CAR_Public/080519.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 19, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 98

                            Headlines

AIG INVESTMENT: West Virginia Teachers Cry Foul in 401(k) Plan
AT&T INC: Ninth Circuit Considers Appeal in "Hepting" Litigation
AUCTION (KOREA): Users to Sue Over Hacked Personal Information
AVIS BUDGET: California Court Dismisses Price-Fixing Litigation
BION ENVIRONMENTAL: Reaches Settlement in Delaware TCMP Case

CEPHALON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over PROVIGIL Patent Deal
CEPHALON INC: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over "Actiq" Cancer Drug
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Settles Suit Over Excessive Foreclosure Fees
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Suit Over BofA Merger Continues
FOODARAMA: Settles Breach of Fiduciary Duties Lawsuit in N.J.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: NY Suit Over Diabetes Drug Avandia Junked
GRAND CARNIVAL: Recalls S'morestick Kit Due to Undeclared Milk
HOMELAND SECURITY: Postville Immigrants Sue Over Alleged Abuse
INFANT PRODUCT MAKERS: Sued Over High Lead Content in Baby Stuff
IRWIN MORTGAGE: May 29, 2008 Deadline Set for "Culpepper" Appeal

IRWIN UNION: Pa. Court Approves Settlement in "Kessler" Case
ISRAELI BANKS: Face $992.68MM Tel Aviv Suit For Unpaid Interests
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Several RISPERDAL-Related Lawsuits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Certified in PROPULSID-Related Lawsuit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Endo-Mechanical Devices Lawsuits

KADANT INC: Wants Ma. Lawsuit Over Defective Products Dimissed
LITTLE ROCK: Police Seek Overtime Pay in Donning & Doffing Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: Recalls Affected Heparin-Coated CPB Products
NORTEL NETWORKS: Investors Wait No More for Settlement Payment
OIL COMPANIES: Vineland Okays $10MM Water Pollution Settlement

OLD DOMINION: Amended Complaint in LTL Suit Due on May 16
PORTLAND GENERAL: Oregon Court Denies Motion in Customers' Suit
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Court Denies Writ of Mandamus in "Kessler"
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Decertification of Ill. FCRA Suit Appealed
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Calif. Court Okays "Parthiban" Settlement

RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Unit to Appeal Verdict in SMLA Litigation
SMURFIT-STONE: Faces Hourly Employees' Lawsuits in California
STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Case in La.
STONE ENERGY: La. Court Mulls Modifying Stay in Derivative Suit
SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Overtime Lawsuit in California Certified

SWEET WATER: Recalls Contaminated Aged Black Pepper Cheese
SWIFT & CO: Iowa Workers Can Join Texans in Immigrant Abuse Suit
T-MOBILE USA: Suit Over Content Charges Moved to Federal Court
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: $40-Mln. Securities Suit Settlement Okayed
XL CAPITAL: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Municipal Derivatives

XL INSURANCE: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits

* Options Backdating Settlements Lower Than Predicted



                           *********


AIG INVESTMENT: West Virginia Teachers Cry Foul in 401(k) Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
AIG Retirement, its VALIC subsidiary and other related entities
are facing a class-action complaint filed in Marshall County
Circuit Court alleging that teachers and others covered by West
Virginia's only state-run 401(k)-style retirement program are
the victims of fraud, the Associated Press reports.

According to the report, the lawsuit targets an investment
option known as a VALIC annuity that was offered to enrollees in
the Teachers' Defined Contribution plan.  It alleges that
enrollees were duped into joining the plan and selecting the
VALIC annuity through inaccurate and fraudulent representations.

The annuity is also blamed for the poor returns suffered by many
TDC investment accounts.

As a result, thousands of plan enrollees are trying to transfer
into another state-run pension program.


AT&T INC: Ninth Circuit Considers Appeal in "Hepting" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal by AT&T Inc., and several other defendants in
connection with the matter, "Hepting et al. v. AT&T Corp., AT&T
Inc. and Does 1-20."

Initially, 24 pending lawsuits were filed alleging that the
company, and other telecommunications carriers unlawfully
provided assistance to the National Security Agency in
connection with intelligence activities that were initiated
following the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

In the first filed case, "Hepting et al. v. AT&T Corp., AT&T
Inc. and Does 1-20," a purported class action filed with U.S.
District Court in the Northern District of California, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants have disclosed and are
currently disclosing to the U.S. Government content and call
records concerning communications to which the Plaintiffs were a
party.

The plaintiffs seek damages, a declaratory judgment, and
injunctive relief for violations of the First and Fourth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and
other federal and California statutes.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The U.S.
Government asserted the "state secrets privilege" and related
statutory privileges and also filed a motion asking the court to
dismiss the complaint.  The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss
of both parties.

Both the company and the U.S. government filed interlocutory
appeals.  The case was argued before a panel of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in August 2007.  Defendants are
awaiting a decision, according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 7, 2008.

AT&T, Inc. -- http://www.att.com/-- is a provider of  
telecommunications services in the U.S.  It offers its services
and products to consumers in the U.S., and services and products
to businesses and other providers of telecommunications services
worldwide.  The services and products that it offers vary by
market, and include wireless communications, local exchange
services, long-distance services, data/broadband and Internet
services, video services, telecommunications equipment, managed
networking, wholesale services and directory advertising and
publishing.  Its traditional wireline local exchange
subsidiaries operate in 22 states: Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin (22-state area).


AUCTION (KOREA): Users to Sue Over Hacked Personal Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roughly 23,000 users of South Korea's biggest customer-to-
customer marketplace Web site, Auction, will file a class action
suit against the company seeking compensation for a case in
which the personal information of 10 million users was hacked,
Reuters reports, citing the law firm in charge of the case.

The total amount of compensation the users are claiming will
mount to roughly KRW50 billion ($47.75 million).

The Class Action Reporter reported on May 8, 2008, that Internet
shopping mall Auction is facing two massive lawsuits from its
members after hackers stole IDs, passwords, phone numbers and
shopping logs of some 10 million customers in February 2008.

The CAR report also said that Korea's LG Telecom was facing a
class action suit for leaving customer records open on the
Internet between 2005 and March 2008.  Some 120 mobile users
have signed up to file a lawsuit since April 11, after the
police found a Web site showing the names, resident registration
numbers, mobile phone types and dates of contract signing of LG
Telecom subscribers.  The CAR said that LG Telecom was the
latest among a number of companies that have faced similar
charges in South Korea regarding personal information leaks.  


AVIS BUDGET: California Court Dismisses Price-Fixing Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted a motion seeking the dismissal of a class action suit
that was brought against Avis Budget Group, Inc., and major car
rental firms over alleged fixing of prices on rental cars at
California airports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on Nov. 14, 2007 (Class Action Reporter,
April 8, 2008).

Specifically, named as defendants in the matter are:

          -- The Hertz Corp.,
          -- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.,
          -- Avis Budget Group, Inc.,
          -- VanGuard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
          -- Rent-A-Car Co.,
          -- Fox Rent A Car, Inc.,
          -- Coast Leasing Corp.,
          -- The California and Tourism Commission, and
          -- Caroline Beteta

Named plaintiffs Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow allege that the
rental car defendants entered into a horizontal price- fixing
agreement among competitors, a per se violation of the antitrust
laws, by which they have agreed to raise, stabilize and fix the
prices which they charge consumers for the rental of automobiles
at those California airports.

The conspirators also allegedly misrepresent a 2.5% tax owed to
the co-defendant California Travel and Tourism Commission as
owed by customers, though it is owed by the businesses, the suit
says.

The plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of civil
Procedure, on behalf of all individual or entities who purchased
rental car services from rental car defendants from a California
situs airport after Jan. 1, 2007.  They want the court to rule
on:

     (a) whether defendants formed and operated a combination or
         conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
         prices of, or allocate the market for, car rental
         services operating in conjunction with California
         airports;

     (b) whether the combination or conspiracy caused the prices
         of car rental services operating in conjunction with
         California airports to be higher than they would have
         been in the absence of defendants' conduct;

     (c) the operative time period of defendants' combination or
         conspiracy;

     (d) whether defendants' conduct caused injury to the
         business or property of plaintiffs and the members of
         the class;

     (e) the appropriate measure of damages suffered by the
         class;

     (f) whether defendants' conduct violates Section 1 of the
         Sherman Act;

     (g) whether defendants' conduct violates California's
         Unfair competition Law;

     (h) whether defendants' conduct violates California's
         Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act; and

     (i) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief.

The plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

     -- an injunction halting all violations, and other
        equitable relief, including restitution and disgorgement
        of unjust enrichment;

     -- damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the class,
        trebled according to law; and

     -- attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest as
        permitted by law.

The company filed filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  On
April 8, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California granted the defendants' motions to dismiss on the
ground that plaintiffs failed to state claims for which relief
could be granted, 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.

The suit is "Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz Corp. Case No.
07CV 2174 H BLM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq. (cpil@sandiego.edu)
          Center for Public Interest Law
          University of San Diego School of Law
          5998 Alcala Park
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: 619-260-4806
          Fax: 619-260-4753

          Donald G. Rez, Esq. (rez@shlaw.com)
          Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel
          550 West "C" Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, California 62101
          Phone: 619-233-4100
          Fax: 619-231-4372

               - and -

          Dennis Stewart, Esq. (dstewart@hulettharper.com)
          Kirk Hulett, Esq.
          Hulett Harper Stewart LLP
          550 West "C" Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-338-1133
          Fax: 619-338-1139


BION ENVIRONMENTAL: Reaches Settlement in Delaware TCMP Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc., its president, and Bion
Dairy Corp. settled a class action/derivative action lawsuit in
Delaware Chancery Court, entitled, "TCMP#3 Partners, LLP, et al
v. Trident Rowan Group, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 170-N."

On Aug. 10, 2007, the parties reached a settlement in the
matter, which was approved by the court.  Pursuant to the
settlement, the Company, its president and Dairy paid $165,000,
through insurance, into a settlement fund, according to the
company's May 7, 2008 Form 10QSB Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

New York-based Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. --
http://www.biontech.com/-- provide solutions for environmental  
clean-up of the waste streams of large-scale animal farming
operations (confined animal feeding operations or CAFO's) and
creates economic opportunities for the development of integrated
complexes, including alternative renewable energy production,
ethanol production, sustainable animal husbandry, organic
soil/fertilizer and feed production.  The Company's technology
also allows direct integration with dairy end-users and the end-
users of other CAFO's.  The Company is in the process of
finalizing engineering, design and economic modeling for dairy
and beef applications and Integrated Projects-based on its
second-generation technology.  The Company's wholly owned
subsidiaries include Bion Technologies, Inc., BionSoil, Inc. and
Bion Dairy Corp.  


