CAR_Public/080513.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, May 13, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 94

                            Headlines

ACME MARKETS: Recalls Cinnamon Rolls Containing Undeclared Milk
ACTAVIS: Icelandic Drugmaker Sued Over Heart Drug 'Digitek'
ARBITRON INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
BLUE CROSS: AMA to Help Monitor "Love" Litigation Settlement
CEPHALON INC: FTC's Provigil Lawsuit Moved to Pennsylvania

CINGULAR WIRELESS: Lawyers Disagree on Judge Hylla's Ruling
CUTERA INC: May 22 Hearing Set for Consolidated Securities Suit
CUTERA INC: Faces Illinois Litigation Over TCPA Violations
CYBERONICS INC: Settles Convertible Note Litigation in Texas
FEDEX CORP: Labor Practices Spur Shareholder Suit in Tennessee

FLORIDA: Jury Awards Broward Residents S11.5MM in Canker Suit
FOOD FOR LIFE: Recalls Spelt Bread Containing Wheat Hybrid
HARMONY GOLD: Not Formally Served with NY Securities Fraud Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: May 16, 2008 Conference Set for SDL Investor Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: California Court Dismisses OCLI Shareholder Case

JDS UNIPHASE: Seeks Summary Judgment on Claims in ERISA Lawsuit
JDS UNIPHASE: Court Favors Company in California Securities Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: No Trial Date Set for "Zelman" Securities Lawsuit
JDS UNIPHASE: Nov. 9, 2009 Trial Set for "Central States" Suit
KRAFT FOODS: Wisconsin Court Certifies FLSA Violations Lawsuit

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Still Faces Pennsylvania OSB Antitrust Suit
MARTHA STEWART: Shattered Glass Outdoor Tables Prompt Lawsuit
MARYLAND: Suit Against Baltimore County School Board Settled
ONEIDA LTD: Dismissal Motion in ERISA Violations Suit Denied
PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes

PRICELINE.COM INC: Plaintiffs in "Findlay" Seek to Amend Lawsuit
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Kentucky Securities Suit Dismissal Appealed
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Georgia Court Nixes Antitrust Lawsuit
UNGRATEFUL KIDS: Mother's Day Suit Against Ungrateful Kids Filed
WEB SEARCH ENGINES: Last Defendant Settles 'Click Fraud' Case

WILLIAMS FOODS: Recalls Batter Mixes Containing Undeclared Milk
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces Lawsuit Over Identity Theft


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARBITRON INC: Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CBEYOND INC: Brualdi Law Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ACME MARKETS: Recalls Cinnamon Rolls Containing Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acme Markets is issuing a voluntary recall on all codes of Acme
label 4-pack cinnamon rolls with icing due to the undeclared
milk ingredient.  People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The recall affects all Acme locations in New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland.

"Acme is committed to the safety of its customers and routinely
inspects product labels for accuracy and compliance," said Taryn
Duckett, manager of communications and public affairs.  "The
product is being removed from the shelf and customers who have
purchased the product may bring it back to an Acme store
location for a full refund or exchange."

Customers who have health-related concerns should contact their
physician.


ACTAVIS: Icelandic Drugmaker Sued Over Heart Drug 'Digitek'
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 25, 2008, Icelandic generic drug maker Actavis recalled
its heart drug Digitek, or digoxin, over concerns that some
batches of the medicine may have contained tablets that were
twice the normal thickness and strength, the Wall Street Journal
reports.

Two weeks since the recall, a lawsuit seeking class action
status was filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey
against privately-held Actavis, as well as Mylan and its UDL
Laboratories unit, which distributed the medicines, according to
WSJ.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages over alleged injuries
and to cover medical monitoring in case of future health
trouble.

WSJ relates that there has been very little information about
the scope of the problem with Digitek.  At the time of the
recall, Actavis spokeswoman Hjordis Arnadottir said the company
did not know how many bad lots or batches were in distribution.
The company learned of the problem when one double-strength
tablet was found.

"The only information we have from the drug companies is from
the recall notice," Michael Weinkowitz, of Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman, who representes the plaintiffs, told WSJ.  "It
fails to advise the public to the real extent" of the problem,
the lawyer said.

In announcing the recall, Actavis said the double-strength
tablets pose a risk of toxicity in patients with renal failure.
According to WSJ, the right amount of digoxin can strengthen a
weak heart and calm fluttering heart beats.  Too much digoxin
can make you nauseous, depress your blood pressure, slow down
your heart rate or kill you.

Actavis shared with WSJ that it has received several reports of
illnesses and injuries.  The plaintiffs include a woman who
alleges she experienced "changed cardiac symptom episodes of
nausea, and dizziness" from her Digitek consumption.  Another
plaintiff alleges he may have suffered serious personal
injuries, including kidney damage.

According to the lawsuit, the FDA issued a warning letter back
in August 2006 for failing to provide periodic safety reports at
its oral dose manufacturing plant in Little Falls, N.J.  The
suit alleges that some of the faulty generic Digitek came out of
that plant.  The suit also claims that an FDA inspection in
early 2006 revealed six potentially serious and unexpected
adverse drug events dating back to 1999 for products that
included generic Digitek, that weren't reported to the agency.  
A Mylan spokesman said, "Since Actavis is the manufacturer and
they initiated the recall, we believe they will be responsible
for all costs associated with it, including the litigation."


ARBITRON INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arbitron, Inc., is facing a securities fraud class action suit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to the company's May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund filed the securities class action on
behalf of a purported class of all purchasers of Arbitron common
stock between July 19, 2007, and Nov. 26, 2007.

The plaintiff asserts that Arbitron, Stephen B. Morris -- the
company's chairman, president and chief executive officer -- and
Sean R. Creamer -- the company's executive vice president,
finance and planning & chief financial officer -- violated
federal securities laws.

The plaintiff alleges misrepresentations and omissions relating,
among other things, to the delay in commercialization of the
company's Portable People Meter radio ratings service in
November 2007, as well as stock sales during the period by
company insiders who were not named as defendants and Messrs.
Morris and Creamer.  They seek class certification, compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees, among other remedies.

The suit is "Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund et al. v. Arbitron, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-04063-JGK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge John G. Koeltl, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road
          Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173


BLUE CROSS: AMA to Help Monitor "Love" Litigation Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Medical Association recently joined 27 state
medical societies to monitor compliance of the class-action
agreement reached last year in the matter: "Love, et al. v. Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association, et al. Case No. Case No. 03-
21296," formerly, "Thomas, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Ass'n, et al," Amy Lynn Sorrel of the American Medical News
reports.

The AMA's participation came as part of final approval of the
$130 million deal on April 19 by Judge Federico A. Moreno in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in
Miami.

The final provisions, many of which took effect April 21, 2008,
allow the AMA to help doctors resolve claims disputes and other
issues when a settling Blues plan fails to follow the business
practice changes it consented to under the deal.

Among those terms, the Blues agreed to revise their claims
payment and coding procedures, implement medical necessity
definitions, disclose fee schedules and ensure prompt
reimbursement.

"The transparency and fairness mandated by this settlement will
allow physicians to redirect their limited resources from
battling for fair payment to caring for patients," AMA President
Ron Davis, MD, said in a statement.  "The AMA stands ready to
ensure physicians receive all the protections offered by the
national BCBS settlement."

Doctors say the move will give them more leverage with the
insurer, one of the nation's largest.

"The prospective relief is so important, and [the AMA's
participation] is going to make the [settlement] provisions even
more meaningful because the AMA is extremely knowledgeable about
the issues impacting doctors," said Edith M. Kallas, the
physicians' co-lead counsel.

"What the [state medical societies] have done in the past and
continue to do, and what the AMA brings to the table, will make
sure doctors get the full benefit of these changes," she said.

Michael A. Pope, a lead attorney representing the settling Blues
plans, said the AMA's involvement will help foster better
communication with doctors and help both parties "work together
to find a way to bring good medical care to the country."

                        Case Background

In general, the lawsuit alleges that between 1999 and the
present defendants engaged in a conspiracy to improperly deny,
delay, and reduce payments to physicians, physician groups, and
physician organizations by engaging in several types of
allegedly improper conduct, including but not limited to:

       -- Misrepresenting and failing to disclose the use of
          edits to unilaterally "bundle," "downcode," and
          reject claims for medically necessary covered
          services;

       -- Failing to pay for "medically necessary" services in
          accordance with member plan documents;

       -- Failing and refusing to recognize CPT(R) modifiers;

       -- Concealing and misrepresenting the use of improper
          guidelines and criteria to deny, delay, and reduce
          payment for medically necessary covered services;

       -- Misrepresenting and refusing to disclose applicable
          fee schedules; and

       -- Failing to pay claims for medically necessary covered
          services within the required statutory and
          contractual time periods.

It specifically claims that the  violated the federal statute
called the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

                         Settlement Terms

Under the settlement, the defendants agreed to pay $131,209,507,
which amount, together with accrued interest from June 30, 2007,
will be distributed to physicians who are class members and who
timely file a Claim Form (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 28,
2007).

Additionally under the settlement, the defendants agreed to
commitments regarding their business practices.

The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans and their current and
former subsidiaries and affiliates involved in the proposed
settlement are:

