-NC," filed with the
Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San
Diego.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          C. Keith Greer, Esq.
          Julie A. Lowell, Esq.
          Law Offices of Greer & Associates, APC
          16787 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 14
          San Diego, California 92128
          Phone: (858) 613-6677
          Fax: (858) 613-6680


MAT FIVE: Coughlin Stoia Files PPM-Related Lawsuit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that is has
commenced a class action suit with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of MAT Five LLC (MAT Five) pursuant and traceable to a false and
misleading Private Placement Memorandum on or about December 18,
2006, and its Supplements and who were damaged thereby.

The complaint charges MAT Five, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
(the corporate and capital markets arm of Citigroup, Inc.'s
Corporate and Investment Banking group), Citigroup Alternative
Investments LLC, Citigroup Fixed Income Alternatives and Reaz
Islam with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Delaware
law.

MAT Five is a limited liability company that makes investments
in limited liability company interests issued by Municipal
Opportunity Fund Five National, a limited liability company that
makes leveraged investments in fixed-rate, tax-exempt municipal
bonds.

The complaint alleges that during late 2006 and continuing into
early 2007, Citigroup, through CFIA and CAI, targeted many of
its clients who were believed to be interested in fixed-income
investments which would provide higher yields.  One type of
investment Citigroup promoted to its investors was municipal
bond opportunities involving the arbitrage of tax-exempt and
taxable bonds.  These were actually very risky investments which
could drop precipitously if the markets changed, or if the
investments were not properly managed.  Defendants caused the
PPM and presentation materials for MAT Five -- the Selling
Documents -- to be disseminated beginning in 2006 in connection
with the issuance of hundreds of millions of dollars of shares.

The Selling Documents were false and misleading in that the
strategy to be employed would not protect investors as suggested
by the ratings of the underlying investments and defendants did
not have risk management practices in place to prevent employees
of CAI from engaging in highly risky investment practices.

On March 20, 2008, CAI wrote a letter to investors which stated
that the recent credit crunch had rapidly accelerated and spread
into the municipal bond markets.  As a result, the cash
positions and net asset values of the MAT Five fund had been
severely impacted, and they were going to indefinitely suspend
the fund's income distributions in an effort to preserve
liquidity.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of MAT
Five pursuant and traceable to the PPM on or about December 18,
2006, and its Supplements and who were damaged thereby.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
                 619-231-1058


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Certifies Class in "Bouder"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified
a class in the matter "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and
Prudential Insurance Company of America."

The suit, filed in October 2006, is claiming that the company
failed to pay overtime to insurance agents who were registered
representatives in violation of federal and state law, and that
improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in
violation of state law.

In December 2006, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings.

In March 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a nationwide class, according to the
company's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a     
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
had approximately $616 billion of assets under management.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers an
array of financial products and services, including life
insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, asset management, banking
and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.   


PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Court Mulls "Badain" Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the certification of a
class in the matter, "Badain v. Wachovia Securities, et al.,"
which names Prudential Securities, a unit of Prudential
Financial, Inc., as a defendant.

The suit was originally filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York in September 2006 as a
purported nationwide class action.  It alleges that Prudential
Securities failed to pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation
of state and federal law and that improper deductions were made
from the stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law.

In December 2006, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings.

The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages,
recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.

In December 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify the class.  
The motion is still pending, according to the company's May 1,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a     
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
had approximately $616 billion of assets under management.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers an
array of financial products and services, including life
insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, asset management, banking
and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.   


RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Natural Gas Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Inc., is party to approximately 30 lawsuits,
several of which are class action suits, in state and federal
courts in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada,
Tennessee and Wisconsin.

These lawsuits relate to Reliant's alleged conduct to increase
natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws.  
They also name a number of unaffiliated energy companies as
parties.

The plaintiffs are seeking treble or punitive damages,
restitution and expenses in their respective cases, according to
the company's May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Reliant Energy, Inc. -- http://www.reliant.com/-- provides  
electricity and energy services to retail and wholesale
customers through two business segments.  Retail energy provides
electricity and energy services to more than 1.8 million retail
electricity customers in Texas, including residential and small
business customers and commercial, industrial and
governmental/institutional customers.  It also serves
commercial, industrial and governmental/institutional customers
in the PJM Market, which primarily covers Delaware, the District
of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and West Virginia.  Wholesale energy provides
electricity and energy services in energy markets in the United
States through its ownership and operation of or contracting for
power generation capacity.

