CAR_Public/080522.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, May 22, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 101
  
                            Headlines

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit in Maine Over "Buy" Buttons Removal
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Settles AUD396-Million Shareholders' Lawsuit
ATRICURE INC: Court Yet to Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Still Faces Suits Over Ventas Realty Sale
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Mails Checks for Minot Derailment Suit Deal

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Ark. Court Dismisses Ratepayers' Litigation
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Settles La. Lawsuits Over Gas Overcharges
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Natural Gas Mismeasurement Suits
CHOICEPOINT INC: June 12 Hearing Set for $10MM Suit Settlement
CHOICEPOINT INC: 11th Circuit Remands ERISA Case to Ga. Court

EDDIE BAUER: California Labor Suit Settlement Faces Objection
EDDIE BAUER: Seeks Dismissal of "Scherer" Labor Suit in Calif.
EDDIE BAUER: Washington Shareholders' Litigation Dismissed
GUILD MORTGAGE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Concealed Interest Rates
JAPANESE GOV'T: Asbestos Victims File JPY6.6-Bln. Suit in Tokyo

KEY ENERGY: Texas Court Okays $16.6MM Securities Suit Settlement
LENDINGTREE: Sued in N.Y. Over Customer Information Data Breach
LOS ANGELES CAR WASH: Bet Tzedek to Sue Over Labor Violations
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.M. HMO Suit
NETLIST INC: Court Yet to Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid

OMNICARE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ky. Securities Suit
PLAYLOGIC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Copy Protection Software Suit
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Lawsuit in California
SONUS NETWORKS: Wants Massachusetts Securities Suit Dismissed
SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Approves $40MM Securities Suit Deal

SUPERSHUTTLE: Faces Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California
TARGET CORP: Faces California Suit Over Sales Tax Charges
THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: California Securities Suits Drag On
TOP SHIPS: Hearing for $1.2MM Suit Settlement in N.Y. is July 31
U.S. FOREST SERVICE: Colorado Men Sue Over Mount Evans Fee

WIRELESS CARRIERS: Faces Lawsuit in Mississippi Over SMS Charges
XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Suit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Schatz Nobel Files California Securities Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Ademi & O'Reilly Commences Securities Lawsuit
RBC DAIN: Stull & Brody Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: Stull & Brody Files Securities Suit in California



                           *********


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit in Maine Over "Buy" Buttons Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District Court of Maine by a print-
on-demand publisher in response to the Internet retailer's
threat to remove the "buy” buttons of publishers who refuse to
sign up with its on-demand printing subsidiary BookSurge,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, Amazon violates antitrust law by
demanding that all PODs who sell through Amazon also use
BookSurge, a company that Amazon bought for that type of
publishing.  It claims that Amazon bought On Demand Publishing
-- d/b/a BookSurge -- in 2005, and that on Feb. 10, 2008,  
"Amazon began notifying POD publishing companies that Amazon and
the Bookstore would only directly sell to consumers POD Books
that were printed by BookSurge.”

The class action claims that the move is an illegal tying
arrangement meant to drive competing publishers out of business.

Named plaintiff BookLocker.com claims that most POD books are
sold through the Internet.  It claims that major chain
bookstores "generally do not stock books from POD publishers.”

BookLocker sues on behalf of "thousands of POD publishers . . .
who in the aggregate publish hundreds of thousands of titles.”
BookLocker says it has a catalogue of 1,200 POD titles.

The plaintiff further claims that Amazon controls 70% of the
online book sales and is abusing its market power to squeeze out
competitors in print-on-demand publishing.

The plaintiff says it publishes its print-on-demand titles
through Amazon's largest POD competitor, Lightning Source,
which, before Amazon's illegal action, was printing 1 million
books a month for 4,300 publishers.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
Rules 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on behalf all POD publishers and publishing companies in the
United States who either had books listed for sale in the
Bookstore, or who had or have an application to have books
listed for sale in the Bookstore, at any time from February 10,
2008 through the conclusion of trial of this matter.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) the definition of the relevant market;

     (b) Amazon's market power within that market;

     (c) whether Amazon's conduct constitutes an illegal tying
         arrangement under the Sherman Act;

     (d) whether the contractual conditions Amazon and BookSurge
         impose upon the plaintiff and the class members are
         unfair and improper;

     (e) whether Amazon's conduct has or will cause damage to
         the plaintiff and the class members; and

     (f) the appropriateness of injunctive relief to restrain
         ongoing and future violations of the law.

The plaintiff ask the court for judgment:

     -- that this action may be maintained as a class action
        pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure with respect to Plaintiff's claims for
        injunctive relief, and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims for
        damages and other monetary relief, and declaring
        Plaintiff as representative of the Class and its counsel
        as counsel for the Class;

     -- that the conduct alleged herein constitutes unlawful
        tying in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
        Act;

     -- that the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
        injunctive relief under the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 26, and other applicable law, enjoining Amazon
        from continuing or engaging in the unfair and anti-
        competitive activities alleged herein;

     -- that the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
        damages, penalties and other monetary relief provided by
        the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15, and other
        applicable law, including treble damages;

     -- that the plaintiff and the class recover their costs of
        suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and pre- and
        post- judgment interest;

     -- that the plaintiff and the class are entitled to an
        order requiring full restitution of all funds acquired
        from Amazon's unfair business practices, including
        disgorgement of revenues and profits;

     -- that the plaintiff and the class are granted such other,
        further and different relief as the nature of the case
        may require or as may be determined to be just,
        equitable and proper by the Court.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Anthony D. Pellegrini, Esq.
          (apellegrini@rudman-winchell.com)
          Rudman & Winchell
          84 Harlow Street – P.O. Box 1401
          Bangor, Maine 04402
          Phone: 297-947-4501
          Fax: 207-941-9715


ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Settles AUD396-Million Shareholders' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aristocrat Leisure Limited (ASX: ALL) reached an agreement to
settle a AUD396-million class action suit filed by shareholders,  
Reuters reports.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Aristocrat would
incur a net cost after expenses and tax of up to $40 million,
which will be funded from cash and available facilities.

The settlement agreement is subject to Court approval and other
conditions.

                       Case Background

The Class Action Reporter reported on Nov. 1, 2007, that the
shareholder class action suit finished on Oct. 31 last year with
the company conceding that if any compensation is owed, it could
peak at $1.10 a share, more than three times the figure it used
when the case opened on Oct. 4, 2007.

The CAR report recounted that the suit was filed in 2003 by
Maurice Blackburn Cashman Lawyers and litigation company IMF
Australia, alleging that the company's market forecasts
were false and misleading and that it failed to disclose all
material information in a timely manner.  The case was
transferred to the Federal Court in Sydney.

The lawsuit further alleged that the company misled shareholders
by not keeping them fully informed before announcing earnings
downgrades that wiped $1.5 billion (AUD2 billion) from the
company's value in 2003.  The lawsuit claims the non-disclosure
caused them losses.

The Statement of Claim has been amended to claim losses incurred
by shareholders who purchased shares between Feb. 18, 2002
(previously Sept. 20, 2002) and May 26, 2003.

The case is before Justice Margaret Stone.  Dorajay Pty Limited
is representing shareholders.  Aristocrat said only Dorajay and
four other shareholders had filed details of their claims.

Proceedings began on Oct. 4, 2007, which proceedings were
dominated by procedural issues.  Maurice Blackburn submitted a
supplementary two-page letter by forensic accountant Greg
Meredith.  Three expert reports by Mr. Meredith, who is partner
and head of forensic accounting at Ferrier Hodgson, were
tendered as evidence on behalf of Dorajay.  All four reports
were uncontested by Aristocrat.  
  
Later on, Brad Cornell, from the California Institute of
Technology, testified for Aristocrat.  The New York
econometrician Fred Dunbar testified for the shareholders.  

Mr. Cornell said that only part of a 57% fall in Aristocrat's
share price in February 2003 could be attributed to previously
undisclosed bad news.  Mr. Dunbar, on the other hand, argued
that almost all the share price fall could be attributed to the
effect on earnings of the new information, according to the
report.

Mr. Dunbar said the share price would have fallen by the same
57%, albeit in stages, if Aristocrat had announced lower --
correct -- profits in February and August 2002 and if it had
righted an inflated profit forecast in December 2002.  Mr.
Cornell countered that the delay contributed to the size of the
fall.

Aristocrat said the lawsuit could cost the company
AUD10 million to AUD20 million in damages.

Aristocrat changed its loss figure to take account of opinions
expressed during the case by expert witness, Mr. Cornell.  It
now suggests a range between 35c and $1.10 a share.

Both sides agree the Aristocrat share price was inflated above
its true value because Aristocrat overstated its profits from
South American contracts in February and August 2002, and should
have warned the market from December 2002 that the next result
would be below analysts' forecasts.

Justice Stone is expected to hand down her decision early next
year.  The ruling could set a precedent for other class actions
over failure to disclose material information.