       -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama,
       -- Premera,
       -- Premera Blue Cross,
       -- PremeraFirst, Inc.,
       -- LifeWise Health Plan of Washington,
       -- LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon,
       -- LifeWise Health Plan of Arizona, Inc.,
       -- Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, Corp.,     
       -- Medical Services Corporation of Eastern Washington,
       -- NorthStar Administrators, Inc.,
       -- CareFirst, Inc.,
       -- Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc.,        
       -- Access America, Inc.,
       -- The GHMSI Companies, Inc.,
       -- CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc.,
       -- Capital Care, Inc.,
       -- CareFirst of Maryland, Inc.,
       -- CFS Health Group, Inc.,
       -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.,
       -- Health Options, Inc.,
       -- Hawaii Medical Service Association,
       -- The Regence Group,
       -- Regence BlueShield of Idaho, Inc.,
       -- Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah,
       -- Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon,
       -- Regence BlueShield,
       -- Regence Life and Health Insurance Company,      
       -- RegenceCare,
       -- Regence HMO Oregon,
       -- Regence Health Maintenance of Oregon, Inc.,
       -- Healthwise,
       -- Asuris Northwest Health, Wellmark, Inc. d/b/a Wellmark
          Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa,
       -- Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc.,
       -- Wellmark Community Insurance, Inc.,
       -- Wellmark of South Dakota, Inc. d/b/a Wellmark Blue
          Cross and Blue Shield of South Dakota
       -- Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a
          Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana,
       -- HMO Louisiana, Inc.,
       -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.,        
       -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts HMO Blue,
          Inc.,
       -- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan,
       -- BCBSM, Inc. d/b/a BlueCross BlueShield of Minnesota,
       -- HMO Minnesota d/b/a Blue Plus,
       -- Comprehensive Care Services, Inc.,
       -- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi,
       -- HMO of Mississippi, Inc.,
       -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc.,
       -- Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc. d/b/a Horizon Blue
          Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey,
       -- Horizon Healthcare Plan Holding Company, Inc.,
       -- Horizon Healthcare Insurance Company of New York,
       -- Horizon Healthcare of New Jersey, Inc.,
       -- Horizon Healthcare of New York, Inc.,
       -- Enterprise Holding Company, Inc.,
       -- AtlantiCare Administrators, Inc.,
       -- Horizon Healthcare Administrators, Inc.,
       -- Horizon AtlantiCare LLC, Horizon Healthcare of
          Delaware, Inc.,
       -- NASCO of New Jersey, Inc.,
       -- Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., d/b/a Empire Blue
          Cross Blue Shield,
       -- Empire HealthChoice HMO, Inc.,
       -- WellChoice Insurance of New Jersey, Inc.,
       -- WellChoice Holdings of New York, Inc.,
       -- WellPoint Holding Corp.,
       -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina,
       -- Hospital Service Association of Northeastern
          Pennsylvania,
       -- HMO of Northeastern Pennsylvania,
       -- Independence Blue Cross,
       -- AmeriHealth HMO, Inc.,
       -- La Cruz Azul de Puerto Rico,
       -- Keystone Health Plan East, Inc.,
       -- Triple-S, Inc.
       -- Triple-S, Inc. of Puerto Rico,
       -- Triple-C, Inc.,
       -- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island,
       -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina,
       -- BlueChoice HealthPlan of South Carolina, Inc. f/k/a
          Companion HealthCare Corporation,
       -- Planned Administrators, Inc.,
       -- Thomas H. Cooper & Co., Inc.,
       -- BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc.,
       -- Tennessee Health Care Network, Inc.,
       -- Health Care Service Corporation,
       -- Group Health Maintenance Organization, Inc. d/b/a
          Bluelincs HMO,
       -- Group Health Service of Oklahoma, Inc. d/b/a Blue
          Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma,
       -- HMO New Mexico, Inc.,
       -- New Mexico Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Inc. d/b/a Blue
          Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico,
       -- New Mexico Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Inc.,
       -- Hallmark Services Corporation,
       -- BCI HMO, Inc., and
       -- HCSC Insurance Services Corporation.

A copy of the Settlement Notice is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?23a2

For more details, contact:

          Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 4349
          Portland, OR 97208-4349
          Phone: 877-893-2643
          e-mail: http://www.bcbsphysiciansettlement.com/

          Edith M. Kallas, Esq. (ekallas@whatleydrake.com)
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, New York 10036
          Phone: 212-447-7070
          Fax: 212-447-7077
          Web site: http://www.whatleydrake.com

               - and -

          Law Offices of Archie Lamb, LLC
          2017 2nd Avenue
          Birmingham, Alabama 35203
          Phone: 205-324-4644 or
                 800-324-4425 (toll free)
          Fax: 205-324-4649
          Web site: http://www.archielamb.com


CEPHALON INC: FTC's Provigil Lawsuit Moved to Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A Federal Trade Commission lawsuit accusing Cephalon Inc. of
trying to keep generic versions of its Provigil sleep disorder
drug off the market will transfer to a court in Pennsylvania, a
federal judge in Washington ruled, according to Reuters.

According to Reuters, the ruling was a setback for the FTC,
which had sought to keep its lawsuit in the federal court in
Washington, D.C.

Cephalon had asked to move the case to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, where several class action lawsuits related to the
same issue are pending against the company, the report says.


CINGULAR WIRELESS: Lawyers Disagree on Judge Hylla's Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Three months after Madison County Circuit Judge David Hylla
announced a ruling in a class action lawsuit against Cingular
Wireless and told attorneys to write the ruling as an order,
plaintiffs' lawyers at the Lakin Law Firm and defense attorneys
at Thompson Coburn have accused each other of distorting the
judge's words, Steve Korris writes for St. Clair Record.

The report notes that Lakin lawyers think Judge Hylla upheld an
arbitrator's award, while Thompson Coburn lawyers think he
retained authority to review the award.

St. Clair Record explains that judges at hearings often direct
attorneys to write the orders, but normally both winner and
loser understand what the order should say.  In Cingular
Wireless case, however, they do not have a clue.

                Case Background and Arguments

The report recounts that the Lakins sued Cingular in 2002 on
behalf of Donna Kinkel, claiming that the company overcharged
her and a class of similar customers.

Cingular invoked an arbitration clause in Ms. Kinkel's contract,
and the Illinois Supreme Court instructed Judge Hylla to refer
the dispute to an arbitrator.

According to St. Clair Record, the arbitrator stunned Cingular  
by awarding class arbitration far beyond the limits that its
attorneys thought the Supreme Court described.  Cingular thus
moved to vacate the award and brought the motion to a hearing on
Feb. 7, 2008.

Judge Hylla opened the hearing by asking Cingular attorney Roman
Wuller, Esq., "This case centers on the issue of waiver of class
arbitration, right?"

"The Illinois Supreme Court did find that with respect to the
Cingular contracts governed by Illinois law that had the pre-
July 2003 arbitration provision, that the provision in there
that said no class certification was unenforceable," Mr. Wuller
answered.  He also said that the plaintiffs asked the arbitrator
to consider contracts with a post-July 2003 provision, and the
arbitrator suggested he could.

For the later contracts, Mr. Wuller further pointed out, the
Supreme Court did not find that class wide prohibition was
unenforceable.  He said the plaintiffs wanted to certify a
nationwide class, though the Supreme Court did not address
contracts governed by laws of other states.

"An arbitrator has the whole universe to consider when he starts
out, and he has at this point just said that class arbitration
is possible," Judge Hylla said.

Mr. Wuller pointed that including contracts from other states
and post-July 2003 contracts in Illinois would ignore or strike
down waiver provisions.

"It is the plaintiff's position that that hasn't been done yet,"
Judge Hylla said.

Mr. Wuller said that the problem with that argument is that it
assumes the arbitrator has jurisdiction to make those findings.  
He reiterated that an arbitrator cannot ignore or strike down
provisions.  "That is why we all went all the way up to the
Illinois Supreme Court," he added, "to get a ruling on those."

Judge Hylla contended, "In some cases, possibly this one, an
arbitrator's interpretation of a clause could become very close
to ignoring that clause or striking it down."

Mr. Wuller said that the provision in this instance was
unambiguous.  "The Illinois Supreme Court made its ruling and it
was careful to limit its ruling the way it did," he said.
"Clearly, they did not go outside the state of Illinois."

Judge Hylla said that when he sent the matter to the arbitrator,
what he envisioned was that the arbitrator would then decide
whether the disputes should be arbitrated on an individual basis
or a class wide basis.  He then asked Mr. Wuller what the award
should have entailed.

Mr. Wuller said, "We don't dispute that he has the authority to
determine whether this should be a simple arbitration as to
Donna Kinkel's claim or a class wide arbitration as to Illinois
contracts that have the same arbitration provision as Ms.
Kinkel."  He said the arbitrator wrote that he had jurisdiction
to consider the plaintiff's requests.  "Their requests, to me,
then puts into issue things that he does not have jurisdiction,
and we want to make sure that our position is protected here,
that we do not believe he has jurisdiction," Mr. Wuller added.

Judge Hylla corrected that the arbitrator "didn't say that. He
didn't say he was going to consider a nationwide class or that
he was going to consider post-July 2003 contracts."

Mr. Wuller quoted the award, which stated: "I also find that
respondent's argument that this decision must be limited based
upon a purported limited arbitrator jurisdiction lacks any
judicial or arbitral authority and must be rejected."

Judge Hylla said, "He has to look outside of this little box to
see if that waiver clause even exists in these other cases
before he can eliminate them from the class . . ."

Mr. Wuller replied, "If you were to enter a ruling that says he
can look outside as long as he does not strike down any
contracts that had that class wide prohibition, then that ruling
would be fine with us."

For Ms. Kinkel, Gerald Walters, Esq., of the Lakin firm said
that Judge Hylla's standard of review was higher than an
appellate court.

Judge Hylla said, however, that before getting to the standard
of review, the problem is whether there is a case in controversy
before him yet.  "As I see it, he hasn't done anything that I
think could be a final and appealable order, for lack of better
terminology," Judge Hylla said.

Mr. Walters said, "They are asking for an advisory opinion."  
His associate, Daniel Cohen, Esq., said that the only
opportunity for judicial review should be after a final award.

Judge Hylla told Mr. Wuller, "You may very well be able to stop
an inclusion of any cases outside of Illinois or outside of pre-
July 2003 cases, but I can't tell you that yet because I haven't
seen all those contracts and I doubt the arbitrator has."

Mr. Wuller then said, "The arbitrator has no authority
whatsoever to make that determination, yet that is what they
have asked him and he in that last sentence says he has
jurisdiction to do that."

Judge Hylla clarified that the arbitrator does not say that
explicitly in the last sentence and said that at this stage of
the proceedings before the arbitrator, he does not believe there
is any need for him to step in yet and that that is his ruling.
"If somebody wants to commit that to writing before you leave
today, I'll sign an order if you think that's necessary," the
judge said.

Mr. Walters said that as far as they are concerned, the order
should be ". . .motion denied, award confirmed."

However, Mr. Wuller disagreed.  "I think it has to reflect your
finding that in fact you find that our position at this point is
premature," he said.  "Otherwise it looks like you overruled our
objection, and you have not done that."

Judge Hylla agreed with this and said, "You draft the order. You
guys review it.  If you don't like his order, give me another
proposed order."

Mr. Wuller drafted an order declaring that Judge Hylla refused
to resolve Cingular's objection.

Mr. Walters did not like Mr. Wuller's order, so he drafted one
that confirmed the award and declared that the arbitrator did
not exceed his jurisdiction.

Judge Hylla has not adopted either one of the drafted orders.

Mr. Walters moved to strike Cingular's request for review of the
award, and this motion was pending at press time, St. Clair
Record says.


CUTERA INC: May 22 Hearing Set for Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A May 22, 2008 hearing is set for a motion seeking the dismissal
of a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Cutera, Inc., and two of its executive officers.

Initially, two lawsuits were filed in April 2007 and May 2007,
respectively.  They were filed following declines in the
company's stock price.  The plaintiffs claim to represent
purchasers of the company's common stock from Jan. 31, 2007,
through May 7, 2007.  

The complaints generally allege that materially false statements
and omissions were made regarding the company's financial
prospects, and seeks unspecified monetary damages.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases and gave
the plaintiffs until Dec. 17, 2007, to file a consolidated,
amended complaint.  

