CAR_Public/080521.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, May 21, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 100

                            Headlines

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Stays Conference & Discovery in "Weber"
ALLSTATE: 5th Circuit to Hear Appeal in Katrina Antitrust Suit
APARTHEID LITIGATION: Justices' Recusals Allow Suit to Proceed
CAREMARK INC: Tenn. Dismisses Claims in "Morrell" ERISA Lawsuit
CMS ENERGY: Wis. Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit Moved to Nev. MDL

CMS ENERGY: Court Grants Dismissal Motion Against "Breckenridge"
CMS ENERGY: Del. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Leggett" Appeal
CMS ENERGY: Responds to Allegations in "Learjet" Litigation
CMS ENERGY: Settles Several Antitrust Lawsuits Over Natural Gas
CVS CAREMARK: Calif. Court Approves Pharmacists' Suit Settlement

DENDREON CORP: Wash. Court Grants Dismissal Motion in "McGuire"
FRESNO CALIFORNIA: Raid of Homeless Camps Unlawful, Court Says
INFINEON TECH: Court Denies Certification in Price-Fixing Case
J2 GLOBAL: California Court Stays Internet Facsimile Lawsuit
JERSEY CENTRAL: June 13 Hearing Set for 1999 Power Outages Suit

KNOT INC: Seeks Dismissal of FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Reaches Deal in California Securities Suit
MCKESSON CORP: Appeals Class Certification Order in AWP Matter
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Suits Over Stock Acquisition Offer
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Opposes Certification Bid in "Haddock"

NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Want Washinton ERISA Suit Stayed
NATIONWIDE LIFE: "Gwin" Lawsuit Remanded to State Court
NBC UNIVERSAL: "Deal or No Deal" Not Illegal, Sup. Ct. Says
NORTH SHORE: Illinois Court Grants Dismissal Motion in Fees Suit
NORTH SHORE: Dismissed From Gas Reconciliation Procedures Suit

OHIO EDISON: Rulings in W.H. Sammis Plant Lawsuit Under Appeal
POZEN INC: To Seek Dismissal of N.C. Securities Fraud Litigation
SOWETO, SOUTH AFRICA: Water Scheme Ruling Sets Global Precedent
SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued Over Charges for Unauthorized Content
WENDY'S INT'L: Faces Ohio Lawsuits Over Triarc Merger Agreement


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Stays Conference & Discovery in "Weber"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
stayed the initial case management conference and all discovery
in a purported class action suit against Align Technology, Inc.,
OrthoClear Inc., and OrthoClear Holdings, Inc. -- d/b/a
OrthoClear, Inc.

The complaint, filed on May 18, 2007, on behalf of Debra A.
Weber and all similarly situated individuals, alleges that
orthodontic treatments of the dental patient plaintiff "were
interrupted, unduly prolonged or terminated as a result of
defendants' unlawful conduct" relating to the OrthoClear
Settlement.

                    OrthoClear Settlement

On Oct. 13, 2006, Align Technology entered into a formal
agreement with OrthoClear, OrthoClear Holdings, and OrthoClear
Pakistan Pvt. Ltd., together with certain individuals associated
with OrthoClear to end all pending litigation between the
parties.  

As part of the OrthoClear Agreement, the OrthoClear companies
agreed to stop the importation of aligners into the U.S. and
discontinue all aligner business operations worldwide.  

As a result, most OrthoClear patients were unable to complete
their orthodontic treatment with OrthoClear.  In an attempt to
help minimize treatment disruptions for the OrthoClear patients
and their doctors, Align Technology committed to make treatment
available to these patients at no additional cost under the
Patients First Program.

Align Technology launched the Patients First Program to provide
new Invisalign treatment to former OrthoClear patients at no
charge to patients or their doctors.

                       Causes of Action

The complaint alleges two causes of action against the
OrthoClear defendants and one cause of action against Align
Technology for breach of contract.  

The cause of action against Align Technology references the
company's agreement to make Invisalign treatment available to
OrthoClear patients, alleging that it failed "to provide the
promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of the Class Members."

On July 3, 2007, the company filed its answer to the complaint
and asserted 17 affirmative defenses.  On July 20, 2007, the
company filed a motion for summary judgment on the Third Cause
of Action -- the only cause of action alleged against Align.  

On Aug. 24, 2007, Ms. Weber filed a motion for class
certification.  

Align Technology opposed the class certification request and is
currently awaiting rulings from the Court.  OrthoClear has filed
a motion to dismiss the suit.

The initial case management conference and all discovery has
been stayed pending the Court's decision on the motion for class
certification, OrthoClear's dismissal motion and Align
Technology's motion for summary judgment, according to Align's
May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Weber v. Align Technology, Inc. et al., Case No.
5:07-cv-00535-NAM-GJD," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Norman A. Mordue,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mark J. Schulte, Esq. (mschulte@hancocklaw.com)
         Daniel B. Berman, Esq. (dberman@hancocklaw.com)
         Maureen E. Maney, Esq. (mmaney@hancocklaw.com)
         Zachary M. Mattison, Esq. (zmattison@hancocklaw.com)
         Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm
         P.O. Box 4976
         1500 MONY Tower I
         Syracuse, NY 13221-4976
         Phone: 315-471-3151
         Fax: 315-471-3167
              315-233-4312


ALLSTATE: 5th Circuit to Hear Appeal in Katrina Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to consider
whether an antitrust lawsuit that former Louisiana Attorney
General Charles Foti filed against some of the nation's largest
insurance companies -- including Allstate Insurance Co. and
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. -- belongs in state or federal
court, the Associated Press reports.

The AP recalls that Mr. Foti teamed up with private lawyers in
2007 to file the suit, which accuses insurers of engaging in an
elaborate price-fixing scheme and conspiring to shortchange
policyholders after Hurricane Katrina.

In April 2008, U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey rejected a bid by
the plaintiffs to transfer the case back to state court, where
Mr. Foti originally filed it only days after he was voted out of
office.

According to the AP report, Attorney General James "Buddy"
Caldwell, who inherited the case from Mr. Foti, is appealing
Judge Zainey's ruling.  The 5th  Circuit agreed to hear the
appeal during the first week of June.

Mr. Caldwell's spokeswoman, Tammi Arender Herring, told the AP
that the new attorney general has not passed judgment on the
merits of the case or decided whether his office will proceed
with it.  "This is still strictly on the procedural issue of
where it would be heard," she said of the appeal.

The report notes that lawyers for insurers insist that the case
is a class action that belongs in federal court.  The
plaintiffs' attorneys, on the other hand, claim that the suit
does not qualify as a class action because policyholders are not
a party and may not be entitled to recover any money if the case
is successful.


APARTHEID LITIGATION: Justices' Recusals Allow Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit will move forward against 33 companies that did
business in South Africa during apartheid because the U.S.
Supreme Court was unable to form a quorum, Lin Young writes for
Legal News Line.

According to the report, the class action lawsuit involves
plaintiffs that had sued the companies that did business in
South Africa during apartheid.  These companies include BP,
Exxon, CitiBank, General Electric, IBM, American Isuzu Motors
Inc., Ford Motor Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Honeywell
International Inc., and 3M Co.

The lawsuit seeks to hold the companies liable for allegedly
being complicit in perpetuating oppression of the black majority
in South Africa.  The suit also seeks more than $400 billion
from the companies.

Legal News Line notes that under federal law, judges may not
participate in deciding cases if they, a spouse or minor child
own stock in a company that is a party to a case.

According to the report, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices
Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer recused themselves because of
stock holdings in several of the companies listed as defendants,
while some believe Justice Anthony Kennedy may have recused
himself because of his son's position at one of the companies.

When the Court is unable to form a quorum, a statute requires it
to affirm the judgment of the lower court, Legal News Line
further explains.

The report recalls that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit had held that claims under the Torture Victims
Protection Act would be dismissed while claims under the Alien
Tort Claims Act could go forward to trial, which is what will
happen now.