Representing shareholders is:

          Stephen Gageler, S.C.
          (stephengageler@wentworthchambers.com.au)
          Phone: +612-9233-1209
          Fax: +612-9232-7626


ATRICURE INC: Court Yet to Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a renewed bid by AtriCure, Inc. to have the
purported securities class action suit entitled "Levine v.
AtriCure, Inc., Case No. 06 CV 14324," dismissed.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and
seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock during the period from the company's Initial Public
Offering in August 2005 through Feb. 16, 2006.

The company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction was denied in September 2007, and a motion
for reconsideration of that denial is currently pending.

The company 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.

The suit is "Levine v. Atricure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
14324-RJH," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Richard J. Holwell,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants is:

         Douglas M. Kraus, Esq. (dkraus@skadden.com)
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-735-3000 x2510
         Fax: 917-777-2510

    
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Still Faces Suits Over Ventas Realty Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., continues to face two lawsuits
including a purported class action complaint in New York and
Delaware arising out of the company's sale of certain facilities
to Ventas Realty Limited Partnership in 2004.  This according to
Brookdale's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

                       New York Litigation

The first action was "David T. Atkins et al. v. Apollo Real
Estate Advisors, L.P., et al.," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 15, 2005, by
current and former limited partners in 36 investing
partnerships.

The complaint in the action was amended for the third time on
March 17, 2006.  The third amended complaint was brought on
behalf of current and former limited partners in 14 investing
partnerships.

It names as defendants, among others, the company; Brookdale
Living Communities, Inc., a subsidiary of the company; GFB-AS
Investors, LLC, a subsidiary of BLC; the general partners of the
14 investing partnerships, which are alleged to be subsidiaries
of GFB-AS; Fortress Investment Group, an affiliate of the
company's largest stockholder; and R. Stanley Young, its former
chief financial officer.

The nine-count third amended complaint alleges, among other
things:

      -- that the defendants converted for their own use the
         property of the limited partners of 11 partnerships,
         including through the failure to obtain consents the
         plaintiffs contend were required for the sale of
         facilities indirectly owned by those partnerships to
         Ventas;

      -- that the defendants fraudulently persuaded the limited
         partners of three partnerships to give up a valuable
         property right based upon incomplete, false and
         misleading statements in connection with certain
         consent solicitations;

      -- that certain defendants, including GFB-AS, the general
         partners, and our former Chief Financial Officer, but
         not including the Company, BLC, or Fortress, committed
         mail fraud in connection with the sale of facilities
         indirectly owned by the 14 partnerships at issue in the
         Action to Ventas;

      -- that certain defendants, including GFB-AS and its
         former Chief Financial Officer, but not including the
         Company, BLC, the general partners, or Fortress,
         committed wire fraud in connection with certain
         communications with plaintiffs in the Action and
         another investor in a limited partnership;

      -- that the defendants, with the exception of the Company,
         committed substantive violations of the Racketeer
         Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act;

      -- that the defendants conspired to violate RICO;

      -- that GFB-AS and the general partners violated the
         partnership agreements of the 14 investing
         partnerships;

      -- that GFB-AS, the general partners, and the company's
         former Chief Financial Officer breached fiduciary
         duties to the plaintiffs; and

      -- that the defendants were unjustly enriched.

The plaintiffs have asked for damages in excess of $100 million
on each of the counts asserted, including treble damages for the
RICO claims.

On April 18, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
claims with prejudice.

On April 30, 2008, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint, but granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend which they must file within 30 days of
the issuance of the court's order.  

                      Delaware Litigation

A putative class action suit was filed on March 22, 2006, by
certain limited partners in four of the same partnerships
involved in the Action.  

The suit was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware as "Edith Zimmerman et al. v. GFB-AS Investors, LLC and
Brookdale Living Communities, Inc."

On Nov. 21, 2006, an amended complaint was filed in the action.  
The putative class in the case consists only of those limited
partners in the four investing partnerships who are not
plaintiffs in the Action.  BLC and GFB-AS were named as
defendants in the Second Action.  

The complaint alleges a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
arising out of the sale of facilities indirectly owned by the
investing partnerships to Ventas and the subsequent lease of
those facilities by Ventas to subsidiaries of BLC.

The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an accounting, damages
in an unspecified amount, and disgorgement of unspecified
amounts by which the defendants were allegedly unjustly
enriched.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the company filed an answer denying the claim
asserted in the amended complaint and providing affirmative
defenses.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs moved to certify the suit as a
class action.  Both the plaintiffs and defendants have served
document production requests and the first action is currently
in the beginning stages of document discovery.  The company also
intends to vigorously defend the Second Action.

Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. -- http://www.brookdaleliving.com/
-- is an operator of senior living facilities in the U.S. with
546 facilities in 35 states and the ability to serve over 51,000
residents.  The company offers its residents access to a full
continuum of services across all sectors of the senior living
industry.  BSL operates in four segments: independent living,
assisted living, retirement centers/continuing care retirement
communities and management services.  


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Mails Checks for Minot Derailment Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 17, 2008, that class
members still have not received checks on account of a
settlement of a class action suit resulting from a Canadian
Pacific Railway train derailment and chemical spill at
Minot, North Dakota in 2002.  

As recounted in the CAR report, the Minot Derailment Case was
dismissed by the court in March 2006.  The court found that
people injured by a railroad's negligence could not seek a legal
remedy.  While this ruling was on appeal by the plaintiffs, both
parties agreed to settle the matter.  U.S. District Judge Dan
Hovland granted final approval to a $7,054,000 settlement of the
suit in October 2007.

In an update, Blake Nicholson of The Associated Press writes
that about 3,100 Minot residents who will share in the
$7-million lawsuit settlement will get their checks anytime
soon.

Chanhassen, Minnesota-based Analytics Inc. -- the consulting
firm that is administering the settlement -- told AP that the
checks were mailed recently.  According to the report, the firm
worked over the past several months to determine how many of the
roughly 4,000 people who submitted claims under the settlement
were eligible for money.

The majority of the people will get about $1,300, Gordon Rudd,
Esq., who represented the plaintiffs, said.

The three lead plaintiffs, on the other hand, would each get
$25,000, and the plaintiff's attorneys get a total of
$2.9 million, AP notes.  This leaves about $4 million of the
settlement to be divided among those deemed eligible for the
settlement money.

The report points out that the settlement in the class action
case does not include people who filed individual lawsuits
against the railroad, or the 228 people who opted out of the
class action case to pursue their own lawsuits.  The settlement
also excludes people who signed releases of liability for the
railroad after Feb. 17, 2002, a month after the derailment.

The 30-day "cooling-off" period is a matter of law.  The
railroad said earlier that the people who signed those releases
each received several hundred dollars, AP relates.

Mr. Rudd also told AP that people who signed a release before
Feb. 18, 2002, before retaining an attorney, are getting
"slightly less" than the $1,300.

Tim Thornton, Esq., who represented Canadian Pacific, shared
with AP that the settlement "was done and over with as far as we
were concerned quite a while ago.  But it's good to have it
resolved."

The mailing of checks, however, does not end the legal wrangling
stemming from the derailment, AP clarifies.  The report notes
that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis has yet
to rule on the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress and
signed by President Bush that is retroactive to the date of the
Minot derailment.  The law says people can bring personal-injury
lawsuits against railroads in state court under certain
circumstances.  The appeals court ruling will not affect the
class action settlement.
      
    
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Ark. Court Dismisses Ratepayers' Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Miller County Court in Arkansas dismissed a purported class
action suit filed by certain ratepayers of CenterPoint Energy
Resources Corp., according to CenterPoint's May 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

In October 2004, a lawsuit was filed in circuit court in Miller
County, Arkansas against the company; CenterPoint Energy, Inc.;
Entex Gas Marketing Co.; CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission
Co.; CenterPoint Energy Field Services; CenterPoint Energy
Pipeline Services, Inc.; Mississippi River Transmission Corp.;  
and other non-affiliated companies.  The suit alleges fraud,
unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy with respect to rates
charged to certain consumers of natural gas in Arkansas,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief,
restitution for the alleged overcharges, exemplary damages or
trebling of actual damages, civil penalties and attorney's fees.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs dropped CEGT and MRT as defendants.
Although the plaintiffs in the Miller County case sought class
certification, no class was certified.

In June 2007, the Arkansas Supreme Court determined that the
Arkansas claims were within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction
of the Arkansas Public Service Commission.  In response to that
ruling, in August 2007, the Miller County court stayed but
refused to dismiss the Arkansas claims.

In February 2008, the Arkansas Supreme Court directed the Miller
County court to dismiss the entire case for lack of
jurisdiction.

Thus, the Miller County court subsequently dismissed the case in
accordance with the Arkansas Supreme Court's mandate and all
appellate deadlines have expired.

