CAR_Public/080515.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 15, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 96

                            Headlines

BAY VALLEY: Recalls Salad Dressing for Undeclared Contents
BECTON DICKENSON: Still Faces Consolidated N.J. Antitrust Suit
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Face Healthcare Workers' Lawsuits
BRISTOL-MYERS: Ontario Appeal Court Okays Quebec Plaintiffs
CEDAR FUNDING: Faces $15-Million Suit Over Ponzi-Like Scheme

CONAGRA FOODS: Springfield Women Say Pot Pies Have Salmonella
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Sup. Ct. Denies Certiorari Bid in "Graden"
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: 9th Circuit Yet to Rule on "Conway" Appeal
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Forces Arbitration in Accreditation Lawsuit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Settles Suit by Bryman College Student

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in California
E CARE: B.C. Appeals Court Says Workers Can't Sue Based on BCESA
FARM BUREAU: Severance Motion Filed in Overhead & Profit Suit
FIRST HORIZON: Ex-Employee Sues Over Declines in Savings Fund
GRAND SUPERCENTER: Recalls Croaker for Possible Health Risk

HARMONY GOLD: Prepares for Possible ADR Lawsuit in U.S.
HFC BANK: Clyde & Co Plans Class Action Over Mis-sold Insurance
KAPLAN INC: California Court Dismisses "Stetson" Antitrust Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces New Jersey Suit Over Customer Fraud
PACER INT'L: California Court Okays "Renteria" Suit Settlement

SERTA INTERNATIONAL: Cheats On Warranties, Illinois Suit Claims
STAR GAS: No Hearing Yet for Appeals in Securities Fraud Suit
T.M. KOVACEVICH: Recalls Cantaloupe for Possible Health Risk
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS: Settles FLSA Violations Suit for $355,000
WASHINGTON GROUP: Still Faces Louisiana Suits Over Levee Failure

WYETH: N.J. Court Dismisses Average Wholesale Pricing Lawsuit
WYETH: Faces ERISA Litigation in New Jersey Over PRISTIQ Drug
ZURN PEX: Faces Lawsuit in Montana Over Unhonored Warranties

* Enhanced Class Actions Service in ISO 15022 Format Launched


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGRIA CORP: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
CBEYOND INC: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Scott+Scott Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


BAY VALLEY: Recalls Salad Dressing for Undeclared Contents
----------------------------------------------------------
Bay Valley Foods is recalling 535 cases of "America's Choice
Classic Caesar Dressing” because some of the bottles produced in
February 2008 have an incorrect ingredient label on the back of
the bottle.

The incorrect label on the back includes ingredient and
nutrition information for Chunky Blue Cheese Dressing and does
not declare the presence of fish, soy and wheat.  Consumers who
have allergies to fish, soy and wheat run the risk of a serious
or life threating allergic reaction if they consume the
mislabeled product.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
alert, and there is no risk to consumers who are not allergic to
fish, soy and wheat.

The recalled bottles of "America's Choice Classic Caesar
Dressing” were distributed through Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Company (A&P) stores including A&P, Super Fresh, Food Basics
USA, and Waldbaum's in Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, New York, and the District of Columbia.

The recalled product, "America's Choice Classic Caesar Dressing”
comes in a 16 ounce plastic bottle and is marked with a "best
before” date code of 02-09-09 that can be found on the back
label.  If the ingredient label on the back is for "Chunky Blue
Cheese Dressing,” consumers may return the product to the store
where it was purchased for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Bay Valley Foods Consumer
Response Department at 1-800-983-0823.


BECTON DICKENSON: Still Faces Consolidated N.J. Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co. continues to face a consolidated
antitrust class action suit filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

                  Direct Purchaser's Litigation

Becton Dickinson is named as a defendant in five purported class
actions brought on behalf of direct purchasers of the company's
products, such as distributors, alleging that Becton Dickinson
violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of
higher prices for the company's products to the plaintiff and
other purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     1. "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et. al. vs.
        Becton Dickinson and Company" (Civil Action No. 05-
        1602, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed
        on March 25, 2005;

     2. "SAJ Distributors, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson &
        Co." (Case 2:05-CV-04763-JD, United States District
        Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
        Sept. 6, 2005;

     3. "Dik Drug Company, et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
        Company" (Case No. 2:05-CV-04465, U.S. District Court,
        Newark, New Jersey), filed on Sept. 12, 2005;

     4. "American Sales Company, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton,
        Dickinson & Co." (Case No. 2:05-CV-05212-CRM, U.S.
        District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania),
        filed on Oct. 3, 2005; and

     5. "Park Surgical Co. Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson
        and Company" (Case 2:05-CV-05678-CMR, U.S. District
        Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
        Oct. 26, 2005.

The actions brought by Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company and Dik
Drug Company in New Jersey have been consolidated under the
caption "In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

                Indirect Purchaser's Litigation

Becton Dickinson is also named as a defendant in four purported
class action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
Becton Dickinson's products, alleging that the company violated
federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher
prices for the company's products to the plaintiff and other
purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     1. "Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson &
        Company" (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, U.S. District Court,
        Greenville, Tennessee) filed on June 7, 2005;

     2. "Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson
        and Company" (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District
        Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on Jan. 17, 2006;

     3. "Medstar v. Becton Dickinson" (Case No. 06-CV-03258-
        JLL (RJH), U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey),
        filed on May 18, 2006; and

     4. "The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton
        Dickinson and Company" (Case No. 07-CV-2544, U.S.
        District Court, Southern District of New York), filed
        on March 28, 2007.

A fifth purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers,
captioned "International Multiple Sclerosis Management Practice
v. Becton Dickinson & Company, Case No. 2:07-cv-10602," filed on
April 5, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, was voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class actions seek
monetary damages.  

All of the antitrust class actions have been consolidated for
pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation in federal
court in New Jersey.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 7,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a medical   
technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and
sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
industry and the general public.  


BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Face Healthcare Workers' Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co., along with another manufacturer and
several medical product distributors, continues to face product
liability class actions relating to healthcare workers who
allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not become
infected with any disease, according to the company's May 7,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Generally, these actions allege that healthcare workers have
sustained needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices
manufactured by Becton, Dickinson and, as a result, require
medical testing, counseling and treatment.

In some cases, these actions additionally allege that the
healthcare workers have sustained mental anguish.  The
plaintiffs seek money damages in all of these actions.

Becton, Dickinson had previously been named as a defendant in
eight similar suits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly
sustained accidental needlesticks, each of which has either been
dismissed with prejudice or voluntarily withdrawn.

Currently there are three three pending suits in Ohio, Oklahoma
and South Carolina.

The Ohio case, "Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al., Case No.
98CVB075616," was filed in Franklin County Court on Sept. 21,
2006.  

Recently, The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
grant of class certification.  The matter has been remanded to
the trial court for a determination of whether the class can be
redefined.

In Oklahoma and South Carolina, cases have been filed on behalf
of an unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class
action certification under the laws of these states in state
courts.

The suits are:

       -- "Palmer vs. Becton Dickinson et. al." (Case No. CJ-98-
          685, Sequoyah County District Court, Oklahoma), filed
          on Oct. 27, 1998,

       -- "Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et. al." (Case No. 98-CP-
          40-4343, Richland County Court of Common Pleas, South
          Carolina), filed on Nov. 25, 1998.

Becton, Dickinson continues to oppose class action certification
in these cases, including pursuing all appropriate rights of
appeal

On Jan. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs in "Palmer vs. Becton Dickinson
et. al., Case No. CJ-98-685," filed a voluntary dismissal
without prejudice.

Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a medical  
technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and
sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
industry and the general public.  