                        Case Background

Originally, 10 separate actions were filed in several federal
courts by millions of people who have lived in South Africa
after 1948.  The cases were combined in New York.

The suit accuses 50 American, Canadian and European companies of
supporting apartheid in South Africa.

In 2004, U.S. District Judge John Sprizzo threw out claims
brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act, saying he did not have
jurisdiction.  The appeals court heard arguments in January
2006.  In a later ruling, the appeals court recommended that the
lower court consider prior rulings.  

As reported in Class Action Reporter on Oct. 17, 2007, the 2nd
Circuit reinstated some class action claims in the suit.  
Specifically, it reinstated claims brought under the Alien Tort
Claims Act.  

Both the U.S. and South African governments objected to the
reinstatement of the suit.  America said it would interfere with
South Africa's reconciliation and redress efforts; South Africa
said it would interfere with its right to litigate such claims
itself.


CAREMARK INC: Tenn. Dismisses Claims in "Morrell" ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted in the matter,
"Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00633."

Caremark Inc. -- now known as Caremark, L.L.C. -- which is a
subsidiary of Caremark Rx, Inc. that merged with CVS Corp. to
form CVS Caremark Corp., was named as a defendant in the
putative class action filed in July 2004 by Robert Moeckel.

The suit was brought purportedly on behalf of the John Morrell
Employee Benefits Plan, which is an employee benefit plan
sponsored by a former Caremark client.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and injunctive
relief, alleges that Caremark acts as a fiduciary under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and has breached certain
alleged fiduciary duties under ERISA.

In November 2007, the court granted Caremark's motion for
partial summary judgment finding that the company is not an
ERISA fiduciary under the applicable PBM agreements and that the
plaintiff may not sustain claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

In April 2008, the court entered final judgment in favor of
Caremark and dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted in the
case, according to CVS Caremark Corp.'s May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 29, 2008.

The suit is "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00633," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Judge Aleta A. Trauger presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Rebecca Cothran Blair, Esq. (rblair@branhamday.com)
         John A. Day, Esq. (jday@branhamday.com)
         Branham & Day P.C.
         5300 Maryland Way, Suite 300
         Brentwood, TN 37027
         Phone: 615-742-4880

              - and -
          
         Mike Miller, Esq. (mmiller@solberglaw.com)
         Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon
         1129 Fifth Avenue South
         P.O. Box 1897
         Fargo, ND 58107-1897
         Phone: 701-237-3166

Representing the defendants are:  

         Paul Savage Davidson, Esq. (pdavidson@wallerlaw.com)
         Joseph A. Woodruff, Esq.
         (joseph.woodruff@wallerlaw.com)
         Jennifer L. Weaver, Esq.
         (jennifer.weaver@wallerlaw.com)
         Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis
         Nashville City Center
         511 Union Street, Suite 2100
         Nashville, TN 37219
         Phone: 615-244-6380
         Fax: 615-244-6380

              - and -

         Frank E. Pasquesi, Esq. (fpasquesi@foley.com)
         Foley & Lardner LLP
         Phone: 312-832-5176


CMS ENERGY: Wis. Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit Moved to Nev. MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported antitrust class action suit, "Arandell Corp., et
al v. XCEL Energy Inc., et al.," which names CMS Energy Corp. as
a defendant has been transferred as a Multidistrict Litigation
proceeding in Nevada, captioned, "In Re: Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-
01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566," according to the company's May 5, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The class action complaint was filed on Dec. 15, 2006, in
Wisconsin state court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities
that purchased natural gas between Jan. 1, 2000, and Oct. 31,
2002.

The defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Energy Resource
Management Co. and Cantera Gas Co., LLC, are alleged to have
violated Wisconsin's Anti-Trust statute by conspiring to
manipulate natural gas prices.

The plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus
exemplary damages in an amount equal to three times the actual
damages, and attorneys' fees.

The action was removed to Wisconsin federal district court and
CMS Energy entered a special appearance for purpose of filing a
motion to dismiss all the CMS Energy defendants due to lack of
personal jurisdiction.  That motion was filed on Sept. 10, 2007.
The court has not yet ruled on the motion, the company's SEC
filing indicated.  

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case back
to Wisconsin state court, and the case has been transferred to a
Nevada MDL proceeding, captioned, "In Re: Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-
01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566."

CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy  
holding company operating through subsidiaries in the U.S.,
primarily in Michigan.  Its two principal subsidiaries are
Consumers and Enterprises.  Consumers is a public utility that
provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of
Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68
counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula.  Enterprises, through
various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged
primarily in domestic independent power production.  CMS Energy
manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides
and operates principally in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


CMS ENERGY: Court Grants Dismissal Motion Against "Breckenridge"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion that sought the dismissal of a purported class action
lawsuit, captioned "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and
BBD Acquisition Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.," which names CMS
Energy Corp. as a defendant, has been granted, according to the
company's May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit was brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of
natural gas in Colorado, and was filed in Colorado state court
in May 2006.

The defendants, including CMS Energy Corp., CMS Field Services
Inc., and CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. are alleged to
have violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection
with their natural gas price reporting activities.  The
plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado on June 12, 2006.  An order transferring the case as
a multidistrict litigation proceeding, "In Re: Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-
01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566," was entered on Oct. 17, 2006.  

The court issued an order dated Dec. 4, 2006, denying the motion
to remand the case back to Colorado state court.  The defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss.  

On Aug. 21, 2007, the court granted the motion to dismiss by CMS
Energy on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction.  The remaining
CMS Energy defendants filed a summary judgment motion which the
court granted in March 2008 on the basis that the named
plaintiffs made no natural gas purchases from any named
defendant.  

The suit is "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC et al. v.
Oneok Inc. et al.," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Robert E. Blackburn, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John Preston Baker, Esq. (jbaker@stklaw.com)
          Philip Wayne Bledsoe, Esq. (pbledsoe@stklaw.com)
          Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.
          1050 17th Street #2300
          Denver, CO 80265
          Phone: 303-572-9300
          Fax: 303-572-7883

Representing the defendants are:

          Michelle B. Goodman, Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP
          555 West 5th Street, #4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Phone: 213-896-6014
          Fax: 213-896-6600

               - and -

          Mark H. Hamer, Esq. (mark.hamer@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, LLP
          401 B Street, #1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-699-4758
          Fax: 619-699-2701

    
CMS ENERGY: Del. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Leggett" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court of Fayette County, Tennessee, heard oral
arguments in an appeal relating to an order dismissing the
purported class action entitled, "Samuel D. Leggett, et al. v.
Duke Energy Corp., et al.," which names CMS Energy Corp. as a
defendant, according to CMS Energy's May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit was filed in January 2005.  It was brought on behalf of
retail and business purchasers of natural gas in Tennessee.  It
contains claims for violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices
Act based upon allegations of false reporting of price
information by defendants to publications that compile and
publish indices of natural gas prices for various natural gas
hubs.

The complaint seeks statutory full consideration damages and
attorneys fees and injunctive relief regulating defendants'
future conduct.  Defendants include the company, CMS Marketing,
Services and Trading Co. and CMS Field Services, Inc.

On Aug. 10, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
suit for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The defendants also attempted to remove the case to federal
court, but it was remanded to state court by a federal judge.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the state court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal on April 4, 2007.  Oral arguments were heard on Nov. 8,
2007.

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

CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy  
holding company operating through subsidiaries in the U.S.,
primarily in Michigan.  Its two principal subsidiaries are
Consumers and Enterprises.  Consumers is a public utility that
provides electricity and natural gas to almost 6.5 million of
Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68
counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula.  Enterprises, through
various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged
primarily in domestic independent power production.  CMS Energy
manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides
and operates principally in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


CMS ENERGY: Responds to Allegations in "Learjet" Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp. and its subsidiaries have filed a response to
the allegations asserted in the putative class action "Learjet,
Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.," which is pending with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

On Nov. 20, 2005, CMS Marketing Services and Trading Co., CMS
Energy Corp., and CMS Field Services, Inc., were served with a
summons and complaint that named them as defendants in the suit.