CEPHALON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over PROVIGIL Patent Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., as well as Barr Laboratories Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA, and
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., are seeking the dismissal of
litigations filed over their PROVIGIL patent case settlements,
according to Cephalon's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Initially, certain private parties brought a number of civil
antitrust complaints, purportedly filed as class action suits
against the defendants.

The suits claim, among other things, that the patent litigation
settlements concerning PROVIGIL violate the antitrust laws of
the U.S. and certain state laws.

The lawsuits have been consolidated into one complaint on behalf
of a class of direct purchasers of PROVIGIL and a separate
complaint on behalf of a class of consumers and other indirect
purchasers of PROVIGIL.  

A separate complaint filed by an indirect purchaser of PROVIGIL
was filed in September 2007.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions are seeking monetary
damages and equitable relief.  

The company moved to dismiss the class action complaints in
November 2006 and those motions are still pending.

Caphalon reported no further development in the matter.


Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is an  
international  biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and marketing of products to treat human
diseases.  The Company's focuses its efforts in four core
therapeutic areas: central nervous system disorders, pain,
cancer and addiction.  In addition to conducting an active
research and development program, it markets six products in the
U.S. and number of products in countries throughout Europe.


CEPHALON INC: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over "Actiq" Cancer Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., is facing several class-action complaints
claiming that it pushes its ACTIQ cancer drug for other uses,
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.

The company markets and sells ACTIQ, the only appropriate
medical use of which is the management of breakthrough cancer in   
patients with malignancies who are already receiving and who are   
tolerant to opoid therapy for their underlying persistent cancer   
pain (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2007).  In other words,
the FDA approved ACTIQ for a narrow class of patients: cancer
patients whose pain could not be managed with other narcotic
based drugs.

In late 2007, the company was served with a series of putative
class action complaints filed on behalf of entities that claim
to have purchased ACTIQ for uses outside of the product's
approved label in non-cancer patients.  

The complaints allege violations of various state consumer
protection laws, as well as the violation of the common law of
unjust enrichment, and seek an unspecified amount of money in
actual, punitive and treble damages, with interest, and
disgorgement of profits.

Cephalon reported no development in the matter in its regulatory
disclosure with the SEC.
Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is an  
international  biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and marketing of products to treat human
diseases.  The Company's focuses its efforts in four core
therapeutic areas: central nervous system disorders, pain,
cancer and addiction.  In addition to conducting an active
research and development program, it markets six products in the
U.S. and number of products in countries throughout Europe.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Settles Suit Over Excessive Foreclosure Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Herzog, who attempted to wage a federal class action
lawsuit against CitiMortgage Inc. and its Queens law firm that
allegedly charged excessive foreclosure-related fees, has
settled the case, James Schlett writes for dailygazette.com.

According to the report, Mr. Herzog and his lawyer, unable to
track down similar fee-hammered homeowners, reached an agreement
with CitiMortgage and Sweeney, Gallo, Reich & Bolz, of Rego
Park.  As a result of the settlement, U.S. District Court Judge
Lawrence Kahn in Albany dismissed the case.

Dailygazette.com recalls that in October 2007, Sweeney Gallo had
commenced on CitiMortgage's behalf a foreclosure action against
Mr. Herzog, a construction worker who had fallen behind on
mortgage payments for his Bullock Road home.  In January this
year, Mr. Herzog filed the suit against CitiMortgage and Sweeney
Gallo to contest legal fees, such as a $1,050 charge stemming
from an allegedly false summary judgment motion.

Mr. Herzog's Glenville attorney, Richard DiMaggio Jr.,
categorized these fees as an "attempt to extort funds from
consumers who are hard pressed as it is," the report recounts.

According to dailygazette.com, Mr. DiMaggio initially expected
to include in the suit's proposed class about 100 CitiMortgage
borrowers who had also been sued by Sweeney Gallo.  However,
that plan didn't push through when he could not find other
homeowners who had paid Sweeney Gallo's fees.  Some may have
been dislocated by the foreclosures.

By November 2007, the report notes, Mr. Herzog faced $6,961 in
unpaid mortgage payments, late fees and servicing fees.  On top
of that, Sweeney Gallo charged him $3,656 in legal fees.  
Although Mr. Herzog later paid off his CitiMortgage debts, the
law firm refused to drop its suits against the homeowner.

Mr. DiMaggio declined to comment on the terms of the settlement,
dailygazette.com says.

Sweeney Gallo attorney Terence McCormick, Esq., said "The firm
does not admit to any wrongdoing."

Mr. Herzog's home was in foreclosure when he filed the suit five
months ago, but since then his mortgage issues have been
resolved, Mr. DiMaggio told dailygazette.com.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Suit Over BofA Merger Continues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer of the Federal District Court in Los
Angeles ruled that a shareholder lawsuit against executives and
officers at Countrywide Financial Corp. can continue to trial,
Paul Jackson of the Housing Wire reports.

Countrywide Financial, its directors, and Bank of America face
various class action suits relating to the company's proposed
merger with BofA (Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2008).

These lawsuits allege that the company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by entering
into the merger agreement with BofA and that the bank allegedly
aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

In her recent 61-page ruling, Judge Pfaelzer said that the
plaintiffs in the case presented a "cogent and compelling
inference" that Countrywide's directors had misled the public
and investors.

"It defies reason, given the entirety of the allegations, that
[Countrywide's directors] could be blind to widespread
deviations from the underwriting policies and standards being
committed by employees at all levels," she wrote.

Both the New York Times and Business Week report that the
plaintiff's attorneys will seek to expedite a trial ahead of the
expected completion of a BofA/Countrywide merger, although
Housing Wire's sources suggest that it's possible for
Countrywide to seek an appeal to the federal ruling.

Countrywide officials did not immediately respond to a request
for comment, Housing Wire says.

Countrywide Financial Corp. -- http://my.countrywide.com/-- is   
a holding company, which through its subsidiaries, is engaged in
mortgage lending and other real estate finance-related
businesses, including mortgage banking, banking and mortgage
warehouse lending, dealing in securities and insurance
underwriting.  The Company operates through five business
segments: Mortgage Banking, which originates, purchases, sells
and services non-commercial mortgage loans nationwide; Banking,
which takes deposits and invest in mortgage loans and home
equity lines of credit; Capital Markets, which operates an
institutional broker-dealer that primarily specializes in
trading and underwriting mortgage-backed securities (MBS);
Insurance, which offers property, casualty, life and disability
insurance as an underwriter and as an insurance agency, and
Global Operations, which licenses and supports technology to
mortgage lenders in the U.K.


FOODARAMA: Settles Breach of Fiduciary Duties Lawsuit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Foodarama Supermarkets, Inc., settled a lawsuit filed
against five members of its board of directors for breach of
fiduciary duties.

The class includes all persons and entities who tendered or
otherwise relinquished by operation of law shares of common
stock of Foodarama Supermarkets in or after July 2006 at $53 per
share as a result of the going-private transaction.

The Superior Court of New Jersey will hold a hearing on July 16,
2008, at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Thomas W. Cavanagh, Jr.

The purpose of the settlement hearing is to determine whether an
order should be entered:

     (i) certifying the Class for settlement purposes;

    (ii) finally approving the proposed settlement of the class
         action claims asserted by Plaintiff against defendants
         in this action in exchange for a payment of $6,900,000,
         and on the other terms set forth in a Settlement
         Agreement dated April 4, 2008 (the Settlement);

   (iii) dismissing this action with prejudice; and

    (iv) awarding fees and reimbursement of expenses to counsel
         for Plaintiff and the Class.

Foodarama Supermarkets, Inc., operates a chain of supermarkets,
liquor stores, and garden centers primarily in the central New
Jersey region.  Based in Freehold, New Jersey; the company
operated 26 supermarkets, two liquor stores, and a garden center
as of October 29, 2005.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: NY Suit Over Diabetes Drug Avandia Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louis Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed a shareholders' class-action
complaint that accused GlaxoSmithKline of violating securities
laws by manipulating information about its heart drug Avandia,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Filed in 2007, the complaint alleged that during the class
period, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of
false and misleading statements regarding Avandia, GSK's
popular diabetes drug (Class Action Reporter, June 13, 2007).

In particular, the complaint alleged that GSK failed to
adequately disclose the fact that it had performed a meta-
analysis (a pooled analysis of several clinical trials) related
to Avandia which showed an increased risk of heart attacks.

Preliminary results of this analysis were presented to the FDA
in September 2005 and updated results were disclosed to the FDA
in August 2006.  However, the results of GSK's meta-analysis
were never adequately disclosed to the investing public.

As alleged in the complaint, on May 21, 2007, before the close
of trading, the results of a meta-analysis on Avandia conducted
by a doctor with the Cleveland Clinic was reported and published
in the New England Journal of Medicine.  Similar to GSK's meta-
analysis conducted in 2005 and 2006, the results of the meta-
analysis published in the Journal revealed that Avandia
increased the risk of heart attacks and possibly heart-related
deaths.  As a result of the reports regarding the meta-analysis,
the price of GSK securities declined $4.53 per share, or 7.8%,
to close at $53.18 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff sought to recover damages on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased GSK securities between October 27,
2005 and May 21, 2007, inclusive.

Recently, Judge Stanton dismissed the suit for failure to state
a claim, without leave for the plaintiff to replead.

After discussing the studies and meta-analyses (studies of
studies) of the drug, Judge Stanton bought Glaxo's arguments:
"Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the amended
complaint because plaintiffs have not established that
defendants have made a material misrepresentation or omission,
plaintiffs do not sufficiently plead scienter, and the
statements plaintiffs identify as false and misleading are
forward-looking statements and thus are not actionable."

The suit is "Leon D. Borochoff et al. v. Glaxosmithkline PLC et
al., Case No. 07 Civ. 5574 (LLS)," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Louis Stanton, presiding.


GRAND CARNIVAL: Recalls S'morestick Kit Due to Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Carnival L.L.C. of Fenton, MO, is voluntarily recalling
"S'morestick Kits" because chocolate pieces contained within the
S'morestick Kit contain milk which is not declared on the
product's ingredient statement.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of a potentially serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume chocolate products containing milk.