BRISTOL-MYERS: Ontario Appeal Court Okays Quebec Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on May 12, 2008, that Quebec
residents can be representative plaintiffs in Ontario class
action suits that otherwise have a real and substantial
connection to Ontario, National Post reports.

The named plaintiffs in the relevant class action case are
Steven Ledyit and Louise Ledyit.  The named defendants are:

          * Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Inc.,
          * Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
          * Linson Pharma Inc.,
          * Apotex Inc.,
          * Pharmel Inc.,
          * Dominion Pharmacal,
          * Novopharm Limited,
          * Pharmascience Inc., and
          * Genpharm Inc.

Apotex appealed the order entered by Justice Maurice C. Cullity
of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 13, 2007, that
allowed the amendment of claim by substituting two Quebec
representative plaintiffs in the Ontario class action.  Apotex's
challenge is made on the basis that the defendants' action does
not have a real and substantial connection to Ontario, and
Ontario is not the convenient forum and the action is an abuse
of process.

However, the Appeal Court's ruling in "Ledyit v. Bristol-Myers
Squibb Canada Inc., 2008 ONCA 372" states:

   "We agree with the reasons of the motion judge that Ontario
   courts have jurisdiction over this action because Apotex Inc.
   is resident in and carries on business in Ontario.  Even if
   we accept the appellant's argument that the real and
   substantial connection test must nonetheless be applied, the
   factors that inform that test support the conclusion that
   Ontario has jurisdiction simpliciter on the record in this
   case.  This is particularly so where the representative
   plaintiffs are prepared to come to the jurisdiction where the
   defendant resides and carries on business."

The Appeal Court did not not accept Apotex's argument that
Justice Cullity ought to have exercised his discretion to find
that Quebec is the more convenient forum, especially in light of
the limited material on the motion, which simply involved a
motion to amend the claim to substitute the representative
plaintiffs.  The appellant is not precluded from bringing a
motion regarding forum non conveniens on appropriate material.    

The Appeal Court also rejected Apotex's argument that Justice
Cullity erred in accepting counsel's assurance, given as an
officer of the court, and subsequently confirmed in writing,
that the Quebec proceedings would not advance pending the
certification decision in the Ontario proceeding and, if
certified, that the Quebec action would not proceed.  Thus, the
Appeal Court says, in those circumstances, it cannot be
successfully argued that the Ontario action is an abuse of
process.

Adrian Lang of Stikeman Elliott represented Apotex, while Joel
Rochon of Rochon Geneva acted for the plaintiffs.


CEDAR FUNDING: Faces $15-Million Suit Over Ponzi-Like Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
On May 7, 2008, a class-action lawsuit that seeks more than
$15 million in damages was filed against real estate investment
firm Cedar Funding, the Monterey County Weekly reports.

Like previous lawsuits, the complaint says Cedar Funding
operates a Ponzi-like scheme by making interest payments to
named plaintiff Catherine Lau and other investors from funds
received from new investors.

Ms. Lau claims she had invested $885,000 in Cedar Funding by
taking out equity loans against her own home.  She invested
$535,000 in a loan to Lake Elizabeth Properties LLC and Brett
Robinson, former owner of a Los Angeles County golf and country
club, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants Cedar Funding and owner
David Nilsen did not inform Ms. Lau when the borrowers defaulted
on the loan and represented that payments were current.  The
defendants also never assigned the deed of trust on the country
club property to investors, the lawsuit says, but instead
recorded the loan in Cedar Funding's name.

The lawsuit asks for an equitable lien or a constructive trust
on the Southern California property in the amount of $535,000.
If the case is certified for a class action, the complaint
requests about $15.3 million.

Monterey-based attorney Allen Kaplan, Esq., is representing Ms.
Lau.


CONAGRA FOODS: Springfield Women Say Pot Pies Have Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two Springfield women filed a lawsuit against a local grocery
chain and national food supplier on May 2, 2008, alleging that
both entities were negligent in supplying salmonella-laced pot
pies, Dirk VanderHart writes for News-Leader.

The plaintiffs, Shirley and Tina Cassidy, filed the suit with
the Greene County Circuit Court against against ConAgra Foods
Inc., the Delaware-based food manufacturer whose Marshall plant
manufactured the pies, and Springfield-based RPCS, Inc., which
owns 35 grocery stores in Missouri, including the Price Cutter
that sold the tainted products.

The Cassidys say that they each got salmonella poisoning from
Banquet brand pot pies they consumed in September and October
2007.  Within a day of eating the pies, they each experienced
nausea and diarrhea.  Shirley Cassidy was allegedly hospitalized
for more than a week as a result of the poisoning.

According to News-Leader, the complaint describes how Tina
Cassidy "meticulously" prepared a beef pot pie in her microwave
in late September, and how she became ill soon after.  A week
later, according to the complaint, Shirley Cassidy purchased
more pot pies and prepared them for herself on Oct. 1, 2 and 3
last year.  She "developed diarrhea and an ill feeling" on
Oct. 2, and was taken to a hospital emergency room on Oct. 4,
the document says.  Shirley Cassidy was discharged from the
hospital on Oct. 12.

The suit contends that the turkey and beef pot pies were
"defective and unreasonably dangerous" when they left the
ConAgra plant and were sold to customers.

"The Plaintiffs thereafter used the product in a reasonably
foreseeable manner by consuming it and the ordinary expectations
of the consuming public in general, and the Plaintiffs herein,
were not met," the complaint says.

The women also argue that both ConAgra and Price Cutter had a
duty to ensure the pies were safe.  The companies did not do
this, and were therefore negligent, the suit says.

Moreover, the plaintiffs contend that both companies breached an
"implied warranty" that the products were safe to eat.

The suit seeks "fair and reasonable" monetary judgment for the
"pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the
enjoyment of life, and suffered health care expenses and other
damages" that the Cassidys incurred.

According to News-Leader, the Cassidy's alleged illness came
shortly before ConAgra's Oct. 11 recall of all pot pies ever
made at the Marshall plant.

R. Frederick Walters, Esq., the Kansas City lawyer representing
the plaintiffs, said he has also filed a class-action lawsuit
against ConAgra on behalf of others who ate tainted pot pies.

"This is something we take very serious," Mr. Walters told News-
Leader.  "It's an important lawsuit."

News-Leader says that calls to Price Cutter were not returned.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Sup. Ct. Denies Certiorari Bid in "Graden"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari filed by
Conexant Systems, Inc., with regard to a ruling entered by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in which it vacated
an order dismissing a purported class action suit against the
company.  

On February 2005, the company and certain of its current and
former officers and the company's Employee Benefits Plan
Committee were named as defendants in the lawsuit.  

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who were
participants in the company's 401(k) Plan during a specified
class period, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.  It specifically alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, as
amended, to the Plan and the participants in the Plan.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005.  On
Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case.

On March 31, 2006, the judge dismissed the case and ordered it
closed.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 17,
2006.

The appellate argument was held on April 19, 2007.  On July 31,
2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated
the District Court's order dismissing the Graden complaint and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

On Nov. 17, 2007, the defendants filed a Renewed Motion to
Dismiss with the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.   The
plaintiffs filed an opposition on Feb. 8, 2008.  

On Dec. 4, 2007, the defendants also filed a petition for
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's ruling, which petition
was denied on March 3, 2008, according to the company's May 7,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2008.

The suit is "Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Judge Stanley R. Chesler, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. (lisa@trrlaw.com)
         Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP
         8 Kings Highway
         West Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Phone: 856-795-9002

Representing the defendants is:

         Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. (greilly@lowenstein.com)
         Lowenstein Sandler, PC
         65 Livingston Ave.
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: 973-597-2500


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: 9th Circuit Yet to Rule on "Conway" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal of the trial court's decision to dismiss the class
action suit "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW."