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. --
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/-- owns and operates natural  
gas distribution systems in six states.  CERC's subsidiaries own
interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and
provide various ancillary services.  A wholly owned subsidiary
offers variable and fixed-price physical natural gas supplies
primarily to commercial and industrial customers and electric
and gas utilities.  CERC is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary
of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company.  
Its business segments comprise: Natural Gas Distribution,
Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate
Pipelines, Field Services and Other Operations.  The Other
Operations business segment includes unallocated corporate costs
and inter-segment eliminations.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Settles La. Lawsuits Over Gas Overcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. settled two purported class
action suits in Louisiana over natural gas or gas service
overcharges, 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.

In February 2003, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Caddo
Parish, Louisiana, against CERC with respect to rates charged to
a purported class of certain consumers of natural gas and gas
service in the State of Louisiana.

In February 2004, another suit was filed in state court in
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana against CERC seeking to recover
alleged overcharges for gas or gas services allegedly provided
by CERC to a purported class of certain consumers of natural gas
and gas service without advance approval by the Louisiana Public
Service Commission.

At the time of the filing of the Caddo and Calcasieu Parish
cases, the plaintiffs in those cases filed petitions with the
LPSC relating to the same alleged rate overcharges.

The Caddo and Calcasieu Parish cases have been stayed pending
the resolution of the proceedings by the LPSC.  

In August 2007, LPSC issued an order approving a stipulated
settlement in the review initiated by the plaintiffs in the
Calcasieu Parish litigation.  In that proceeding, CERC's gas
purchases were reviewed back to 1971.

The review concluded that the CERC's gas costs were "reasonable
and prudent," but CERC agreed to credit to jurisdictional
customers approximately $920,000, including interest, related to
certain off-system sales.

A regulatory liability was established and the company began
refunding that amount to jurisdictional customers in September
2007.   

A similar review by the LPSC related to the Caddo Parish
litigation was resolved without additional payment by the
company.

The range of relief sought by the plaintiffs in these cases
includes injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution for the
alleged overcharges, exemplary damages or trebling of actual
damages, civil penalties and attorney's fees.

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. --
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/-- owns and operates natural  
gas distribution systems in six states.  CERC's subsidiaries own
interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and
provide various ancillary services.  A wholly owned subsidiary
offers variable and fixed-price physical natural gas supplies
primarily to commercial and industrial customers and electric
and gas utilities.  CERC is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary
of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company.  
Its business segments comprise: Natural Gas Distribution,
Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate
Pipelines, Field Services and Other Operations.  The Other
Operations business segment includes unallocated corporate costs
and inter-segment eliminations.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Natural Gas Mismeasurement Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. and certain of its
subsidiaries are defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits
brought against approximately 245 pipeline companies and their
affiliates pending in state court in Stevens County, Kansas.

In one case originally filed in May 1999 and amended four times,
the plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty owners
who allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25
years.

The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in July 2003
in response to an order from the judge denying certification of
the plaintiffs' alleged class.

In the amendment, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against
certain defendants -- including two CERC subsidiaries -- limited
the scope of the class of plaintiffs they purport to represent,
and eliminated previously asserted claims based on
mismeasurement of the British thermal unit content of the gas.

The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as
representatives of a putative class of royalty owners, in which
they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for
more than 25 years.

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
along with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs
and fees.

The company reported no 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.

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. --
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/-- owns and operates natural  
gas distribution systems in six states.  CERC's subsidiaries own
interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and
provide various ancillary services.  A wholly owned subsidiary
offers variable and fixed-price physical natural gas supplies
primarily to commercial and industrial customers and electric
and gas utilities.  CERC is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary
of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company.  
Its business segments comprise: Natural Gas Distribution,
Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate
Pipelines, Field Services and Other Operations.  The Other
Operations business segment includes unallocated corporate costs
and inter-segment eliminations.


CHOICEPOINT INC: June 12 Hearing Set for $10MM Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 12, 2008 Final Fairness Hearing is set for the tentative
$10-million settlement reached in a consolidated securities
fraud class action suit filed against ChoicePoint, Inc.

On March 4, 2005, a purchaser of the company's securities filed
a lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers before
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  
The complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading information in
connection with the fraudulent data access.

Additional similar complaints were filed by other purchasers of
the company's securities in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 10, 2005, and in the
Northern District of Georgia on March 11, 22, and 24, 2005.

By court order, the cases pending in California were transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  

On Aug. 5, 2005, the court consolidated the pending cases into a
single consolidated action, "In re ChoicePoint Inc. Securities
Litigation, 1:05-CV-00686."

On Nov. 14, 2005, the court entered an order appointing the
Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff for
the proposed plaintiff class.  

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Jan. 13, 2006,
seeking certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief.

On March 14, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  This request was denied by the
court.  

Thus, on Jan. 25, 2007, the defendants filed a petition asking
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to
allow them to appeal on an interlocutory basis.  On May 3, 2007,
the defendants' petition was denied.  As a result, the District
Court re-opened the case.

Based on the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision in "Tellabs,
Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.," which requires district
courts to consider competing inferences of scienter rather than
just those most favorable to a plaintiff, the company filed a
renewed motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which is
currently pending before the District Court.

On Jan. 15, 2008, the company entered into a Letter of
Understanding pursuant to which the parties to the litigation
would settle all claims, subject to notice to the class, court
approval and certain other conditions.  Under the terms of the
Letter of Understanding, the company will pay $10 million to the
plaintiffs.

On March 7, 2008, the parties filed the Stipulation of
Settlement and accompanying documents with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The court then issued an order preliminarily approving the
settlement and setting the Final Fairness Hearing for June 12,
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 "In re ChoicePoint Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:05-
CV-00686," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Judge Jack T. Camp presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (mdc@classlaw.com)
          Chitwood & Harley, Esq.
          1230 Peachtree Street, N.E. 2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900

          Edward P. Dietrich, Esq. (edd@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          Suite 1900, 655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Christopher Kim, Esq.
          Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP
          1055 West 7th Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, California, 90017-2554
          Phone: 213-955-9500
          Fax: 213-955-9511
          e-mail: info@lrklawyers.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Tracy Cobb Braintwain, Esq. (tbraintwain@kslaw.com)
          King & Spalding, LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Phone: 404-572-2714
          Fax: 404-572-5139


CHOICEPOINT INC: 11th Circuit Remands ERISA Case to Ga. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit remanded the
matter, "Curtis R. Mellot v. ChoicePoint Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-01340-JTC," to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia for the limited purpose of considering
motions for the approval of the settlement of the litigation.

ChoicePoint, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in the
purported class action, which accuses the company of violating
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The class action was filed on May 20, 2005, before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the
company and certain individuals who are alleged to be
fiduciaries under the ChoicePoint Inc. 401 (K) Profit Sharing
Plan.  

The suit alleged violations of ERISA fiduciary rules through the
Plan's acquisition and retention of ChoicePoint stock on and
after Nov. 24, 2004.   

The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, injunctive and
equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 14, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
suit, which reuest the court granted on March 7, 2007, disposing
of the case in its entirety.

Subsequently, on March 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration, which was also denied by the trial court.  
Thus, on July 12, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

On Nov. 21, 2007, a settlement agreement was signed by all
parties to the litigation and filed in the District Court for
approval.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to the
following equitable relief:

       -- Plan participants will retain the right through
          Dec. 31, 2010, to diversify freely out of the
          Company's matching contribution made in the company's
          common stock;

       -- the company's matching contribution will be at least
          25% for three years;

       -- the company will continue its current investment
          education program for three years; and

       -- the company will post language on its intranet site
          for three years that will advise participants to give
          careful consideration of the benefits of a well-
          balanced and diversified investment portfolio.

In addition, the company agreed to pay $10,000 to the named
plaintiff, attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $100,000,
costs of settlement notices to the class as well as costs of
settlement administration, and costs to retain an independent
fiduciary for settlement review and approval on behalf of Plan
participants.

On Dec. 6, 2007, the company filed a Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement with the
District Court.  On Dec. 11, the company filed a Joint Motion to
Stay Appeal Pending Review and Approval of Settlement with the
District Court.

On March 21, 2008, ChoicePoint filed a joint motion asking the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to remand the
plaintiffs' Appeal for the limited purpose of the District Court
effectuating the Settlement.

On March 28, 2008, the company also filed a joint motion before
the District Court seeking to vacate the dismissal of the
litigation and to reinstate the litigation in order to give the
judge jurisdiction to review and approve the settlement.