On Jan. 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint.  A hearing on the motion is scheduled for
May 22, 2008, according to the company's May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Doug Hamilton, et al. v. Cutera, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-02128," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Vaughn R. Walker,
presiding.

The plaintiffs' firms in this or similar case are:

         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0700
         Fax: 212-818-0477
         e-mail: info@labaton.com

         Paskowitz & Associates
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Phone: 212-685-0969
         Fax: 212-685-2306
         e-mail: classattorney@aol.com

              - and -

         Roy Jacobs & Associates
         350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000
         New York, NY 10118
         e-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com


CUTERA INC: Faces Illinois Litigation Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Cutera, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
according to the company's May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Originally, the suit was filed against the company in January
2008 in the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, by Bridgeport
Pain Control Center, LTD., seeking monetary damages, injunctive
relief, costs and other relief.

The complaint alleges that the company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the
plaintiffs and other recipients without the prior express
invitation or permission of the recipients.

Under the TCPA, the recipients of unsolicited facsimile
advertisements may be entitled to damages of $500 per violation
for inadvertent violations and $1,500 per violation for knowing
or willful violations.

On Feb. 22, 2008, the company removed the case to the U.S
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and then
filed its response to the complaint.

The suit is "Bridgeport Pain Control Center, Ltd. Vs. Cutera,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-01116," filed with the U.S
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge
William J. Hibbler, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. (ccombs@edcombs.com)
         Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
         120 South LaSalle Street
         18th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-739-4200

Representing the defendants is:

          Eric Stephen Mattson, Esq. (emattson@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-853-7000


CYBERONICS INC: Settles Convertible Note Litigation in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Cyberonics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CYBX) has settled the previously
pending legal proceedings with note holders regarding an alleged
default and acceleration of the company's $125 million of 3.0%
convertible notes due September 27, 2012, Lab Business Week
reports.

In exchange for the dismissal of Cyberonics' lawsuit and a
release from all claims of breach, the company has agreed to
repurchase for par value any Note tendered to Cyberonics on
December 27, 2011, nine months in advance of the maturity of the
Notes.

The recent settlement allows the company to reflect the Notes as
a long-term liability at the close of its fiscal year --
April 25, 2008.  Cyberonics will make no additional changes to
the terms of the indenture, apart from the supplemental
repurchase right.

"We are pleased to be able to reach an acceptable resolution of
this litigation," commented Dan Moore, Cyberon-ics' President
and Chief Executive Officer.  "Although we remain confident in
our legal position, the improvement to our balance sheet
resulting from the settlement provides us with additional fiscal
flexibility in our on-going efforts to en-hance shareholder
value."

On June 17, 2005, a putative class action was filed against the
company and certain of its officers and Robert P. Cummins, then
chairman and chief executive, with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

The lawsuit was captioned, "Richard Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-02121."  

A second lawsuit with similar allegations was also filed on
July 12, 2005, captioned, "Stanley Sved v. Cyberonics, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. H:05-cv-2414."

On July 28, 2005, the court consolidated the two cases under the
caption, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. H-05-2121," and entered a scheduling order.

           Consolidation, Appointment of Lead Counsel

On Sept. 28, 2005, the court appointed EFCAT, Inc., John E. and
Cecelia Catogas, Blanca Rodriguez, and Mohamed Bakry as lead
plaintiffs and also appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
Nov. 30, 2005.  The complaint generally alleged, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements
regarding the company's VNS Therapy System device as a therapy
for treatment resistant depression.

                  Dismissal Motion, Amendments

On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to
allege facts that state any claim for securities fraud.

On July 20, 2006, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, allowing the
plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden
to plead a securities fraud claim with particularity, including
failures to allege with particularity a material misstatement or
omission, to allege facts sufficient to raise a strong inference
of intent or severe recklessness, and to allege sufficiently the
causal connection between the plaintiffs' loss and the
defendants' actions.

The court noted that "the deficiencies in plaintiffs' complaint
might well extend beyond the point of cure," but nonetheless
granted plaintiffs the right to amend their complaint in light
of the strong presumption of law favoring a right to amend.

                    First Amended Complaint

On Aug. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint for violation of the securities laws.  The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by
making false and misleading statements regarding the VNS Device
as a therapy for treatment resistant depression.

The lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to
disclose:

     -- that certain individuals associated with the U.S. Food
        and Drug Administration had safety and efficacy concerns
        about the use of the VNS Device for the treatment of
        depression and questioned the adequacy of evidence of
        safety and effectiveness the company presented to the
        FDA;

     -- that the defendants misrepresented the prospect for
        payer reimbursement for the VNS Device;

     -- that the defendants concealed executive compensation and
        governance issues and that the defendants falsely stated
        that an analyst's statements about options granted in
        June 2004 were inaccurate and without merit.

The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and
entities, except those named as defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities during the period
Feb. 5, 2004, through Aug. 1, 2006.  

The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
equitable or injunctive relief, if available.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to
allege facts that state any claim for securities fraud.

   Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assoc. Intervenes

On Oct. 31, 2006, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement
Association filed a motion seeking to intervene and asking the
court to require the lead plaintiffs to republish notice of the
amended class action claims.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the court issued an order compelling
republication of notice and staying the proceeding  pending
determination of the lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs published notice of the
filing of the first amended complaint, stating that investors
who purchased our securities during the expanded class period
(Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006, inclusive) may move the
court for consideration to be appointed as lead plaintiff within
60 days.

           Supplements to Motions, Dismissal, Appeal

In February 2007, the court lifted the stay, and in March 2007,
the lead plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file an
amended complaint.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend
without prejudice and stayed the litigation in light of issues
raised in a case that is currently submitted to the U.S.  
Supreme Court.

In June 2007, the court lifted the stay and granted plaintiffs
leave to "supplement —- not amend" their first amended complaint
and granted the company leave to "supplement —- not amend" its
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.

In July 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a supplemental amended
complaint, and in August 2007, the company filed a supplement to
its motion to dismiss.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' supplemented first amended complaint with prejudice.  

On Oct. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The plaintiffs filed their Brief of Appellants on Jan. 2, 2008.  
The company filed its Brief of Appellee on Feb. 4, 2008, and the
plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief on Feb. 21, 2008 (Class
Action Reporter, March 20, 2008).

The suit, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. H-05-2121," is originally "Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc. et
al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02121," and was filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Sim
Lake presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Elizabeth A. Abbott, Esq.           
         (elizabeth@emersonpoynter.com)
         John G. Emerson Esq. (john@emersonpoynter.com)
         Scott E. Poynter, Eq. (scott@emersonpoynter.com)
         Emerson Poynter LLP
         2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 100
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037

         Mark A. Golovach, Esq.
         Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
         Jeffrey R. Krinsk Esq.
         Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
         501 West Broadway, Ste 1250
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-238-1333
         Fax: 619-238-5425
         e-mail: fk@classactionlaw.com

              - and -

         Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
         (ashingler@scott-scott.com)
         Scott & Scott LLC
         600 B Street, Ste. 1500
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-233-4565

Representing the defendants is:

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


FEDEX CORP: Labor Practices Spur Shareholder Suit in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corp., sued repeatedly for classifying drivers as
independent contractors and thus avoiding overtime pay, now
faces a shareholder class action filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Plaintiffs bring this action derivatively on behalf of FedEx
Corporation against its Board of Directors in connection with
breaches of the Board's fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care
in connection with the Director Defendants' gross mismanagement
of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, beginning by at least 2002 and continuing
through the date of the filing of this Complaint.

The complaint claims directors who adopted that policy cost the
company $319 million in taxes and penalties for 2002 alone, and
exposed FedEx to hundreds of millions more in class action
lawsuits and legal fees.

Shareholders accuse FedEx directors of gross mismanagement,
breach of duties, abuse of control, corporate waste and unjust
enrichment.

Plaintiffs claim that since 2002, the Director Defendants:

     (i) caused FedEx Ground to engage in illegal employment and
         labor practices in violation of state laws, including
         the laws of California, Massachusetts, Montana, New
         Jersey, Oregon and Washington;

    (ii) exposed FedEx Corp. to an IRS tax assessment and
         penalties to date amounting to at least $319 million
         for fiscal year 2002 alone;

   (iii) cause damage to FedEx Corp. by forcing the Company to
         incur tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses to
         defend itself for this unlawful conduct in actions
         brought by various private plaintiffs and governmental
         entities;

    (iv) exposed the Company to hundreds of millions of dollars
         in damages in class action lawsuits brought by FedEx
         ground driver because Defendants misclassified them as
         independent contractors, when in reality they are
         employees; and

     (v) severely damaged the Company's reputation and
         goodwill.

Plaintiffs ask the court for an order:

     -- against Defendants and in favor of the Company for the
        amount of damages sustained by the Company as a result
        of Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of
        corporate assets and unjust enrichment;

     -- directing FedEx Corp. to take all necessary actions to
        reform and improve its corporate governance and internal
        procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect
        FedEx Corp. and its shareholders from a repeat of the
        damaging events described herein, including compliance
        with all applicable IRS regulations and federal tax laws
        as well as state and federal labor and/or employment
        laws;

     -- granting extraordinary equitable and injunctive relief
        as permitted by law, equity and state statutory
        provisions, including attaching, impounding and
        imposing a constructive trust on or otherwise
        restricting the proceeds of Defendants’ trading
        activities or their other assets so as to assure that
        plaintiff on behalf of FedEx Corp. has an effective
        remedy;

     -- awarding to FedEx Corp. restitution from Defendants, and
        each of them, including ordering disgorgement of all
        profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by
        Defendants;

     -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the
        action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees,
        accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses; and

     -- Granting such other and further relief as the Court
        deems just and proper.

The suit is "Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, et
al. c. FedEx Corp. et al., Case 2:08-cv-02284-SHM-tmp," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          George E. Barrett, Esq.
          Douglas S. Johnston, Jr., Esq.
          Timothy L. Miles
          Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
          217 Second Avenue, North
          Nashville, TN 37201-1601
          Phone: 615-244-2202
          Fax: 615-252-3798


FLORIDA: Jury Awards Broward Residents S11.5MM in Canker Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A jury decided that the government owed more than $11.5 million
to thousands of Broward County homeowners whose residential
citrus trees were chopped down in an ultimately unsuccessful
attempt to control canker disease, Jacksonville.com reports.

                  The Broward County Case

The Class Action Reporter, on Feb. 25, 2008, recounted that a
class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of about 70,000 Broward
County homeowners against the state, particularly the Florida
Department of Agriculture, which cut down citrus trees across
South Florida between over 10 years as part of the Canker
Eradication Program.

The case, pitting the thousands of Broward households against
the Department of Agriculture, is one of five class-action suits
filed in different counties seeking compensation beyond the $100
Wal-Mart voucher for the first tree destroyed and $55 cash for
each subsequent tree.