From July 8, 2004, through Aug. 31, 2004, various putative class
action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against Corinthian Colleges and
certain of its current and former executive officers, David
Moore, Dennis Beal, Paul St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni.

The suit was filed by certain alleged purchasers of Corinthian
Colleges' common stock during the period starting Aug. 27, 2003,
through July 30, 2004.  

On Nov. 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and the cases were
consolidated into one action.  A first consolidated amended
complaint was then filed in February 2005.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in violation of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed
to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
company's business and prospects during the putative class
period, causing the plaintiffs to purchase the company's common
stock at artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Moore, Beal, St.
Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
and costs, as well as other relief.  

Second and third consolidated amended complaints were filed in
the case.

At the company's behest, the Court, on April 24, 2006, dismissed
the plaintiff's third consolidated amended complaint with
prejudice.  

The plaintiff has appealed the Court's dismissal of the case to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Oral argument
took place on Feb. 11, 2008.  The Ninth Circuit has yet to issue
a ruling with regard to the appeal.

The company reported no further 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 "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Manuel L.
Real, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Vahn Alexander, Esq. (valexander@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi and Faruqui LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-461-1426

               - and -

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. (dbacine@barrack.com)
          Barrack Rodos and Bacine
          3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert L Dell Angelo, Esq. (dellangelorl@mto.com)
          Munger Tolles & Olson
          355 S Grand Ave, 35th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100

               - and -

          Daniel Benjamin Levin, Esq.
          AUSA - Office of US Attorney
          Criminal Division
          312 North Spring Street, 13th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Phone: 213-894-5796
          e-mail: USACAC.criminal@usdoj.gov


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Forces Arbitration in Accreditation Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., successfully forced arbitration in
one of several lawsuits regarding the status of its
accreditation with other colleges.

On March 8, 2004, the company was served with two virtually
identical putative class-action complaints:

     -- "Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges,
         Inc.," and

     -- "Florida Metropolitan University, and Satz v. Rhodes
         Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida
         Metropolitan University."

On April 15, 2005, the company received another complaint
captioned "Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,          
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University,
Inc."

The "Alvarez" first amended and supplemental complaint named 99
plaintiffs.  Additionally, the court in the "Alvarez" case
granted the plaintiffs' motion to add additional seven
plaintiffs to the first amended and supplemental complaint.

The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former
students in the company's Florida Metropolitan University
campuses in Florida and online.

The plaintiffs allege that FMU concealed the fact that it is not
accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools and that FMU credits are not
transferable to other institutions.

The "Satz" and "Travis" plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees under common law and Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for themselves and all
similarly situated people.

The "Alvarez" plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves
under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The arbitrator in the "Satz" case found for the company on all
counts in an award on the Company's motion to dismiss.  

The arbitrator also found that Mr. Satz breached his agreement
with FMU by filing in court rather than seeking arbitration and
is therefore responsible to pay FMU's damages associated with
compelling the action to arbitration.

The arbitrator also declared FMU the prevailing party for
purposes of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The company is continuing to pursue its remedies against Mr.
Satz related to these findings.  

Additionally, the company affirmatively filed an arbitration
action against Ms. Travis seeking damages for breach of her
obligations to file in arbitration rather than in court and
declaratory relief regarding her allegations.

The arbitrator ruled against the company in its affirmative
claims against Ms. Travis and the company has appealed that
ruling.  

The company has filed motions to compel arbitration in
"Alvarez," and the court compelled that case to arbitration.

Ms. Travis has lost her appeal regarding the order compelling
the matter to arbitration, the arbitration process has begun,
and another named plaintiff has also been added to the claim.

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

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for-
profit, post-secondary education companies in the U.S. and
Canada, with more than 64,500 students enrolled as of June 30,
2006.  It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions
in the U.S. and Canada.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Settles Suit by Bryman College Student
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., has settled a putative class action
suit filed by a former diagnostic medical sonography student
from the company's Bryman College campus in West Los Angeles,
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 plaintiff, Michelle Sanchez, alleges that the school
violated California's education code and of California's
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

According to its SEC filing, the company has resolved that
matter through an immaterial settlement, a portion of which was
paid by the cformer insurance carrier.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a for-
profit, post-secondary education companies in the U.S. and
Canada, with more than 64,500 students enrolled as of June 30,
2006.  It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's,
bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions
in the U.S. and Canada.

    
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is facing a purported class action
suit in California that generally alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

On Nov. 14, 2007, the company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned, "Hardwick, et al. v.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc."  

The plaintiff is a former instructor at the company's
Merrionette Park, Illinois campus.  Her complaint seeks
certification of a class composed of all campus instructors
nationwide, alleging wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as a class of Illinois instructors
alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act and Illinois' Eight-Hour Work Day Act.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

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 "Paula Hardwick v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Case
No. 2:07-cv-07222-DDP-E," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Dean D. Pregerson,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq. (tbuehler@touhylaw.com)
          Touhy Touhy Buehler Williams
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-372-2209

               - and -
         
          Peter M. Callahan, Esq. (peter_callahan@cmwlaw.net)
          Callahan McCune & Willis
          111 Fashion Ln
          Tustin, CA 92780-3397
          Phone: 714-730-5700

Representing the defendants are:

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. (jkb@paynefears.com)
          Payne & Fears
          4 Park Plz, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: 949-851-1100

               - and -

          Mark Easton Earnest, Esq. (mee@paynefears.com)
          Payne & Fears LLP
          4 Park Plaza Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92675
          Phone: 949-851-1100


E CARE: B.C. Appeals Court Says Workers Can't Sue Based on BCESA
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 1, 2008, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia issued
its decision in "Macaraeg v. E Care Contact Centers Ltd.,"
confirming that the jurisdiction to enforce the British Columbia
Employment Standards Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 113 resides
exclusively with the British Columbia Director of Employment
Standards, subject to appeals to the British Columbia Employment
Tribunal, Mondaq reports.

According to Mondaq, the Appeal Court's decision holds that
employees cannot bring a civil action including a class action
based on the BCESA.  The report cites Justice Chiasson as
writing for a unanimous Court of Appeal that the provisions of
the BCESA "present a complete code for the granting and
enforcement of statutorily-conferred benefits."

The report recounts that the case started when Cori Macaraeg's
employment with E Care Contact Centers Ltd. was terminated.  The  
action was commenced pursuant to the British Columbia Class
Proceedings Act, with Ms. Macaraeg as the representative of a
class of E Care employees alleging that the company owed them
overtime wages.

Mondaq notes that Ms. Macaraeg's claim for overtime hours was
not based on a contractual right expressed in a written
employment agreement or based on the conduct between employee
and employer but rather was a claim she brought solely in
reliance on the overtime provisions of the BCESA.

In response, E Care brought a preliminary application seeking
the following rulings on points of law:

   1. Is Ms. Macaraeg entitled to bring a civil action to
      enforce her statutory right to overtime pay, or does the
      jurisdiction to determine such claims lie exclusively with
      the Director under the enforcement mechanisms of the
      BCESA?

   2. As a matter of law, are the minimum overtime pay
      requirements of the BCESA implied terms of the contract of
      employment between E Care and its employee, Cori Macaraeg?

The Chambers Judge concluded that payment for overtime in
accordance with the mandatory provisions of the BCESA was an
implied term in Ms. Macaraeg's employment contract with E Care
and that the BCESA does not preclude pursuing overtime payments
in a civil court action.

Mondaq says that the Chambers Judge's decision was a significant
departure from the existing state of affairs governing non-union
employment contracts in British Columbia.  Previously, non-union
employees effectively had two ways (excluding human rights
claims) for the enforcement of their employment rights, namely:

   (1) civil causes of action where an employee could go to
       court to remedy a breach of contract; and

   (2) a statutory right created under the BCESA where employees
       could enforce that right by filing a complaint with the
       Director.