Similar to the other actions that have been filed against the
defendants, the complaint alleges that during the putative class
period, Jan. 1, 2000, through Oct. 31, 2002, they engaged in a
scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act by knowingly
reporting false or inaccurate information to the publications,
thereby affecting the market price of natural gas.   

The plaintiffs, who claim to have purchased natural gas from the
defendants, are seeking statutory full consideration damages
consisting of the full consideration paid by the plaintiffs for
natural gas.  

On Dec. 7, 2005, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas and later, a motion was filed to
transfer the case to an MDL proceeding in Nevada, captioned, "In
Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566."  

On Jan. 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to Kansas state court.  On Jan. 23, 2006, a conditional
order transferring the case to the MDL proceeding in Nevada was
issued.

On Feb. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
conditional transfer order, and on June 20, 2006, the MDL Panel
issued an order transferring the case to the MDL proceeding.

The court then issued an order dated Aug. 3, 2006, denying the
motion to remand the case to Kansas state court.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which request
was denied on July 27, 2007.  

On Sept. 7, 2007, the CMS Energy defendants filed an answer to
the complaint.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Learjet, Inc et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-02513-CM-JPO," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas, Judge Carlos Murguia presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jennifer Gille Bacon, Esq. (jbacon@stklaw.com)
         Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC
         Twelve Wyandotte Plaza
         120 West 12th Street, Suite #1700
         Kansas City, MO 64105
         Phone: 816-421-3355
         Fax: 816-374-0509

              - and -

         Donald D. Barry, Esq. (dbarry@inlandnet.net)
         Barry Law Offices, L.L.C.
         5340 West 17th Street
         P.O. Box 4816
         Topeka, KS 66604
         Phone: 785-273-3153
         Fax: 785-273-3159

Representing the defendants are:

         Joel B. Kleinman, Esq. (kleinmanj@dsmo.com)
         Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinksy, LLP
         2101 L. Street, N.W.
         Washington, DC 20037-1526
         Phone: 202-785-9700
         Fax: 202-887-0689

              - and -

         Jerome T. Wolf, Esq. (jwolf@sonnenschein.com)
         Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP
         4520 Main Street, Suite 1100
         Kansas City, MO 64111
         Phone: 816-460-2400
         Fax: 816-531-7545

    
CMS ENERGY: Settles Several Antitrust Lawsuits Over Natural Gas
---------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp. settled several purported antitrust class
action lawsuits related to the sale of natural gas in the U.S.,
according to the company's May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc., filed a putative class action suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
in November 2003 against a number of energy companies engaged in
the sale of natural gas in the U.S., including CMS Energy).

The complaint alleged that the defendants entered into a price-
fixing scheme by engaging in activities to manipulate the price
of natural gas in California.  The complaint also alleged
violations of the federal Sherman Act, the California Cartwright
Act, and the California Business and Professions Code relating
to unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices.

The complaint sought both actual and exemplary damages for
alleged overcharges, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief
regulating defendants' future conduct relating to pricing and
price reporting.

In April 2004, a Nevada MultiDistrict Litigation panel ordered
the transfer of the Texas-Ohio case to a pending MDL matter in
the Nevada federal district court (In Re: Western States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-
01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566") that at the time involved seven
complaints originally filed in various state courts in
California.

These complaints make allegations similar to those in the Texas-
Ohio case regarding price reporting.  The court issued an order
granting the defendants' motion to dismiss on April 8, 2005, and
entered a judgment in favor of the defendants on April 11, 2005.

Texas-Ohio appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit.

While that appeal was pending, CMS Energy agreed to settle the
Texas-Ohio case and three others cases originally filed in
California federal courts (Fairhaven, Abelman Art Glass and
Utility savings), for a total payment of $700,000.

On Sept. 10, 2007, the court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement and dismissing the CMS Energy
defendants from these cases.

On Sept. 26, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the ruling of the trial judge in the Texas-Ohio case and held
that the "filed rate doctrine" is not applicable to the claims.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then remanded the case to the
federal district court.  While CMS Energy is no longer a party
to the Texas-Ohio case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals'
ruling may affect the positions of CMS Energy entities in other
pending cases.

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

CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy  
holding company operating through subsidiaries in the U.S.,
primarily in Michigan.  Its two principal subsidiaries are
Consumers and Enterprises.  Consumers is a public utility that
provides electricity and natural gas to almost 6.5 million of
Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68
counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula.  Enterprises, through
various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged
primarily in domestic independent power production.  CMS Energy
manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides
and operates principally in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


CVS CAREMARK: Calif. Court Approves Pharmacists' Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has given preliminary approval to a
settlement proposal in the purported class action suit filed
against CVS Caremark Corp. by Gabe Tong, purportedly on behalf
of current and former pharmacists working in the company's
California stores.

The lawsuit alleges that CVS failed to provide pharmacists in
the purported class with meal and rest periods or to pay
overtime as required under California law.  

In October 2007, the parties reached a conditional agreement
resolving the matter.  In March 2008, the deal received
preliminary court approval, according to CVS Caremark Corp.'s
May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008.

The agreement is still subject to final approval by the court to
take effect.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com/-- is a provider of  
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
Company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.


DENDREON CORP: Wash. Court Grants Dismissal Motion in "McGuire"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
dismissed a consolidated securities fraud class action suit
against Dendreon Corp., according to the company's May 8, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Initially, four proposed securities class action suits have been
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  Three of these suits name Dendreon and its chief
executive officer as defendants and allege a proposed class
period of March 30, 2007, through May 8, 2007.

One suit names Dendreon, four of its executive officers, and two
members of its board of directors as defendants, and indicated a
class period of March 1, 2007, through May 8, 2007.

All four proposed class action suits purport to state claims for
securities law violations stemming from our disclosures related
to Provenge and the U.S. FDA's actions regarding the company's
pending BLA for Provenge.

The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and
expenses.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under the
caption, "McGuire v. Dendreon Corporation, et al.," and
designated a lead plaintiff.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The plaintiffs
opposed this dismissal request.

The Court held a hearing on the dismissal motion on March 27,
2008.  By order dated April 18, 2008, the Court favored the
defendants and dismissed the complaint, holding that the
plaintiffs failed to plead a claim against the company or the
individual defendants, and allowing them 30 days to file an
amended complaint.

The suit is "McGuire et al v. Dendreon Corporation et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00869-MJP," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Drew Derrick Hansen, Esq. (dhansen@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey
          1201 Third Ave.
          Ste. 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-516-3880

Representing the defendants is:

          Douglas W. Greene (dgreene@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          701 Fifth Ave.
          Ste. 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-883-2500
          Fax: 206-883-2699


FRESNO CALIFORNIA: Raid of Homeless Camps Unlawful, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger ruled that the city of
Fresno's past policy of sending out city workers to raid
homeless camps and destroy whatever personal property they found
there violated the U.S. Constitution, The Associated Press
reports.

Specifically, Judge Wanger ruled that Fresno's "clean up" policy
in homeless tent cities violated the Fourth Amendment, which
bars unreasonable searches and seizures.

The AP relates that the city is facing a class-action lawsuit
brought by homeless people who claim police and sanitation
workers violated their constitutional rights in at least 20
different sweeps from 2004 to 2006.

The Class Action Reporter reported on Aug. 6, 2007, that Judge
Wanger granted class-action status to the lawsuit, entitled
"Kincaid, et al. v. City of Fresno, et al.," which was commenced
on behalf of six homeless Fresno residents.  

According to the CAR report, the American Civil Liberties Union
of Northern California is one of two organizations that filed
the suit on Oct. 17, 2006.  The other is the Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights.

Other defendants named in the lawsuit are:

      -- California Department of Transportation,
      -- Fresno Mayor Alan Autry,
      -- Police Chief Jerry Dyer,
      -- Police Capt. Greg Garner,
      -- Caltrans director Will Kempton, and
      -- other city employees.