                  The Canker Eradication Program

Citrus canker is a plant disease which is harmless to humans but
which damages trees -- specifically blemishes fruit, weakens the
tree, causes loss of production, and eventually be fatal to the
tree.  The state claimed that the orange, lemon, grapefruit and
other citrus trees were worthless because they were either
infected or potentially infected.  The program was an effort to
stop the spread of the plant disease, particularly to keep it
from the commercial groves of Central and East Central Florida.  
However, the program failed, and after a decade and nearly $1
billion spent, the state and federal government abandoned it.

At issue is the value in Broward's case: just over 133,000 trees
were cut down by the state since January 2000.  The state's tree
cutters were ordered to remove all trees infected with canker,
and non-infected ones within 1,900 feet of those that were
infected.

Florida had argued that those trees would have become diseased
and declined as many other trees in Broward.  Thus, it
asserted, the trees that were removed from the 1,900-foot zone
had minimal value.

Homeowners, however, contended that the trees had considerable
value, either from the fruit they bore or the shade they
provided.

                Judge Favors Broward Residents

Circuit Judge Ronald Rothschild, on Feb. 21, 2008, ruled in
favor of the Broward homeowners who lost their citrus trees,
saying that the agriculture department destroyed the homeowners'
property without paying adequate compensation.

This verdict cleared the way for the next step, in which a jury
was seated to decide how much compensation should be paid to the
residents.

                         The Jury Award

Jacksonville.com relates that the $11.5-million award was far
less than what residents who brought the lawsuit had sought,
leading attorneys for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services to declare partial victory.  They noted that the jury
decided to count about $7 million already paid out -- giving the
residents an average of an extra $34 per tree.

"It's an amount that is much less than the plaintiffs expected,"
Wes Parsons, Esq., attorney for the department, told
Jacksonville.com.

The 12-person jury reached its verdict in the class-action
lawsuit after a two-day deliberation.  If the state appeals, it
could still be months before any of the thousands of Broward
residents involved in the case are paid.

The residents' lawyer, Robert Gilbert, Esq., said it would take
time to determine how much each homeowner might receive under
the verdict.  The jury had a choice to place values on destroyed
trees based on their individual height but opted instead to
award an aggregate amount.

Mr. Gilbert further told Jacksonville.com that he would likely
appeal the compensation amount.  He estimated that the destroyed
trees were worth between $350 to $400 a piece or a maximum of
about $50 million.

"This case has been about the replacement costs of the trees.
We'll continue the fight," Mr. Gilbert said.

The jury foreman, Jonathan Cowan, said many on the panel placed
great weight on government experts who said the trees were
likely to become infected eventually and therefore had less
value.  Others thought the trees were worth much more.

"It was tough.  We were very split," Mr. Cowan said.  "We were
able to come up with a compromise."

Jacksonville.com relates that the outcome of the Broward case
could have an impact on similar lawsuits pending in Miami-Dade,
Lee, Palm Beach and Orange counties, potentially exposing the
state to tens of millions of dollars in liability.  A jury in
Palm Beach County is expected this fall to take up the
compensation issue.


FOOD FOR LIFE: Recalls Spelt Bread Containing Wheat Hybrid
----------------------------------------------------------
Food For Life Baking Company of Corona, California is
voluntarily recalling 2,241 cases of Spelt Bread (UPC#
07347200168) because they contain spelt grain which is known to
be a hybrid of wheat.

People who have allergies to wheat or those with Celiac Disease
may run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic
reaction if they consume spelt products.

The recalled products were sold nationwide through health food
distributors and natural food retailers.

Food For Life Spelt Bread is sold frozen in a 24 oz. (680g)
light blue package and bears either of the two following
descriptions

     1. Food For LIfe, Wheat Alternative Spelt Bread
     2. Food For Life, Fruit Juice Sweetened Spelt Bread

Affected lot numbers are: H1847, H2042, H2136, H2435, H2872,
H2974, H3224, H3460, I0485.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated as a precautionary measure following an
FDA investigation concluding that the product contained
undeclared wheat.

This recall is being made with the knowledge and in cooperation
with the Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers who have purchased any of these products are urged to
return them unopened to the place of purchase for a refund.

Consumers with questions may contact us toll free at: 800-797-
5090.


HARMONY GOLD: Not Formally Served with NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Briggs, Harmony Gold Mining Co.'s chief executive
officer, said that the company has not yet been formally served
with a possible class action lawsuit in the U.S. claiming that
it failed to disclose or misrepresented costs and production
problems during 2007, OsterDowJones Select reports.

In April, a couple of law firms commenced shareholder class
action lawsuits with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Harmony Gold and certain
of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Harmony
Gold's American Depository Receipts and call options and sellers
of Harmony Gold's put options, who purchased or sold between
April 2, 2007, and August 7, 2007, inclusive (Class Action
Reporter, April 30, 2008).

The lawsuits allege that the company violated the Securities Act
of 1934 by making false and misleading statements to the public
in its press releases and in its Securities Exchange Commission
filings.  Specifically, the lawsuits allege that Harmony
understated its costs and overstated the productivity of its
mining operations.  

Mr. Briggs said that once preliminary matters are resolved, the
lawyers the company has retained in the U.S. will prepare a
motion to dismiss the case.

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and its subsidiaries and
associates conduct underground and surface gold mining and
related activities, including exploration, processing, smelting,
refining and beneficiation.  Harmony's principal mining
operations are located in South Africa and Australia, with
exploration and evaluation programmes in Papua New Guinea and
Peru.  During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, Harmony
produced 2.4 million ounces of gold, predominantly from its
operations in South Africa.  Harmony also owns gold ore
resources, with mineral resources of 537.6 million ounces in
fiscal 2006.  In June 2006, the company acquired 37.8% of the
issued share capital of Village Main Reef Gold Mining Company
Limited.


JDS UNIPHASE: May 16, 2008 Conference Set for SDL Investor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A May 16, 2008 case management conference is scheduled for a
class action suit filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent
the former shareholders of SDL Ltd., according to the JDS
Uniphase Corp.'s May 5, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 29, 2008.

The suit, which was filed in the Sonoma Superior Court in
California, is asserting that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the events alleged in a
securities litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp.

The plaintiffs in the SDL action, "Cook v. Scifres, Master File
No. CV814824," purport to represent a class of former
shareholders of SDL who exchanged their SDL shares for JDS
Uniphase shares when the company acquired SDL.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on Nov. 20, 2006.

The complaint names the former directors of SDL as defendants,
asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of the duty of disclosure, and seeks unspecified damages.

On March 6, 2007, the court overruled the defendants' demurrer
to that complaint.  The defendants answered the complaint on
April 6, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the plaintiffs moved to stay the SDL action
pending resolution of any appeal in "In re JDS Uniphase
Corporation Securities Litigation."  That motion is scheduled to
be heard on May 16, 2008.

On March 28, 2008, the defendants moved for summary judgment.  
That motion is scheduled to be heard on June 13, 2008.  

A case management conference is scheduled for May 16, 2008.
Limited discovery in the SDL action has occurred and no trial
date has been set in that action.

JDS Uniphase Corp. -- http://www.jdsuniphase.com/-- is a  
provider of broadband and optical products and solutions.  Its
products are used in communications, commercial and consumer
applications, including broadband and optical networks, brand
protection, biotechnology, semiconductor, aerospace and defense.


JDS UNIPHASE: California Court Dismisses OCLI Shareholder Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sonoma Superior Court in California dismissed a class action
suit filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent the former
shareholders of The Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc., after a
settlement that was reached in the matter was given final
approval.

The suit, "Pang v. Dwight, No. 02-231989," which was filed with
the Sonoma Superior Court in California, is asserting that
former directors of the company breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the events alleged in the securities
litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp.  The plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of former shareholders of OCLI who exchanged
their OCLI shares for JDS Uniphase shares when JDS Uniphase
acquired OCLI.

The complaint, which names the former directors of OCLI as
defendants, asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary
duty and breach of the duty of candor, and seeks unspecified
damages.

On March 4, 2007, the parties signed a memorandum of
understanding regarding a settlement of the OCLI action.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.  The Court dismissed the action on March 10, 2008,
according to the JDS Uniphase Corp.'s May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 29, 2008.

JDS Uniphase Corp. -- http://www.jdsuniphase.com/-- is a  
provider of broadband and optical products and solutions.  Its
products are used in communications, commercial and consumer
applications, including broadband and optical networks, brand
protection, biotechnology, semiconductor, aerospace and defense.


JDS UNIPHASE: Seeks Summary Judgment on Claims in ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the matter, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. C-03-4743 WWS (MEJ)," have moved for
summary judgment on collateral estoppel issues.

The consolidated class action, which was filed against JDS
Uniphase Corp., is alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The suit was filed against the company, certain of its former
and current officers and directors, and certain other current
and former company employees.  It was brought on behalf of a
purported class of participants in the 401(k) Plans of the
company and Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc., and the Plans.

On Oct. 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
alleges that defendants violated the ERISA by breaching their
fiduciary duties to the Plans and the Plans' participants.  

The amended complaint also alleges a purported class period from
Feb. 4, 2000, to the present and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, restitution, a constructive trust, and other equitable
remedies.

Certain individual defendants' motion to dismiss portions of the
amended complaint was granted with prejudice on June 15, 2006.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 30,
2006.  The defendants answered the complaint on July 6, 2006,
and JDSU asserted counterclaims for breach of contract.  

The court dismissed those counterclaims on Sept. 11, 2006.  

On Dec. 15, 2006, defendants moved for summary judgment on the
ground that the named plaintiffs lacked standing.  On the same
day, the  plaintiffs moved for class certification.

On April 24, 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to plaintiff Douglas Pettit, deferred ruling
on the motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Eric Carey,
and deferred ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Both sides have taken discovery.  Following the verdict for
defendants in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities
Litigation," the court in the ERISA action vacated all existing
deadlines, set a schedule for briefing a summary judgment motion
based on collateral estoppel issues, and stayed discovery
pending resolution of that motion.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on collateral estoppel
issues on May 2, 2008, according to the JDS Uniphase Corp.'s
May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008.

The suit is "Pettit v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
3:03-cv-04743-WWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge William W.
Schwarzer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. (aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com)
         Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birhaeuser, LLP
         2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
         Walnut Creek, CA 94598
         Phone: 925-945-0200
         Fax: 925-945-8792

              - and -

         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. (jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com)
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants are:

         Paul Flum, Esq. (paulflum@mofo.com)
         Terri Garland, Esq. (tgarland@mofo.com)
         Morrison & Foerster
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-268-7000
         Fax: 415-268-7522

    
JDS UNIPHASE: Court Favors Company in California Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has ruled in favor of JDS Uniphase Corp. on all claims in a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against the
company, according to the JDS Uniphase Corp.'s May 5, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 29, 2008.