The only time the court would get involved in matters arising
solely under the BCESA was on judicial review of a decision of
the Tribunal, the report notes.

According to the Mondaq report, the ripple effects of the lower
court's judgment were already being felt in employment law cases
in British Columbia as a subsequent judgment of the Supreme
Court of British Columbia, following the reasons in "Macaraeg v.
E Care," ruled that a plaintiff employee was entitled to six
years' right of recovery for overtime wages when the BCESA only
creates a right of recovery of six months' wages.

On appeal, E Care contended that the Chambers Judge erred in
allowing the statutory rights conferred by the BCESA to be
enforced by way of civil action.  The Court of Appeal allowed
the appeal.  In so doing, the Court of Appeal held that the
BCESA does not allow pursuance of statutorily conferred rights
in a civil action as the statute itself provides an effective
mechanism for the enforcement of overtime rights.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that even
if the provisions of the BCESA are not enforceable in court by
way of an individual action, the CPA created an independent
source of authority for pursuing a class action claiming damages
under the BCESA.  The Court of Appeal followed established law
stating that class proceedings legislation is procedural and
does not confer substantive rights.  Rather, such legislation
only allows those with an individual cause of action to pursue
their rights collectively through a representative of a class of
individuals who have common issues.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed E Care's appeal in
its entirety and answered the defendant's questions:

   1. Ms. Macaraeg is not entitled to enforce her statutory
      right to overtime pay in a civil action; the exclusive
      jurisdiction to determine such claims lies with the
      Director, subject to an appeal to the Tribunal, all
      pursuant to the provisions of the BCESA.

   2. As a matter of law, the minimum overtime pay requirements
      of the BCESA were not implied terms of the contract of
      employment between E Care and Ms. Macaraeg.

In light of this decision, employers in British Columbia may
want to revisit their written employment agreements and their
corporate policies to ensure that they are in compliance with
the provisions of the BCESA and that they are also taking full
advantage of the Court of Appeal's decision.  The full reasons
of the British Columbia Court of Appeal are available at:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/08/01/2008BCCA0182.htm


FARM BUREAU: Severance Motion Filed in Overhead & Profit Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Farm Bureau Mutual
Insurance Company of Arkansas and Nationwide Insurance Companies
believe that there is no additional reason to delay the case,
Michelle Massey writes for Southeast Texas Record.

According to Ms. Massey, the plaintiffs have filed a motion to
sever, stating they are ready to certify their claims against
the defendants.  The plaintiffs argue that the motion is
necessary and will further judicial economy because the other
defendants refuse to cooperate in discovery and in their motion
practice which has delayed the prosecution of the plaintiffs'
claims.

SE Texas Record recounts that the original lawsuit, filed on
Sept. 8, 2004, alleges claims of civil conspiracy, unjust
enrichment, fraud, and constructive fraud by accusing the
insurance companies of not disclosing or paying to the insured's
the general contractors' overhead and profit, whenever the
repair of an insured's loss required the services of at least
three trades.

Although the insurance companies paid previous damage claims,
the plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to the additional
general contractors' overhead and profit.

SE Texas Record notes that the plaintiffs' motion to sever,
filed on April 24, 2008, states that the severance is necessary
to prevent the plaintiffs from suffering "tremendous prejudice
-- in the form of significant and unwarranted delay."

The motion also asks the court to find that the potential
severance complaint will relate back to the pre-Class Action
Fairness Act filing date, so the defendants are unable to remove
the case to federal court.

According to the report, Farm Bureau asked the court to deny the
plaintiffs' motion to sever.  The defendant states that the
plaintiffs' actions are prejudicial to the defendant, as the
proposed severed action will maintain the same conspiracy
allegations related to all the defendants.  Furthermore, Farm
Bureau states that while it agrees it should be severed, it
should not continue to defend against an alleged nationwide and
industry-wide conspiracy, when it only does business in the
state of Arkansas.  The defendant is asking the judge to set an
evidentiary hearing for the plaintiffs to present proof
regarding the effect of a severance.

The Arkansas-based insurance company believes this is a strategy
by the plaintiff to force it and Nationwide Insurance to defend
all of the claims against all of the defendants without the
other defendants' involvement, SE Texas Record says.

The suit is "Chivers v. State Farm. Case No: 2004-294-3."
Circuit court Judge Kirk Johnson is presiding over the
litigation.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matt Keil, Esq.
          John Goodson, Esq.
          Keil and Goodson
          611 Pecan St., PO Box 618
          Texarkana, AR 75504-0618
          Phone: 870-772-4113
          Fax: 870-773-2967

          Michael B. Angelovich, Esq.
          Cary Patterson, Esq.
          Brady Paddock, Esq.
          Christopher Johnson, Esq.
          Anthony Bruster, Esq.
          Nix, Patterson and Roach, L.L.P.
          2900 St. Michael Drive, 5th Floor
          Texarkana, Texas 75503
          Phone: 903-223-3999
          Fax: 903-223-8520

               - and -

          Jason Roselius, Esq.
          Derrick Morton, Esq.
          Chad Ihrig, Esq.
          Nelson, Roselius, Terry, O'Hara, and Morton
          3540 South Boulevard, Suite 300
          Edmond, Oklahoma 73013
          Phone: 405-705-3600  
          Fax: 405-705-2573
          Web site: http://www.nrtlaw.com/


FIRST HORIZON: Ex-Employee Sues Over Declines in Savings Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Sims, a former First Horizon National Corp. employee, has
commenced a lawsuit against the company over declines in his
savings plan account, commercialappeal.com reports.

Mr. Sims' lawyer, Stephen Pincus, Esq., of Pittsburgh, brought
the suit as a purported class action, according to the complaint
filed on May 9, 2008, in the U.S. District Court in Memphis.

Mr. Pincus wants employees with money in the First Horizon
National Corp. Savings Plan from May 1, 2002, to April 28, 2008,
included in the suit, commercialappeal.com notes.

The complaint states that the main issue is the money invested
in First Horizon stock and shares of the former First Funds
mutual funds that the Memphis-based financial services company
used to operate.  It asks the court to order the company to
repay plan members for their losses.

"The Company Stock Fund was an imprudent investment from at
least Jan. 1, 2006 because First Horizon was not fairly and
accurately disclosing the risks and likely consequences of a
number of banking practices such that the plan was purchasing
shares of First Horizon stock at an inflated price," the suit
contends.  Those practices included lowering underwriting
standards for loans, involvement with subprime and so-called
Alt-A mortgages problems with risk management and transactions
that didn't show up on the company's balance sheet (a tally of
assets, such as loans and investments, and liabilities including
debt and the value of the stock), according to the suit.

The suit also recounts that news of the problems started to
filter out in August 2006.  First Horizon lost $248.6 million in
the last quarter of 2007 and eked out a $7.9 million profit in
the first three months of this year.  

Shares of First Horizon stock traded for $38.44 on Dec. 30,
2005, and had dropped to $10.99 on April 28, 2008, the suit
adds.  That was the day company executives said they would pay
dividends in stock, not cash, and that they planned to raise
$600 million through a sale of additional stock.

As to the funds, the suit says many of them performed worse than
similar funds under other managers.  It claims that the plan
managers chose them because they "generated fees to First
Horizon and its affiliates and helped maintain the viability of
the funds."

First Tennessee Bank, owned by First Horizon, dissolved the
seven mutual funds in early 2006, merging them with similar
funds managed by Goldman Sachs Asset Management.

First Horizon spokesman Anthony Hicks told commercialappeal.com
that executives do not comment on litigation.


GRAND SUPERCENTER: Recalls Croaker for Possible Health Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grand Supercenter, Inc. of Lyndhurst, NJ is recalling the
following product because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium, which can
cause life-threatening illness or death.