On April 25, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit granted the company's
Joint Motion and remanded the Appeal to the District Court for
the limited purpose of considering motions for the approval of
the settlement of the litigation, 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 "Curtis R. Mellot v. ChoicePoint Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-01340-JTC," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Jack T. Camp presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas McKenna, Esq. (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
          Gainey & McKenna, 4th Floor, 295 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-1300
          Fax: 212-983-0383

          Lisa T. Millican, Esq. (lisa.millican@lawofficepc.com)
          Greenfield Millican, P.C.
          800 The Grant Building, 44 Broad Street
          NW Atlanta, GA 30303
          Phone: 404-522-1122

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq. (ronen@sarrafgentile.com)
          Sarraf Gentile, LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005, Suite 1005
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-868-3610

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. (kvianale@vianalelaw.com)
          Vianale & Vianale
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-4750
          Fax: 561-392-4775


EDDIE BAUER: California Labor Suit Settlement Faces Objection
-------------------------------------------------------------
A notice of objection was filed in connection with the proposed
settlement of a purported class action suit against Eddie Bauer,
Inc., according to the company's Eddie Bauer's May 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 29, 2008.

The purported class action lawsuit -- "Tara Hill v. Eddie Bauer,
Inc.," -- was filed on June 15, 2006, before the Los Angeles
Superior Court in the State of California.  The suit alleged,
among other things, that Eddie Bauer:

      -- did not provide the plaintiffs with adequate wage
         statements;

      -- did not reimburse the plaintiffs for business-related
         expenses;

      -- forced the plaintiffs to buy Eddie Bauer clothing;

      -- did not timely pay the plaintiffs at the cessation of
         employment; and

      -- improperly required the plaintiffs to work during rest
         and meal periods without compensation.

Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert various causes
of action, including those under the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.

On April 23, 2007, the company reached a settlement related to
the class action suit.  The proposed settlement deal is still
subject to a final approval by the court.

A hearing on the court's final approval of the settlement was
scheduled for March 2008, but was postponed to June 2008 pending
the filing of certain notices related to class action lawsuits.

A notice of objection to the settlement has been filed by the
plaintiff in the matter, "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al.,
Case No. 3:2007cv02270," according to Eddie Bauer's May 8, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008.

Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.eddiebauer.com/-- is a  
specialty retailer that sells casual sportswear and accessories
for the modern outdoor lifestyle.  The company's primary target
customers are women and men who are 30-54 years old.  


EDDIE BAUER: Seeks Dismissal of "Scherer" Labor Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Bauer, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of an amended
complaint in the matter, "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al.,
Case No. 3:2007cv02270," which is pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.

In September 2007, a purported class action suit captioned,
"Kristal Scherer, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated v. Eddie Bauer, Inc. and Does 1 to 100," was filed
before the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

The suit is alleging violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code relating to the payment of
incentive bonuses and the company's policy on forfeiture of
personal days.

The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

In December 2007, the company filed a partial motion to dismiss
certain counts of the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim.

However, the complaint was amended in January 2008 to add an
additional named plaintiff.  

Thus, the company filed a second partial dismissal motion
relating to the amended complaint, according to Eddie Bauer'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 "Scherer v. Eddie Bauer Inc et al., Case No.
3:2007cv02270," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James C. Kostas, Esq. (jkostas@aol.com)
          Huffman and Kostas
          1441 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-544-0800
          Fax: 619-544-0892

               - and -

          Sheldon A. Ostroff, Esq. (sostrofflaw@aol.com)
          Law Offices of Sheldon A. Ostroff
          1441 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-544-0881

Representing the defendants are:

          Kalia C. Petmecky, Esq. (kpetmecky@akingump.com)
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld
          2029 Century Park East
          Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-229-1000


EDDIE BAUER: Washington Shareholders' Litigation Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King
County dismissed with prejudice a purported class action lawsuit
filed by company shareholders against Eddie Bauer, Inc.,  
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 29, 2008.

Between Nov. 17, 2006, and Nov. 22, 2006, putative stockholders
of Eddie Bauer filed three purported class action complaints
against the company and its board of directors.  The complaints
allege, among other things, that the Board breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with the company's proposed
merger with an affiliate of Sun Capital Partners and Golden Gate
Capital and that the consideration to be paid to holders of
Eddie Bauer's common stock was inadequate.

They sought, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of
the merger and certain sections of the merger agreement from
taking effect, as well as payment of attorneys' fees.

An order of dismissal without prejudice with respect to one of
the complaints was entered in December 2006, and the remaining
two lawsuits were subsequently consolidated.  

In June 2007, the plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys'
fees was denied.  The plaintiffs appealed this ruling.

In December 2007, after a stipulated motion to dismiss was filed
by the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal,
and in January 2008, the Superior Court of the State of
Washington dismissed the remaining case with prejudice.

Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.eddiebauer.com/-- is a  
specialty retailer that sells casual sportswear and accessories
for the modern outdoor lifestyle.  The Company's primary target
customers are women and men who are 30-54 years old.  


GUILD MORTGAGE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Concealed Interest Rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guild Mortgage Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California alleging it deceived customers by concealing the true
interest rates charged on adjustable mortgage loans, resulting
in negative amortization and throwing the homes into
foreclosure, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is an action pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1601, et seq.; California's Unfair Competition
Law, Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; and other
statutory and common law in effect.

Named plaintiff Adam Nelson brings this action based, in part,
on the defendants' failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose
to the plaintiff and the class members in the Guild Mortgage  
Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan documents, and in the
required disclosure statements, accompanying the loans:

     (i) the actual interest rate on the note(s) (12 C.F.R.
         Section 226.17);

    (ii) that payments on the notes at the teaser rate will
         result in negative amortization and that the principal
         balance will increase (12 C.F.R. Section 226.19); and

   (iii) that the initial interest rate provided was discounted
         and does not reflect the actual interest that Plaintiff
         and Class members would be paying on the Note(s).

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants' acts and practices violate the
         Truth in Lending Act;

     (b) whether the defendants' conduct violated 12 C.F.R.
         Section 226.17;

     (c) whether the defendants' conduct violated 12 C.F.R.
         Section 226.19;

     (d) whether the defendants engaged in unfair business
         practices aimed at deceiving the plaintiff and the
         class members before and during the loan application
         process;

     (e) whether the defendants, by and through their officers,
         employees, and agents failed to disclose that the
         interest rate actually charged on these loans was
         higher than the rate represented and promised to
         the plaintiff and the class members;

     (f) whether the defendants, by and through their officers,
         employees and agents concealed, omitted and
         otherwise failed to disclose information they were
         mandated to disclose under TILA;

     (g) whether the defendants failed to disclose the true
         variable nature of interest rates on adjustable rate
         mortgage loans and adjustable rate home equity loans;

     (h) whether the defendants failed to properly disclose the
         process by which negative amortization occurs,
         ultimately resulting in the recasting of the payment  
         structure over the remaining lifetime of the loans;

     (i) whether the defendants' failure to apply the
         plaintiff's and the class members' payments to
         principal as promised in the form Notes constitutes a
         breach of contract, including a breach of the covenant
         of good faith and fair dealing;

     (j) whether the defendants' conduct in immediately raising
         the interest rate on consumers' loans so that no
         payments were made to the principal balance constitutes
         breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

     (k) whether the defendants' marketing plan and scheme
         misleadingly portrayed or implied that these loans were
         fixed rate loans, when the defendants knew that only
         the periodic payments were fixed (for a time) but that
         interest rates were not, in fact, "fixed;”

     (l) whether the terms and conditions of the defendants'
         Option ARM home loan are unconscionable;

     (m) whether the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         damages;

     (n) whether the plaintiff and the class members are
         entitled to punitive damages; and

     (o) whether the plaintiff and the class members are
         entitled to rescission.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying this case as a class action and
        appointing him and his counsel to represent the
        class;

     -- actual damages according to proof;

     -- compensatory damages as permitted by law;

     -- consequential damages as permitted by law;

     -- statutory damages as permitted by law;

     -- punitive damages as permitted by law;

     -- rescission;

     -- equitable relief, including restitution;

     -- restitutionary disgorgement of all profits the
        defendants obtained as a result of their unfair
        competition;

     -- interest as permitted by law;

     -- declaratory relief;

     -- a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to
        permanently include in every Option ARM loan and
        disclosure statement:

          * clear and conspicuous disclosure of the actual
            interest rate on the Note(s) and disclosure
            statement(s) as required under 12 C.F.R. Section
            226.17 by;

          * clear and conspicuous disclosure in the Note(s) and
            the disclosure statement(s) that payments on the
            variable interest rate loan during the initial
            period at the teaser rate will result in negative
            amortization and that the principal balance will
            increase as required under 12 C.F.R. Section  
            226.19; and

          * clear and conspicuous disclosure that the initial
            interest rate provided is discounted and does not
            reflect the actual interest that Plaintiff and Class
            members would be paying on the Note(s); and

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Seeger Weiss LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-564-2300
          Fax: 215-851-8029

          - and -

          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          Arbogast & Berns LLP
          19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tarzana, California 91356
          Phone: 818-961-2000
          Fax: 310-861-1775


JAPANESE GOV'T: Asbestos Victims File JPY6.6-Bln. Suit in Tokyo
---------------------------------------------------------------
Construction workers and family of deceased workers filed a
lawsuit seeking damages of approximately JPY6.6 billion (about
US$444 million) from the government and manufacturers over
illnesses stemming from exposure to asbestos, Afrique en ligne
reports.