                       Case Background

On July 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated all the securities actions
then filed in or transferred to that court as, "In re JDS
Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-02-1486
CW," and appointed the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust
Funds as lead plaintiff.

The complaint in "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities
Litigation" purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of those who acquired the company's securities from
Oct. 28, 1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of
subclasses consisting of those who acquired the company's common
stock pursuant to its acquisitions of The Optical Coating
Laboratory, Inc., E-TEK Dynamics, Inc., and SDL Ltd.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants made material
misstatements and omissions concerning demand for the company's
products, improperly recognized revenue, overstated the value of
inventory, and failed to timely write down goodwill.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  

In January 2005, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims
against the company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and
Charles Abbe, and granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss claims against Kevin Kalkhoven.  

Defendants subsequently filed answers denying liability for the
claims asserted against them.  On Dec. 21, 2005, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Fact discovery in the case is substantially complete.  Each
party has noticed and taken depositions of both party and non-
party witnesses.  

On Aug. 24, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions for summary judgment and deferred ruling
on the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

A jury trial in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities
Litigation," began on Oct. 23, 2007.  At trial, plaintiffs
sought more than $20 billion in alleged damages.

On Nov. 27, 2007, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor
of Defendants.  

On March 28, 2008, the Court entered a corrected final judgment
in favor of Defendants.

The judgment ordered that the plaintiffs recover no damages or
any other form of relief, that the action was dismissed on the
merits, and that the defendants were entitled to recover their
costs.

On the same date, the Court approved a stipulation and proposed
order in which all parties agreed to not appeal the judgment or
any other issue and the defendants agreed to not seek their
recoverable costs from the plaintiffs.

The suit is "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, C-
02-1486," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Claudia Wilken presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. (reedk@lerachlaw.com)
         Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         Phone:  415-288-4545
                 619-231-1058
         Fax: 415-288-4534
              619-231-7423

              - and -

         John Frith Stewart, Esq.
         Segal, Stewart, Cutler, Lindsay, Janes & Ber
         1400-B Waterfront Street, 325 West Main Street
         Louisville, KY 40202-4251
         Phone: 502-568-5600

Representing the defendants are:

         Philip T. Besirof, Esq. (PBesirof@mofo.com)
         Jordan David Eth, Esq. (jeth@mofo.com)
         Morrison & Foerster, LLP
         425 Market St.
         San Francisco, CA
         Phone: 94105-2482
         Fax: 415-268-7000
              415-268-7522


JDS UNIPHASE: No Trial Date Set for "Zelman" Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has not yet set a trial date for the purported securities fraud
class action titled "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., Case No. 02-
4656."

The suit was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of debt securities that were allegedly linked to the
price of the company's common stock.

The Zelman complaint states that an investment bank issued the
debt securities during the period from March 6, 2001, through
July 26, 2001.  It names the company and several of its former
officers and directors as defendants for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5, and seeks unspecified damages.

On Nov. 16, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which defendants had not opposed.

Fact discovery in the Zelman litigation is substantially
complete.   A case management conference is scheduled for
May 13, 2008.

The plaintiffs have advised the defendants that, given the
outcome of "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities
Litigation," they intend to dismiss their action with no payment
to the class or to the class representatives.  The parties have
exchanged a draft stipulation reflecting the proposed dismissal.

No trial date has been set, according to the JDS Uniphase
Corp.'s May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008.

The suit is "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-04656," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Claudia Wilken,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Susan G. Kupfer, Esq. (skupfer@glancylaw.com)
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         455 Market Street, Suite 1810
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-972-8160
         Fax: 415-972-8166

              - and -

         Ira M. Press, Esq. (ipress@kmslaw.com)
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-371-6600
         Fax: 212-751-2540

Representing the defendants is:

         Holly H. Tambling, Esq. (Htambling@mofo.com)
         Morrison & Foerster, LLP
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
         Phone: 415 268-7000
         Fax: 415-268-7522

    
JDS UNIPHASE: Nov. 9, 2009 Trial Set for "Central States" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 9, 2009 trial is scheduled for the purported securities
fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against JDS Uniphase Corp.

The suit, "Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension
Fund v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No. 07-0584," was filed on Jan. 29,
2007.  It is based on allegations similar to those made in "In
re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation" and asserts
claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

The Central State complaint, which was filed against the Company
and certain of its officials, seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a pension fund that purportedly purchased Company
securities between Oct. 28, 1999, and July 26, 2001, and elected
to opt-out of participation in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation
Securities Litigation."

On Feb. 14, 2007, the Central States action was deemed related
to "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation," and
was assigned Judge Claudia Wilken.

A case management conference in the Central States action is
scheduled for May 13, 2008, and trial is set to begin on Nov. 9,
2009, according to the JDS Uniphase Corp.'s May 5, 2008 form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 29, 2008.

The suit is "Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas
Pension Fund v. JDS Uniphase Corporation et al., Case No. 4:07-
cv-00584-CW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Claudia Wilken presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William S. Lerach, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone:  619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         e-mail: e_file_sf@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Jordan Eth, Esq.
         Morrison & Foerster
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
         Phone: 415-268-7000
         Fax: 415-268-7522
         e-mail: jeth@mofo.com


KRAFT FOODS: Wisconsin Court Certifies FLSA Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb granted class action status to
a lawsuit against Kraft Foods, alleging violations of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state law for time spent in
donning and doffing safety and sanitation equipment as part of
their jobs at a meat processing plant, various reports say.

According to the Associated Press, the workers claim that the
company is breaking the law by refusing to pay them for time
spent donning and doffing equipment like protective boots, hard
hats and ear muffs.  Workers must go to the plant's third floor
before and after shifts to do so.

In addition to the FLSA claims, the class action complaint
"asserted state law wage and hour claims" and alleged Kraft
violated state employer record keeping laws.

However, defense attorneys moved for summary judgment arguing
that the class action claims fall within the Portal-to-Portal
Act exception, that the allegations in the class action
complaint did not constitute "changing clothes" within the
meaning of the FLSA, and that in any event the class action
claims fell within the FLSA's "de minimis" exception, The Class
Action Defense Blog states.

First, Kraft's class action defense argued that under the
Portal-to-Portal Act, the conduct at issue constituted
"preliminary" and "postliminary" activities that are "withdrawn
from the pay mandates of the FLSA" because they are activities
"'which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday
at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on
any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal
activity or activities.'"

Second, defense counsel argued that the activity in question
constituted "changing clothes" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
Section 203(o), which states that "the hours for which an
employee is employed" does not include "any time spent in
changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each
workday which was excluded from measured working time during the
week involved by the express terms of or by custom or practice
under a bona fide collective-bargaining agreement applicable to
the particular employee."

Here, the collective bargaining agreement excluded compensation
for changing clothes, so the issue was whether the donning and
doffing of protective gear constituted "changing clothes."

Because the equipment was required for the employees' safety,
the court held that it did not fall within the requisite
definition, id., at *6-*8.  At bottom, the activities at issue
were "performed for the employer, for a uniquely job-related
purpose and are under the employer's control."

Accordingly, the court refused to hold as a matter of la that
the activity constituted "changing clothes" within the meaning
of Section 203(o). Id.

Finally, the defense argued that "under the FLSA is that the
amount of time it takes employees to don and doff their
equipment and walk between the locker room and the production
area is 'de minimis' and is therefore not compensable."

The district court rejected this argument, concluding that even
if the activities in question required "only a few minutes" it
would not grant summary judgment despite the fact that "a number
of courts have concluded that any task or group of tasks is not
compensable if it takes less than 10 minutes."

The court reasoned that "no court has explained why 10 minutes
of work is worthy of compensation but 9 minutes and 59 seconds
is not."  The district court believed the de minimis test turns
on the "administrative burden on the employer" in tracking the
"additional time" at issue, not the amount of time itself.

Because no evidence had been produced as to the difficulty in
tracking the activities in question, summary judgment was
inappropriate.  Accordingly, the court denied the summary
judgment motion.

Recently, Judge Crabb says current and former hourly employees
who worked at the company's Oscar Mayer meat processing plant in
Madison since May 2004 can take part in the lawsuit.  She says
the group includes at least 1,000 workers.

Based in Northfield, Ill., Kraft Foods Inc., through its
subsidiaries, manufactures and markets packaged food products,
consisting principally of beverages, cheese, snacks, convenient
meals and various packaged grocery products.


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Still Faces Pennsylvania OSB Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. is still facing multiple class-action
complaints filed on or after Feb. 26, 2006, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

These complaints have been dismissed or consolidated into two
complaints.

The first complaint is a consolidated amended class action
complaint filed on March 31, 2006, in which plaintiffs seek to
certify a class consisting of persons and entities who directly
purchased OSB from the defendants from May 1, 2002 through the
date the complaint was filed (the direct purchaser complaint).   

The second complaint is a consolidated amended class action
complaint, filed on June 15, 2006, in which the plaintiffs seek
to certify a class consisting of persons and entities who
indirectly purchased OSB from the defendants from May 1, 2002
through the date the complaint was filed (the indirect purchaser
complaint).

The plaintiffs, in both amended and consolidated complaints  
seek treble damages in unspecified amounts alleged to have
resulted from a conspiracy among the defendants to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the prices at which OSB is sold in the
U.S., in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Rules 15 of
the U.S. Civil Code.   

The plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser complaint also seek
similar remedies under individual state anti-trust and
competition laws as well as consumer protection laws.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 6,
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 OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-
CV-00826 (PD)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond, presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

              - and

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com)
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300

Representing the defendants are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com)
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com)
         James H. Schink, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144
                312-861-2350

              - and -   

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com)
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475


MARTHA STEWART: Shattered Glass Outdoor Tables Prompt Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit has been filed against Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc., and Sears Holdings Corporation -- doing
business as Kmart Corporation -- claiming that they knew about
the defective design in certain glass patio tables at the time
they began selling them, according to Sera Congi of WBZTV.com.

The report relates that Andree Vezina of Belmont bought a Martha
Stewart glass-top patio table at K-mart that "just blew up
unexpectedly."  The glass portion of the outdoor table suddenly
shattered into a thousand pieces.

Although no one was hurt, nearly a year later Ms. Vezina still
finds pieces of glass wedged into the deck.

Jackie Thompson of Chelmsford had a similar experience,
WBZTV.com says.

"I walked out the door and I looked to my right where the table
was, and there it was in little shattered pebbles," Ms. Thompson
recalled.  She had no idea how her Martha Stewart table
shattered, but when she went online to buy a replacement, she
found she was not alone.

"Four hundred other people had experienced a shattered patio
table by Martha Stewart," Ms. Thompson said.  She was surprised
and disappointed that she had not been warned about the tables.