          HC Fresh, Frozen Salted Croaker,
          Net. Wt.: 16.9 oz (480 gram),
          Item # HC 0500402,
          Expiration Date: Aug 02. 2009

Consumers are warned not to use these products even if they do
not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
these symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision, and
trouble with speaking or swallowing.  Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.

HC Fresh Frozen Salted Croaker was distributed through H Mart
stores including H Mart and Super H Mart in New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas area.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine
inspection.  No illnesses have been reported to date in
connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased these HC Fresh Frozen Salted
Croaker products are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Grand Supercenter, Inc. at
201-507-9900.


HARMONY GOLD: Prepares for Possible ADR Lawsuit in U.S.
-------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Gold Mining Co., which faces a possible class action
lawsuit in the U.S. over its alleged failure to disclose or its
misrepresentation of costs and production problems during 2007,
has not formally been served, the company's chief executive
officer, Graham Briggs, told Dow Jones Newswires.

According to Mr. Briggs, once preliminary matters are resolved,
the company's lawyers in the U.S. will prepare a motion to
dismiss the case.

The Johannesburg-based company, Africa's third-largest gold
producer, said in April 2008 that it has or may be named as a
defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. on behalf of certain
buyers and sellers of its American depositary receipts.


HFC BANK: Clyde & Co Plans Class Action Over Mis-sold Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Clyde & Co has disclosed plans to launch a class
action lawsuit against HFC Bank to gain compensation people mis-
sold controversial payment protection insurance, according to
The Press Association.

The report recounts that HFC Bank was fined GBP1.1 million by
the Financial Services Authority in January 2008 for failings
over the way it sold the cover.  The firm said the average
person who was sold PPI by the group, which is part of banking
giant HSBC, paid GBP2,000 in premiums, with some paying GBP5,000
or even GBP10,000.

The Press notes that a total of 163,000 people were sold the
policies between January 2005 and May 2007, and Clyde & Co said
the total compensation bill from the action could be more than
GBP300 million.  The firm is looking for around 500 people to
start an action and is planning an advertising campaign to
recruit individuals who may have been mis-sold cover by the
bank.

The firm also told The Press that it had also been contacted by
people who think they were mis-sold the cover by different
institutions.  The firm said that if its case against HFC is
successful, it will consider other class action lawsuits in
future.

The Press relates that the class action would be on either a "no
win no fee" basis, or it would be underwritten by a third party,
who would typically take a cut of between 20% and 30% of any
payouts awarded.

The report explains that PPI covers repayments on credit cards
and loans if the holder loses his or her job or is unable to
work due to an accident or illness.  However, the GBP5-billion
market has been criticized in recent years over claims that the
insurance is overpriced and being mis-sold to people who would
never be able to claim on it.

Clyde & Co is interested to hear from the 163,000 people who
were sold PPI alongside a loan by HFC between January 2005 and
May 2007 -- the period the FSA investigated, The Press says.
The firm said it would also consider people who took out the
cover earlier, although they must have had the policy within the
past six years.  


KAPLAN INC: California Court Dismisses "Stetson" Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed the purported class action, "Stephen Stetson et al v.
West Publishing Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00810-R-E,"
which names Kaplan, Inc., a unit of The Washington Post Co., as
a defendant.

In February 2008, Kaplan was served with the purported class
action suit which alleges antitrust violations.  The putative
class is said to include all persons who purchased a bar review
course from BAR/BRI in the United States since 2006 and all
potential future purchasers of bar review courses.

In April 2008, the case was dismissed by the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, according to the
Washington Post's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
30, 2008.

The suit is "Stephen Stetson et al v. West Publishing
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00810-R-E," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge Manuel L. Real, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joel R. Bennett, Esq. (joelrbennett@yahoo.com)
         Joel R. Bennett Law Office
         151 South Orange Drive
         Los Angeles, CA 90036
         Phone: 213-280-3977

              - and -

         Eliot G. Disner, Esq. (edisner@disnerlaw.com)
         Disner Law Corporation
         2029 Century Park East 19th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-2901
         Phone: 310-286-0600

Representing the defendants are:

         Elisabeth Jill Neubauer, Esq.
         (elisabeth.neubauer@mto.com)
         Munger Tolles & Olson LLP
         355 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-683-9100

              - and -

         Wayne D. Collins, Esq. (wcollins@shearman.com)
         Shearman & Sterling
         599 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-848-4127


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces New Jersey Suit Over Customer Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey alleging it defrauds
customers by secretly applying smokers' rates to children who
don't smoke, claiming that they will become smokers by the time
they are adults, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This class action is brought on behalf of all New Jersey
residents who, from Jan. 1, 1998, to the date of the complaint,
purchased from MetLife in the State of New Jersey permanent life
insurance policies on the lives of insureds who at the time of
purchase were non-smoking juveniles (that is, under 18 years of
age) as stated in the policy contract, application and
illustration provided at the time of application or policy
delivery, who attained or will attain age 18 after Jan. 1, 1998,
and whose policies are currently in-force or were in-force after
the first payment of policy premiums.

The plaintiffs claim that MetLife conceals this deceitful
policy, which violates underwriting guidelines.

They claim MetLife's "'juvenile standard' or 'standard' rate
and/or risk class is a blend of smoking and nonsmoking mortality
experience.  MetLife never disclosed this information to
policyholders, defendant's own sales agents, or persons other
than those MetLife actuaries and home office personnel involved
in pricing MetLife's insurance policies.”

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying a plaintiff under R. 4:32, and
        designating named plaintiff Cindy J. Bethea as class
        representative and her counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- compensatory damages;

     -- treble damages under NJSA 56:8-19;

     -- imposition of a constructive trust, an injunction
        barring defendant from perpetuating its wrongful
        practices in the future, and such other equitable
        relief as the court deems just and proper;

     -- attorneys' fees, pursuant to NJSA 56:8-19, and costs of
        suit;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and

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

The suit is "Cindy J. Bethea et al. v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance company, Case No. L-3499-08,” filed in the Superior
Court of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          Jason E. Macias, Esq.
          Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
          Newark, New Jersey 07302-5003
          Phone: 973-623-3000
          Fax: 973-623-0858


PACER INT'L: California Court Okays "Renteria" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement by two subsidiaries of Pacer International Inc.
that resolved a California class action suit known as
"Renteria," which was filed against them on behalf of a class of
owner-operators, has received final approval from the court.

The subsidiaries -- Interstate Consolidation, Inc., which was
subsequently merged into Pacer Cartage, Inc., and Intermodal
Container Service -– engaged in local cartage and harbor drayage
operations.

The "Renteria" case specifically alleges that the subsidiaries
providing insurance for their owner-operators constitutes
engaging in the insurance business without a license in
violation of California law and that charging the putative class
of owner-operators in Renteria for workers compensation
insurance that they elected to obtain through the subsidiaries
violated California's Business and Professions Code.

In June 2007, the company's motion for summary adjudication on
the insurance issue was granted, so that the only remaining
issue in the case is the workers compensation claim.  

In August 2007, the company agreed to settle this last remaining
claim on a "claims-made" basis under which the Company's maximum
exposure would not exceed its previously established $750,000
liability reserve.

The settlement has received final court approval, which is
subject to appeal until May 26, 2008, according to Pacer
International's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 4, 2008.

Pacer International, Inc. -- http://www.pacer-international.com/
-- is a non-asset-based North American logistics provider.  The
Company focuses on its core intermodal product, with intermodal
sales representing approximately 80% of its total revenues.