   
SCIELE PHARMA: Expects Approvals for $4.7M Settlement in 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sciele Pharma, Inc., f/k/a First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp.,
expects to receive preliminary and final approvals for the
$4.7-million settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class
action suit that was filed against the company.

On Aug. 22, 2002, the company, certain former and current
officers and directors were named as defendants in a
consolidated securities lawsuit filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiffs in the class action alleged in general terms that
the company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(a) of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and that the company violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the company
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market in connection with the company's public offering on
April 24, 2002, and thereafter relating to alleged "channel
stuffing" activities.

The amended complaint also alleged controlling person liability
on behalf of certain of the company's officers under Section 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages.

On Sept. 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia dismissed, without prejudice, the class
action.  

Although the lawsuit was dismissed, the court granted the
plaintiffs the right to refile provided that the plaintiffs pay
all of the defendant's fees and costs associated with filing the
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint as
permitted, but instead filed a motion asking the District Court
to reconsider its Sept. 29, 2004 order and to lift the condition
that they must pay defendants' fees and costs before further
amendment.  

On June 22, 2005, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion and gave them another opportunity to amend if they pay
the  defendants' fees and costs.

Once again, the plaintiffs chose not to file a second amended
complaint.  Instead, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

On Sept. 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's determination that the Amended Complaint was a "shotgun
pleading" that did not satisfy the pleading requirements under
the federal rules.

The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with the remedy ordered
by the District Court.  Instead of dismissing the Amended
Complaint with a right to further amend if the plaintiffs paid
the fefendants' fees and costs, the Court of Appeals held that
the District Court should have ordered the plaintiffs to replead
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).  

The Court of Appeals also held that the plaintiffs' claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 must meet the heightened pleading
standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) because those
claims sound in fraud.  

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's
orders and remanded with instructions to order a repleading.  

On April 20, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.  On June 29, 2007, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, which is currently
pending.

The parties recently engaged in a mediation that led to an
agreement in principle to settle all of the claims in the class
action for an amount up to $4.7 million.   The settlement is to
be entirely funded by the company's insurance carriers.  

The parties have entered into a memorandum of understanding
regarding certain terms of the settlement.  The settlement is
subject to preliminary and final approval by the U.S. District
Court.  

The company expects to receive these approvals during fiscal
year 2008, according to its May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge J.
Owen Forrester presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dab@classlaw.com)
         Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
         1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900

Representing the defendants is:

         John Patterson Brumbaugh, Esq. (pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding
         191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763       
         Phone: 404-572-5100


SMART DOCUMENT: Sued Over Medical Record Copying Service Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Miller, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated individuals, filed a class action lawsuit against Smart
Document Solutions with the Phillips County Circuit Court under
the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Michele Page writes
for Helena Daily World.

The report points out that Smart Documents is a Georgia-based
company that provides medical record copying services for
healthcare providers.  After receiving a request for copies of
medical documents, Smart Documents makes the copies and forwards
the documents by mail to the requesting medical facility with an
invoice attached.

Ms. Miller's complaint alleges a "statewide deceptive practice
and or scheme devised and implemented by the defendant to
unlawfully charge and collect fees for copying medical records
that are in excess of that allowed by Arkansas statue and common
law."

Helena Daily World notes that Arkansas code 16-46-106 says the
cost for copying medical records shall not exceed $1 per page
for the first five pages and 25 cents for each additional page.
A minimum charge of $5 also is listed in the state code and
charges may include a reasonable retrieval fee for stored
records.

Ms. Miller contends that Smart Documents keeps its records on-
site in computers and she should not be charged a $10 retrieval
fee.  She also asserts that the company then overcharged its
clients for postage.

"(The) Defendants conduct of overcharging for medical record
copies has resulted in ill-gotten and unlawful profits for the
defendant at the expense of Arkansas consumers," the complaint
states.  

Ms. Miller further claims that the company violated the ADTPA,
and engaged in intentional misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit.  
She asks for no more than $4,999,999 for damages, costs,
restitution and attorney's fees.

Helena Daily recounts that on Feb. 21, 2008, a protective order
was granted, shielding certain exhibits to protect trade
secrets, other confidential research, development and commercial
documents and information. Two large sealed envelopes are
contained in the files at the courthouse.