In his certification ruling, Judge Wanger said that the class
would cover "all persons in the city of Fresno who were or are
homeless, without residence, after Oct. 17, 2003, and
whose personal belongings have been unlawfully taken in a sweep,
raid or cleanup by any of the defendants."

The AP points out that trial is set to begin in June 2008 to
determine how much money the city owes the plaintiffs.

The suit is "Kincaid, et al. v. City of Fresno, et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01445-OWW-SMS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California under Judge Oliver W. Wanger,
with referral to Judge Sandra M. Snyder.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Paul Alexander, Esq. (paul.alexander@hellerehrman.com)
         Heller Ehrman, LLP
         275 Middlefield Road
         Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506
         Phone: 650-324-7000
         Fax: 650- 324-0638

Representing the defendants is:
  
         James B. Betts, Esq. (bettswrightlaw@sbcglobal.net)
         Betts & Wright
         P.O. Box 28550, Fresno, CA 93729
         Phone: 559-438-8500
         Fax: 559-438-6959


INFINEON TECH: Court Denies Certification in Price-Fixing Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The British Columbia Supreme Court recently issued its Reasons
for Judgment in "Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon
Technologies AG et al., 2008 BCSC 575" denying the plaintiff's
application to certify Canada's first combined direct and
indirect price-fixing conspiracy case as a class action under
the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, Mondaq reports.

The report recounts that the proposed class action suit was
brought against certain international manufacturers of dynamic
random access memory chips DRAM -- who were alleged to have
been engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix prices from
April 1, 1999, to June 30, 2002.  The defendants, collectively,
were also alleged to have accounted for more than 70% of the
DRAM market.

Mondaq explains that DRAM is an essential component in virtually
all electronic products used today, including mainframe
computers, servers, laptops, automobiles, global positioning
devices, cellular phones, cameras and video games.

Among the important issues addressed in the case, Mondaq notes,
is the B.C. Court's finding that it was necessary for the
plaintiff to establish that harm from the alleged conspiracy to
fix prices could be determined on a class-wide basis for the
direct and indirect purchasers.

The report says that the B.C. Court also rejected the
plaintiff's position that its pleading of waiver of tort and
constructive trust relieved it of this requirement.  In
particular, the Court held that there must be evidence of a
methodology capable of proving on a class-wide basis that the
alleged wrongful conduct that is, the alleged price-fixing
conspiracy by the defendants in respect to DRAM products caused
a wrongful gain that arose from the overcharges actually passed
on to the various layers of indirect purchasers.

Justice Masuhara specifically rejected the plaintiff's position
that it was appropriate for the plaintiff to rely upon the
aggregation provisions of the Act as a basis to prove liability,
Mondaq further relates.  Justice Masuhara observed that
aggregation provisions are only available after liability has
been established, that is the amount and degree of pass through
has been determined on a class-wide basis.

The B.C. Court also held that absence of a class-wide means to
prove liability meant that a class proceeding was not the
preferable procedure for the resolution of any common issues.  
As Justice Masuhara observed, the absence of a class-wide basis
to prove liability leads to an unmanageable process that will
not move the litigation forward in any meaningful way.

The report writes that the B.C. Court's ruling entails that the
complexities inherent in combined direct and indirect price-
fixing conspiracy cases will render them unsuitable as class
proceedings unless the evidence before the court establishes
that there is an acceptable method for determining loss on the
part of class members or a corresponding gain to the defendants
on a class-wide basis.


J2 GLOBAL: California Court Stays Internet Facsimile Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
entered an order staying a purported class action suit against
j2 Global Communications, Inc., that alleges the company has
attempted to monopolize and monopolized the market for Internet
facsimile services to home and small offices, in violation of
Section 2 of the Sherman Act.  

The suit was filed on June 29, 2007, by Justin Lynch.  The
claims in it relate in substantial part to the patent
infringement actions by the company against various companies.

The suit seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys fees
and costs.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the company filed an answer to the complaint
denying liability.  

The court entered in January an order staying the case until
June 2, 2008, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Justin Lynch v. j2 Global Communications Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04304-DDP-AJW," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Dean D. Pregerson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 5th Avenue, Ste 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292

               - and -

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq. (mjt@wtwlaw.us)
          Wexler Toriseva Wallace
          1610 Arden Way, Suite 290
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Phone: 916-568-1100


JERSEY CENTRAL: June 13 Hearing Set for 1999 Power Outages Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A June 13, 2008 case management conference is scheduled for a
purported class action suit in New Jersey against Jersey Central
Power & Light Co. -- the New Jersey electric utility operating
subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. -- over the July 1999 power
outages.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat
wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&L's
territory.

In an investigation into the causes of the outages and the
reliability of the transmission and distribution systems of all
four of New Jersey's electric utilities, the New Jersey Board of
Public Utilities concluded that there was not a prima facie case
demonstrating that, overall, JCP&L provided unsafe, inadequate
or improper service to its customers.

Two class action lawsuits, which were subsequently consolidated
into a single proceeding, were filed in New Jersey Superior
Court in July 1999 against JCP&L; GPU, Inc., former parent of
JCP&L, which merged with FirstEnergy on Nov., 7, 2001; and other
GPU companies seeking compensatory and punitive damages arising
from the July 1999 service interruptions in the JCP&L territory.

In August 2002, the trial court granted partial summary judgment
to JCP&L and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for consumer
fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and strict
product liability.

In November 2003, the trial court granted JCP&L's motion to
decertify the class and denied the plaintiffs' motion to permit
into evidence their class-wide damage model indicating damages
in excess of $50 million.

These class decertification and damage rulings were appealed to
the Appellate Division.  The Appellate Division issued a
decision on July 8, 2004, affirming the decertification of the
originally certified class, but remanding for certification of a
class limited to those customers directly impacted by the
outages of JCP&L transformers in Red Bank, N.J., based on a
common incident involving the failure of the bushings of two
large transformers in the Red Bank substation resulting in
planned and unplanned outages in the area during a 2-3 day
period.

In 2005, JCP&L renewed its motion to decertify the class based
on a very limited number of class members who incurred damages
and also filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining
plaintiffs' claims for negligence, breach of contract and
punitive damages.

In July 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court dismissed the
punitive damage claim and again decertified the class based on
the fact that a vast majority of the class members did not
suffer damages and those that did would be more appropriately
addressed in individual actions.

The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the New Jersey Appellate
Division which, on March 7, 2007, reversed the decertification
of the Red Bank class and remanded this matter back to the Trial
Court to allow plaintiffs sufficient time to establish a damage
model or individual proof of damages.  

JCP&L filed a petition for allowance of an appeal of the
Appellate Division ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court which
was denied on May 9, 2007.  

Proceedings are continuing in the Superior Court and a case
management conference with the presiding judge is scheduled for
June 13, 2008, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s May 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is   
principally a holding company that holds, directly or
indirectly, all of the common stock of its eight principal
electric utility operating subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Co., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison Co.,
Pennsylvania Power Co., American Transmission Systems, Inc.,
Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co., and
Pennsylvania Electric Co.  The Company's consolidated revenues
are primarily derived from electric service provided by its
utility operating subsidiaries and the revenues of its other
principal subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.


KNOT INC: Seeks Dismissal of FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Knot, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a putative amended
class-action complaint captioned, "Haslam v. Macy's, Inc., The
Knot, Inc., WeddingChannel.com, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No.
:07-cv-61871-DMM," which was filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 22, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the defendants provided customers
with electronically printed receipts for credit card and debit
card point of sale transactions that contained more than the
last five digits of the customer's card number and the card's
expiration date in violation of the federal Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act.

The complaint does not specify any actual damages for any member
of the purported class.  However, the complaint does seek
statutory damages, which are $100 to $1,000 for each proven
alleged willful violation of the statute, if any, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs, unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, and a permanent injunction.