SERTA INTERNATIONAL: Cheats On Warranties, Illinois Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Serta International is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the company responded to an increase in warranty
claims for sagging mattresses by imposing an "inspection fee” to
"investigate” the complaints, and enforcing vague exclusions for
mattresses that have "a stain” or are "unsanitary,” CourtHouse
News Service reports.

This action is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on behalf of:

     (i) all current and former Serta mattress owners in the
         United States who, within the last four years, paid an
         inspection fee in connection with a warranty claim and
         were in now way refunded or credited for that payment;
         and

    (ii) all current and former Serta mattress owners who reside
         in the State of Illinois and who, within the last four
         years, were denied warranty coverage due to the claim
         by Serta or its agents that the mattress had a "stain”
         or was in an "unsanitary condition.”

The plaintiffs say, "Serta has experienced a dramatic rise in
the number of warranty claims during the last 10 years. This
increase is likely due to Serta and the industry's general shift
towards 'pillow top' mattresses, which are more prone to
sagging, sinking and body impressions.”

They claim Serta imposed its illegal "inspection fee,” which was
not mentioned at point of sale, to recoup some of its costs.

They claim that Serta's "use of the complete exclusion for
'stained' or 'unsanitary' mattresses can be applied to every
mattress.  Under the Defendant's rubric, once a mattress has
been used for even one night, it can be considered unsanitary.
Indeed, a mattress does not even have to have a stain to be
unsanitary, as demonstrated by several recent news reports and
exposes have demonstrated that, under a black light, a mattress
with no apparent stain can often contain bacteria, mold, spores
and a multitude of micro-organisms.  Defendant does not disclose
the broad applicability of this exception in any manner
whatsoever.”

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) when Serta began assessing and collecting an inspection
         fee as a prerequisite to providing warranty coverage;

     (b) when Serta first explicitly included an inspection
         requirement in its warranty;

     (c) whether Serta's enforcement of the "stain” or
         "unsanitary” exclusion renders the warranty illusory;

     (d) what evidence supports Serta's claim that the basis for
         the "stain” and "unsanitary” exclusion to warranty is
         the protection of employee safety;

     (e) what Serta does with mattresses that are returned as
         defective;

     (f) does Serta repair mattresses deemed to be defective and
         if so where and how many per year;

     (g) whether Serta inconspicuously sets forth the "stain”
         and "unsanitary” exclusion;

     (h) whether, but its misconduct as set forth, Serta
         breached its contract to its warranted customers by
         charging an inspection fee;

     (i) whether, by its misconduct, Serta has violated the
         Illinois Consumer Fraud Act as to the Stain Exclusion
         Class;

     (j) whether, by collecting an inspection fee, without a
         legal basis, Serta has been unjustly enriched; and

     (k) whether, as a result of Serta's misconduct, plaintiff
         and the classes are entitled to damages (inspection
         fee), restitution, equitable relief, injunctive relief,
         costs, fees and other relief, and the amount and nature
         of such relief.

The plaintiffs requests for judgment as follows:

     -- determining that the action is a proper class action
        maintainable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; certifying the
        plaintiffs as class representatives; and appointing the
        plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the class economic, actual
        and compensatory damages;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the class restitution;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the class disgorgement;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the class declaratory and
        injunctive relief as requested;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class their consequential
        and incidental damages;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the class pre-judgment and
        post-judgment interest as provided by law;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the class reasonable
        attorneys' fees and reimbursement of all costs for the
        prosecution of this action; and

     -- awarding the plaintiffs and the class such other and
        further relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is "Domineck Tringali et al. v. Serta International,
Inc., Case No. 08CV2745,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq. (eaw@wtwlaw.com)
          Amber M. Nesbitt, Esq. (amn@wtwlaw.com)
          Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-346-2222
          Fax: 312-346-0022


STAR GAS: No Hearing Yet for Appeals in Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on oral arguments in connection with the plaintiffs'
appeals regarding certain rulings previously entered in a
consolidated securities fraud class action against Star Gas
Partners, L.P., has not yet been scheduled.

On Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class action on behalf of a
purported class of unitholders was filed against Star Gas and
its various subsidiaries and officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court of the District of Connecticut.  The suit is
"Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3:04-cv-01766-
IBA."

Subsequently, 16 additional class action complaints, alleging
the same or substantially similar claims, were filed in the same
district court.  The class actions were consolidated into one
consolidated amended complaint.

On Sept. 23, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim
under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the
applicable pleading requirements of the PSLRA, and the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  

Thus, in July 2006, the Court sided with the defendants and
dismissed the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.

On Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration and requested to have the court's judgment of
dismissal altered and reopened.  They also sought leave to file
a second consolidated amended complaint.  

On Oct. 20, 2006, the defendants filed their memorandum of law
in opposition to the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.

On March 22, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.

However, on April 3, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for  
Mandatory Rule 11 Inquiry and fee shifting which seeks recovery
of their legal fees pursuant to the PSLRA.  This motion was
opposed by the plaintiffs.

On April 20, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Court in connection
with the district court's decisions dismissing the amended
complaint and denying the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.

Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, the class
plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal as against:

       -- Hanseatic Americas, Inc.,
       -- Paul Biddelman,
       -- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.,
       -- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.,
       -- UBS Investment Bank, and
       -- Audrey Sevin.

On July 6, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed their brief on
appeal.  The Star Gas Defendants' opposition brief was due on
Aug. 21, 2007, and the class plaintiffs' reply brief was due on
Sept. 11, 2007.  Oral argument on the appeal has not yet been
scheduled.

In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant
to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 7, 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 Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. (andres@stlouislaw.com)
         Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.
         7733 Forsyth, Suite 700
         St. Louis, MO 63105
         Phone: 314-862-6800
         Fax: 314-862-1606

              - and -

         David L. Belt, Esq. (dbelt@jacobslaw.com)
         Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C.
         350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606
         New Haven, CT 06503-0606
         Phone: 203-772-3100
         Fax: 203-772-1691

Representing the defendants are:

         Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq. (tjgallagher@dbh.com)
         Day, Berry & Howard
         One Canterbury Green
         Stamford, CT 06901-2047
         Phone: 203-977-7300
         Fax: 203-977-7301

              - and -

         Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq. (eandrews@tylercooper.com)
         Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
         205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936
         New Haven, CT 06509-1910
         Phone: 203-784-8200
         Fax: 203-777-1181


T.M. KOVACEVICH: Recalls Cantaloupe for Possible Health Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
T.M. Kovacevich International, Inc. of Philadelphia, PA is
recalling cantaloupes which it purchased from Agropecuaria
Montelibano, a Honduran grower and packer, because the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration has determined, based on current
information, that cantaloupe fruit from this company has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled product was distributed to wholesalers and
processors in Georgia, Florida, Massachusetts and New Jersey,
and may have reached consumers through grocery stores,
restaurants, or other similar channels.  Whole cantaloupe fruits
subject to this recall carry a "Mike's Melons” sticker or may be
unlabeled because this sticker has fallen off.  Whole cantaloupe
fruits subject to this recall were sold in boxes marked with the
following text: "Cantaloupe, Mike's Melons, Produce of Honduras,
Grown, Packed and Shipped by Agropecuaria Montelibano, San
Lorenzo, Valle, Honduras.”

The company is unaware to date of any illnesses that may be
associated with any cantaloupes sold by our company.

This recall has been initiated based on the FDA's determination,
based on current information, that cantaloupe fruit from the
referenced grower/packer appears to be associated with a
Salmonella Litchfield outbreak in the United States and Canada.

Consumers who have recently bought whole cantaloupes from this
specific grower and packer should destroy these products
immediately.  Consumers with questions may contact George Manos
of T.M. Kovacevich International, Inc. at  215-336-3160.


TEXAS INSTRUMENTS: Settles FLSA Violations Suit for $355,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Instruments Inc. has settled a class action suit alleging
the chip maker withheld overtime pay from certain employees of
its manufacturing plants for $355,000, Lawyers and Settlements
reports.