WBZTV.com points out that the patio sets were manufactured by
California-based JRA furniture and were sold at K-Mart and Home
Depot under the brand names "Martha Stewart Living" and "Hampton
Bay."  

"It's a rarity that that happens," Norm Hopkins, of Rhode Island
Glass, told WBZTV.com.  Mr. Hopkins said that the tables are
made with tempered glass, which is very strong.  He also said
that when it does break, it shatters into small pieces, which
are less sharp and dangerous than other glasses.

Still, Mr. Hopkins said that it does happen and offered one
theory, "If there are any irregularities during that tempering
process, that can cause the product to be somewhat defective."

Ms. Vezina said she believes there should be a recall or a
warning.  "If I would have known that this could've happened to
that table, first, I wouldn't have bought it.  I would never put
my kids at risk or anyone else for that matter."

According to WBZTV.com, the Consumer Product Safety Commission
has decided not to order a recall.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
          Daniel E. McKenzie, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          Horwitz, Horwitz and Associates, LTD  
          25 East Washington Srreet, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-372-8822
          Fax: 312-372-1673

          Michael B. Marker, Esq.
          Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
          Marker Armstrong LLP
          One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2970
          St. Louis, MO 63102-2793
          Phone: 314-446-0990
          Fax: 314-446-0991


MARYLAND: Suit Against Baltimore County School Board Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the   
District of Maryland issued a settlement notice in a class-
action lawsuit that brings to an end a two-year lawsuit against
the county school system by several homeless families, WBAL TV
reports.

On April 27, 2006,, the Baltimore County Board of Education was
slapped with a purported class action suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland over allegations
that the public school system did not met its obligations to
provide educational continuity to homeless students (Class
Action Reporter, May 8, 2006).

The suit was brought on behalf of three homeless families who
claims that they were not informed by the school system that
federal law allows the children to attend the school they had
been enrolled in before losing their permanent housing or that
they are allowed to enroll in the school closest to their
temporary housing.

The families, represented by Francine K. Hahn, Esq., an attorney
with the Public Justice Center, also were not initially provided
with the required transportation, the lawsuit alleged.

Those families, who were staying in homeless shelters at the
time, accused the Baltimore County school system of failing to
help out with school enrollment and transportation.  The group
contacted the Public Justice Center in downtown Baltimore for
help.

"We worked with the parents and we eventually filed suit," said
Sally Dworak-Fisher of the Public Justice Center.

Recently, more than 1,000 Baltimore County homeless students and
their parents have gotten a big break.

Under the terms of recent settlement, Baltimore County must do
more to identify and enroll homeless students in school.  The
district must also work to provide transportation, meals and
other critical school services, as well as inform them of their
right to appeal.

"For people in a homeless situation, what it means is that
student can either continue in the school they are already in or
transfer to a local school and have immediate enrollment, even
if they lack the documentation," Ms. Dworak-Fisher said.

The homeless school settlement is being issued as Baltimore
County recorded a rise in its homeless student population, which
is currently about 1,300 -- up by 100 students over last year
and about 500 since 2004.

Besides the numbers, Baltimore County also reviewed its
definition of homeless students.

"People facing mortgage foreclosures and those that are suddenly
doubled up with family members and friends -- because they have
a roof over their heads, they don't realize they might have
these protections.  So, it's a matter of increasing the
identification of the homeless population," Ms. Dworak-Fisher
said.

Baltimore County school officials said they're pleased to have
reached a settlement without going to trial and said they look
forward to continuing services to homeless students.

The suit is "Peterson, et al v. Board of Education of Baltimore
County, et al., 1:06-cv-01067-CCB," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Catherine C.
Blake.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Francine K. Hahn, Esq. (hahnf@publicjustice.org)
          Sally Dworak Fisher, Esq.
          (dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org)
          Public Justice Center, Inc.
          500 E. Lexington St.
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 141-062-59409
          Fax: 141-062-59423


ONEIDA LTD: Dismissal Motion in ERISA Violations Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Neal P. McCurn of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York issued an order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the class action ERISA lawsuit
currently pending against fiduciaries of the Oneida Ltd.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

The suit was filed on March 29, 2007, by plaintiffs Milton Lilly
and Donald Grogan.  The Plaintiffs' claims arise from the
alleged failure of the Defendants, who are fiduciaries of the
Plan, to act solely in the interest of the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan, and to exercise the required skill,
care, prudence, and diligence in administering the Plan and the
Plan's assets during the period May 28, 2003, to March 20, 2006.

On information and belief, the Plan held between 1.5 million and
1.8 million shares of Oneida common stock during the Class
Period.  The Plan document provides that the Plan should be
invested primarily in Oneida stock.  However, under ERISA, the
Plan document's provision for investment in Company stock was
controlling only to the extent that it was consistent with
ERISA.

During the period from May 28, 2003 to March 20, 2006, Oneida
stock became an imprudent investment for an ERISA retirement
plan.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants allowed
imprudent investment of the Plan's assets in Oneida equity
throughout the Class Period despite the fact that they clearly
knew or should
have known that such investment was imprudent due to, among
other things:

      (a) the fact that Oneida's core legacy business --
          production of flatware, dinnerware, crystal,
          glassware and metal serveware -- was suffering from
          declining consumer confidence and a weak economy;

      (b) a failed business plan that combined acquisitions of
          companies outside of Oneida's core business, coupled
          with a restructuring plan that resulted in massive
          employee layoffs;

      (c) the failure of negotiations with a private investor
          with regard to a preferred equity investment in the
          Company;

      (d) repeated disclosures that Oneida was in breach of its
          loan covenants and required waivers from it lenders,

      (e) two consecutive years of financial statements that
          included a "going concern" qualification from Oneida’s
          independent public accountants; and

      (f) the steady weakening of the Company's financial
          position and its ultimate collapse into bankruptcy.

In July 2007, a second amended class action complaint for
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York against:

     -- Oneida Ltd. Employee Benefits Administrative Committee;
   
     -- Oneida Ltd. Management Development and Executive
        Compensation Committee;

     -- Oneida ltd. Pension and Profit Sharing Fund Investment
        Committee;

     -- company directors; and

     -- director committee.

The Plaintiffs are seeking, among others, relief from the
defendants in the form of a monetary payment to the Plan to make
good to the Plan the losses to the Plan resulting from the
breaches of fiduciary duties alleged above in an amount to be
proven at trial; and injunctive and other appropriate equitable
relief to remedy the breaches alleged (Class Action Reporter,
July 31, 2007).

The latest order allows the Plaintiffs to proceed with the
lawsuit against all of the Defendants named in the Complaint.

The suit is "Lilly v. Oneida Ltd. Employee Benefits
Administrative Committee et al., Case Number: 6:2007cv00340,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
New York, Senior Judge Neal P. McCurn, presiding.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Inc. continues to face several purported class
actions over hotel occupancy taxes, according to the company's
March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

A number of cities and counties have filed putative class
actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly
situated cities and counties within the same respective state
against the Company and other defendants, including, but not in
all cases:

       -- Lowestfare.com Incorporated and Travelweb LLC, both of
          which are subsidiaries of the Company;

       -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

       -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;
       
       -- Hotwire, Inc.;
   
       -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

       -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
          Services Group, Inc.);

       -- Expedia, Inc.;

       -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

       -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

       -- Orbitz, Inc.;

       -- Orbitz, LLC;

       -- Site59.com, LLC;

       -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

       -- Travelocity.com LP; and

       -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  

Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages,
disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and
other relief.  

Such actions include:

A. "City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al."

On Dec. 30, 2004, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles by the City of
Los Angeles on behalf of itself and an alleged class of
California cities, counties and other municipalities that have
enacted occupancy taxes.  In addition to the tax claims, the
complaint also asserted unfair competition claims under
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the City of Los Angeles filed an amended
complaint adding a claim for a declaratory judgment.  

On Sept. 26, 2005, the court sustained the defendants' demurrers
on grounds of improper joinder of defendants and claims, and
therefore, dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to file a
second amended complaint.  

On Feb. 8, 2006, the City of Los Angeles filed a second amended
complaint that asserted the same claims but includes additional
allegations of fact.  

On March 27, 2006, at the direction of the court, the defendants
filed renewed demurrers to the second amended complaint on
grounds of improper joinder of defendants and claims.  

On March 31, 2006, the defendants filed a petition to coordinate
the matter with the City of San Diego case.

On July 12, 2006, that petition was granted, and, as a result,
this case and the City of San Diego case will now proceed in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles.   

On Jan. 17, 2007, the defendants filed demurrers to the City of
Los Angeles' second amended complaint on all issues other than
misjoinder of the defendants and the claims.  

On March 1, 2007, the court denied the defendants' previously
filed demurrers on grounds of improper joinder of the defendants
and claims.  

On March 2, 2007, the City of Los Angeles filed a third amended
complaint.  On April 11, 2007, the defendants filed renewed
demurrers to the third amended complaint.  

On July 27, 2007, the court sustained the defendants' demurrers
and dismissed the City's third amended complaint without
prejudice to re-filing upon the exhaustion of the City's
mandatory administrative procedures for tax collection, and
stayed the action pending such exhaustion.  

The City is presently conducting those administrative
procedures.

B. "City of Fairview Heights v. Orbitz, Inc., et al."

On Oct. 5, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County,
Illinois, by the City of Fairview Heights on behalf of itself
and a putative class of Illinois taxing authorities that are
allegedly authorized to impose a tax on the business of renting
hotel rooms.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint asserted claims for
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, similar laws in other states, conversion
and unjust enrichment.  

On Nov. 28, 2005, the Company and certain other defendants
removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  

On Jan. 17, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  
On Feb. 10, 2006, the City of Fairview Heights moved to remand
this action to state court.  

On July 12, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims other than the tax claim, denied defendants'
motion to dismiss the tax claim, and denied plaintiff's motion
to remand.  

On Aug. 1, 2007, the City of Fairview Heights moved for class
certification.  That motion is pending.

C. "City of Rome, Georgia, et al., v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."  

On Nov. 18, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed  
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia by the City of Rome, Hart County and the City of
Cartersville on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
Georgia cities, counties and governments which have enacted
transient occupancy taxes and/or excise taxes on lodging.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint asserted claims for
violation of Georgia's Uniform Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, a constructive
trust and a declaratory judgment.  

On Feb. 6, 2006, the Company and certain other defendants moved
to dismiss the complaint.  On May 8, 2006, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims relating to the Georgia
sales and use tax and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
excise tax claims.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
June 7, 2006 naming additional plaintiffs.  

On Feb. 9, 2007, the defendants moved for summary judgment on
the plaintiffs' claims for plaintiffs' failure to exhaust the
administrative procedures required by Georgia law and
plaintiffs' respective ordinances.  