Smart Documents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint citing
jurisdictional matters and stated that "they were immune from
suit overcharging patients."  They further said, "there are no
remedies available to Arkansas consumers who were overcharged
for unlawful fees to access their medical records."

Smart Documents additionally argued that Ms. Miller had
insufficient facts to support "each and every count alleged" in
her complaint.


SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: California Lawsuit Claims Lemonade Is "Fake"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Snapple Beverage Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the Superior Court in Los Angeles claiming the company
defrauds the public by selling Snapple Lemonade, marked as "all
natural" and "made from the best stuff on Earth," though it
contains less than 1% lemon juice, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The class claims Snapple uses virtually no lemon in its "all
natural" lemonade, but substitutes citric acid and corn syrup to
make "all of their Fake Lemonade."

The label is adorned with pictures of lemons and the cited
phrases, and the phrase "juice drink with natural flavors. . . .
An inconspicuous disclaimer about the 'Nutrition Facts' panel
discloses and admits that the product actually contains 'less
than 1% juice.'"

But, the complaint states, "Adding 'less than one percent' juice
does not make this product 'lemonade,' a 'juice drink,' or an
'all natural' product.  Indeed, there is no readily identifiable
reason for adding 'less than 1% juice' except possibly to make a
misleading claim that the Product is a juice drink."

The class demands an injunction and punitive damages for fraud,
unfair competition and violations of consumer law.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
          Gallo and Associates
          5757 West Century Boulevard
          Seventh Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (310) 338-1114
          Fax: (310) 338-1199


SPRINT NEXTEL: Sales Reps Seek Certification of Suit in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2008, plaintiffs in the lawsuit "Sibley et al v.
Sprint Nextel Corp. and Sprint/United Management Co., Court File
No. 2:08-cv-02063," pending with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, filed a motion seeking to certify the case
as a nationwide class action.

The suit, filed on Feb. 7, 2008, was brought by current and
former employees who either worked, or currently work, as sales
representatives in Sprint Nextel's retail stores in Louisiana
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2008).

These employees assert that since the merger of Sprint and
Nextel, the companies have failed to pay them all the
commissions they were due because of computer issues Sprint
Nextel failed to resolve.  These employees claim they were
shorted approximately $100 to more than $500 per month in
commissions for products and services they sold for Sprint
Nextel.

The plaintiffs filed their claims in the Kansas District Court
due to choice of law and venue provisions in their commissions
contract that designated Kansas law and the State of Kansas.

If the case is certified, the plaintiffs estimate that it will
include thousands of Sprint Nextel retail employees across the
country.  They estimate the employees have been shorted anywhere
from $100 to over $1,000 per month in commissions.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Michele Fisher, Esq., stated, "A few
hundred dollars per month may not seem like a lot of money to a
large corporation like Sprint Nextel, but these shortages are
detrimental to the hard working retail employees who need that
money to pay their rent and their bills.  We will do everything
we can to help these people recover the commissions they
earned."

The suit is "Sibley et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al.,
Civ. No.2:08-cv-02063," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michele Fisher, Esq. (fisher@nka.com)
          Nichols Kaster & Anderson
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth St.
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
          Phone: 612-256-3229


TIME WARNER: 9th Circuit Dismisses "Slamming" Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit dismissed a class action suit accusing Time
Warner Cable of violating federal laws prohibiting racketeering
and "slamming," CourtHouse News Service reports.

"Slamming" is the practice in which a telecommunications carrier
switches a consumer's telephone service without the consumer's
consent.

On March 19, 2007, named plaintiff K. Clark filed the complaint
against TWC with the District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of herself and those similarly situated.

Ms. Clark's complaint alleged that TWC violated 47 U.S.C.
Section 258(a), the federal prohibition on "slamming."  In
addition, her complaint alleged that TWC violated California
state law's prohibition of the same conduct, Cal. Pub. Util.
Code section 2889.5, and the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962.

Finally, Ms. Clark plead causes of action for fraud, fraudulent
concealment, and negligence.

Upon TWC's motion, the district court dismissed Ms. Clark's
complaint without prejudice.  Noting that Section 258(a) applies
only to "telecommunications carriers," and that the question
of whether a VoIP provider meets this definition has never
been resolved, the district court referred Ms. Clark's Section
258(a) claim to the Federal Communications Commission to
consider the matter in the first instance.