In 2005, two Texas Instruments workers claimed in the federal
lawsuit that Texas Instruments required employees in its "fab
facilities” to regularly work shifts of 12 hours and longer but
only paid for 11.5 hours at work (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 21, 2005).  The suit contended that employees are due 32-42
minutes per day of unpaid overtime.

The suit alleged that the unpaid work stems from a list of
activities employees were required to complete before starting
their shift and a briefing employees had to attend at the end of
their shift.

According to the suit, shifts don't officially start at the
facilities until after employees have changed from their street
clothes to clean suits, as well as switching shoes, putting on
hair nets, washing hands, donning gloves and passing
through an air shower.

Additionally, the suit claimed that Texas Instruments uses card
readers to account for when employees are on site.  However it
never payed more than eight hours of regular pay and 3.5 hours
of overtime per shift.

In a recent development in the suit, sources on both sides of
the dispute stated that a settlement has been reached, in which
the chip giant agreed to pay more than $355,000 to resolve
allegations.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, in a May 2 filing
in federal district court in Dallas, Texas Instruments stated
that $65,000 of the payout will be divided up among an unknown
number of affected employees.

Additionally, Texas Instruments also agreed to pay each
plaintiff $1,100.  An amount equal to $250,000 in legal fees
will be paid by the company, along with $40,000 in court costs.

The report cites sources as saying that it is still unclear from
the court filings how many plaintiffs will participate in the
settlement.

The suit is "Vogt et al v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, Case
No. 3:05-cv-02244,” filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Judge Sam A. Lindsay,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Hal K. Gillespie, Esq. (hkg@grwlawfirm.com)
          David K. Watsky, Esq. (watsky@grwlawfirm.com)
          Gillespie Rozen Watsky Motley & Jones
          3402 Oak Grove Ave., Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: 214-720-2009
          Fax: 214-720-2291


WASHINGTON GROUP: Still Faces Louisiana Suits Over Levee Failure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc., continues to face several
purported class action suits in Louisiana that are related to
the New Orleans levee failure during Hurricane Katrina,
according USR Corp.'s May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 7,
2008.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group, a wholly
owned subsidiary acquired by URS Corp. on Nov. 15, 2007,
performed demolition, site preparation, and environmental
remediation services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the
east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal in New Orleans,
Louisiana (Industrial Canal).  

On Aug. 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.  The
storm surge created by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial
Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and
other parts of the city.

Since September 2005, over 59 personal injury, property damage
and class actions have been  filed in Louisiana State and
federal court naming Washington Group, as a defendant.

Other defendants include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Board for the Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer,
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.

Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases, including Washington Group
cases, have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.  

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants were negligent in their
design, construction and maintenance of the New Orleans levees.  
The plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who claim
to have incurred damages arising out of the breach and failure
of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs assert that the work performed by the company
adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and floodwall
and caused and contributed to breaches and flooding.

The plaintiffs allege damages of $200 billion and demand
attorneys' fees and costs.

Washington Group International, Inc. -- http://www.wgint.com/--
is an international provider of a range of design, engineering,
construction, construction management, facilities and operations
management, environmental remediation and mining services.


WYETH: N.J. Court Dismisses Average Wholesale Pricing Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey court dismissed a purported class action lawsuit
against Wyeth and several other pharmaceutical companies
alleging that the companies artificially inflated the Average
Wholesale Price of their drugs, according to Wyeth's May 5, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

AWP is the basis for determining the Medicare reimbursement rate  
and the co-payment amount.  It is also usually the basis for  
determining Medicaid reimbursement rates under state Medicaid  
plans.  The overstatement of AWP allegedly results in
overpayment by, among others, Medicare and Medicare
beneficiaries and by state Medicaid plans.  

In general, the plaintiffs involved in the case, "International
Union of Operating Engineers, et al. v. AstraZeneca PLC, et al.,
No. MON-L-3136-06," which was filed in the Superior Court of
Monmouth County in New Jersey, allege that this "scheme" is
fraudulent, violates the Sherman  Antitrust Act and constitutes
a civil conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.  

The suit is one of the two private class action suits filed on
behalf of Medicare beneficiaries who make co-payments, as well
as private health plans and Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) plans that purchase drugs based on AWP.

The case has been dismissed without prejudice following the
withdrawal of the plaintiff union from the case.

Madison, New Jersey-based Wyeth – http://www.wyeth.com/-- is  
engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture, distribution
and sale of a line of products in three primary businesses:
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals , Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, and Fort
Dodge Animal Health.  Pharmaceuticals includes branded human
ethical pharmaceuticals, biotechnology products, vaccines and
nutrition products.  Principal Pharmaceuticals products include
neuroscience therapies, cardiovascular products, nutrition
products, gastroenterology drugs, anti-infectives, vaccines,
oncology therapies, musculoskeletal therapies, hemophilia
treatments, immunological products and women's healthcare
products.  Consumer Healthcare products include analgesics,
cough/cold/allergy remedies, nutritional supplements, and
hemorrhoidal, asthma and personal care items sold over-the-
counter.  Principal Animal Health products include vaccines,
pharmaceuticals, parasite control and growth implants.


WYETH: Faces ERISA Litigation in New Jersey Over PRISTIQ Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Wyeth Savings Plan Committee, the Wyeth Savings Plan-Puerto
Rico Committee, the Wyeth Retirement Committee and eight current
and former corporate officers and committee members face a
purported class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, according Wyeth's May 5, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Feb. 27, 2008, a lawsuit was filed making allegations
relating to the company's receipt, in July 2007, of an
approvable letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in
connection with the Company's New Drug Application for PRISTIQ
for the vasomotor symptoms indication.

The suit, "Herrera, et al. v. Wyeth, et al., No. 2:08-cv-1066
(WJM) (U.S.D.C., D.N.J.)" is a putative Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ERISA class action which
alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the Wyeth Savings Plan
Committee, the Wyeth Savings Plan-Puerto Rico Committee, the
Wyeth Retirement Committee and eight current and former
corporate officers and committee members for offering the Wyeth
Common Stock Fund as an investment alternative in the Savings
Plan, Union Savings Plan and Savings Plan-Puerto Rico.

The complaint alleges that the individuals and committees
permitted investment in the Common Stock Fund notwithstanding
their knowledge of cardiovascular and hepatic adverse events
seen in PRISTIQ VMS clinical trials, that the defendants knew or
should have known that those events would likely delay or
prevent approval of the PRISTIQ VMS NDA, and that defendants
failed to assure disclosure of those issues in the Company's
public statements about PRISTIQ.

In addition to the claims that the alleged lack of disclosure
constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, plaintiff
also alleges claims for breaches of the duties of loyalty,
exclusive purpose and prudence under ERISA against each of the
defendants.

The suit is "Herrera, et al. v. Wyeth, et al., No. 2:08-cv-1066
(WJM)," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Judge William J. Martini, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. (jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com)
         Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
         Two Gateway Center
         12th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102-5003
         Phone: 973-623-3000

Representing the defendants is:

         Mitchell W. Taraschi, Esq. (mtaraschi@connellfoley.com)
         Connell Foley
         85 Livingston Ave.
         Roseland, NJ 07068
         Phone: 973-535-0500


ZURN PEX: Faces Lawsuit in Montana Over Unhonored Warranties
------------------------------------------------------------
Zurn Pex, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana alleging that
the company's brass plumbing fittings fail prematurely, causing
water damage, and that Zurn Industries refuses to honor its
warranties, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is brought on behalf all persons and entities that
own a structure located within Montana that contains a plumbing
system with Zurn's brass pex fitting, as well as any individual
or entity that paid for or performed repairs of damage caused by
the failure of Zurn's brass pex fittings.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- certification of the plaintiff class and appointing
        named plaintiff Judith Nicodemus and her counsel to
        represent the class;

     -- compensation for damages suffered by the class members;

     -- an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
        disbursements incurred;

     -- an order enjoining Zurn from engaging in any conduct in
        violation of statute; and

     -- declaration of the rights and obligations of the
        parties.