On May 10, 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion but
concluding that plaintiffs were required to estimate, assess and
attempt to collect the taxes at issue.  The court stayed further
litigation to permit plaintiffs to comply with those
administrative procedures.  

Since May 10, 2007, certain of the plaintiffs have sent the
Company and other defendants notices of deficiency and requests
for reports regarding hotel reservation transactions in their
respective jurisdictions, to which the Company and other
defendants have responded.

D. "Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."

On Dec. 1, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division by Pitt County on behalf of itself and a putative class
of North Carolina political subdivisions that impose occupancy
taxes.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint asserted claims for
violation of North Carolina General Statute Section 75-1, et
seq., conversion, a constructive trust and a declaratory
judgment.  

On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants removed this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.  
On March 13, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint.  On March 29, 2007, the court denied defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint.  

On April 13, 2007, the defendants moved for reconsideration of
that decision or, in the alternative, interlocutory appeal.  

On Aug. 13, 2007, the court granted defendants' motion for
reconsideration of the court's prior order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissed the action in its
entirety.  

On Sept. 6, 2007, Pitt County filed a notice of appeal of that
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
That appeal is pending.

E. "City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."

On May 8, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San
Antonio Division, by the City of San Antonio on behalf of itself
and putative classes of Texas municipalities.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint asserted claims for
conversion and a declaratory judgment.  

On June 30, 2006, the company and other defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint.  On Aug. 28, 2006, the plaintiff moved
for class certification.  

Following briefing of the motion to dismiss and motion for class
certification, on Oct. 30, 2006, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint that limited the putative classes of Texas
municipalities to 175 specifically enumerated municipalities
that plaintiff alleges to have hotel occupancy tax ordinances
similar to that of the plaintiff.  

On March 21, 2007, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the City of San Antonio's amended complaint.   

On May 16 and 17, 2007, the court conducted a hearing on the
City of San Antonio's motion for class certification.  That
motion remains pending.   

On Sept. 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's March 21, 2007 order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss, and that motion was denied on
Oct. 1, 2007.

F. "Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc. and
   Marshall County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."

On June 12, 2006, a putative class action was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
Hammond Division, by the Lake County Convention and Visitors
Bureau and Marshall County on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of Indiana counties, convention and visitors
bureaus and any other local governments which have enacted or
benefit from taxes on innkeepers.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint asserted claims for
conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duties.  

On Nov. 3, 2006, the Company and other defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint.  That motion is pending.

G. "City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."  

On Aug. 8, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
by the cities of Columbus and Dayton on behalf of themselves and
a putative class of Ohio cities, counties and townships that
have enacted occupancy or excise taxes on lodging.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint asserted claims for
unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, a
constructive trust and a declaratory judgment.   

On Sept. 25, 2006, the company and other defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint.  On Sept. 27, 2006, the Company and other
defendants moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, where the City of Findlay
case is pending.  

On Jan. 8, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation that the case be transferred to the Northern
District of Ohio.  The plaintiffs objected to the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendations.  

On July 10, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio transferred the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio.  

On July 23, 2007, the court in the Northern District of Ohio
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Consumer
Sales Practices Act claims and denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the remaining claims, adopting the reasoning of the
court's opinion on the motion to dismiss in the City of Findlay
case.  

On Aug. 31, 2007, the defendants answered the complaint.   On
Nov. 5, 2007, the parties jointly moved to consolidate the City
of Columbus action with the City of Findlay action for pre-trial
purposes, and that motion was granted on Nov. 6, 2007.  

On Feb. 19, 2008, the cities of Columbus, Dayton and Findlay
moved to amend their respective complaints to drop all class
action allegations and to add nine additional Ohio
municipalities as plaintiffs.   That motion is pending.

G. "Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v. Hotels.com,
   L.P., et al."

On Sept. 21, 2006, a putative class action was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky by the
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government on behalf of itself
and a putative class of Kentucky cities, counties and townships
that have enacted transient room taxes.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint asserted claims for
conversion, money had and received, unjust enrichment, a
constructive trust, and a declaratory judgment.  

On Dec. 15, 2006, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to
make certain changes to the identity of the defendants.  That
motion was granted, and, on Jan. 8, 2007, plaintiff filed its
amended complaint.  

On Dec. 22, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the original
complaint, and, on Jan. 17, 2007, renewed their motion to
dismiss with respect to the amended complaint.  

On August 10, 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss.  On Sept. 13, 2007, the defendants answered.  

On Oct. 26, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order denying the defendants'
motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, certification of
interlocutory appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court or the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  

On Nov. 9, 2007, the plaintiff moved to strike the defendants'
motion for reconsideration.  Both motions are pending.  

The plaintiff has stated its intent to seek to amend its amended
complaint to withdraw its class allegations.

H. "County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al."

On Oct. 24, 2006, a putative class action was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by
Nassau County on behalf of itself and a putative class of New
York cities, counties and other local governmental entities that
have imposed hotel taxes since March 1, 1995.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint asserted claims for
conversion, unjust enrichment and a constructive trust.  

On Jan. 31, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  
On Aug. 17, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint for the County of Nassau's failure to
exhaust its mandatory administrative procedures for tax
collection.  

On Sept. 12, 2007, the County of Nassau filed a notice of appeal
of that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  That appeal is pending.

I. "City of Fayetteville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."

On Feb. 28, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas by the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas on behalf of itself and a putative class
of Arkansas cities, counties and townships that have enacted
uniform hotel taxes on lodging.  

In addition to the claim for hotel taxes, the complaint also
asserted claims for a declaratory judgment, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and a constructive trust.  

On July 24, 2007, the City of Fayetteville filed an amended
complaint correcting the names of certain defendants.  

On Aug. 7, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  That motion is pending.

J. "City of Jefferson, Missouri v. Hotels.com, LP, et al."

On June 27, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri by the City of
Jefferson, Missouri on behalf of itself and a putative class of
Missouri cities, counties and governments that have enacted
taxes on lodging.

In addition to the claim for hotel taxes, the complaint also
asserted claims for violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, declaratory
judgment, breach of fiduciary duties and a constructive trust.  

On November 5, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint.  That motion is being briefed.

K. "City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."

On July 6, 2007, a putative class action was filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico by the City of
Gallup on behalf of itself and a putative class of New Mexico
taxing authorities that have enacted lodgers' taxes.  

The complaint asserted claims for violation of the New Mexico
Lodger's Tax Act and municipal ordinances.  

On Aug. 27, 2007, the defendants answered the City of Gallup's
complaint.  The parties are currently conducting discovery.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Plaintiffs in "Findlay" Seek to Amend Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the suit, "City of Findlay v. Hotels.com,
L.P., et al.," which names Priceline.com Inc. as a defendant,
filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to strike all
class action allegations from it, according to the company's
March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Oct. 25, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Common Pleas Court of Hancock County, Ohio by the City of
Findlay on behalf of itself and a putative class of Ohio cities,
counties and townships that have enacted occupancy or excise
taxes on lodging.  

In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio
Revised Code Chapter 1345, et seq., conversion, a constructive
trust and a declaratory judgment.  

On Nov. 22, 2005, the company and certain other defendants
removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.  

On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  
On July 26, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consumer Sales Practices Act claims and denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining claims.  

On August 2, 2007, the City of Findlay filed a motion seeking
leave to amend its complaint to withdraw its allegations seeking
to assert claims on behalf of a state-wide class of Ohio cities,
counties and townships that have enacted occupancy or excise
taxes on lodging.  

On Aug. 15, 2007, the court granted that motion and an amended
complaint withdrawing those class allegations was filed.  On
Sept. 4, 2007, the defendants answered the amended complaint.  

On November 5, 2007, the parties jointly moved to consolidate
the City of Findlay action with the City of Columbus action for
pre-trial purposes, and that motion was granted on Nov. 6, 2007.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the cities of Columbus, Dayton, and Findlay
moved to amend their respective complaints to drop all class
action allegations and to add nine additional Ohio
municipalities as plaintiffs.   That motion is pending.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Kentucky Securities Suit Dismissal Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a putative class action suit against Tempur-
Pedic International Inc. are appealing the dismissal of the
case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky.

To recall, between Oct. 7 and Nov. 21, 2005, five complaints
were filed against the company and certain of its directors and
officers purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders who
purchased the company's stock between April 22, 2005, and
Sept. 19, 2005.  These suits were eventually consolidated and
the appointed lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
Feb. 27, 2006.  

The lead plaintiffs assert claims arising under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  They
allege that certain of the company's public disclosures
regarding its financial performance between April 22 and
Sept. 19, 2005, were false and misleading.

On Dec. 7, 2006, the lead plaintiffs were permitted to file an
amended complaint.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
costs, fees and other relief within the court's discretion.  

In 2008, Tempur-Pedic International Inc. filed a motion seeking
the dismissal of the consolidated securities fraud class action
filed against it (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2008).  On
March 28, 2008, the Court granted the Company's request and
dismissed all claims against all the defendants, with prejudice
and without leave to re-plead.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that judgment on
April 24, 2008, according to the company's May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 28, 2008.

The suit is "Grillo, et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00410-JMH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge
Joseph M. Hood.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michelle M. Ciccarelli, Esq. (michelec@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-213-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Peter E. Seidman, Esq. (pseidman@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, & Schulman, L.L.P.
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-613-5625
          Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael D. Blanchard, Esq.
          (michael.blanchard@bingham.com)
          Bingham McCutchen, LLP
          One State Street
          Hartford, CT 06103-3178
          Phone: 860-240-2700
          Fax: 860-240-2800

               - and -

          Barry D. Hunter, Esq. (bhunter@fbtlaw.com)
          Frost Brown Todd, LLC
          250 W. Main Street
          2700 Lexington, Financial Center
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: 859-231-0000
          Fax: 859-231-0011


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Georgia Court Nixes Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
denied a request by the plaintiffs to alter its earlier ruling
dismissing the lawsuit, "Jacobs et al v. Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc., Case No. 4:2007cv00002," according to
Tempur-Pedic's May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2008.

The suit was filed on Jan. 5, 2007, and alleges violations of
federal antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic
mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain
distributors.  

The action alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-Pedic
mattresses in the U.S. since Jan. 5, 2003, and seeks damages and
injunctive relief.  

Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on
June 25, 2007, pursuant to a motion filed by the Company.  

Following a decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Leegin
Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc." on June 28, 2007,
the company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts
of the antitrust suit on July 10, 2007.  

On Dec. 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result,
judgment was entered in favor of the Company and the plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed with prejudice.  

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment," which has been fully briefed.  On May 1, 2008,
that motion was denied.  The deadline for the plaintiffs to
appeal the judgment is June 2, 2008.