The report says that 178 plaintiffs filed the suit in Tokyo
District Court against 46 building manufacturers and the
Government of Japan.  The plaintiffs hail from the Japanese
prefectures of Tokyo, Saitama and Chiba.

Afrique en ligne cites the Mainichi Daily News as stating that
the class action suit is the first to have been filed in Japan
related to health damages caused by asbestos exposure at
construction sites.  

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants knew of the dangers of
asbestos inhalation but failed to take proper precautions, like
ceasing to promote asbestos as a cheap fire retardant and
banning production of the material.

According to the complaint, after inhaling asbestos in the
workplace, 172 people have developed lung cancer or
mesothelioma, and that almost half of those afflicted are now
dead.  The suit argues that the government and health ministry
did not act quickly enough after international organizations
issued warnings in 1972 that asbestos could be a carcinogen.

Afrique en ligne says that the plaintiffs also blame the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry for sanctioning the use
of asbestos under Japanese Industrial Standards, as well as the
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for approving the
use of materials comprised of asbestos and other substances
under Japan's Building Standards Law.

"We will do our utmost until we win the suit," Kazuo Miyajima,  
who heads the group of plaintiffs, told Afrique en ligne.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs released a statement saying, "We seek
complete relief for the victims by clarifying the liability of
the state and the manufacturers."

The report relates that around 40 construction workers from
Kanagawa Prefecture plan to file a similar lawsuit in June
before the Yokohama District Court.

Afrique en ligne recounts that after a 2005 revelation that
residents who lived near a factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo
Prefecture, developed diseases related to asbestos, the
government implemented a law in 2006 that provides monetary
assistance to asbestos victims and relatives of deceased family
members.  The plaintiffs argue that the amount of financial
assistance given to families and victims of asbestos-related
diseases is not sufficient.

Afrique en ligne explains that asbestos has been used in Japan
as a fire retardant, for sound absorption, and for insulation.
It was mixed in concrete and water and sprayed on walls and
ceilings, but the practice of spraying asbestos in this manner
was banned in Japan in 1975.


KEY ENERGY: Texas Court Okays $16.6MM Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas gave
final approval to the proposed $16,600,000 settlement of a
consolidated securities fraud class action suit filed against
Key Energy Services, Inc.

                        Case Background

In June 2004, the company was named as a defendant in six class
action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas and which allege violations of federal
securities laws (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2007).

The six suits have subsequently been consolidated.  On Nov. 1,
2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
from May 29, 2003, to June 4, 2004.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the company
made false and misleading statements and omitted material
information from the company's public statements and SEC reports
during the class period in violation of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, including alleged:

       -- overstatement of revenues, net income, and earnings
          per share,

       -- failure to take write-downs of assets, consisting of
          primarily idle equipment,

       -- failure to amortize the company's goodwill,

       -- failure to disclose that the company lacked adequate
          internal controls and therefore was unable to
          ascertain the true financial condition of the company,

       -- material inflation of the company's financial results
          at all relevant times,

       -- misrepresentation of the value of acquired businesses,
          and

       -- failure to disclose misappropriation of funds by
          employees.

                           Settlement

On Sept. 7, 2007, the company reached agreements in principle to
settle all pending securities class action suits and some
derivative lawsuits in consideration of payments totaling
$16.6 million in exchange for full and complete releases for all
defendants, of which Key will be required to pay approximately
$1.1 million.

The company received final approval of the settlement of the
shareholder and class action claims on March 6, 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 "Kaltman v. Key Energy Serv., In, et al., Case No.
7:04-cv-00082-RAJ," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Judge Robert A. Junell presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

               -- and --

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
          Hoeffner, Bilek & Eidman, L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1302
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-227-7720
          Fax: 713-227-9404

Representing the defendants are:

          James Devin Alsup, Esq. (dalsup@lcalawfirm.com)
          Lynch Chappell & Alsup
          300 North Marienfeld, Suite 700
          Midland, TX 79701
          Phone: 432-683-3351
          Fax: 432-683-2587

               -- and --

          Robert R. Burford, Esq. (rburford@gibbs-bruns.com)
          Gibbs & Bruns, L.L.P.
          1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-650-8805
          Fax: 713-750-0903


LENDINGTREE: Sued in N.Y. Over Customer Information Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
LendingTree LLC, the online mortgage unit of IAC/
InteractiveCorp., is facing a lawsuit filed before the U.S.
District Court in Manhattan over a security breach in which some
employees allegedly allowed mortgage lenders to gain access to
confidential customer information, Dow  Jones reports.

The complaint seeks class-action status on behalf of all persons
who submitted loan request forms to LendingTree between Jan. 1,
2006, and May 1, 2008.

The suit alleges that the Charlotte mortgage referral company
failed to adequately safeguard confidential customer information
contained in its customer loan request forms and that data was
accessed and stolen by several LendingTree employees.

"As a result of defendant's actions, millions of its customers
have had their personal confidential information compromised,
have had their privacy rights violated, have been exposed to the
risk of fraud and have otherwise suffered damages,” the lawsuit
says.

According to the report, a LendingTree spokeswoman did not
immediately return Dow Jones' phone call seeking comment.


LOS ANGELES CAR WASH: Bet Tzedek to Sue Over Labor Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing carwash workers will be filing a class-
action lawsuit with the LA County Superior Courthouse, charging
a Los Angeles carwash owner with widespread violations of wage
and hour laws.

The suit names four carwashes owned and operated by brothers
Benny and Nisan Pirian for failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to provide overtime pay and failure to allow workers to take
meal and rest breaks, among other violations.

The class-action suit is estimated to cover more than two
hundred current and former carwash workers at:

     -- Vermont Hand Wash,
     -- Celebrity Car Wash,
     -- Hollywood Car Wash, and
     -- Five Star Car Wash.

While abuses in the carwash industry are widespread, the
carwashes named in the suit are notable for their history of
legal violations.  Pirian-owned carwashes have been cited by
state agencies in the past for violating California's labor law,
occupational health and safety standards and environmental
regulations.

Workers at the carwashes regularly worked 10 hour days for
roughly half of the minimum wage, and some workers were not paid
wages at all, receiving tips only. Over the past year and a
half, the owners were given repeated notifications of violations
at their carwashes and urged to comply with the labor code.
Despite these warnings and a history of citations by state
agencies, the owners of the four carwashes have resisted
compliance with law.

Abuses in the industry have received the attention of state
lawmakers in recent years. AB1688, known as the Carwash Worker
Law, was implemented by the state Legislature in 2004 in
response to widespread abuses in the carwash industry.

For more information, contact:

          Miriam Lopez, Esq.
          Bush Gottlieb
          Phone: 818-398-7667

          - or -

          Mitch Kamin, Esq.
          Bet Tzedek Legal Services
          Phone: 323-549-5812
          Web site: http://www.bettzedek.org/


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.M. HMO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico pharmacies and pharmacists are appealing the
dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the
Second Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico against
Molina Healthcare, Inc.'s New Mexico health management
organization, among others.

The lawsuit, "Starko, Inc., et al. v. NMHSD, et al., No. CV-97-
06599," was originally filed in August 1997 against the New
Mexico Human Services Department.  

In February 2001, the plaintiffs named HMOs participating in the
New Mexico Medicaid program as defendants, including the
predecessor of the company's New Mexico HMO.

The plaintiffs assert that NMHSD and the defendant HMOs failed
to pay pharmacy dispensing fees under an alleged New Mexico
statutory mandate.  

On July 10, 2007, the court dismissed all damages claims against
Molina Healthcare of New Mexico, leaving only a pending action
for injunctive and declaratory relief.

On Aug. 15, 2007, the court held a hearing on the motion of
Molina Healthcare of New Mexico to dismiss the plaintiffs'
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal with respect to the court's
dismissal orders, and the parties have submitted their
respective appellate briefs.

The company 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.

Molina Healthcare, Inc. -- http://www.molinahealthcare.com/--    
is a multi-state managed care organization participating
exclusively in government-sponsored healthcare programs for low-
income persons, such as the Medicaid program and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program.


NETLIST INC: Court Yet to Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit, captioned
"Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677 DOC
(MLGx)."

In May 2007, Netlist and certain of its officers and directors
were named as defendants in four purported shareholder class
action suits, two of which were filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and the other two
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The New York suits are:

     1. "Tran v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV 3754;" and

     2. "Benjamin v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 07 CV5518."

The California suits are:

     1. "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. SACV07-677 DOC
        (MLGx);" and
    
     2. "Swofford v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. CV07-04006 PSG
        (FMOx)."