The district court further concluded that its referral of Ms.
Clark's Section 258(a) claim to the FCC warranted a dismissal
without prejudice of her remaining claims. In the alternative,
it dismissed all such claims for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

This appeal followed, which was likewise dismissed by the 9th
Circuit recently.  Affirming the lower court's decision, the
federal appeals court agreed that the FCC was the right venue to
address legal issues involving new technology.  It turned the
dispute over to the Federal Communications Commission to resolve
the issues presented by digital phone technology.

"Congress has specifically delegated responsibility to the FCC
to define 'slamming' violations, and to prescribe the procedures
for imposing the appropriate penalties," Judge O'Scannlain
wrote.

Time Warner Cable is one of the largest cable operators in the
United States. Among other products and services, TWC markets
"Digital Phone," a bundle of local and long distance calling
services that utilize Voice over Internet Protocol technology.

VoIP uses the Internet to transmit telephone signals rather than
using the traditional public switched telephone network.  As
such, VoIP has the capacity to transmit voice and data streams
simultaneously, whereas PSTN-based connections only have the
capacity to transmit one signal at a time.


WARNER MUSIC: Faces Copyright Infringement Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jazz mandolinist David Grisman filed a class action copyright
lawsuit with the  Superior Court in Los Angeles claiming Warner
Music and its affiliate Rhino Entertainment refused to pay him
and others for digital versions of their copyrighted songs,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Mr. Grisman says he contracted with Warner to sell "Dawgola,"
"Janice," "Dawg's Bull," "16/16," "EMD," "Blue Midnight,"
"Dawg's Rag," "Pneumonia," and "Ricochet" to digital service
providers.

He says other musicians have similar licensing contracts with
Warner.

Mr. Grisman claims the labels tried to "pick off" plaintiffs by
paying prospective class members part of what it owed them, in
an attempt to negate the class-action status.

According to Mr. Grisman, Warner refused to pay licensing fees
to him and others until he filed the class action.  Then, Warner
offered class members a portion of the fees it owed, to whittle
down the lawsuit's class status.

He demands damages and accounting.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Brian Strange, Esq.
          Mynd Corporation
          10301 Wilson Blvd.
          Blythewood, SC 29016-9018
          Phone: (803) 333-6919
          Fax: (803) 333-5560

               - and -

          Gretchen Arlene Carpenter, Esq.
          Strange & Carpenter
          19th Floor, 12100 Wilshire Blvd
          Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-7120
          Phone: (310) 207-5055
          Fax: (323) 820-3210rt


WILLIAMS COS: Awaits Kansas Court Decision in Royalties Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Cos., Inc., is awaiting a ruling from a Kansas
state court regarding the class certification of a lawsuit over
royalties, according to Williams' May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

In 2001, fourteen of the company's entities were named as
defendants in a nationwide class action in Kansas state court
that had been pending against other defendants, generally
pipeline and gathering companies, since 2000.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.

The fourth amended petition, which was filed in 2003, deleted
all of our defendant entities except two Midstream subsidiaries.
All remaining defendants have opposed class certification and a
hearing on plaintiffs' second motion to certify the class was
held in April 2005.  The company is awaiting a decision from the
court.

The Williams Companies, Inc. -- http://www.williams.com/-- is a  
natural gas company.  The Company primarily finds, produces,
gathers, processes and transports natural gas.  Its operations
are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Gulf
Coast and the Eastern Seaboard.  Its activities are primarily
operated through business segments, which include Exploration &
Production, Gas Pipeline, Midstream Gas & Liquids, and Gas
Marketing Services.  Exploration & Production produces, develops
and manages natural gas reserves primarily located in the Rocky
Mountain and Mid-Continent regions of the U.S.  Gas Pipeline
includes interstate natural gas pipelines and pipeline joint
venture investments.  Midstream Gas & Liquids includes natural
gas gathering, treating and processing business.  Gas Marketing
Services manage its natural gas commodity risk.  Other primarily
consists of corporate operations.  Other also includes the
Company's interest in Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P.


WILLIAMS COS: Colo. Royalty Interest Owners' Suit Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A suit filed against The Williams Cos., Inc., over calculation
of oil and gas royalty payments to royalty interest owners in
Garfield County, Colorado continues to be stayed.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit with the Colorado state
court alleging that the company improperly calculated oil and
gas royalty payments, failed to account for the proceeds that
the company received from the sale of gas and extracted
products, improperly charged certain expenses, and failed to
refund amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.