The suit is "Jacobs et al v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
Case Number: 4:2007cv00002," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Robert L. Vining,
Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Phillip D. Bartz, Esq. (pbartz@mckennalong.com)
          McKenna Long & Aldridge
          1900 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-496-7500

               - and -

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

Representing the defendants are:

          Jesse Anderson Davis, Esq. (adavis@brinson-askew.com)
          Brinson Askew Berry Siegler Richardson & Davis
          P.O. Box 5513
          615 West First Street
          Omberg House
          Rome, GA 30162-5513
          Phone: 706-291-8853

                - and -

          William N. Berkowitz, Esq.
          (bill.berkowitz@bingham.com)
          Bingham McCutchen, LLP
          150 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-951-8375


UNGRATEFUL KIDS: Mother's Day Suit Against Ungrateful Kids Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A special Mother's Day class action suit has been filed against
ungrateful children everywhere on the community justice site
http://www.RealVerdict.com.

The suit claims there has been an immense lack of appreciation
by lay-about offspring.  The damages sought are that kids will
henceforth "stop asking because they are not getting."

All moms are eligible as jurors to judge the issue on
RealVerdict, and they can give their own evidence as witnesses.
There is already a vote in favor of the claim, citing 20 reasons
not to have children in the first place.

RealVerdict.com is the new community justice site that has moved
justice into the digital age by creating a virtual court system
online.

On RealVerdict anyone can set up an online court trial against
any person or any issue they choose at no charge.  There
currently are cases on topics as diverse as the overweight woman
who paid her boyfriend for sex, to the impact of the Federal
interest rates cut on world hunger.

For more information, contact:

          Radeon, LLC
          P.O.Box 2283, Westport, CT
          Phone: 203-599-1939
          Web site: http://www.RealVerdict.com


WEB SEARCH ENGINES: Last Defendant Settles 'Click Fraud' Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miller County Circuit Court Judge Joe Griffin entered the final
order for the last defendant's settlement in the Arkansas "click
fraud" Class action, Michelle Massey writes for Texarkana
Bureau.

Ms. Massey recounts that the original lawsuit was filed in
February 2005 against these defendants, who are either Internet
search engines or provide Web search capabilities:

          -- Yahoo,
          -- Overture Services Inc.,
          -- Time Warner,
          -- America Online,
          -- Netscape Communications Corp.,
          -- Ask Jeeves Inc.,
          -- Go.com,
          -- Google,
          -- Lycos Inc.,
          -- Looksmart Ltd., and Findwhat.com.

The suit -- Case No: CV-2005-0052-1 -- was filed in the Miller
County Circuit Court of Arkansas.

The complaint accused the defendants of overcharging for pay per
click advertising -- while on a Web site, clicking on a
business' advertisement.  The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants knowingly and fraudulently charged for advertising
that was not generated by actual consumer clicks.

The original complaint argued, "This is an industry-wide
conspiracy in which all search engines have worked together to
develop and/or create a market which allows for over-billing
and/or overcharging of businesses and/or entities which purchase
online pay per click advertising."

According Texarkana Bureau, almost immediately after the filing
of the case, defendants Google and Ask Jeeves removed the case
to federal court, but U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes
remanded the case.  The defendants petitioned the remand to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals but the action was denied and
the case was again sent back to the Miller County Circuit Court.

All of the defendants filed numerous motions to dismiss the suit
based on various procedural and substantive grounds, the report
recalls.

The court then entered a protective order that allowed discovery
to proceed.  The defendants appealed the protective order to the
Arkansas Court of Appeals and the Arkansas Supreme Court, but
the court's protective order was approved.  The plaintiffs'
counsel bombarded the defendants with discovery requests, which
for some defendants included over 70 interrogatories, and 70
requests for production of documents

Texarkana Bureau says that throughout the course of the class
action, the defendants placed over $97 million into various
settlement funds, which included over $32 million in class
counsel's fees.

The report recounts that Google was the first defendant to agree
to settlement with many objections and 556 people filing to be
excluded.  Google agreed to pay $60 million for advertising
credits and $30 million for requested fees and attorney costs.
Shortly after the Google final approval of settlement,
defendants Yahoo!, Overture Services, America Online, Time
Warner and Netscape Communications obtained an order of
dismissal based on a settlement reached in a California federal
case -- Checkmate Strategic Group, Inc. v. Yahoo!, Inc. No.
2:05-cv-04588.

Defendant Buena Vista Internet Group obtained dismissal without
prejudice, as the plaintiffs believed the group was not
connected to the click fraud.

Defendant Looksmart Ltd. reached final approval of settlement in
late February 2008 with a settlement fund of $2.54 million,
including over $585,000 for attorney fees.

Defendant Ask Jeeves Inc. reached final settlement at the end of
March this year with the creation of an $820,000 settlement fund
including attorney fees of over $258,000.

Defendants Lycos Inc. and Miva -- formerly known as Findwhat.com
-- reached a settlement that provides for the creation of a
$3.96 million settlement fund, including over $1.2 million for
attorney fees.  This settlement obtained final approval at the
end of April.

The plaintiffs argue that although their "claims are valid, that
their evidence is strong," settlement avoids the "need for
protracted and costly litigation."  The defendants deny
wrongdoing.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard A. Adams, Esq.
          Patton Roberts, PLLC

          Matt Keil, Esq.
          Keil and Goodson, P.A.

          R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
          Fineberg/Gresham

          Jonathon Nockels, Esq.
          Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf, P.C.

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy, Binkow and Goldberg, L.L.P

          Peter A. Lagorio, Esq.
          Law Office of Peter A. Lagorio


WILLIAMS FOODS: Recalls Batter Mixes Containing Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Foods Inc, of Lenexa KS., is voluntarily recalling 22
ounce canisters of Bass Pro Shops Uncle Buck's Light 'n Krispy
Original and Light 'n Krispy Hot & Spicy Fish Batter Mixes and 8
ounce pouches of Bass Pro Shops Uncle Buck's Light 'n Krispy
Original Fish Batter Mix because the products contain undeclared
milk (as part of a minor component of added natural flavors).

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

The product was distributed through Bass Pro Shops retail stores
in the United States.

The product is sold in Bass Pro Shops Uncle Buck's labeled 22
ounce canisters and 8 ounce flexible pouches.  This recall
applies to the following lot numbers: 31207A11, 35107A11,
06308A11 (22 ounce canisters) and 3530716 (8 ounce pouches).
Only the "Light 'n Krispy" version of the Bass Pro Shop's Uncle
Buck's Fish Batter Mixes are affected by this recall.

There have been no reported allergic reactions attributed to
this product.  The problem was discovered by Williams Foods
during a routine label review.

Williams Foods confirmed in its investigation that the products
were produced with an ingredient that contains milk that is not
declared on the label.

Concerned consumers who have packages of 22 ounce canisters of
Bass Pro Shops Uncle Buck's Light 'n Krispy Original and Light
'n Krispy Hot & Spicy Fish Batter Mixes and 8 ounce pouches of
Bass Pro Shops Uncle Buck's Light 'N Krispy Original Fish Batter
Mix should return them to the stores where they were purchased
for a full refund.

Any consumers with questions about this recall should also
contact Williams Foods Corporate Quality Department at 1-800-
255-6736.


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces Lawsuit Over Identity Theft
-------------------------------------------------------
Zwicker & Associates is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
alleging it violates the law and exposes people to identity
theft by sending debt-collection notices displaying the alleged
debtors' complete Social Security numbers, and refused to
correct this when it was pointed out, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Donna K. Hollingsworth brings this action to
secure redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq., which prohibit
debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair
practices.

The defendant, in its collection business, has caused form
letters to be sent to debtors in window envelopes from which the
debtor's full social security number is on display to any third
parties who view the envelope, in violation of not only the
FDCPA, but also the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
6801, et seq.

This action is brought on behalf of a class of:

      (i) all natural persons with addresses in Ohio and
          Massachusetts,

     (ii) to whom were sent a written communication by Zwicker &
          Associates,

    (iii) on or after a date one year prior to the filing of
          this action,

     (iv) in the same manner, in a window envelope which
          disclosed to the public those consumer's "Correct SSN"
          and listing the actual 9 digit number,

      (v) in connection with the collection or attempted
          collection of a consumer debt, and

     (vi) which were not returned undelivered by the U.S. Post
          Office.

The plaintiff asks the Court to:

     -- certify a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)
        and 23(b)(3);

     -- enter judgment for the plaintiff and against defendant
        in the amount of her actual damages pursuant to FDCPA
        Section 1692k(a)(1);

     -- enter judgment for the plaintiff and the class and
        against the defendant for the maximum amount of
        statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sections
        1692k(a)(2)(A) and 1692k(a)(2)(B);

     -- award the plaintiff and the class their costs,
        litigation expenses and reasonable attorney's fees
        pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3);

     -- declare that the defendant's communication in a form and
        manner similar to Exhibits 1 through 4 violate the
        FDCPA;

     -- grant such other and further relief as may be just and
        proper.

The suit is "Donna K. Hollingsworth et al v. Zwicker &
Associates, PC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Yvonne W. Rosmarin, Esq.
          Law Office of Yvonne W. Rosmarin
          58 Medford Street
          Arlington, MA 02474
          Phone: 781-648-4040


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARBITRON INC: Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. commenced 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 charges Arbitron and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides media and
marketing information services in the United States and
internationally.  The Company's Portable People Meter ratings
service is purportedly capable of measuring radio, broadcast
television, cable television, Internet broadcasts, satellite
radio and television audiences, and retail store video and audio
broadcasts.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
that misrepresented and failed to disclose:

     (i) that the Company's scheduled implementation of its
         Portable People Meter ratings service in certain major
         markets was not performing according to internal
         expectations and the Company was experiencing
         significant difficulties such that it would have to
         delay its implementation; and

    (ii) as a result, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
         their positive statements about the timing of the
         implementation of Arbitron's Portable People Meter
         ratings service and the Company's prospects and future
         earnings.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 30,
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: 877-495-1877
                 212-952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


CBEYOND INC: Brualdi Law Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. filed a class action lawsuit with the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of shareholders who acquired Cbeyond, Inc.
securities between November 1, 2007, and February 21, 2008,
inclusive.

The lawsuit charges Cbeyond and its founder, chairman, president
and CEO, James Geiger, with violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and certain rules
thereunder.

The case alleges that beginning on November 1, 2007, the
defendants made specific misstatements designed to hide the fact
that Cbeyond was recording a higher churn rate for its services,
which permitted certain of Cbeyond's officers and directors to
engage in insider sales of $39 million of Cbeyond stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Shortly thereafter, Cbeyond was forced to admit on February 21,
2007 that it elected to make certain operational changes that
caused its churn rate to climb even higher, contrary to its
prior representations.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 7,
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: 877-495-1877
                 212-952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.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 S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F.
Dy, and Peter A. 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  * * *