These purported class action suits were filed on behalf of
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's
Nov. 30, 2006 Initial Public Offering.

The complaints allege that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued by the company in connection with the IPO
contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of
material fact in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
Securities Act of 1933.  

They seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action, under
th caption, "Belodoff v. Netlist, Inc., Lead Case No. SACV07-677
DOC (MLGx)," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on Nov. 5,
2007, generally asserting the same claims.

The defendants filed their motions to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on Jan. 9, 2008.

The hearing on the defendants' dismissal motions was held on
April 28, 2008, at which time the court took the matter under
submission, according to Netlist's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 8 SEC filing.

The suit is "Bruce Belodoff v. Netlist Inc et al., Case No.  
8:07-cv-00677-DOC-MLG," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. (ctrinko@trinko.com)
          Curtis V. Trinko Law Office
          16 West 46th Street 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-490-9550

Representing the defendants are:

          Sean T. Prosser, Esq. (sprosser@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster LLP
          12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130-2040
          Phone: 858-720-5100

               - and -

          Keith E. Eggleton, Esq. (keggleton@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Rd
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-565-5100


OMNICARE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ky. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action
lawsuit filed against Omnicare Inc. are appealing the dismissal
of the case by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky, according to Omnicare's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Feb. 2 and 13, 2006, respectively, two substantially similar
putative class action complaints were filed against the company
and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court For the
Eastern District of Kentucky, in relation to the company's
December 2005 public offering.  The suits are:

     -- "Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers   
        Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No.   
        2:06cv26," and   

     -- "Chi v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv31."  

These suits asserted claims for violation of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaints, which purport to be
brought on behalf of all company shareholders, allege that the
company artificially inflated its earnings by engaging in
improper generic drug substitution and that the defendants have
made false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business and prospects.

Thus, the suit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages
and injunctive relief.

On March 7, 2006, the parties to both actions filed stipulations
agreeing that the cases should be consolidated and proposing a
scheduling order for the conduct of the actions upon
consolidation.   

Those scheduling orders were entered on March 10, 2006.  On
April 3, 2006, the plaintiffs in the HOD Carriers case formally
moved for consolidation of the suits and the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.   

On May 22, 2006, that motion was granted and the cases were
consolidated.  A lead plaintiff and lead counsel were also
appointed.  

On July 20, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, adding a third company officer as a defendant and new
factual allegations relating primarily to revenue recognition,
the valuation of receivables and the valuation of inventories.  

On Oct. 31, 2006, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file a
second amended complaint, which request was granted early in
2007, on the condition that no further amendments would be
permitted absent extraordinary circumstances.

The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on Jan. 29,
2007.  The second amended complaint:

      -- expands the putative class to include all purchasers of
         Omnicare common stock from Aug. 3, 2005, through
         July 27, 2006,

      -- names two members of the company's board of directors
         as additional defendants,

      -- adds a new plaintiff and a new claim for violation of
         Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
         alleged false and misleading statements in the
         registration statement filed in connection with the
         company's December 2005 public offering,

      -- alleges that the company failed to timely disclose its
         contractual dispute with UnitedHealth, and

      -- alleges that the company failed to timely record
         certain special litigation reserves.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on March 12, 2007, claiming that the plaintiffs had
failed adequately to plead loss causation, scienter or any
actionable misstatement or omission.  That motion was fully
briefed as of May 1, 2007.

In response to certain arguments relating to the individual
claims of the named plaintiffs that were raised in defendants'
pending motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a motion to add, or
in the alternative, to intervene an additional named plaintiff,
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, on July 27, 2007.

Oral argument was held in connection with the defendants' motion
to dismiss on Aug. 2, 2007.  In October 2007, the court issued
an opinion and order dismissing the case and denying the
plaintiffs' motion to add an additional named plaintiff.

On Nov. 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and in a
subsequent filing expressed an intention to appeal all aspects
of the lower court's decision.  

The appellate court has issued a briefing schedule, plaintiffs
obtained a 30-day extension of time to file their brief, and all
briefs are now due by May 30, 2008.  Oral argument on this
appeal has not been scheduled.

The suit is "Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD
Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Omnicare, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00026-WOB," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge William O.
Bertelsman, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiff is:

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

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. (rmaniskas@sbclasslaw.com)
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056

              - and -

         Kevin L. Murphy, Esq. (kmurphy@graydon.com)
         Graydon, Head & Ritchey, LLP
         2500 Chamber Center Drive, Suite 300, P.O. Box 17070
         Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017
         Phone: 859-344-0330
         Fax: 859-344-0886

Representing the defendant is:

         Richard W. Reinthaler, Esq.
         Dewey Ballantine LLP
         1301 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019-6092
         Phone: 212-258-8000
         Fax: 212-259-6333
         e-mail: lpmco@dbllp.com


PLAYLOGIC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Copy Protection Software Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Playlogic Entertainment Inc. is facing a purported class action
suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The class action suit against Playlogic, filed on June 26, 2007,
is in connection with alleged damages as a result of copy
protection software included in Age of Pirates – Caribbean
Tales, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10QSB filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Gindling v. Playlogic Entertainment, Inc., Case No.  
1:07-cv-05610-JSR," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Jed S. Rakoff, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Oren Giskan, Esq. (ogiskan@gslawny.com)
          Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson, LLP
          11 Broadway
          Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-847-8315
          Fax: 212-473-8096

               - and -

          Scott Adam Kamber, Esq. (skamber@kolaw.com)
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway
          22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-920-3072
          Fax: 212-202-6364

    
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc., is facing a consolidated
securities fraud litigation that is pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to SiRF's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

In February 2008, multiple putative class action suits were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California against the company and certain of its officers
and directors.  These complaints allege that the defendants made
misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's
business and operating results in violation of the federal
securities laws.

The lawsuits have been consolidated, and various parties have
filed applications for lead plaintiff appointment.  Results on
the May 19 lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointment hearing
have yet to be disclosed.  The company said it expects a
consolidated amended complaint to be filed shortly.

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

The suit is "In re SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:2008cv00856," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Maxine M. Chesney, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq. (shawnw@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 2600
          Phone: San Francisco, CA 94111
          Fax: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

Representing the defendants is:

          David Malcolm Furbush, Esq.
          (david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com)
          Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-233-4500
          Fax: 650-233-4545


SONUS NETWORKS: Wants Massachusetts Securities Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class action suit filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 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.

Beginning in July 2002, several purchasers of the company's
common stock filed complaints before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against the company, certain of
its officers and directors, and a former officer under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.

The purchasers seek to represent a class of persons who
purchased the company's common stock between Dec. 11, 2000, and
Jan. 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages.

The class action complaints were essentially identical and
alleged that the company made false and misleading statements
about its products and business.  

These cases were subsequently consolidated, and on March 3,
2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  In
April 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on various grounds.

On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the company's
dismissal motion, and later denied the dismissal request.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on
July 30, 2004.  This motion was granted by the court and a class
representative was then appointed.  The court also appointed the
law firm of Moulton & Gans as lead counsel.  

After the court requested additional briefing on the adequacy of
the class representative, the class representative withdrew.  
The lead counsel then filed a motion to substitute a new
plaintiff as the class representative.  On May 19, 2005, the
court held a hearing on the motion and took the matter under
advisement.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the court issued an order decertifying the
class and requiring the parties to submit a joint report
informing the court whether the cases have been settled and
whether the defendants would be seeking to recover attorney's
fees from the plaintiffs.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed motions to voluntarily
dismiss their complaints with prejudice.  On Oct. 5, 2005, the
court entered an order dismissing the cases.

However, on June 26, 2006, the court issued an order denying the
company's motion for recovery of attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 6, 2006, a purchaser of the company common stock filed a
complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts that is essentially identical to the Consolidated
Amended Complaint previously filed against the defendants.

The Court has appointed as lead plaintiff the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi, which filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss this amended
consolidated complaint.

The suit is "In Re Sonus Networks Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:02-cv-11315-MLW," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Judge Mark L. Wolf, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert J. Berg, Esq.
         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
         10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414

              - and -

         Richard H. Weiss, Esq.
         Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach
         One Penn Plaza
         New York City, NY 10002
         Phone: 212-594-5300
         Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the company are:  

         Daniel W. Halston, Esq. (daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com)
         Michelle D. Miller, Esq.
         (michelle.miller@wilmerhale.com)
         Jeffrey B. Rudman, Eqs. (jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com)
         Peter A. Spaeth, Esq. (peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Hale
         60 State Street
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-526-6654
         Fax: 617-526-5000


SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Approves $40MM Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts gave
final approval to the proposed $40-million settlement in the
matter, "In Re: Sonus Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-CV-10294."

Beginning in February 2004, a number of purported shareholder
class-action complaints were filed before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company and
certain of its current officers and directors.