The Knot filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, according to
the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Haslam v. Macy's, Inc., The Knot, Inc.,
WeddingChannel.com, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No.:07-cv-61871-
DMM," which was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stephen Richard Astley, Esq. (sastley@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road
          Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants are:

          Kathy-Ann Webb Marlin, Esq. (kmarlin@bilzin.com)
          Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131-2336
          Phone: 305-350-7229
          Fax: 305-351-2190

          Bradley D. Redlien, Esq. (bredlien@shutts-law.com)
          Shutts & Bowen
          201 S. Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 1500 Miami Center
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-358-6300
          Fax: 305-347-7718

          David M. Zensky, Esq. (dzensky@akingump.com)
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
          590 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-872-1000
          Fax: 212-872-1002


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Reaches Deal in California Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in the matter, "In Re
LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:03-
cv-05421-RMW," which was filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, according to Leapfrog's
May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

In December 2003, April 2005 and June 2005, six purported class
action lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  The
suits allege violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

These actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding
captioned, "In Re LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation."  

On Jan. 27, 2006, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed an amended and consolidated complaint.  The suit purports
to be a class action seeking unspecified damages on behalf of
persons who acquired the company's Class A common stock between
July 24, 2003, and Oct. 18, 2004.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants caused the company to
make false and misleading statements about its business and
forecasts about its financial performance, that certain of its
individual officers and directors sold portions of their stock
holdings while in the possession of adverse, non-public
information, and that certain of the company's financial
statements were false and misleading.  

On March 27, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended and consolidated complaint.  On July 31, 2006, the court
favored with the company and dismissed the complaint, with leave
for the plaintiffs to amend and refile.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint.  

In September 2007, the federal district court again granted the
company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, with
leave for the plaintiffs to amend and re-file a third amended
one.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint.  

In February 2008, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle
to settle these class actions.  

The company expects the proposed settlement, which is subject to
court approval, to be funded entirely by insurance.  The parties
are in the process of seeking court approval of the settlement.

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

The suit is "In Re LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities  
Litigation, Case No. 5:03-cv-05421-RMW," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Ronald M. Whyte, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534

              - and -

         Julie Juhyun Bai, Esq. (jbai@bermanesq.com)
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         425 California Street, Suite 2100
         San Francisco, CA 94104-2205
         Phone: 415-433-3200 x241
         Fax: 415-433-6382

Representing the defendants are:

         Leo Patrick Cunningham, Esq. (lcunningham@wsgr.com)
         Daniel W. Turbow, Esq. (dturbow@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-320-4573
         Fax: 650-565-5100
              650-493-9300


MCKESSON CORP: Appeals Class Certification Order in AWP Matter
--------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corp. petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit to allow immediate appeal of the class
certification order by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts in the matter, "New England Carpenters Health
Benefits Fund et al., v. First DataBank, Inc. and McKesson
Corporation, Case No. 05-11148," according to the company's
May 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

                    New England Carpenters I

On June 2, 2005, a civil class action complaint was filed
against the company captioned, "New England Carpenters Health
Benefits Fund et al., v. First DataBank, Inc. and McKesson
Corporation, Case No. 05-11148."

The suit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts and named as plaintiffs several health
benefit plans.

The complaint alleges that in late 2001 and early 2002 the
ompany and co-defendant First DataBank conspired to improperly
raise the published Average Wholesale Price of certain
prescription drugs, and that this alleged conduct resulted in
higher drug reimbursement payments by plaintiffs and others
similarly situated.
The plaintiffs purported to represent a class of third party
payors who paid any portion of the price of certain prescription
drugs based upon the AWPs published by FDB during the period
Jan. 1, 2002, to March 15, 2005.


The complaint alleges claims against the company based on the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18
U.S.C. section 1962(c); California's Business and Professions
Code sections 17200 and 17500, and common law civil conspiracy,
and seeks injunctive relief, as well as actual, punitive and
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs, in an unspecified
amount.  On December 29, 2005, the company filed a response to
the plaintiffs' complaint, denying the allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

From July 2006 through November 2007, the plaintiffs filed three
amended complaints, which together sought to add a class of
consumers that made percentage co-payments (consumer co-pay
class) for certain prescription drugs and a class of uninsured
consumers who paid usual and customary prices for the
prescription drugs from Aug. 1, 2001 through the present (U&C
class), to modify and extend the purported class period
pertaining to third party payors from Aug. 1, 2001, to March 15,
2005, and to add an alternative count under various state
consumer protection statutes.

The company has responded to all amended complaints, denying the
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  

No trial date has been set with respect to the third party payor
class or consumer co-pay class.  

Although the district court has not yet certified any alleged
U&C class, a trial date of Jan. 26, 2009, is presently set with
respect to the alleged U&C class.

On March 19, 2008, the district court denied a motion filed by
the Company to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings with
respect to the RICO claims asserted in the third amended
complaint.

Also on the same date, the district court entered an order
certifying:

       -- a consumer co-pay class for all purposes for the
          period Aug. 1, 2001 to May 15, 2005;

       -- the third party payor class for liability and
          equitable relief for the period from Aug. 1, 2001 to
          May 15, 2005; and

       -- the third party payor class for damages for the period
          Aug. 1, 2001 to Dec. 31, 2003.  

Although the complaints do not specify the amount of damages
sought for either of the two certified classes, prior to the
court's March 19, 2008 ruling plaintiffs filed a damages report
claiming damages of $6.8 billion for the third party payor class
and $214 million for the consumer co-pay class, which in the
case of the third party payors represented damages for a period
approximately 16 months longer than the period certified on
March 19, 2008, by the court.

The plaintiffs will submit a new damages report which we expect
will conform to the court's shorter class period and other
issues addressed in the opinion.

On April 2, 2008, the company petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit to allow immediate appeal of the
district court's March 19, 2008 class certification order.

The plaintiffs' filed a response to the petition on April 14,
2008.  The First Circuit has not yet acted on the petition.

                    New England Carpenters II

On Dec. 10, 2007, the same plaintiffs named in the New England
Carpenters I civil action filed a civil class action complaint
under federal and state antitrust laws against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
captioned, "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al.,
v. McKesson Corporation, Case No. 1:07-CV-12277-PBS."

The New England Carpenters II action purports to be brought on
behalf of the same three classes and is based on the same set of
operative facts as the New England Carpenters I action.

The complaint purports to state claims against the company for
violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, California
Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq., and Antitrust
Laws for Indirect Purchasers for seventeen individual states.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, as well as actual and
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs in unspecified
amounts.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint in New England
Carpenters II on Jan. 31, 2007.  That motion was  argued, but
not decided, on April 17, 2008.  

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stayed further
activity in the case.  McKesson has not yet answered the
complaint.  No trial date or pretrial schedule has been set.

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,  
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry.  It conducts business through three
segments.  The Company operates in two segments: The McKesson
Distribution Solutions segment and The McKesson Technology
Solutions segment.  The McKesson Distribution Solutions segment
distributes ethical drugs, medical-surgical supplies and
equipment, and health and beauty care products throughout North
America.  This segment also provides specialty pharmaceutical
solutions for biotech and pharmaceutical manufacturers, sells
pharmacy software and provides consulting, outsourcing and other
services.  The McKesson Technology Solutions segment delivers
enterprise-wide clinical, patient care, financial, supply chain,
and strategic management software solutions, pharmacy automation
for hospitals, as well as connectivity, outsourcing and other
services.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Suits Over Stock Acquisition Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.; Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Co.; Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.; Nationwide Corp.; and
the directors of NFS are facing several class action lawsuits
brought by NFS shareholders, according to NFS's May 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

These lawsuits arise out of the joint offer by Nationwide Mutual
Insurance, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance and Nationwide Corp.
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of NFS' Class A common
stock.

The lawsuits are pending in multiple jurisdictions and allege
that the offer price was inadequate, that the process for
reviewing the offer was procedurally unfair and that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the holders
of the NFS Class A common stock.

Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for  
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Company of America  and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The Company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.

    
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Opposes Certification Bid in "Haddock"
------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., and its Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. subsidiary filed their opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification with regard to the
matter, "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No. 3:01-
cv-01552-SRU."

On Aug. 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut,
entitled "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die, Inc.
Deferred Compensation Plan, et al. v. Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Company," which
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

Currently, the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint, filed on
March 21, 2006, purports to represent a class of qualified
retirement plans under ERISA that purchased variable annuities
from NLIC.  The plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan
assets in their variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS
breached ERISA fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service
payments from certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments
allegedly received by NLIC and NFS, other unspecified relief for
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.  To date, the District Court has rejected the plaintiffs'
request for certification of the alleged class.

On Sept. 25, 2007, NFS' and NLIC's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint was denied.  

On Oct. 12, 2007, NFS and NLIC filed their answer to the
plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint and amended their
counterclaims.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss NFS'
and NLIC's amended counterclaims.  They later filed a motion for
class certification.

On Feb. 8, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss the amended counterclaim, with the exception that it was
tentatively granting the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss with
respect to NFS' and NLIC's claim that it could recover any
"disgorgement remedy" from plan sponsors.  

On April 25, 2008, NFS and NLIC filed their opposition to the
plaintiffs' request for class certification, according to NFS's
May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No.
3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Stefan R. Underhill presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard A. Bieder, Esq. (rbieder@koskoff.com)
          Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.
          350 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport
          CT 06604
          Phone: 203-336-4421  
          Fax: 203-368-3244

          Gregory G. Jones, Esq. (greg@gjoneslaw.com)
          603 S. Main, Suite 200
          Grapevine, TX 76051
          Phone: 871-424-9001
          Fax: 817-424-1665

               - and -

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq. (rmandel@smi-law.com)
          Stanley, Mandel & Iola
          3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Phone: 214-443-4300
          Fax: 214-443-0358

Representing the defendants are:

          Jessica A. Ballou, Esq. (jballou@llgm.com)
          LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae
          Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St.
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 860-293-3535
          Fax: 860-293-3555

               - and -

          Sam Broderick-Sokol, Esq.
          (sam.broderick-sokol@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr-LLP-DC
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6000
          Fax: 202-663-6363


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Want Washinton ERISA Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the suit "Daniels-Hall et al. v. National
Education Association et al., Case No. 3:2007cv05339," filed a
motion to stay the matter, which was filed against Nationwide
Life Insurance Co. -- a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc. -- according to Nationwdide Life's May 8, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The lawsuit was filed on July 11, 2007, before the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington.  It alleges
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

The suit was filed by Jerre Daniels-Hall and David Hamblen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
against:

     -- NLIC,
     -- National Education Association,
     -- NEA Member Benefits Corporation,
     -- Security Benefit Life Insurance Company,
     -- Security Benefit Group, Inc., and
     -- Security Distributors, Inc.

The plaintiffs seeks to represent a class of all current or
former National Education Association members who participated
in the NEA Valuebuilder 403(b) program at any time between
January 1, 1991, and the present (and their heirs and
beneficiaries).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the ERISA by
failing to provide complete and accurate information, by
engaging in prohibited transactions, and by breaching their
fiduciary duties when they failed to prevent other fiduciaries
from breaching their fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks to have the defendants restore all losses to
the plan, restoration of plan assets and profits to
participants, disgorgement of endorsement fees, disgorgement of
service fee payments, disgorgement of excessive fees charged to
plan participants, other unspecified relief for restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

On Oct. 12, 2007, NLIC filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  Oral
argument occurred on April 4, 2008.  

On April 11, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the
lawsuit based on the primary jurisdiction of the U.S. Department
of Labor.

The suit is "Daniels-Hall et al v. National Education
Association et al., Case No. 3:2007cv05339," filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Judge Ronald B. Leighton presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Allen C. Engerman, Esq. (ACELaw@mcn.org)
          Law Offices of Allen C. Engerman, P.A.
          Sanctuary Centre
          4800 N Federal Hwy., Ste. 100-d
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-2222

               - and -

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq. (dloeser@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 3rd Ave.
          Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark Bieter, Esq. (mark.bieter@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6126

               - and -

          Abigail V. Carter, Esq. (acarter@bredhoff.com)
          Bredhoff & Kaiser
          805 Fifteenth St. NW
          Ste. 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-842-2600


NATIONWIDE LIFE: "Gwin" Lawsuit Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
remanded the purported class action lawsuit captioned "Gwin et
al v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company et al., Case No. 2:08-
cv-00059-RDP" -- which names a subsidiary of Nationwide
Financial Services, Inc., as a defendant -- back to the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama.

On Nov. 20, 2007, Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and Nationwide
Retirement Solutions, Inc., were named in a lawsuit filed with
the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, entitled, "Ruth
A. Gwin and Sandra H. Turner, and a class of similarly situated
individuals v. NLIC, NRS, Alabama State Employees Association,
PEBCO, Inc. and Fictitious Defendants A to Z."

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all participants
in the Alabama State Employees Association plan, excluding
members of the Board of Control during the Class Period and
excluding ASEA's directors, officers and board members during
the class period.  The class period is the date from which NLIC
and NRS first made a payment to ASEA or PEBCO arising out of the
funding agreement dated March 24, 2004, to the date class notice
is provided.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties, converted plan participants' properties, and
breached their contract when payments were made and the plan was
administered under the funding agreement.

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, an injunction,
disgorgement of amounts paid, compensatory and punitive damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other equitable
and legal relief to which the plaintiffs and class members may
be entitled.

On Jan. 9, 2008, NLIC and NRS filed a Notice of Removal of the
case to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama.  

On Jan. 16, 2008, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  On Jan. 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
move the case back to the original court.  

Subsequently, on April 15, 2008, the Court remanded the case
back to state court in Jefferson County, Alabama, according to
the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Gwin et al v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company et
al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00059-RDP," filed before the U.S. District
Court Northern District of Alabama, Judge R. David Proctor
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James S. Christie, Jr., Esq.
          (jchristie@bradleyarant.com)
          Bradley Arant Rose & White
          P.O. Box 830709
          Birmingham, AL 35283-0709
          Phone: 521-8000

Representing the defendants are:
         
          J. Kirkman Garrett, Esq. (jkgarrett@csattorneys.com)
          Christian & Small LLP
          Financial Center, Suite 1800
          505 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2696
          Phone: 795-6588

          Rebecca G. DePalma, Esq. (rdepalma@waadlaw.com)
          White Arnold Andrews & Dowd PC
          2025 3rd Avenue, North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 323-1888

               - and -

          Joseph C. Espy, III, Esq. (jespy@mewlegal.com)
          Melton Espy & Williams PC
          301 Adams Avenue
          P.O. Drawer 5130
          Montgomery, AL 36103-5130
          Phone: 334-263-6621
          Fax: 334-263-7252


NBC UNIVERSAL: "Deal or No Deal" Not Illegal, Sup. Ct. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on March 3, 2008, that
NBC Universal, Inc., and the producer of Howie Mandel's hit
program, "Deal or No Deal," are facing a lawsuit before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
a proposed class of people who participated in the Lucky Case
Game, which is an interactive feature of the show.  

According to the CAR report, the Supreme Court of Georgia was
asked to interpret Georgia law for Senior Judge William C.
O'Kelley, the federal judge overseeing the case, which was filed
by Columbus lawyers Buchanan & Land and Daughtery, Crawford,
Fuller & Brown.  The current version of the law, found at
O.C.G.A. Section 13-8-3, is at the center of the case.

The suit alleges that the game -- in which viewers, like the
contestants on the show, try to pick a lucky suitcase -- ran
afoul of Georgia law because participants were charged 99 cents
to play through their cell phones.  

The centuries-old Georgia law allows a loser in a "gambling
consideration" to file suit to recover his losses.  The suit
seeks to recover 99-cent and said NBC should reimburse all
others who paid the text fees and lost the "Lucky Case Game."

NBC Universal and the other defendants, however, argue that they
are not obligated to return the 99-cent fees because viewers
could play for free on the Internet.  The defendants also
contend that they were not winners in a gambling contract.  The
winners, they say, were the participants who picked the right
suitcase and were then chosen from a random drawing to get at
least $10,000.

Judge O'Kelley has suggested that "probably" tens of millions of
dollars are at stake in the case, which was initiated by Forsyth
County couple Michael and Michele Hardin.  The Hardins say that
they are regular viewers of "Deal or No Deal" and have played
the Lucky Case Game multiple times.  They said that they want to
represent a class of Georgians who played the game from Georgia
cell phone numbers, as well as those who played other games
promoted on NBC.

In a recent update, Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution relates that the Georgia Supreme Court has handed
NBC a legal victory by ruling that the Hardins, and potentially
millions of other viewers, cannot recover the cost of text
messages they sent to play the game on "Deal or No Deal."

In his recent ruling, Justice Hugh Thompson said that the text
messages during the "Lucky Case Game" do not constitute a bet or
wager.  The law, Judge Thompson wrote, "does not authorize the
filing of a civil suit to recover the text messages."

According to The AJC, Judge O'Kelley will now use Judge
Thompson's ruling when he considers NBC's motion to dismiss the
federal lawsuit.

Jerry Buchanan, Esq., who represents the Hardins, expressed
disappointment.  "But we have full respect for the court," he
told The AJC, adding "We will abide by that decision and move
on."

Mr. Buchanan also said that he suspected the ruling places the
federal lawsuit "dead in the water."

The AJC report says that since that lawsuit was filed, NBC
halted the "Lucky Case Game."  

The AJC report notes that the unanimous decision potentially
saved the network a fortune in legal judgments and gutted the
class-action lawsuit brought by the Hardins.


NORTH SHORE: Illinois Court Grants Dismissal Motion in Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, dismissed a
purported class action lawsuit against North Shore Gas Co. and
several other companies that accuses them of improperly charging
connection and disconnection fees to several Chicago-based
builders.

In June 2005, a purported class action suit was filed against
Peoples Energy Corp. and its utility subsidiaries, including NSG
by Birchwood Builders, LLC, before the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, alleging that NSG was fraudulently and
improperly charging fees to customers with respect to utility
connections, disconnections, reconnections, relocations,
extensions of gas service pipes and extensions of distribution
gas mains and failing to return related customer deposits.  

NSG filed two motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  On Jan. 25, 2007,
the judge entered an order dismissing the complaint, but allowed
the plaintiffs the option of filing an amended complaint (except
as to the plaintiffs' seeking of declaratory relief, which was
dismissed with prejudice).

The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs could file their claims
directly with the Illinois Commerce Commission.  

On June 28, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint before the Circuit Court.  NSG responded by filing a
motion to dismiss on in August 2007.  This motion was granted on
April 16, 2008, and the matter was dismissed, 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.

North Shore Gas Co. -- http://www.peoplesenergy.com/--  
purchases, stores, distributes, sells and transports natural
gas.  The natural gas utility segment is NSG's core business.
The Company purchases, stores, distributes, sells and transports
natural gas to approximately 158,000 customers through an
approximately 2,000-mile, distribution-mains system serving 54
communities in northeastern Illinois, representing a service
area of approximately 275 square miles.  The customer base
includes residential, commercial and industrial sales and
transportation accounts.


NORTH SHORE: Dismissed From Gas Reconciliation Procedures Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
North Shore Gas Co. has been dismissed as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit in Illinois that alleges
violations of the state's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act in relation to matters at issue in the company's
gas reconciliation proceedings.

The purported class action was filed in February 2004 in Cook
County Circuit Court against the company and Peoples Gas Light
and Coke, Co., by Stephen Alport, a Peoples Gas customer.  

The suit alleges, among other things, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act related to
matters at issue in Peoples Gas' fiscal year 2001 gas charge
reconciliation proceedings.  It seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.  

NSG and PGL have been dismissed as defendants, 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.

North Shore Gas Co. -- http://www.peoplesenergy.com/--  
purchases, stores, distributes, sells and transports natural
gas.  The natural gas utility segment is NSG's core business.
The Company purchases, stores, distributes, sells and transports
natural gas to approximately 158,000 customers through an
approximately 2,000-mile, distribution-mains system serving 54
communities in northeastern Illinois, representing a service
area of approximately 275 square miles.  The customer base
includes residential, commercial and industrial sales and
transportation accounts.


OHIO EDISON: Rulings in W.H. Sammis Plant Lawsuit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit filed against
Ohio Edison Co. -- an electric utility operating subsidiary of
FirstEnergy Corp. -- are appealing the court's denial of their
requests to certify a class and amend their complaint.

The suit was filed in Jefferson County, Ohio Common Pleas Court
on Aug. 22, 2005, by two named plaintiffs.  It is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages to be determined at trial
based on claims of negligence and eight other tort counts
alleging damages from W.H. Sammis Plant air emissions.  

In addition, the suit is also seeking injunctive relief to
eliminate harmful emissions and repair property damage and the
institution of a medical monitoring program for class members.

On April 5, 2007, the court rejected the plaintiffs' request to
certify the case as a class action and, accordingly, did not
appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives or their counsel
as class counsel.

On July 30, 2007, the plaintiffs' counsel voluntarily withdrew
their request for reconsideration of the court's order denying
class certification and the court heard oral argument on the
plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, which motion Ohio
Edison has opposed.

On Aug. 2, 2007, the court denied the plaintiffs' request to
amend their complaint.  

The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's denial of the motion
for certification as a class action and motion to amend their
complaint.

FirstEnergy Corp. reported no further development in the matter
in its May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

FirstEnergy Corp. -- http://www.firstenergycorp.com/-- is   
principally a holding company that holds, directly or
indirectly, all of the common stock of its eight principal
electric utility operating subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Co., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., The Toledo Edison Co.,
Pennsylvania Power Co., American Transmission Systems, Inc.,
Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co., and
Pennsylvania Electric Co.  The Company's consolidated revenues
are primarily derived from electric service provided by its
utility operating subsidiaries and the revenues of its other
principal subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.


POZEN INC: To Seek Dismissal of N.C. Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
POZEN, Inc., plans to file a motion seeking the dismissal of a
purported securities fraud class action suit entitled "Brian
Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00559,"
which was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina.

The suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2007, by a holder of POZEN's
securities against the company, its chairman and chief executive
officer, and one of its directors.  The suit alleges, among
other claims, violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of allegedly false
and misleading statements made by the company concerning its
migraine drug candidate, Trexima, during the purported class
period, July 31, 2006, through Aug. 1, 2007.

By order dated Feb. 15, 2008, the Court appointed joint co-lead
plaintiffs.  On April 25, 2008, the company received the
plaintiffs' amended and consolidated complaint which added two
current officers of the company as additional defendants.

The company will prepare and file a motion to dismiss with the
Court on or before June 26, 2008, according to the company's
May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Brian Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-00559," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James Davidson, Esq. (jdavidson@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

               - and -

          Marcus Angelo Manos, Esq. (mmanos@nexsenpruet.com)
          Nexsen Pruet, LLC
          POD 2426
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Phone: 803-253-8275
          Fax: 803-253-8277

Representing the defendants are:

          Pressly Mcauley Millen, Esq. (pmillen@wcsr.com)
          Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
          POB 831
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: 919-755-2135
          Fax: 919-755-6067

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. (nporritt@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          1700 K St., N.W., Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20006-3817
          Phone: 202-973-8807
          Fax: 202-973-8899


SOWETO, SOUTH AFRICA: Water Scheme Ruling Sets Global Precedent
---------------------------------------------------------------
A landmark High Court ruling against a multimillion-dollar
prepaid water scheme in South Africa's largest township, Soweto,
has been heralded as a global precedent in the struggle for the
basic human right to water, Legalbrief Africa says, citing an
IRIN report.