The recalled "S'morestick Kits" were in limited distribution to
Garden Ridge retail stores located in:

     -- Texas
     -- Kentucky
     -- Missouri
     -- Tennessee
     -- Oklahoma
     -- South Carolina
     -- Georgia
     -- Illinois
     -- Ohio
     -- Virginia
     -- Arizona
     -- Michigan and
     -- Indiana

and bear the "Use By" date of "2/14/09."

The "S'morestick Kit" is packaged in a clear plastic tube
containing individual clear plastic packages of marshmallows,
graham crackers, and chocolate pieces.  S'morestick Kits subject
to this recall do NOT have a "contains milk" statement following
the ingredient statement affixed to the clear plastic tube.
There is no health risk for consumers who are not allergic to
milk.

There is one reported allergic reaction attributed to this
product.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that early
shipments of S'morestick Kits were distributed in packaging that
did not reveal the presence of milk.  The Company is in the
process of revising its labeling to declare milk as an
ingredient in the product.

Concerned consumers who have purchased a S'morestick Kit lacking
the "contains milk" statement on the product's label are urged
to contact Grand Carnival L.L.C. at 877-305-3382 for a full
refund.


HOMELAND SECURITY: Postville Immigrants Sue Over Alleged Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Immigrants arrested in the Postville raid filed a federal class
action alleging Agriprocessors Inc. acquired false
identification for workers, along with numerous allegations of
abuse from supervisors, Trish Mehaffey of The Gazette reports.

The defendants named in the suit are:

     -- United States Immigration Customs Enforcement;

     -- Department of Homeland Security;

     -- Julie Myers, assistant secretary of Homeland Security
        Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

     -- Claude Arnold, Immigration and Customs special agent in
        charge at Postville;

     -- Michael Chertoff, secretary of Department of Homeland
        Security and

     -- Michael Mukasey, Attorney General of the United States.

Antonin Trinidad Candido, Roman Trinidad Candido and Maria del
Refugio Masias -- all Agriprocessors employees -- filed the suit
through the Peck Law Firm and Dornan & Lustgarten firm in Omaha,
Neb.

The suit alleges the detainees haven't had adequate time for
legal services and moving them out of Iowa to various detention
centers, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said,
would interfere with and effectively destroy the ongoing
relationship between detainees and their attorneys.

The suit claims Sonia Parras Konrad, a Polk County attorney,
interviewed over 50 detainees who told her Agriprocessors:

     -- procured false identification for its immigrant
        employees;

     -- withheld money from their paychecks for "immigration
        fees;"

     -- didn't allow employees to use the restroom during 10-
        hour shifts;

     -- didn't compensate employees for overtime; and

     -- were physically abused by supervisors.

The suit also has excerpts from an affidavit filed by David M.
Hoagland, senior special agent for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement in support of the search warrant issued on
Agriprocessors.  The alleged violations in the affidavit
include:

     * Equipment issued to perform work was substandard;

     * A floor supervisors duct-taped the eyes of a Guatemalan
       employee and then hit the employee with a meat hook; and

     * Immigrants were paid $5 an hour and after three or four
       months, bumped up to $6.

The affidavit also contains numerous allegations of violations
of the federal racketeering laws including:

     -— Employee's taxes were deducted and deposited into bank
        accounts belonging to an unknown person or people;

     -— An employee transported immigrant employees across state
        lines to Minnesota to get false state identification
        cards;

     -— Checks were issued to certain immigrants with an unknown
        person's name on it and the check would be cashed at
        another portion of the plant; and

     -- A Department of Transportation investigator provided
        information that a supervisor at the company used an
        intricate and unlawful scheme to purchase and register a
        large number of car for resale to the employees and a
        supervisor forced the employees to buy the cars from him
        or be fired.


INFANT PRODUCT MAKERS: Sued Over High Lead Content in Baby Stuff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three women -- Dina Scalia of Massachusetts, Jennifer Suarez of
New York and Marissa Lopez of California -- filed a class action
complaint against four makers of infant products claiming
deceptive practices and negligence after an investigation
revealed the vinyl-based products contained dangerous amounts of
lead, CBS2 Chicago reports.

Named in the complaint are:

          -- Playtex, Inc.,
          -- Oakbrook-based RC2 Corporation,
          -- Oak Brook-based Learning Curve Brands, Inc., and
          -- McHenry-based Medela, Inc.

The four-count complaint claims unfair and deceptive acts and
practices, breach of implied warranty, negligence and unjust
enrichment.  It claims vinyl plastic baby products which
contained lead where imported and distributed by the four
companies.

The products include a vinyl cooler for storing breast milk made
by Medela, a carrying case for a First Years Natural Transitions
breast pump made by RC2 and a Playtex Fridge-to-Go vinyl baby
bottle cooler, the complaint said.

According to the complaint, high lead levels were found in the
products by a California-based environmental group, the Center
for Environmental Health, which spread the word about lead in
vinyl baby bibs, lunchboxes and other children's products.

The study found despite the dangers of lead contamination in
infants, none of the companies named as defendants have issued a
product recall, the complaint said.

The complaint seeks class action status, restitution for unjust
enrichment, compensatory and punitive damages, costs of the suit
and additional relief.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: May 29, 2008 Deadline Set for "Culpepper" Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the class action, "Culpepper v. Inland
Mortgage Corp.," have until May 29, 2008, to file a petition for
a writ of certiorari seeking discretionary review by the U.S.
Supreme Court of a lower court decision that decertified the
case, according to Irwin Financial Corp.'s May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Since its filing in April 1996 with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, the plaintiffs obtained class-
action status for their complaint, which is generally alleging
that the company violated the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act relating to it's payment of broker fees to
mortgage brokers (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007).  

In June 2001, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld
the district court's certification of the class.  However, in
October 2001, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
issued a policy statement that explicitly disagreed with the
11th Circuit's interpretation of RESPA in upholding class
certification.  

Subsequent to the HUD policy statement, the 11th Circuit decided
a RESPA case similar to the company's, concluding the trial
court had abused its discretion in certifying the class.  

The 11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in effect,
overruling its previous decision upholding class certification
in the company's case.  

On Feb. 7, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama dismissed the case by granting the company's
motions to decertify the class and for summary judgment, and by
denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  

On July 2, 2007, the 11th Circuit affirmed the decision of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
granting summary judgment in favor of the company's indirect
subsidiary, Irwin Mortgage Corp. (formerly Inland Mortgage
Corp.), and decertifying the plaintiffs' class.

In its July 2, 2007 decision, and based on the test set forth in
the Department of Housing and Urban Development's 2001 policy
statement on lender payments to mortgage brokers, the court of
appeals affirmed summary judgment for Irwin Mortgage because the
plaintiffs failed to show that the total compensation Irwin
Mortgage paid to the mortgage brokers was unreasonable in light
of the services provided.

The court of appeals also held that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in decertifying the plaintiffs' class
because the individualized assessment required in this type of
action made class certification inappropriate.

The plaintiffs have until May 29, 2008, to file a petition for a
writ of certiorari seeking discretionary review by the U.S.
Supreme Court.  This action will conclude if a petition for
certiorari is not filed or is denied.

The suit is "Culpepper, et al. v. Inland Mortgage Corp., Case
No. 2:96-cv-00917-VEH-HGD," filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama, Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David R. Donaldson, Esq. (DavidD@dglawfirm.com)
         David J. Guin, Esq. (davidg@dglawfirm.com)
         Tammy McClendon, Esq. (tstokes@dglawfirm.com)
         Stokes, Donaldson & Guin, LLC
         Two North Twentieth Building, North 20th St., Ste. 1100
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 226-226-2282
         Fax: 226-226-2357

              - and -
         
         Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
         Kieron F. Quinn, Esq.
         Quinn Gordon & Wolf
         40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408
         Baltimore, MD 21204-4803
         Phone: 1-410-825-2300
         Fax: 1-410-825-0066

Representing the company are:

         David S. Hay, Esq.
         Janel E. LaBoda, Esq.
         Alan Hall Maclin, Esq.
         J. Patrick McDavitt, Esq.
         Robert J. Pratte, Esq.
         Margaret K. Savage, Esq.
         Briggs & Morgan, 2200 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 1-612-977-8400
         Fax: 1-612-977-8650

              - and -

         Sarah Y. Larson, Esq. (slarson@mcglaw.com)
         Alexander J. Marshall III, Esq. (amarshall@mcglaw.com)
         Cathy S. Wright, Esq. (cwright@mcglaw.com)
         Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC
         AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Ste. 2400
         1901 6th Avenue North
         Birmingham, AL 35203-2618
         Phone: 254-1000
         Fax: 254-1999


IRWIN UNION: Pa. Court Approves Settlement in "Kessler" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
approved the settlement reached in the matter, "Kessler v. RFC,
et al.," a decision that could affect similar litigation pending
against Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co., a subsidiary of Irwin
Financial Corp.

Earlier, the court had stayed actions filed against Irwin Union
in connection with loans the company purchased from Community
Bank of Northern Virginia, until issues in the Kessler case are
resolved.  

Initially, several suits were filed against the company in both
federal and state courts.  These suits are:

       -- "Hobson v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company;"

       -- "Kossler v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia;"

       -- "Chatfield v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et
          al.," and

       -- "Ransom v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et al."

                   Hobson & Kossler Litigation

The Hobson matter was filed on July 30, 2004 with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  As amended
on Aug. 30, 2004, the Hobson complaint, seeks certification of
both a plaintiffs' and a defendants' class, the plaintiffs'
class to consist of all persons who obtained loans from CBNV and
whose loans were purchased by Irwin Union Bank.  

The suit alleges that defendants violated the Truth-in-Lending
Act, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

On Oct. 12, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Hobson claims as untimely filed and substantively defective.

The Kossler case was originally filed in July 2002 with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The
company was added as a defendant in the matter on December 2004.

The Kossler complaint seeks certification of a plaintiffs' class
and seeks to void the mortgage loans as illegal contracts.  It
also seeks recovery against the company for alleged RESPA
violations and for conversion.  

On Sept. 9, 2005, the Kossler plaintiffs filed a third amended
class action complaint.  On Oct. 21, 2005, the company filed a
renewed motion seeking to dismiss the Kossler action.


The plaintiffs in "Hobson" and "Kossler" claim that CBNV was
allegedly engaged in a lending arrangement involving the use of
its charter by certain third parties who charged high fees,
which were not representative of the services rendered and not
properly disclosed as to the amount or recipient of the fees.
The loans in question are allegedly high cost/high interest
loans under Section 32 of HOEPA.  The plaintiffs also allege
illegal kickbacks and fee splitting.  

In "Hobson," the plaintiffs allege that the company was aware of
CBNV's alleged arrangement when it purchased the loans and that
it participated in a RICO enterprise and conspiracy related to
the loans.  

Because the company bought the loans from Community Bank, the
Hobson plaintiffs are alleging that Irwin has assignee liability
under HOEPA.

If the Hobson and Kossler plaintiffs are successful in
establishing a class and prevailing at trial, possible RESPA
remedies could include treble damages for each service for which
there was an unearned fee, kickback or overvalued service.  

Other possible damages in "Hobson" could include TILA remedies,
such as rescission, actual damages, statutory damages not to
exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the net worth of the
creditor, and attorneys' fees and costs; possible HOEPA remedies
could include the refunding of all closing costs, finance
charges and fees paid by the borrower; RICO remedies could
include treble plaintiffs' actually proved damages.

In addition, the Hobson plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
punitive damages.  Under TILA, HOEPA, RESPA and RICO, statutory
remedies include recovery of attorneys' fees and costs.  Other
possible damages in "Kossler" could include the refunding of all
origination fees paid by the plaintiffs.

                 Chatfield & Ransom Litigation

The Chatfield and Ransom cases, which both names the company
along with CBNV as defendants were filed on June 9, 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Frederick County, Maryland.  The cases involve
mortgage loans the company purchased from CBNV.

On July 16, 2004, both of these lawsuits were removed to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The
complaints allege that the plaintiffs did not receive
disclosures required under HOEPA and TILA.  They also allege
violations of Maryland law because the plaintiffs were allegedly
charged or contracted for a prepayment penalty fee.

The company believes the plaintiffs received the required
disclosures and that CBNV, a Virginia-chartered bank, was
permitted to charge prepayment fees to Maryland borrowers.

Under the loan purchase agreements between the company and CBNV,
Irwin has the right to demand repurchase of the mortgage loans
and to seek indemnification from Community for the claims in
these lawsuits.  

On Sept. 17, 2004, the company made a demand for indemnification
and a defense to Hobson, Chatfield, and, Ransom cases.  CBNV
denied this request as premature.

In response to a motion by Irwin, the Judicial Panel On
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the Hobson, Chatfield, and
Ransom cases with the Kossler matter in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania for all pretrial
proceedings.

                       Kessler Litigation

The Pennsylvania District Court had been handling another case
seeking class action status, entitled, "Kessler v. RFC, et al.,"
also involving CBNV and with facts similar to those alleged in
the Irwin consolidated cases.

The Kessler case had been settled, but the settlement was
appealed and set aside on procedural grounds.  

Subsequently, the parties in "Kessler" filed a motion for
approval of a modified settlement, which would provide
additional relief to the settlement class.

Irwin is not a party to the Kessler action, but the resolution
of issues in it may have an impact on the Irwin cases.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the Pennsylvania District Court approved and
certified for settlement purposes the modified Kessler
settlement, finding the proposed modified Kessler settlement to
be fair and reasonable, and directed the parties to supply a
proposed notice plan, according to Irwin Financial Corp.'s
May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Irwin Financial Corp. -- http://www.irwinfinancial.com/--
provides financial services throughout the U.S. and Canada.  The
Company focuses primarily on the extension of credit to
consumers and small businesses, as well as providing the ongoing
servicing of those customer accounts.  Through its direct and
indirect subsidiaries, Irwin Financial operates three major
lines of business: commercial banking, commercial finance and
home equity lending.  Its direct and indirect major subsidiaries
include Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co., a commercial bank, which
together with Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., a federal savings bank,
which conducts the Company's commercial banking activities;
Irwin Commercial Finance Corp., a commercial finance subsidiary,
and Irwin Home Equity Corp., a consumer home equity lending
company.


ISRAELI BANKS: Face $992.68MM Tel Aviv Suit For Unpaid Interests
----------------------------------------------------------------
A request has been filed with Tel Aviv District Court for a
$992.68 million class-action lawsuit against:

     -- Bank Hapoalim (TASE: POLI; LSE:80OA),
     -- Bank Leumi (TASE: LUMI), and
     -- Israel Discount Bank (TASE: DSCT)

for not paying customers interest on credit balances in their
current accounts, Noam Sharvit of the Globes reports.

The statement of claim says, "Leumi and Hapoalim exploit their
immense and monopolistic power, market dominance, and tremendous
power and prevent their customers from receiving the elementary
interest to which they are entitled."

An expert opinion estimates the accumulated loss to the banks'
customers from the non-payment of interest at $1.65 million.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Several RISPERDAL-Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is facing several purported class action
lawsuits with regard to the drug RISPERDAL, which is used for
the treatment of schizophrenia, 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 30, 2008.

Currently, there are six cases filed by union health plans
seeking damages for alleged overpayments for RISPERDAL, several
of which seek certification as class actions.

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the  
research and development, manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field.  Johnson & Johnson has more
than 250 operating companies.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Certified in PROPULSID-Related Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class has been certified in a lawsuit pending in Canada
against Johnson & Johnson in connection with the heartburn drug
PROPULSID.

The purported class is alleging adverse reactions to the drug,
which was withdrawn from general sale by the company's Janssen
Pharmaceutica, Inc. subsidiary in 2000.

A class of persons has been certified, 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 30, 2008.

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the  
research and development, manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field.  Johnson & Johnson has more
than 250 operating companies.

    
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Endo-Mechanical Devices Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson, along with its wholly owned Ethicon and   
Ethicon Endo-Surgery subsidiaries, continues to face several
federal lawsuits in California relating to endo-mechanical
devices contracts, 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 30, 2008.

In late December 2005 and early 2006, three purported class
actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of endo-mechanical
instruments against the Company and its wholly-owned units,
Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson
Health Care Systems, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 28,
2007).

The suits challenge suture and endo-mechanical contracts with
Group Purchasing Organizations and hospitals, in which discounts
are predicated on a hospital achieving specified market share
targets for both categories of products.   

These actions have been filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The class actions filed in December 2005 are:

     -- "Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Co., Inc. v. Johnson &
         Johnson et al.;" and  

     -- "Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center v. Johnson &  
        Johnson, et al."

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the  
research and development, manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field.  Johnson & Johnson has more
than 250 operating companies.


KADANT INC: Wants Ma. Lawsuit Over Defective Products Dimissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kadant, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported class
action lawsuit that was filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of
consumers who purchased defective decking and railing products
manufactured by its discontinued operation.

Specifically, the company was named as a co-defendant in a
consumer class action suit brought by Terrence Fisher, Joseph
Jennings, Paula Moore, and Larry Boylen on behalf of a putative
class of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing
products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and
October 2003.

The complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, under Docket Number 1:07-CV-12375-
JLT, on Dec. 27, 2007, and notice was served on the Company on
Jan. 7, 2008.

Other defendants are Kadant Composites LLC and Liberty
Diversified Industries, Inc.  

The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among other
things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade
practices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment, and it seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
punitive damages under various state consumer protection
statutes.

In subsequent disclosures filed with this litigation, the
plaintiffs claim that such damages exceed $50 million.

On March 14, 2008, the company, and the other co-defendants
filed motions to dismiss all counts in the complaint, which is
currently pending, 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 29, 2008.

The suit is "Fisher et al v. Liberty Diversified Industries,
Inc. et al, Case No. 1:07-CV-12375-JLT," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph
L. Tauro presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          (nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com)
          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: 610-891-9880
          Fax: 610-891-9883

               - and -

          Kristen Marquis Fritz, Esq. (kfritz@tenlaw.com)
          Thornton & Naumes LLP
          30th Floor
          100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-720-1333
          Fax: 617-720-2445

Representing the defendants are:

          John G. Fabiano, Esq. (john.fabiano@wilmerhale.com)
          WilmerHale LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-742-9100
          Fax: 617-526-5000

               - and -

          Edward William Little Jr., Esq. (elittle@mccarter.com)
          McCarter & English, LLP
          225 Franklin street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-345-7018
          Fax: 617-204-8018


LITTLE ROCK: Police Seek Overtime Pay in Donning & Doffing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit by Little Rock city police officers says that being
ready for a shift is no longer a matter of showing up on time
and in uniform, the Associated Press reports.

According to the AP report, the suit filed before the district
court seeks overtime pay for as much as a half-hour prior to a
shift and a half-hour afterward that the officers say can be
needed to put on and take off gear, including bullet-resistant
vests underneath uniform shirts.

The donning and doffing suit was filed by Clark Mason, Esq., of
Little Rock, and James J. Thompson Jr., Esq., of Birmingham,
Ala., on behalf of Thomas J. Rick Musticchi, a 13-year veteran
of the Little Rock Police Department.  The suit seeks class-
action status, representing the city's police officers.

"Many of our police officers -- men and women who place their
lives on the line every day to keep the citizens of Little Rock
safe and secure -- are simply not being compensated
appropriately under the law for their time," Mr. Mason said in a
news release issued after the suit was filed.

The AP says that the suit claims the city is violating the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and seeks back overtime pay
for the past three years.

Little Rock City Attorney Tom Carpenter said that he had not yet
seen a copy of the lawsuit, and declined comment to AP.

Mr. Mark Knowles, Little Rock Fraternal Order of Police
president, told the AP that he was aware of the suit and had
scheduled a special meeting Tuesday of the full membership of
the union to discuss the issue.  "I want to get together with
the executive board and all the members, and we'll discuss the
situation," he said.

Mr. Knowles added that he had invited Police Chief Stuart Thomas
to the meeting.  He said he wants to make sure the membership is
fully informed about the issue, so officers can make an informed
decision about whether to join the suit.

The suit was assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and
U.S. District Judge J. Leon Holmes, the report notes.


MEDTRONIC INC: Recalls Affected Heparin-Coated CPB Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. is initiating a voluntary and precautionary
recall of selected products featuring the Carmeda BioActive
surface.

The affected devices are disposable products used during
cardiopulmonary bypass for heart surgeries.  Affected products
include blood oxygenators, reservoirs, pumps, cannulae, and
tubing packs.

This action is being taken subsequent to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's April 8, 2008 recommendation to device
manufacturers that heparin supplies be checked with newly-
developed tests, and that affected products be evaluated for
possible field corrective action.

Limited lots of Carmeda-coated products were manufactured with
heparin found to have been contaminated with oversulfated
chondroitin sulfate.  The patient risk associated with the
presence of OSCS in heparin-coated medical devices is not known
at this time.  However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
has received reports of serious injury and death in patients who
have been administered injectable heparin products containing
high levels of OSCS.

Medtronic has not received reports of any OSCS-related adverse
events arising from the use of Carmeda CPB products. It is
unclear, however, if exposure to Carmeda-coated medical devices,
made with comparatively small amounts of heparin, could cause
adverse events similar to those observed with injectable heparin
formulations.  As a result, Medtronic has initiated a
precautionary recall of affected Carmeda products.

In a separate action, Medtronic is advising customers that
selected lots of Trillium-coated products were also manufactured
with heparin containing OSCS.  Trillium is another biosurface
used on CPB products.  The amount of heparin on the product is
significantly lower than that contained on the Carmeda product.
Medtronic's ultimate goal is to remove contaminated products
from the market.  However, based on the current data, the
benefit of using the affected products outweighs any potential
risk to patients.  Since the maximum possible patient exposure
to heparin from Trillium is extremely low, customers can
continue to use the affected Trillium products until a
replacement is available.

The above actions are being made with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.  Patients with questions should
talk to their physician.

Physicians or Pefusionists with medical questions related to
Medtronic therapies should contact Medtronic at 1-800-638 0218,
Monday–Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CDT


NORTEL NETWORKS: Investors Wait No More for Settlement Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cash checks and share certificates are shipped out to
shareholders who won a $2.4-billion global class-action
settlement from Nortel Networks Corp. two years ago, Kathryn
Leger reports for The Gazette (Montreal).

According to Daniel Belleau of Montreal's Belleau Lapointe LLP,
the settlement checks are already shipped out in two separate
mailings are now en route to an estimated 145,000 Canadian
claimants, including thousands of Quebecers.

Ms. Leger reports that Belleau Lapointe -- working along with
Montreal's Unterberg, Labelle, Lebeau LLP -- successfully
represented so-called Nortel I shareholders who purchased shares
from Oct. 24, 2000, to Feb. 15, 2001.  Montreal's Trudel &
Johnston LLP represented the Nortel II group of people who
bought shares from April 24, 2003, and April 27, 2004.

The settlement, whose value has dropped to roughly US$1.23
billion because of Nortel's flagging share price, covers
lawsuits stemming from allegations of accounting and disclosure
irregularities at the company (Class Action Reporter, March 13,
2008).

Under the court-mediated global settlement agreement, which,
according to the report, is considered one of the largest in
class-action history, Nortel agreed to pay close to $809 million
in cash for two groups of class-action members.  It also agreed
to issue 628.7 million common shares, representing 14.5% of its
equity at that time.

Because Nortel has implemented a 10-for-1 stock consolidation
since the settlement was reached, the number of shares to be
issued now totals about 62.9 million.  And while the money put
aside for the cash portion of the settlement has been earning
interest, the original estimated US$2.4 billion value of the
settlement was based on Nortel's share price at that time.  The
stock price has tumbled since then.

Under the proposed payment arrangement, shareholders who have
already been ruled eligible for compensation by claims
administrator Garden City Group Inc. would receive 75% of the
cash put aside by Nortel for the claim and 100% of common shares
to be issued as part of the settlement.

But while shareholders are finally getting their due, the Quebec
plaintiff lawyers on the Nortel file are involved in a court
action over how much they will be paid for their work.

The need for final court determination of the Quebec lawyers'
fees and those in a still ongoing New York court appeal, along
with final rulings on a tiny percentage of disputed claims, are
the reason why 10% of the global settlement fund is being
withheld for a final distribution to shareholders later on.

"No one wanted any further delays in the distribution of the
settlement to Nortel shareholders," Mr. Belleau said.  "All
told, the distribution is proceeding well, given that it is the
one of the largest settlements ever and that all of the claims
(including contested and late claims) had to be reviewed because
the distribution is on a pro-rata basis (meaning claim awards
are based on the total amount of those accepted as valid)."

It is now up to Quebec Superior Court Justice Michele Monast to
decide on the exact amount Quebec lawyers acting for Nortel will
receive following yet-to-be scheduled hearings on the matter.

Headquartered in Ontario, Canada, Nortel Networks Corporation
(NYSE/TSX: NT) -- http://www.nortel.com/-- delivers next-
generation technologies, for both service provider and
enterprise networks, support multimedia and business-critical
applications.  Nortel's technologies are designed to help
eliminate today's barriers to efficiency, speed and performance
by simplifying networks and connecting people to the information
they need, when they need it.  Nortel does business in more than
150 countries around the world.  Nortel Networks Limited is the
principal direct operating subsidiary of Nortel Networks
Corporation.


OIL COMPANIES: Vineland Okays $10MM Water Pollution Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Vineland City Council voted to authorize Vineland's portion
of a massive settlement of a class-action lawsuit over the use
of a gasoline additive alleged to have contaminated drinking
water supplies, Vineland Daily Journal reports.

According to Vineland Daily's Tim Zatzariny Jr., the city will
receive $10 million as part of the settlement.  

Mr. Zatzariny writes that several large oil companies agreed to
pay an aggregate of $423 million to settle the lawsuit, which
contended that the companies used the additive even though they
knew it posed environmental and health risks.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are 153 public water systems in 17
states, including New Jersey.  They alleged contamination from
MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, a chemical added to
gasoline to boost its octane level and cut air pollution.  The
city joined the class action in 2004, the report recounts.

MTBE was found in seven of Vineland's 13 wells (now 14 wells),
City Solicitor Rick Tonetta told Vineland Daily.  The amounts of
MTBE found were below the level required to be considered
unacceptable, Mr. Tonetta said.

"All of our treatment was precautionary as opposed to remedial,"
Mr. Tonetta added.

The settlement is now being reviewed by U.S. District Court
Judge Shira Scheindlin in New York, who must approve settlements
in particular cases related to MTBE before the entire agreement
becomes final.

Vineland Daily notes that Mayor Perry Barse disclosed his plan
is for the city to use its portion of the settlement to pay for
ongoing upgrades to the city's water facilities, and to cover a
county-mandated property reappraisal, which is expected to cost
about $2 million.  The remainder, the mayor said, would go
toward property tax relief.

The city's portion of the settlement was actually
$15,237,150.57, but roughly $5 million will be split among
various attorneys across the country involved in the class
action, Mr. Tonetta told Vineland Daily.

As part of the settlement, the oil companies agreed to pay 70%
of the future cleanup costs over 30 years.

However, Vineland Daily relates, at least six companies refused
to settle, the largest being ExxonMobil Corp.

The pending case is set to go to trial in September 2008 in New
York.

The city could be entitled to monetary damages if a jury rules
in the plaintiffs' favor, Mr. Tonetta further said.


OLD DOMINION: Amended Complaint in LTL Suit Due on May 16
---------------------------------------------------------
A May 16, 2008 deadline is set for plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint in a suit pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  The suit
accuses Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., and other less-than-
truckload carriers of conspiring throughout four years or more
to fix fuel surcharges on LTL shipments.

On July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. --
d/b/a Water Tech -- and C.B.J.T. -- d/b/a Agricultural Supply --
on behalf of themselves and other plaintiffs, filed the putative
class action lawsuit against the company and other companies
engaged in the LTL trucking business.  The suit was filed before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2007).  

Specifically, the other named defendants in the complaint are:

          1. Arkansas Best Corp.,
          2. Averitt Express,   
          3. Con-Way, Inc.,
          4. Fedex Corp.,
          5. Jevic Transportation, Inc.,   
          6. Sun Capital Partners IV, LLC,   
          7. New England Motor Freight, Inc.,   
          8. R+L Carriers, Inc.,   
          9. Saia, Inc.,   
         10. United Parcel Service, Inc.,   
         11. YRC Worldwide Inc.,   
         12. Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc.

Farm Water, doing business as Water Tech, and its subsidiary
CBJT, doing business as Agricultural Supply, contend that the
practice dates back to 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29,   
2007).

They assert that the carriers agreed to impose identical or
nearly identical surcharges by linking them to diesel fuel
prices published by the U.S. Department of Energy and by listing
surcharges on their websites to communicate pricing.

The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchase LTL service directly to defendants or
their unnamed co-conspirators from July 30, 2003, through the
conclusion of the trial in this matter (Class Action Reporter,  
Aug. 2, 2007).

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed
         for LTL services sold in the United States;

     (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this
         complaint and the nature and character of the acts
         performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in
         furtherance of the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the
         Sherman Act;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused
         injury to the business and property plaintiffs and
         other members of the classes;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         LTL services sold in the United States during the class
         period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and other members of the damages class.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- to determine that this action may be maintained
        as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
        Civil Procedure;

     -- to determine that the contract, combination or
        conspiracy, and the acts done in furtherance thereof by
        the defendants and their co-conspirators, have been in
        violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 1;

     -- to award the plaintiffs and members of the damages class
        three times the amount of damages they sustained, as
        allowed by law, together with the costs of this action,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- to permanently enjoin and restrain the defendants and
        their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees,
        and the officers, directors, partners, agents and
        employees, and all other persons acting or claiming to
        act on their behalf, from:

         * continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract,
           combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging
           in any other contract, combination or conspiracy
           having a similar purpose or effect, and from
           adopting or following any practice, plan, program
           or device having a similar purpose or effect; and

         * communicating or causing to be communicated to any
           other person engaged in the manufacture,
           distribution or sale of any product except to the
           extent necessary in connection with a bona fide
           sales transaction between the parties to such
           communications.

Subsequent to this original complaint, similar complaints have
been filed against the defendants and other LTL motor carriers,
each with the same allegation of conspiracy to fix fuel
surcharge rates.

On Dec. 20, 2007, these cases were consolidated with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and are now
in the process of being transferred to that court.

The plaintiffs have not yet filed a consolidated amended
complaint, but must do so by May 16, 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 31, 2008.

Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. -- http://www.odfl.com/-- is a    
less-than-truckload multi-regional motor carrier providing
timely one- to five-day service among five regions in the U.S.,
and next-day and second-day service within these regions.  The
Company offers its products and services through four branded
product groups: OD-Domestic, OD-Expedited, OD-Global and OD-
Technology.  


PORTLAND GENERAL: Oregon Court Denies Motion in Customers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Marion County Circuit Court denied a motion to lift the
Order of Abatement that it issued in two purported class action
suits filed by electric service customers against Portland
General Electric Co., 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.

On Jan. 17, 2003, two class action lawsuits were filed in the
Marion County Circuit Court against Portland General on behalf
of two classes of electric service customers.

These suits are:

      1. "Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland
         General Electric Co., Marion County Circuit Court,
         Case No. 03C 10639;" and

      2. "Morgan v. Portland General Electric Co., Marion
         County Circuit Court, Case No. 03C 10640."

The "Dreyer" case seeks to represent current Portland General
customers that were customers during the period from April 1,
1995, to Oct. 1, 2001 (current class), and the "Morgan" case
seeks to represent Portland General customers that were
customers during the period from April 1, 1995 to Oct. 1, 2001,
but who are no longer customers of the company (former class).  

The suits seek damages amounting to $190 million for the Current
Class and $70 million for the Former Class, with the inclusion
of a return on investment of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in the
rates Portland General charges its customers.

On April 28, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment and on July 30, 2004, Portland General also
requested summary judgment in its favor on all of the class
action plaintiffs' claims.

On Dec. 14, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and partial summary judgment and denied
Portland General's motion for summary judgment.  Portland
General filed for an interlocutory appeal, which was rejected on
Feb. 1, 2005.

On March 3, 2005, Portland General filed a Petition for a Writ
of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court, asking the Court to
take jurisdiction and command the trial judge to dismiss the
complaints or to show cause why they should not be dismissed.

On March 29, 2005, Portland General filed a second petition for
an Alternative Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court
seeking to overturn the class certification.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling on
Portland General's Petitions for Alternative Writ of Mandamus,
abating the class action proceedings.

On Oct. 5, 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court issued an Order
of Abatement in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme
Court, abating the class actions for one year.

On Oct. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the
abatement.  A hearing on this motion was held on April 10, 2008.

At the hearing, the Circuit Court declined to lift the
abatement.  The Circuit Court scheduled a status conference for
June 3, 2008, and encouraged the parties to meet in order to
attempt to agree on what steps might be taken in preparation for
a trial in the event the Circuit Court lifts the abatement.

Portland General Electric Co. -- http://www.portlandgeneral.com/
-- is a single, integrated electric utility engaged in the
generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail
sale of electricity in the State of Oregon.  PGE also sells
electricity and natural gas in the wholesale market to utilities
and power marketers located throughout the western U.S.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Court Denies Writ of Mandamus in "Kessler"
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a writ of
mandamus filed by objectors to the proposed settlement of a
purported class action suit known as "Kessler," which was filed
against Residential Capital, LLC -- a wholly-owned subsidiary of
GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC, which itself is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of GMAC LLC.

This putative class action lawsuit was consolidated for
settlement purposes with five other cases, all alleging that the
plaintiffs obtained second-lien mortgage loans from either
Community Bank of Northern Virginia or Guaranty National Bank of
Tallahassee and that they were charged interest rates and fees
violating the Pennsylvania Secondary Mortgage Loan Act.

The plaintiffs additionally claim that the banks were not the
actual lenders, but rather that the banks "rented" their banking
charters to affiliates for the purpose of facilitating the
assessment of "illegal" fees.

They further allege that the affiliates either split the fees or
kicked back the fees in violation of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act.

The plaintiffs sought to hold the company's subsidiary liable
primarily on the basis that the subsidiary was an assignee of
the mortgage loans.

In December 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania gave its final approval to a proposed
$41.1-million settlement for all six cases, inclusive of
attorney fees.  The settlement contemplated payment to
approximately 44,000 borrowers nationwide.  

A group of seven plaintiffs' class action counsel appealed the
settlement in part on the grounds that the underlying litigation
did not address possible Truth in Lending Act or Home Ownership
and Equity Protection Act claims.

In August 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacated the district court's approval of the settlement and
remanded the matter to the district court to determine whether
such claims were viable.

The parties and the Objectors then briefed the issue of the
"viability" of the TILA and HOEPA claims within this particular
litigation.

In July 2006, the parties amended the proposed settlement to
address the Third Circuit's concerns, and in October 2006, the
trial court held that the purported TILA and HOEPA claims were
not viable.

In November 2006, the parties filed a motion seeking preliminary
approval of the amended settlement, as amended.  

In late March 2007, the parties and the Objectors attended a
hearing before a court-appointed magistrate to present arguments
pertaining to the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed
amended settlement.  

On July 5, 2007, the magistrate issued an advisory opinion
ruling that the proposed modified settlement is "fair,
reasonable, and adequate."

Following an Oct. 9, 2007 hearing, the trial court, on Jan. 25,
2008, entered an order:

       -- certifying the nationwide settlement class;

       -- preliminarily approving the modified settlement; and

       -- ordering that the settling parties give notice of the
          modified settlement to the settlement class, along
          with a new right of opt-out.

The Objectors filed a writ of mandamus in the Third Circuit
seeking immediate consideration of their objections to the
modified settlement, but that writ was denied, 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.

Residential Capital, LLC -- https://www.rescapholdings.com/ --
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC, which
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.  The Company is real
estate finance company focused primarily on the residential real
estate market.  Its businesses include the origination,
purchase, service, sale and securitization of residential
mortgage loans.  The Company conducts its operations primarily
through three operating business segments: Residential Finance
Group, Business Capital Group and International Business Group.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Decertification of Ill. FCRA Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Murray v. GMAC Mortgage
Corporation, Case No. 1:2005cv01229," are appealing an opinion
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which
affirmed a lower court's decision to vacate an order certifying
the case as a class action suit, according to Residential
Capital LLC's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The case was filed against a subsidiary of Residential Capital,
LLC -- a wholly-owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC,
which itself is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.  It was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in March 2005.

In the suit, the plaintiff's counsel alleges that the company's
subsidiary, in sending a "pre-approved offer" to the plaintiff,
accessed the plaintiff's credit report without authorization
from the plaintiff and without a "permissible purpose" under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act since the material allegedly did not
qualify as a "firm offer of credit."

The suit also alleges that the material failed to make FCRA
required notices and disclosures in a "clear and conspicuous"
manner.

The plaintiff seeks statutory penalties for an allegedly willful
violation of the statute.

Class certification was denied by the district court, but that
decision was reversed on appeal and the matter remanded to the
district court for further proceedings, including amended cross-
motions for summary judgment as well as a renewed motion for
class certification.

On April 10, 2007, the district court certified a narrow class
limited to those residents of Will County, Illinois who received
the mailer in question during the fall of 2004 and who can be
identified from any available mailing list.

The district court also granted in part and denied in part each
of the parties' summary judgment motions, opining that the
mailer in question did not constitute a firm offer of credit,
entering judgment in favor of our subsidiary on the clear and
conspicuous disclosure issue, and finding a genuine issue of
fact with respect to whether the alleged violation of FCRA could
be said to be willful.

On June 5, 2007, the company's subsidiary filed a motion for
reconsideration on the willfulness issue based upon the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in "Safeco Ins. Co., et al. v. Burr, et
al."

Upon reconsideration, on July 2, 2007, the district court
vacated its order certifying the class and granted the
subsidiary's motion for summary judgment on the willfulness
issue, entering judgment on behalf of the company's subsidiary.

On April 18, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the
company's subsidiary, holding in a non-published opinion that  
the company's subsidiary made a firm offer of credit and that
any failure to make clear and conspicuous disclosures was not
willful.

On April 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the
April 18 opinion.  The plaintiff contends that the parties
reached an enforceable settlement agreement prior to the date
the April 18 opinion was entered, and seeks to enforce that
settlement.  

The suit is "Murray v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation, Case No.
1:2005cv01229," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge David H. Coar, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas Justin Cunningham, Esq.
          (tcunningham@lockelord.com)
          Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-443-0700


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Calif. Court Okays "Parthiban" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave final approval to the proposed settlement of a purported
class action suit filed against a subsidiary of Residential
Capital, LLC -- a wholly-owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage
Group, LLC, which itself is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GMAC
LLC -- 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.

The suit is over alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.  It was filed against the company's subsidiary in August
2005.  

In general, the suit alleges that the company's subsidiary, in
sending a pre-approved offer to the plaintiff, accessed the
plaintiffs credit report without authorization from the
plaintiff and without a permissible purpose under FCRA since the
material allegedly did not qualify as a firm offer of credit.
It also alleges that the material failed to make FCRA required
notices and disclosures in a clear and conspicuous manner.

The litigation is essentially a copycat of the Murray case and
seeks to recover for essentially the same alleged conduct
although for a later class period and on behalf of a putative
nationwide class that excludes any residents of Will County,
Illinois.

The district court thus granted the subsidiary's motion to
dismiss in part, striking four counts seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief, and has permitted the case to go forward on
the same firm offer of credit claims present in Murray.  The
plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn her clear and conspicuous
disclosure claims.

On June 28, 2007, while a class certification motion was pending
and summary judgment motions had not yet been filed, the parties
reached a settlement agreement in principle.  

The court preliminarily approved the settlement on Sept. 13,
2007, with respect to a settlement class of 1.4 million members,
each of whom is to be offered a free credit report and one year
of free credit monitoring.

The company's subsidiary has agreed not to contest an award of
class counsel's fees up to $1.1 million.   

As the final approval hearing continued on Jan. 7, 2008, the
court approved the settlement and awarded attorney's fees in the
amount of $967,700.

The settlement amount has been paid, and the period during which
class members could claim the benefit of the class settlement
has expired.  This matter is now complete.

The suit is "Vasuki Parthiban v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation, Case
No. 8:05-cv-00768-ODW-MLG," filed before the U.S. District Court
for Central District of California, Judge Otis D. Wright, II,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Douglas Bowdoin, Esq.
         Douglas Bowdoin
         255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 800
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Phone: 407-422-0025
         e-mail: ctassi@bowdoinlaw.com

              - and -  

         Jill H. Bowman, Esq.
         James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich
         4830 West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 550
         Tampa, FL 33609
         Phone: 813-286-4100


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Unit to Appeal Verdict in SMLA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The defendant in a purported class action over alleged
violations of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act, Mo.R.S.
Section 408.233, based on the lenders' charging or contracting
for payment of allegedly unlawful closing costs and fees intend
to appeal the jury verdict in the matter.

The suit was filed on July 29, 2003, in the state court in
Kansas City, Missouri against a unit of Residential Capital, LLC
-- which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group,
LLC, which itself is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.

The relief sought includes a refund of all allegedly illegal
fees, the refund of interest paid, and the discounted present
value of interest to be paid in the future on active loans.  

The plaintiffs also seek prejudgment interest and punitive
damages.

The company's subsidiary is an assignee.  The plaintiffs contend
that our subsidiary is strictly liable for the lender's
(Mortgage Capital Resources Corp.) alleged SMLA violations
pursuant to the assignee provisions of the Home Ownership and
Equity Protection Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. Section 1641(d)(1).

The Mitchell case involves approximately 258 Missouri second
mortgage loans made by MCR and assigned to our subsidiary.  

The plaintiffs and the class are seeking approximately
$6.7 million in actual and statutory damages plus prejudgment
interest, attorney's fees and expenses.  The plaintiff's counsel
will seek a contingent fee of approximately 40% plus litigation
expenses.  

In addition, the plaintiffs will seek prejudgment interest and
punitive damages.

The parties participated in a mediation in August 2007 without
success.  Mortgage Capital Resources Corp. is currently in the
process of being liquidated in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The company's subsidiary terminated its relationship with
Mortgage Capital Resources Corp. in early May 2000.  

The case went to trial in state court in Kansas City, Missouri
beginning on Dec. 3, 2007.

On Jan. 4, 2008, a jury verdict was returned, stating that the
company's subsidiary pay $4.3 million in compensatory damages
and $92 million in punitive damages.  

The company's subsidiary intends to appeal and to vigorously
contest the punitive damage award, according to Residential
Capital's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Residential Capital, LLC -- https://www.rescapholdings.com/ --
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC, which
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.  The Company is real
estate finance company focused primarily on the residential real
estate market.  Its businesses include the origination,
purchase, service, sale and securitization of residential
mortgage loans.  The Company conducts its operations primarily
through three operating business segments: Residential Finance
Group, Business Capital Group and International Business Group.


SMURFIT-STONE: Faces Hourly Employees' Lawsuits in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. is currently defending two
putative class action lawsuits filed in California state court
on behalf of current and former hourly employees at the
Company's California corrugated container facilities.  

These cases allege violations of the California on-duty meal
break and rest period statutes and seek damages prescribed by
such statutes, 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.

Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. -- http://www.smurfit-stone.com/
-- is an integrated manufacturer of paperboard and paper-based
packaging in North America, including containerboard and
corrugated containers, and is also a paper recycler.  Smurfit-
Stone is a holding company with no business operations of its
own.  Smurfit-Stone conducts its business operations through its
wholly owned subsidiary Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises,
Inc.  


STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Case in La.
------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Energy Corp. continues to face a consolidated securities
fraud class action suit captioned, "In re: Stone Energy Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02088," filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
against the company and several of its officers, 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.

On or around Nov. 30, 2005, George Porch filed a putative class
action suit against the company, David H. Welch, Kenneth H.
Beer, D. Peter Canty and James H. Prince.  Three similar
complaints were filed thereafter.  All are alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

All complaints asserted a putative class period commencing on
June 17, 2005, and ending on Oct. 6, 2005.  All complaints
contended that, during the putative class period, the
defendants, among other things, misstated or failed to disclose:

      -- that Stone had materially overstated Stone's financial
         results by overvaluing its oil reserves through
         improper and aggressive reserve methodologies;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         company's proved reserves, assets and future net cash
         flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On March 17, 2006, these purported class actions were
consolidated into "In re: Stone Energy Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-02088," with El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund designated as lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint
on June 14, 2006.  The consolidated complaint expands the
putative class period to commence on May 2, 2001, and to end on
March 10, 2006.

On Sept. 13, 2006, Stone Energy and the individual defendants
filed motions seeking the dismissal of the action.

On Aug. 17, 2007, a Federal Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation that the Federal Court grant in part and deny in
part the dismissal requests.  

The Magistrate Judge report also recommended that:

       -- the claims asserted against defendants Kenneth Beer
          and James Prince pursuant to Section 10(b) of the U.S.
          Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
          thereunder, and

       -- the claims asserted on behalf of putative class
          members who sold their Company shares prior to Oct. 6,
          2005 be dismissed and that the Motions to Dismiss be
          denied with respect to the other claims against Stone
          and the defendants.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the Federal Court issued an order directing
that judgment on the Motions to Dismiss be entered in accordance
with the recommendations of the Report.   

On Oct. 23, 2007, Stone and the individual defendants filed a
motion seeking permission to appeal the denial of the Motions to
Dismiss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
which motion was denied.  

The discovery process is now underway.  The parties have
exchanged initial disclosures, document requests, and
interrogatories and have begun producing documents.

Lead Plaintiff will have until May 12, 2008 to file a motion to
certify the Securities Action as a class action under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A schedule for the Company's opposition to and a hearing on the
Class Certification Motion will be set by the Federal Court.  

The parties have also agreed to a Joint Plan of Work and
Proposed Scheduling Order, which provides deadlines for
additional pre-trial proceedings, including discovery, expert
reports, and dispositive motions.

The suit is "In re: Stone Energy Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05-cv-02088," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana, Judge Tucker L. Melancon
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kglg.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Law Group
          650 Poydras St., Ste. 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-648-1850
          Fax: 504-455-1498

               - and -

          Mitchell J. Hoffman, Esq. (mhoffman@lshah.com)
          Lowe Stein, et al.
          701 Poydras St., Ste. 3600
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Phone: 504-581-2450
          Fax: 504-581-2461

Representing the defendants are:

          Walter B. Stuart, IV, Esq. (wstuart@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins
          666 5th Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10103
          Phone: 212-237-0000
          Fax: 212-237-0100

               - and -

          Amy E. Allums, Esq. (aea@jgmclaw.com)
          Johnson Gray McNamara
          P.O. Box 51165
          Lafayette, LA 70505
          Phone: 337-412-6003
          Fax: 337-412-6037


STONE ENERGY: La. Court Mulls Modifying Stay in Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
has yet to consider any potential modification of the stay in a
derivative action filed against Stone Energy Corp.

In addition, on or about Dec. 16, 2005, Robert Farer and
Priscilla Fisk filed respective complaints with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana purportedly
alleging claims derivatively on behalf of Stone.

Similar complaints were filed thereafter in the Federal Court by
Joint Pension Fund, Local No. 164, I.B.E.W., and in the 15th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette, Louisiana (State
Court) by Gregory Sakhno.

Stone was named as a nominal defendant and David Welch, Kenneth
Beer, D. Peter Canty, James Prince, James Stone, John Laborde,
Peter Barker, George Christmas, Richard Pattarozzi, David
Voelker, Raymond Gary, B.J. Duplantis and Robert Bernhard were
named as defendants in these actions.

The State Court action purportedly alleged claims of breach of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste
of corporate assets against all defendants, and claims of unjust
enrichment and insider selling against certain individual
defendants.

The Federal Court derivative actions asserted purported claims
against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and
unjust enrichment and claims against certain individual
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

On March 30, 2006, the Federal Court entered an order naming
Robert Farer, Priscilla Fisk and Joint Pension Fund, Local No.
164, I.B.E.W. as co-lead plaintiffs in the Federal Court
derivative action and directed the lead plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint within forty-five days.

On April 22, 2006, the complaint in the State Court derivative
action was amended to also assert claims on behalf of a
purported class of shareholders of Stone.

In addition to the above mentioned claims, the amended State
Court derivative action complaint purported to allege breaches
of fiduciary duty by the director defendants in connection with
the then proposed merger transaction with Plains Exploration and
Production Co., and seeks an order enjoining the director
defendants from entering into the then proposed transaction with
Plains.

On May 15, 2006, the first consolidated complaint in the Federal
Court derivative action was filed; it contained a similar
injunctive claim.

On Sept. 15, 2006, co-lead plaintiffs' in the Federal Court
derivative action further amended their complaint to seek an
order enjoining Stone's proposed merger with Energy Partners,
Ltd. based on substantially the same grounds previously asserted
regarding the prior proposed transaction with Plains.  On
October 2, 2006, each of the defendants in the Federal Court
derivative action filed or joined in motions seeking dismissal
of all or part of that action.

Those motions were denied without prejudice on Nov. 30, 2006,
when the Federal Court granted the co-lead plaintiffs leave to
file a third amended complaint.

Following the filing of the third amended complaint in the
Federal Court derivative action, defendants filed motions
seeking to have that action either dismissed or stayed until
resolution of the pending motion to dismiss the Securities
Action before the Federal Court.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Federal Court stayed the Federal Court
derivative action at least until resolution of the then-pending
motion to dismiss the Securities Action after which time a
hearing was to be conducted by the Federal Court to determine
the propriety of maintaining that stay.   

As of the date hereof, the Federal Court has yet to consider any
potential modification of the stay, 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.

Stone Energy Corp. -- http://www.stoneenergy.com/-- is an  
independent oil and natural gas company.  The Company is engaged
in the acquisition and subsequent exploration, development,
operation and production of oil and gas properties located
primarily in the Gulf of Mexico.  It also has operations in the
Rocky Mountain Basins and the Williston Basin (Rocky Mountain
Region).  It is also engaged in an exploratory joint venture in
Bohai Bay, China and has begun acquiring leasehold interests in
Appalachia.  The Company's property base also contains multiple
deep shelf exploration opportunities in the GOM, which are
defined as prospects below 15,000 feet.


SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Overtime Lawsuit in California Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
A Santa Clara County judge granted class-action certification to
an overtime-related lawsuit against Sun Microsystems Inc., San
Jose Business Journal reports.

Earlier, technical writer Dani Hoenemier filed the lawsuit
accusing the Santa Clara-based Sun Microsystems (NASDAQ:JAVA) of
violating state labor laws involving breaks and overtime.

The Mercury Sun relates that Ms. Hoenemier worked long days as a
technical writer for Sun Microsystems, sometimes spending over
60 hours a week at her computer when the company was preparing a
new product release.

Sun Microsystems' technical writers may earn salaries of
$100,000 a year, but they don't get overtime pay for the extra
hours, according to Ms. Hoenemier's attorney, who is challenging
the company's practice of treating Ms. Hoenemier and about 300
other writers as exempt from state labor laws governing overtime
and breaks.

California enacted controversial legislation in 2000 that
exempted "computer professionals" such as software developers
from rules requiring overtime for working over 40 hours a week
or 8 hours a day.

With Superior Court Judge Jack Komar's ruling, salaried
technical writers who have worked for the company since 2002
could be part of the litigation.