On June 28, 2004, the court consolidated the claims.  On Dec. 1,
2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated complaint asserted claims under the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, relating to the company's
restatement of its financial results for 2001, 2002, and the
first three quarters of 2003.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market
concerning the company's revenues, earnings and financial
condition.  The plaintiffs contended that such statements caused
the company's stock price to be artificially inflated.

The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
during the period from March 28, 2002, through March 26, 2004.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss
the Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants.  On
June 1, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and allowed
the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

On Sept. 12, 2005, the defendants again filed motions to dismiss
this amended complaint.  On Dec. 10, 2005, the court held a
hearing on the motions and took the matter under advisement.  

On May 10, 2006, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' motions in part and denying the motions in part. The
court dismissed the Section 12 (a)(2) claims against all the
defendants and the Section 10(b) and Section 11 claims against
the individual defendants.

The court denied the motions as to the Section 10(b) and Section
11 claims against the company, and Section 15 claims against the
individual defendants.  The plaintiff has filed a motion for
class certification, which the defendants have opposed.

The court held a hearing on Feb. 28, 2007, on the plaintiff's
motion for class certification and took the matter under
advisement.

On Nov. 7, 2007, the company, and the plaintiff agreed to settle
the litigation for $40.0 million.

By order dated Jan. 18, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved
the settlement subject to class notice and other conditions.  

On March 31, 2008, the court approved the settlement on a final
basis, 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 "In Re: Sonus Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-10294," filed before the U.S. District for the
District of Massachusetts, Judge Douglas P. Woodlock, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 2300
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
         Phone: 800-778-1822
         Fax: 415-777-5189
         e-mail: info@gbcsf.com

              - and -

         Norman Berman, Esq. (NBerman@Bermanesq.com)
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         One Liberty Square
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-542-8300

Representing the defendants are:

         Mary P. Cormier, Esq. (mcormier@edwardsangell.com)
         Edwards & Angell, LLP
         101 Federal Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-2225
         Fax: 617-439-4170

              - and -

         Thomas J. Dougherty, Esq. (dougherty@skadden.com)
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
         One Beacon Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-573-4800
         Fax: 617-573-4822


SUPERSHUTTLE: Faces Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Airport passenger transportation giant SuperShuttle is facing a
wage and hour class-action complaint filed in Alameda County
Superior Court, CBS 5 reports.

The case was filed on behalf of drivers who claim the company
misclassified them as franchisees or independent contractors
rather than as employees.

Named plaintiff Roosevelt Kairy of Oakland seeks to cover
current and former drivers who worked for the company in
California at any time during the past four years.

Philip Monrad, Esq., an attorney at Leonard Carder LLP in
Oakland, one of four law firms representing the drivers in the
suit, said in a statement, "Companies like SuperShuttle cheat
their workers and the government.”

Mr. Monrad added, "Such corporations exercise total control over
how their drivers' perform their work.  But they label them
'franchisees' or 'independent contractors' to sidestep workplace
protection laws, including those requiring coverage for
workplace injuries, and to avoid paying payroll taxes.”  He
further said, "This practice allows SuperShuttle to compete
unfairly against its competitors who comply with the law.”

Drivers involved in the lawsuit also claim they often work 12
hours a day or more without receiving overtime pay or adequate
meal breaks.

According to the report, a SuperShuttle spokesman didn't return
a phone call seeking comment on the suit.

In addition to Leonard Carder, law firms representing the
SuperShuttle drivers are:

     -- Hinton, Alfert and Sumner
        1646 North California Boulevard Suite 600
        Walnut Creek , California 94596
        Phone: 1-877-847-8755
        Fax: 925-932-3412

     -- Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker and Jackson
        1330 Broadway, Suite 1800
        Oakland, California 94612
        Phone: 510-839-6824  
        Fax: 510-839-7839
        Web site: http://www.lewisfeinberg.com

        - and -

     -- Rukin, Hyland, Doria and Tindall
        100 Pine St., Ste. 725
        San Francisco, CA 94111
        Phone: 415-421-1800
        Fax: 415-421-1700
        Web site: http://www.rhddlaw.com
        Blogs: http://www.thepersonnelfiles.com


TARGET CORP: Faces California Suit Over Sales Tax Charges
---------------------------------------------------------
Target Corp. is facing a proposed class action lawsuit filed in  
Los Angeles Superior Court seeking to represent claims by
customers who bought items at Target.com over the past four
years, Reuters reports.

The suit is filed on behalf of all other Target shoppers to
force it to refund the money and to fix its online tax
calculations.

According to Martha Pile, a California woman who filed the suit,
Target charged her "inflated and incorrect” sales tax on an
Internet purchase.

Ms. Pile claims Target incorrectly included shipping and
handling charges in its sales tax calculation for her purchase
of a Wahl electric shaver on May 11.

Sales tax in California is 8.25%, the report says.

The suit does not estimate how much excess tax Target allegedly
collected from online shoppers, but says the amount was believed
to be more than $10 million.

Ms. Pile wants Target to return "all excess funds improperly
collected” from her and "thousands” of other Target.com
shoppers.

Acording to the report, a Target spokeswoman could not be
reached for comment.

Target Corp. operates general merchandise discount stores in the
U.S. And offers an assortment of general merchandise.  The
company is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minn.


THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: California Securities Suits Drag On
--------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to face several
purported securities fraud class action suits that are pending
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Originally, the suits were filed between July 5 and 18, 2007, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The suits
were filed against the company; its chief executive officer,
Harold E. Selick; and its former chief financial officer Janet
I. Swearson.

The securities lawsuits, which the company expects will be
consolidated into a single proceeding, allege claims arising
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers
of the company's common stock from the date of the company's
initial public offering of securities on Feb. 4, 2005, through
July 14, 2006.

The plaintiffs assert that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the company's Phase II and
Phase III clinical trials of Lonidamine (TH-070).

On Sept. 14, 2007, these lawsuits were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The company 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.

The first complaint is "Jerry Twinde, et al. v. Threshold
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Case No. 07-CV-04972," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610-668-7987
          Fax: 610-660-0450
          e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

              - and -

          Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel
          273 Montgomery Ave. Suite 202
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610-660-8000
          Fax: 610-660-8080
          e-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


TOP SHIPS: Hearing for $1.2MM Suit Settlement in N.Y. is July 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has set a fairness hearing on July 31, 2008, for the
$1,200,000 settlement in the securities class action lawsuit
pending against TOP Ships -- formerly known as TOP Tankers Inc.
--  and certain of its directors and officers.

The class includes all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Top Tankers between
March 13, 2006, and Nov. 29, 2006, inclusive.

Initially, the company and certain of its executive officers and
directors were named as defendants in a putative securities
fraud class action.  The suit is alleging violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The shareholders accused Top Tankers and its top executives of
omitting key financial data in order to boost the company's
stock price.  Questions about the shipping company's accounting
practices emerged when the company announced in June 2006 that
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating
the company's acquisitions dating back to 2004 and events before
the company announced the $550 million sale and leaseback of 13
vessels on March 13, 2006.  The company announced on Nov. 29,
2006, that its auditors, Ernst & Young, had resigned over the
accounting for the sale and leaseback of the vessels.

As of the company's April 20, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006, none of the defendants has been served in
this action, which has been consolidated with nine additional
putative class actions (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007).

Top Tankers said that after its motion to dismiss the first
consolidated complaint in the case, plaintiffs were "forced to
take the unusual step of abandoning a large portion of their
case, including their major theory of fraud,” related to Top
Tankers mis-characterizing a distribution as a "special
dividend" and thereby overstating its financial condition.  
"What remains, after plaintiffs were compelled to concede these
allegations, is a bare skeleton of a complaint,” Top Tankers
said.

In the new complaint, there was not one specifically pleaded
allegation suggesting that Top Tankers had meant to commit
fraud.  Nor did the complaint identify a single stock sale, or
anything else, that could explain why Top Tankers would have
done anything fraudulent.

Top Tankers asked for the complaint to be dismissed with
prejudice and without leave to replead since there is "no basis
whatsoever for the claim of fraud. . . .” (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 25, 2007).

In February this year, TOP Ships filed for the Court's approval
of a settlement agreement with lead plaintiffs in the securities
class action lawsuit pending against the Company and certain of
its directors and officers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Class Action Reporter,
Feb 18, 2008).

The terms of the agreement call for a payment of $1.2 million
to the plaintiffs.  Attorney's fees for plaintiff's counsel,
which have not been determined, will be paid out of this amount.  
The settlement will be funded entirely by the Company's
Directors and Officers insurance carriers.  The Company and its
officers and directors will receive a complete release of all
the remaining direct claims against them in the shareholder
class action litigation.  Many of the claims had already been
dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiffs when they amended their
complaint last fall after TOPS initially moved to dismiss.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a hearing at 4:00 p.m., on July 31, 2008, before the
Honorable Colleen McMahon.