According to Legalbrief Africa, Judge Moroa Tsoka of the
Johannesburg High Court points out that the case is "about the
fundamental right to have access to sufficient water and the
right to human dignity."

The report notes that five residents of Phiri, one of Soweto's
poorest areas, asked the court in a class-action lawsuit to
order the city to provide at least 50 liters of free water per
person per day, double what they currently receive yet the basic
minimum prescribed by the World Health Organization.  They also
asked that they be given the choice of an ordinary credit water
meter instead of the prepaid system imposed by the city, on
which the court ruled in their favor as well.

"The case is the first in which a South African court has come
out in favor of the poor.  It sets a global precedent; it shows
the defects of prepaid water meters, which require people to pay
in advance, which discriminates against the poor," Ashfaq
Khalfan, Co-ordinator of the Right to Water Programme of the
Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, told Legalbrief Africa.

Legalbrief Africa notes that the City of Johannesburg plans to
appeal the ruling.

According to a Business Day report, the judge said the meters
discriminated between the applicants and other residents within
the municipality.  "While other residents of the city, for
example Sandton, get water on credit from the respondents, the
applicants do not," the judge said, noting that while the
residents of Sandton were given an opportunity to settle their
arrears, as well as had a chance to make presentations
concerning the arrears and the settlement thereof, the residents
of Phiri, which is a poor and predominantly a black area, are
denied the same right.

Since the judgment was handed down earlier this month, the
municipality has postponed the installation of water meters in
the township, Legalbrief Africa relates.  


SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued Over Charges for Unauthorized Content
---------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. was slapped with a lawsuit alleging it
charged customers for unauthorized "mobile content" that
includes ringtones, sports scores and weather reports, Dan
Margolies writes for The Kansas City Star.

The report relates that the would-be class action, originally
filed last month in Lyon County, Kansas, by California resident
James Peetz, was recently moved to federal court by the
defendant.

Mr. Peetz said he became a Sprint customer in 2000.  In 2007, he
said, he was charged for unsought "premium" text messages from
Kepler & Associates LLC, doing business as JokeMobi, a third-
party provider of mobile content.

According to the Kansas Star, the case is one of several dozen
similar class-action lawsuits filed across the country against
the nation's largest wireless carriers.  

"It really is the Wild West out there," Jay Edelson, Esq., of
KamberEdelson in Chicago, who is the lead attorney in the Sprint
case, told the Kansas Star.  "You've got thousands of very small
companies who sell mobile content, and if they have your cell
phone number they can start charging you," he added.

Sprint spokesman Matt Sullivan told the Kansas Star that the
company adhered to the guidelines set by the Mobile Marketing
Association which calls for content providers to obtain approval
from subscribers before they send text messages and other
content.

The report points out that typically, mobile content is offered
for a monthly fee.  Third parties, known as aggregators, deliver
the content to subscribers' phones.  Carriers like Sprint then
add the charge to the subscribers' monthly bills.  The carrier
keeps a portion of the proceeds and remits the rest to the
aggregator, which takes a percentage and remits the balance to
the mobile content provider.

Mr. Edelson said Sprint wasn't directly responsible for the
unauthorized charges.  Rather, he said, Sprint was responsible
for a system "that allows this to happen, and they have not been
able to fix it to date."

The lawsuit says that Sprint has not adopted procedures
requiring customer authorization before the charges are
assessed.  This "disastrous flaw," the lawsuit alleges, "is an
open secret within the industry, but little understood outside
of it."

"Armed with only a cell phone number, the mobile content
provider can simply provide that number, along with an amount to
be charged, to a billing aggregator (such as m-Qube or mBlox),"
the suit further states.  "The aggregator, in turn, instructs
the relevant cellular carrier to add the charge to the bill
associated with that cell phone number.  The charge will then
appear on the consumer's cell phone bill, often with only
minimal, cryptic identifying information."

In its notice moving the case to federal court, Sprint said
that, in a single quarter in 2007, the nation's wireless
carriers made more than $273 million off of premium mobile
content.  That, the Kansas Star notes, translates into nearly
$1.1 billion annually. Assuming Sprint's share of that market
equals its 23% share of the overall wireless market, its mobile
content revenues last year would have totaled about
$230 million.

Common mobile content services include customized ringtones,
horoscopes, weather reports, sports scores and stock tips.  More
advanced content includes interactive radio and services that
let cell phones function as credit cards, according to the
report.

Mr. Edelson shared with the Kansas Star that about 30 would-be
class-action lawsuits have been filed nationwide by consumers
over unauthorized charges on their cell phone bills.  He said
several cases were nearing settlement, but he declined to
provide details because the settlements were not finalized.


WENDY'S INT'L: Faces Ohio Lawsuits Over Triarc Merger Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy's International, Inc., is facing two purported class
action lawsuits in Ohio over its merger agreement with Triarc
Companies, Inc., and Green Merger Sub, Inc.  This according to
the company's May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 30, 2008.

On April 23, 2008, the company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Triarc Companies and Green Merger Sub, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Triarc.

The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject
to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
will merge with and into Wendy's International, with Wendy's
International continuing as the surviving corporation and as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Triarc.  The Merger has been approved
by the board of directors of both the Company and Triarc.

                     Guiseppone Litigation

On April 25, 2008, a putative class action complaint was filed
by Ethel Guiseppone on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, against the company, its directors, Triarc and Trian
Partners in the Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties arising out of
the approval of the Merger Agreement on April 23, 2008.

The complaint seeks certification of the proceeding as a class
action suit, preliminary and permanent injunctions against
disenfranchising the purported class and consummating the
Merger, other equitable relief, attorneys fees and other relief
as the court deems proper and just.

                       Henzel Litigation

On April 25, 2008, a putative derivative class action complaint
was filed by Cindy Henzel, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of the company,
against the company and its directors in the Franklin County,
Ohio Court of Common Pleas.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties arising out of
the approval of the Merger Agreement on April 23, 2008.  

The complaint seeks certification of the proceeding as a
derivative and class action, preliminary and permanent
injunctions against consummating the Merger, other equitable
relief, attorneys fees and other relief as the court deems
proper and just.

The company reported no further development in the matters in
its regulatory SEC filing.

Wendy's International, Inc. -- http://www.wendys.com/-- is  
primarily engaged in the operation, development and franchising
of quick-service restaurants.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company
and its franchise owners operated 6,645 restaurants under the
name Wendy's in 50 states and in 19 other countries and
territories.  Of these restaurants, 1,414 restaurants were
operated by the Company, and 5,231 restaurants were operated by
its franchisees.  Each Wendy's restaurant offers a relatively
standard menu featuring hamburgers and filet of chicken breast
sandwiches, which are prepared to order with the customer's
choice of condiments.  The New Bakery Co. of Ohio, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is a producer of buns
for Wendy's restaurants, and to a lesser extent for outside
parties.  At Dec. 30, 2007, the Bakery supplied 637 restaurants
operated by the Company and 2,366 restaurants operated by
franchisees.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
May 20-21, 2008
  MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 29-30, 2008
  MASS LITIGATION
    ALI-ABA
      Charleston, SC
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 23-24, 2008
  MEALEY'S WRAP INSURANCE CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Signatures at the MGM Grand, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 25, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (NEW YORK)
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Harvard Club, New York
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 10-11, 2008
  CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2008: PROSECUTION AND
    DEFENSE STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

July 30, 2008
  MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW
    DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        Chicago
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

October 23-24, 2008
  Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
    Mass Torts Made Perfect
      Bellagio, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-320-2227

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
December 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
  
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS  
  (2004)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
       Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2005)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
  YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
  WRITTEN DISCOVERY
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
  LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
  LawCommerce.Com
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
  SALES AND ADVERSTISING
    American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-285-2221
        e-mail: abacle@abanet.org





                            *********

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  * * *