The plaintiffs claim that the class might be in excess of 500
individuals and seek an accounting and damages.  The parties
have agreed to stay this action in order to participate in
ongoing mediation.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The Williams Companies, Inc. -- http://www.williams.com/-- is a  
natural gas company.  The Company primarily finds, produces,
gathers, processes and transports natural gas.  Its operations
are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Gulf
Coast and the Eastern Seaboard.  Its activities are primarily
operated through business segments, which include Exploration &
Production, Gas Pipeline, Midstream Gas & Liquids, and Gas
Marketing Services.  Exploration & Production produces, develops
and manages natural gas reserves primarily located in the Rocky
Mountain and Mid-Continent regions of the U.S.  Gas Pipeline
includes interstate natural gas pipelines and pipeline joint
venture investments.  Midstream Gas & Liquids includes natural
gas gathering, treating and processing business.  Gas Marketing
Services manage its natural gas commodity risk.  Other primarily
consists of corporate operations.  Other also includes the
Company's interest in Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P.


YARD HOUSE: Fakhimi & Associates Files Overtime Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Fakhimi & Associates, a litigation firm with
experience in both defending and prosecuting class action
lawsuits, has filed a representative Class Action lawsuit with
the Orange County Superior Court against Yard House Bar & Grill,
LLC (Case No. 30-2008-00045399).

According to the complaint, Yard House has been implementing a
policy of requiring its servers to pay $10 to other servers who
cover for them on their breaks.

The lawsuit alleges that this practice is illegal as it passes
on the cost of doing business to employees without indemnifying
them for their expenses.

The lawsuit is in the early stages of litigation.

For more information, contact:

          Houman Fakhimi, Esq.
          Fakhimi & Associates
          3 Hutton Centre Dr., Suite 620
          Santa Ana, CA  92707-8758
          Phone: 888-529-2188
          Web site: http://www.employmentlawteam.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARBITRON INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, filed a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Arbitron, Inc., between July 19, 2007, and
November 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Arbitron.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, has filed a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of The Blackstone Group L.P. pursuant and traceable
to the Company's initial public offering on or about June 25,
2007.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Blackstone.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


CANDELA CORP: Brualdi Law Files Securities Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. has filed a class action lawsuit with
the United States District of Massachusetts on behalf of all
purchasers of securities of Candela Corporation (Nasdaq:CLZR)
from February 1, 2006, through August 21, 2007, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) that the Company was not able to remain competitive in
         the field;

     (2) specifically, the Company was not offering a
         competitive multi-configuration/multi-application
         device and was losing market share;

     (3) that the Company and Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc.
         had exchanged various communications concerning the
         prospect of patent litigation by Palomar, which if
         commenced would increase costs;

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

     (5) 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.

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

Candela manufactures and distributes clinical solutions that
enable physicians, surgeons, and personal care practitioners to
treat selected cosmetic and medical conditions using lasers,
aesthetic laser systems, and other advanced technologies.

For more information, contact:

          Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Director of Shareholder Relations
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1877 (toll free)
                 (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Brualdi Law Firm Files N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired the American Depositary Receipts of Credit
Suisse Group who purchased Credit Suisse stock between Feb. 15,
2007, and February 19, 2008.

The Complaint charges that Credit Suisse and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants failed to write
down impaired securities containing mortgage-related debt.
According to the Complaint, the true facts, which were known by
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows:

     (i) that defendants failed to record losses on the
         deterioration in mortgage assets and collateralized
         debt obligations on Credit Suisse's books caused
         by the high amount of non-collectible mortgages
         included in the portfolio;

    (ii) that Credit Suisse's internal controls were inadequate
         to ensure that losses on residential mortgage-related
         assets were accounted for properly; and

   (iii) that Credit Suisse's traders had put incorrect values
         on CDOs and other debt securities, concealing the
         exposure the Company had to losses.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 20,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Director of Shareholder Relations
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone (toll free): (877) 495-1877  
                             (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


WENDY'S INTL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed with the Common Pleas Court of
Franklin, Ohio on behalf of the shareholders of Wendy's
International, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that certain of the Company's officers and
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in
connection with the sale of the Company to Triarc Companies,
Inc.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com




                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel Senorin, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and
Peter Chapman, 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  * * *