However, Sun Microsystems argued in court papers that it follows
industry-wide practice in its treatment of technical writers.
The company said the writers are well-paid, professional
employees who are legally exempt from overtime rules because
they are highly skilled, work independently and meet other
criteria spelled out in the law.

Headquartered in Santa Clara, California, Sun Microsystems Inc.
(NASDAQ: JAVA) -- http://sun.com/-- provides network computing     
infrastructure product and service solutions worldwide.  Sun
Microsystems conducts business in 100 countries around the
globe, including Brazil, Argentina, India, Hungary, United
Kingdom, among others.


SWEET WATER: Recalls Contaminated Aged Black Pepper Cheese
----------------------------------------------------------
Sweetwater Valley Farm, Inc. of Philadelphia, TN is recalling
Tennessee Aged Black Pepper Cheese because it has the potential
to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Tennessee Aged Black Pepper Cheese, Lot Number 616-361 was
distributed in 5, 7, and 10 ounce bars through our retail store
in Philadelphia, TN and a Winery in Portland, TN.

Less than 100 pounds was distributed.

This product was distributed between December 27, 2007, and
May 12, 2008.

No illnesses have been reported.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
Tennessee Department of Agriculture which revealed that the
finished product contained the bacteria.  The company has ceased
the distribution of this lot as the company continues their
investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased lot number 616-361 of this product
are urged bring it to the store for replacement or refund or
ship it back to the store for replacement or refund.  Contact
the company's consumer affairs department at 1-877-862-4332 for
further information.


SWIFT & CO: Iowa Workers Can Join Texans in Immigrant Abuse Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workers at a Swift & Co. meat packing plant in Texas are suing
the company and Iowa workers could be allowed to join them, WHO-
TV reports.

The workers' suit claim that Swift sought out illegal
immigrants, harbored and concealed them and provided them with
false documents, according to WHO-TV.

The suit goes on to say that by hiring illegal immigrants who
were willing to work for less, Swift drove down wages for all
workers.  A judge will decide in October if the suit will be
given class action status.  If the suit is, Iowa workers could
be included.


T-MOBILE USA: Suit Over Content Charges Moved to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action suit filed against T-Mobile USA Inc. and some
other telecoms over content charges have been moved from state
court to federal court in California, Jeffrey Silva of
RCRNews.com reports.

Other defendants named in the suit include Opera Telecom and
Flycell Inc.

Named plaintiffs Robin Moore and Crystal Butler accuse the
defendants of charging wireless subscribers for various services
without their consent.

"Defendant T-Mobile caused plaintiff Moore's cellular phone to
include the unauthorized charge of $9.99 per month for Ringazza,
and similarly caused plaintiff Butler's cellular phone bill to
include the unauthorized charge of $9.99 for Flycell," the suit
states.

"In doing so, defendant T-Mobile omitted necessary information
from plaintiffs' cellular phone bills that was required by
[California statute], including the means to contact the
offending third-party company, such as a toll free number."

The complaint charges that the No. 4 mobile-phone carrier "has
and continues to engage in this practice on the behalf of many
other third party companies in additional to Opera and Flycell,
and the defendant T-Mobile benefits from this practice by taking
a share of the monies collected."

According to Mr. Silva, T-Mobile could not be reached
immediately for comment.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: $40-Mln. Securities Suit Settlement Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Curtis L. Collier of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee approved a $40-million settlement
that was reached in a consolidated securities class action
against Unum Group, formerly known as UnumProvident Corp., The
Tennessean reports.

On Feb. 12, 2003, the first of six virtually identical putative
securities class actions was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

In two orders dated May 21, 2003, and Jan. 22, 2004, the court
consolidated these actions as "In re UnumProvident Corp.
Securities Litigation."

On Jan. 9, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
UnumProvident stock between March 30, 2000, and April 24, 2003.

The amended complaint alleges that:

     -- the company issued misleading financial statements,

     -- improperly accounted for certain impaired investments,

     -- failed to properly estimate the company's disability
        claim reserves, and

     -- pursued certain improper claims handling practices.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  On
March 19, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On July 30, 2007, the company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with the plaintiffs to resolve the litigation.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to
pay $40 million to settle all claims that were or could have
been asserted by the class in the action (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 22, 2007).

Recently, Judge Collier approved the agreement ending the five-
year-old suit at a hearing during which Unum attorney Brian
Frawley, Esq., said that the company "continues to deny the
allegation."

Company spokesman Jim Sabourin said the company's earnings
report showed the $40 million settlement in 2007.  He said Unum
agreed to the settlement "essentially to prevent further
controversy and to avoid the significant costs associated with
continued litigation."

The suit is "In Re: UnumProvident Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-CV-00049," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, with Judge Curtis L. Collier
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Milberg, Weiss LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-8590
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              - and -

         George E. Barrett, Esq. (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com)
         Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
         217 Second Avenue North
         Nashville, TN 37201-1601
         Phone: 615-244-2202

Representing the defendants are:

         John P Konvalinka, Esq. (jkonvalinka@gkhpc.com)
         Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, PC
         633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 One Republic Centre
         Chattanooga, TN 37450
         Phone: 423-756-8400
         Fax: 423-756-6518

              - and -

         Michael A. Anderson, Esq.
         (manderson@chattanooga-law.com)
         Horton, Maddox & Anderson, PLLC
         835 Georgia Avenue, Suite 600 One Central Plaza
         Chattanooga, TN 37402
         Phone: 423-265-2560


XL CAPITAL: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Municipal Derivatives
--------------------------------------------------------------
XL Capital, Ltd., and certain of its subsidiaries are facing
several purported class action suits over Municipal Guaranteed
Investment Contracts and similar derivative products, according
to XL Capital's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

In March 2008, two subsidiaries of the company were named, along
with 20 other providers and insurers of Municipal Derivatives,
as well as 14 brokers of such products, as defendants in two
purported federal antitrust class action lawsuits filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

These complaints allege that there was a conspiracy among the
defendants during the period from Jan. 1, 1992, to the present
to rig bids for Municipal Derivatives.  The purported class of
plaintiffs consists of Municipal Derivative purchasers.

In April 2008, another federal antitrust class action suit
containing similar allegations was filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
39 defendants, including XL Capital and the same two
subsidiaries of the company.

It is anticipated that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation will soon determine the venue for these actions.

The plaintiffs are then expected to file a consolidated amended
complaint, and the defendants will then have 60 days to move or
answer in response to the complaint.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
regulatory disclosure filing with the SEC.

XL Capital, Ltd. -- http://www.xlcapital.com/-- is a provider  
of  insurance and reinsurance coverage to industrial, commercial
and professional service firms, insurance companies and other
enterprises on a worldwide basis.  


XL INSURANCE: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered the consolidation of several purported securities fraud
class action lawsuits filed against XL Insurance Ltd., the
global insurance operation of XL Capital Ltd., according to XL
Capital's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Initially, three similar class action suits have been filed
against XL Insurance and others on behalf of shareholders of
Security Capital Assurance, Inc.

The complaints, filed separately on Dec. 7, 2007, Dec. 18, 2007,
and Jan. 8, 2008, name as defendants SCA; two SCA officers; and,
in two of the cases, Goldman Sachs & Co.; J.P. Morgan
Securities, Inc.; and Merrill Lynch; Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.

The suits all allege violations of various U.S. Securities laws
against the defendants arising from purchases of SCA shares in
the June 6, 2007 secondary offering and shortly before.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration
Statement and other public disclosures made by SCA and
individual defendants contained untrue statements of material
facts and omitted other necessary facts to make the statements
not misleading.

The complaints allege that the disclosures failed to disclose
that SCA was materially exposed to extremely risky securities
(RMBS) relating to sub-prime real estate mortgages.

The allegations against XLI claim it is liable as a selling
shareholder and as a party that "controlled" SCA during the
relevant time period.

In late April, the court issued an order consolidating the
actions, appointing Employees' Retirement System of the state of
Rhode Island as lead plaintiff, and approving its selection of
lead counsel.

The order further provides that the lead plaintiff shall file a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The matter is designated, "In
Re Security Capital Assurance Ltd. Securities Litigation."

The company reported no furtehr development in the matter in its
regulatory disclosure filing with the SEC.

XL Capital, Ltd. -- http://www.xlcapital.com/-- is a provider  
of  insurance and reinsurance coverage to industrial, commercial
and professional service firms, insurance companies and other
enterprises on a worldwide basis.  


* Options Backdating Settlements Lower Than Predicted
-----------------------------------------------------
Despite the widespread attention given to options backdating by
investors, regulators, the legal profession, and the news media,
shareholder litigation in the area has not generated the
sizeable settlements previously anticipated by industry
observers.

This according to a new white paper by NERA Economic Consulting,
"Do Options Backdating Class Actions Settle for Less?" released
today and co-authored by Senior Consultants Robert Patton and
Dr. Branko Jovanovic and Consultant Svetlana Starykh.

Of nearly 250 companies identified as potentially involved in
backdating, only 37 have actually been the target of a related
federal shareholder class action lawsuit. The NERA paper
examines the six federal shareholder class actions that have
fully settled thus far (meaning settlements have been reached
with all defendants).

In each case, the authors compare the size of the actual
settlement to the amount predicted by NERA's shareholder class
action settlement predictor model, which predicts the most
likely settlement for a case based on the level of "investor
losses" and other lawsuit characteristics.  They find that the
amounts paid to plaintiffs in the six cases that have settled to
date have been substantially lower than in comparable non-
backdating class actions.  In fact, class actions involving
backdating allegations have on average settled for less than
half the amounts predicted by NERA's model.

The authors hypothesize that this disparity in settlement
amounts is due to either a perceived weakness on the merits of
backdating versus non-backdating cases, or the possibility that
the weakest backdating cases have settled first - in which case
future settlements may be more in line with those in other types
of shareholder class actions.

The paper includes a summary of predicted and actual settlements
for all six cases, including Rambus, Inc., whose final
settlement was approved on yesterday. This is the fourth in
NERA's backdating series, all of which may be found on the NERA
Web site at http://www.nera.com/securities

NERA Economic Consulting  -- http://www.nera.com/-- is an  
international firm of economists who understand how markets
work. Their more than 45 years of experience creating
strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy
recommendations reflects our specialization in industrial and
financial economics.  Their global team of more than 600
professionals operates in over 20 offices across North America,
Europe, Asia, and Australia.





                            *********

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  * * *