The suit is "Judith Nicodemus et al v. Zurn Pex, Inc. et al,
Case No. CV-08-65-M-DWM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          W. Scott Mitchell, Esq.
          Jason S. Ritchie, Esq.
          Holland & Hart LLP
          401 North 31st street, Suite 1500
          P.O. Box 639
          Billings, Montana 59103-0639
          Phone: 406-252-2166
          Fax: 406-252-1669


* Enhanced Class Actions Service in ISO 15022 Format Launched
-------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Data Corporation, a leading provider of financial
market data, analytics and related services, announced that its
Pricing and Reference Data business has launched its class
actions service mapped to ISO 15022 format.

Interactive Data's class actions service is designed to help
financial institutions track, monitor and recover funds
emanating from securities class action litigation.

Securities litigation may be brought on behalf of a group of
shareholders who have suffered an economic loss arising from a
violation of the securities laws.  With the current sub-prime
crisis, the number of class action claims is expected to
increase -- and this is not just a US phenomenon.  It has been
estimated that over half of sub-prime securities have found
their way into Europe, and that around a third of them could be
located in the UK.

Interactive Data's web-based Xcitek Class Actions(TM) service
has been helping clients track class action events since 2005,
and provides a detailed database of securities class action
litigation filed in the US court system.  Interactive Data has
now mapped its class actions data into the ISO 15022 format and
has made it available as an optional module of FTS(SM),
Interactive Data's securities administration tool.

Interactive Data's latest offering includes critical dates and
data, with the security codes relating to the defendant, all in
standard ISO 15022 format.  A link to the web-based platform,
http://www.xca.xcitek.com/is also included in the ISO 15022  
message.  This link connects the user to the web-based version
of the service, which provides a full-text description of the
proceedings with all related documents.

Roger Sargeant, managing director, Interactive Data (Europe)
Ltd, said: "Class actions are an essential means of providing
redress to investors from violations of the securities laws, and
with the recent market turmoil, these actions look set to
increase.  Class members usually need to submit proof of their
claims in order to participate in the proceeds from a final
judgement or settlement.  We have a comprehensive system that is
capable of compiling and disseminating class action information,
allowing the user to view and track the progress of all
monitored class action lawsuits."

Nat Sey, reference data business manager, Interactive Data
(Europe) Ltd, added: "We have been collecting and distributing
corporate actions data to the financial industry for well over
20 years and have used this expertise, as well as the
relationships cultivated with the major claims administrators
and plaintiffs' counsel, to provide a comprehensive service in
ISO 15022 format to track securities class actions.  ISO 15022
can reduce the risk of incorrect interpretation and allows the
user the opportunity to receive a standardised file for
downstream processing and further automation of these events."

Interactive Data Corporation – http://www.interactivedata.com/
-- is a leading global provider of financial market data,
analytics and related services to financial institutions, active
traders and individual investors.  The Company's businesses
supply real-time market data, time-sensitive pricing,
evaluations and reference data for millions of securities traded
around the world, including hard-to-value instruments.  Many of
the world's best-known financial service and software companies
subscribe to the Company's services in support of their trading,
analysis, portfolio management and valuation activities.  
Through its businesses, Interactive Data Pricing and Reference
Data, Interactive Data Real-Time Services, Interactive Data
Fixed Income Analytics, and eSignal, the Company has
approximately 2,300 employees in offices located throughout
North America, Europe, Asia and Australia.  The Company is
headquartered in Bedford, Mass. Pearson plc , an international
media company, whose businesses include the Financial Times
Group, Pearson Education, and the Penguin Group, is Interactive
Data Corporation's majority stockholder.

Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data provides global
securities pricing, evaluations and reference data designed to
support financial institutions' and investment funds' pricing
activities, securities operations, research and portfolio
management.  Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data
collects, edits, maintains and delivers data on more than 6
million securities, including daily evaluations for
approximately 2.5 million fixed income and international equity
issues.  Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data specialises
in 'hard-to-get' information and evaluates many 'hard-to value'
instruments.

Pricing, evaluations and reference data are provided in the U.S.
through Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data, Inc. and
internationally through Interactive Data (Europe) Ltd. and
Interactive Data (Australia) Pty Ltd.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGRIA CORP: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against Agria Corporation and certain officers of
the company.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company who purchased or otherwise acquired
Agria's securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's
November 6, 2007 Initial Public Offering.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 ((15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77o).

Agria Corporation engages in the research and development,
production, and sale of upstream agricultural products in the
People's Republic of China.

The complaint alleges that on November 6, 2007, Agria conducted
its IPO, filing a Registration Statement and Prospectus with the
SEC.  The IPO was successful for the Company and its selling
shareholder, raising over $282 million by selling the Company's
securities to investors at $16.50 per share.  On April 7, 2007,
Agria surprised the market when it announced that the Company's
auditors were unable to begin their 2007 audit of Agria's
financials due to various accounting and payment issues.  The
Company also announced that its Chief Operating Officer had
resigned and disclosed for the first time that its CEO was
actively involved in protracted compensation negotiations with
the COO and other key executives.  Consequently shares of the
Company's securities declined $3.34 per share, or almost 38
percent, representing a cumulative loss of $11.04, or 66.9
percent, of the value of the Company's shares since the time of
its IPO.

The complaint further alleges that, in connection with the
Company's IPO, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the
following:

     (1) that the Company had failed to secure enforceable
         employment agreements with its COO and other key
         executives prior to its IPO;

     (2) that the Company was in negotiations with its COO and
         other key executives to provide multi-million dollar
         compensation packages and that these increased
         compensation expenses would materially impact the
         Company's financial results going forward;

     (3) that various accounting and payment issues, which
         existed at the time of the IPO, would subsequently
         prohibit the Company's auditors from completing its
         audit of the Company's financial statements; and

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

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 10,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 888-476-6529
                 888-4.POMLAW


CBEYOND INC: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Cbeyond, Inc., between
November 1, 2007, and February 21, 2008.

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

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of The First Marblehead
Corporation between August 10, 2006, and April 7, 2008,
inclusive.

According to the complaint, First Marblehead and the other
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to
the market that misrepresented and failed to disclose:

     (a) that the loans underlying the Company's bonds were
         experiencing increasing default rates;

         have the money to buy all of the loans that were in
     (b) that the guarantor of those loans -- TERI -- did not
         default;

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

     (d) that as a result of the foregoing, banks would look
         elsewhere to package their loans, which would have a
         negative impact on First Marblehead's business and
         operations.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO  80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Scott+Scott Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 2008, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action against
First Marblehead Corp., and certain officers and directors, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The action is on behalf of those purchasing First Marblehead
common stock during the period beginning August 10, 2006, to
April 7, 2008, inclusive, for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements that
misrepresented and failed to disclose that loans underlying the
Company's bonds were experiencing increasing default rates; that
the guarantor of those loans did not have the money to buy all
of the loans that were in default; that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and that, as a result
of the foregoing, banks would look elsewhere to package their
loans, which would have a negative impact on First Marblehead's
business and operations.

On April 8, 2008, the Company announced that the guarantor of
the loans had filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11.  On
this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $4.16 per share,
or 54%, over the next five trading days, as the investing public
continued to digest this news.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5000 East
          Dallas, Texas 75201
          Phone: 800-404-7770
          Fax: 860-537-5537
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.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  * * *