Deadline to file for objections and exclusions is on July 2,
2008.  Deadline to file claims is on September 12, 2008.

The first identified complaint is "Bhojwani v. Pistiolis et al.
Case No. 1:06-cv-13761-RCC,” filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard C.
Casey presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. (nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com)
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-983-9330
         Fax: 212-983-9331

         Mark C. Gardy, Esq. (mgardy@gardylaw.com)
         Gardy & Notis, LLP
         440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
         Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
         Phone: 201-567-7377

              - and -

         Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
         Kahn, Gauthier Swick, LLC
         650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Phone: 504-455-1400

Representing the defendants is:

         Justina Louise Geraci, Esq.
         (justina.geraci@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P.
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-295-6380
         Fax: 212-230-8888


U.S. FOREST SERVICE: Colorado Men Sue Over Mount Evans Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
Two Colorado residents filed a class action lawsuit in Denver
federal court challenging the fees charged by the United States
Forest Service for the trip up Mount Evans, The Denver Post
reports.

Plaintiffs David Scherer and John Licht said that the agency has
been illegally charging $10 per vehicle to use a state highway
that is maintained with state tax dollars, and that there are
insufficient amenities to warrant fees.  The suit argues that
the Forest Service is exceeding its authority by enforcing the
fees for visitors to Summit Lake, a Denver mountain park.

The suit, according to Denver Post, is supported by the Western
Slope No-Fee Coalition.  

Denver Post explains that it was not able to reach officials at
the Arapaho National Forest's Clear Creek district office for
comments regarding the lawsuit.


WIRELESS CARRIERS: Faces Lawsuit in Mississippi Over SMS Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit is filed in a Mississippi federal court
taking aim at U.S. wireless carriers for SMS text messaging
charges, IntoMobile reports.

The class action names the following U.S. wireless carriers as
defendants:

     -- AT&T,
     -- Verizon Wireless,
     -- Sprint,
     -- T-Mobile,
     -- Alltel,
     -- US Cellular,
     -- Cellular South, and
     -- Virgin Mobile.

The lawsuit seeks compensation for "unauthorized charges,
wrongful collections and unjust enrichment.”

The complaint says that the wireless carriers' subscribers are
entitled to compensation for "unauthorized charges, wrongful
collections and unjust enrichment,” according to TechSpot.

The allegations, among other things, focus on charges for
unsolicited text messages received by subscribers "without
offering its customers the opportunity to avoid such charges by
opting out of text messaging.”  We'll have to wait and see how
this class-action pans out, but hopefully it won't end in a
useless settlement for subscribers while the plaintiff's lawyers
rake up millions.

According to TechSpot, if the class action works out, the
carriers named in the suit could be forced by court-order to
make incoming SMS text messaging free for its customers.  On the
other hand, an out-of-court settlement could just lead to a
measly credit to your monthly bill.


XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a purported securities fraud class
action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Xerium Technologies, Inc.

On June 7, 2006, Parkside Capital Ltd. filed a purported class-
action complaint on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated against Xerium and its chief executive officer and
chief financial officer.  The company was served with the
complaint on June 8, 2006.  

The complaint concerns the company's initial public offering of
common stock and alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
and liability under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.  

The plaintiff seeks rescission rights, attorneys' fees and other
costs and unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock "pursuant and/or
traceable to the company's IPO on or about May 16, 2005 through
Nov, 15, 2005."  The litigation is presently in discovery.

The company 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.

The suit is "Parkside Capital Ltd. v. Xerium Technologies Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-10991-RWZ," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya W.
Zobel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134

Representing the defendants is:

         Seth C. Harrington, Esq.
         (seth.harrington@ropesgray.com)
         Ropes & Gray, LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7226
         Fax: 617-951-7050


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Schatz Nobel Files California Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, has filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Downey Financial Corp. between October 16,
2006, and March 14, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Downey and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false statements regarding the company's financial
results. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants
concealed the following:

     (i) Downey's portfolio of Option ARMs contained millions of
         dollars worth of impaired and risky securities, many of
         which were backed by subprime mortgage loans;

    (ii) prior to the Class Period, Downey had seen
         Countrywide's growth and had started to get more
         aggressive in acquiring loans from brokers such that
         the loans were extremely risky;

   (iii) defendants failed to properly account for highly
         leveraged loans;

    (iv) Downey had very little real underwriting, which led to
         large numbers of bad loans; and

     (v) Downey had not adequately reserved for Option ARM
         loans, which provided that during the initial term of
         the loan borrowers could pay only as much as they
         desired with any underpayment being added to the loan
         balance.

On October 10, 2007, Downey announced that it expected to incur
an operating loss for the 2007 third quarter due to the
continued weakening in the housing market.  Then, on March 17,
2008, Downey released its monthly selected financial results for
the 13 months ended February 29, 2008, which showed a
significant increase in non-performing assets to almost 11% of
total assets, up from 1.2% in May 2007.  Downey had to
restructure debt for many borrowers to avoid having their loans
fail.  On this news, Downey's stock dropped to close at $18.82
per share on March 17, 2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 15,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 800-797-5499
          Web site: http://www.snilaw.com/


MGIC INVESTMENT: Ademi & O'Reilly Commences Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, discloses that a class action lawsuit was
filed against MGIC Investment Corporation alleging violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

The complaint alleges that MGIC issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of its securities.

The class period is from February 6, 2007, through February 12,
2008.

For more information, contact:

          Guri Ademi, Esq. (gademi@ademilaw.com)
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Ave.
          Cudahy, Wisconsin 53110
          Phone: 866-264-3995
          Web site: http://www.ademilaw.com/


RBC DAIN: Stull & Brody Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Royal Bank of Canada and its wholly owned subsidiaries,
RBC Dain Rauscher Inc. and RBC Capital Markets Corporation on
behalf of purchasers of Auction Rate Securities from RBC between
May 12, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive, who continued to
hold such securities as of February 13, 2008.

The complaint alleges that RBC violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving investors
about the investment characteristics of Auction Rate Securities
and the auction market in which those securities traded.

As alleged in the complaint, Auction Rate Securities are either
municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which
pay interest at rates set at periodic "auctions” and generally
have long-term maturities or no maturity dates.  RBC offered and
sold Auction Rate Securities to the public as highly liquid
cash-management vehicles that were suitable alternatives to
money market mutual funds.  A decision of all major broker-
dealers on February 13, 2008 to "withdraw their support” for the
periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on Auction
Rate Securities are set is alleged to have impacted the ability
of holders of Auction Rate Securities to liquidate their
positions in those securities.

The complaint further alleges that RBC violated the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that:

     (i) Auction Rate Securities were not cash alternatives,
         like money market funds, but were instead, complex,
         long-term financial instruments with 30-year maturity
         dates, or longer;

    (ii) Auction Rate Securities were only liquid at the time of
         sale because broker-dealers were artificially
         supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to
         maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability;

   (iii) broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for
         their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold
         auctions and failed auctions; and

    (iv) RBC continued to market Auction Rate Securities as
         liquid investments after it had determined that broker-
         dealers were likely to withdraw their support for the
         periodic auctions and that a "freeze” of the market for
         auction rate securities would result.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 11,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 1-212-490-2022
          e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
          Web site: http://www.ssbny.com/


WELLS FARGO: Stull & Brody Files Securities Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody discloses that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo
Investments, LLC, on behalf of purchasers of Auction Rate
Securities from Wells Fargo between April 14, 2003, and Feb. 13,
2008, inclusive, who continued to hold such securities as of
February 13, 2008.

The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving
investors about the investment characteristics of Auction Rate
Securities and the auction market in which those securities
traded.

As alleged in the complaint, Auction Rate Securities are either
municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which
pay interest at rates set at periodic "auctions” and generally
have long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

Wells Fargo offered and sold Auction Rate Securities to the
public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles that are
suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds.  A decision
of all major broker-dealers on February 13, 2008, to "withdraw
their support” for the periodic auctions at which the interest
rates paid on Auction Rate Securities are set is alleged to have
impacted the ability of holders of Auction Rate Securities to
liquidate their positions in these securities.

The complaint further alleges that Wells Fargo violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that:

     (i) Auction Rate Securities were not cash alternatives,
         like money market funds, but were instead, complex,
         long-term financial instruments with 30-year maturity
         dates, or longer;

    (ii) Auction Rate Securities were only liquid at the time of
         sale because broker-dealers were artificially
         supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to
         maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability;

   (iii) Broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for
         their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold
         auctions and failed auctions; and

    (iv) Wells Fargo continued to market Auction Rate Securities
         as liquid investments after it had determined that
         broker-dealers were likely to withdraw their support
         for the periodic auctions and that a "freeze” of the
         market for auction rate securities would result.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 13,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 1-212-490-2022
          e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
          Web site: http://www.ssbny.com/




                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *