CAR_Public/080529.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, May 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 106
  
                            Headlines

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Opposes Motion in N.Y. "McAnaney" Litigation
C-COR INC: Faces Lawsuit in Tennessee Alleging FLSA Violations
CFS ENTERPRISE: Faces Kansas Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Tactics
EL POLLO: Discovery Ongoing in Assistant Shift Managers' Lawsuit
EL POLLO: "Amezcua" Labor Suit in Calif. Stayed While on Appeal

ELI LILLY: Admits Wrongdoing in Indianapolis Noose Incident
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Limited Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Labor Suit
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Court Dismisses FCRA-FACTA Violations Suit
GABLE'S RESIDENTIAL: Faces Texas Lawsuit Alleging Racial Bias
GENERAL NUTRITION: Mediation Fails to Resolve Andro Lawsuits

GENERAL NUTRITION: Court Okays Overtime Wage Suit Settlement
GENERAL NUTRITION: Settles Suits Over Third-Party Product Sold
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Wage, Break Claim Litigation in Calif.
GNC FRANCHISING: November 2008 Trial Slated for "Ahussain" Case
HEALTH NET: Faces Rescinded Members' Litigation in California

HEALTH NET: Court Sets July 24 Hearing for ERISA Suit Settlement
HOLLINGER INC: Davidson Kempner Settlement Gets Court Approval
INVERNESS MEDICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Mass.
ISILON SYSTEMS: Faces Wash. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
ISOLAGEN INC: Pa. Court Sets June 2, 2008 Mediation for Lawsuit

JOHN MUIR: EEOC Files Lawsuit Over Discrimination of Nurse Hires
KENNETH COLE: Settlement Deal Concludes Calif. SBCCA Lawsuit
KOPPERS INC: Plaintiffs in "Batts" Voluntarily Dismiss Pa. Case
LOUISIANA: State Faces Lawsuit Over Constitutional Violations
NUVELO INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Fraud Complaint

OIL COS: Sued Over Employee Exposure to Carcinogenic Materials
STEC INC: Settles Calif. Consumer Litigation Over Hard Drives
STRATEGIC ENERGY: Faces Pa. Litigation Over Electricity Service
TD AMERITRADE: Settlement Discussions Ongoing in "Zigler" Matter
TD AMERITRADE: Settlement Discussions Ongoing in "Elvey" Matter

UNITED GENERAL: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Refinancing Fees
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: Suit Over Heather Bresch Scandal Looms


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Charles Johnson Files Calif. Securities Suit
TRM CORP: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Oregon



                           *********


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Opposes Motion in N.Y. "McAnaney" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Astoria Financial Corp. is opposing a motion to intervene or
substitute plaintiff filed in a lawsuit against the company over
mortgage loan preparation fees that are time-barred.  

In 2004, David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed the suit
against Astoria Financial and other defendants before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The suit is claiming that the company's charging of attorney
document preparation fees, recording fees, and facsimile fees
for mortgage loans violate state laws.

The action, commenced as a punitive class action suit, alleges
that in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage
loans made by Astoria Federal, The Long Island Savings Bank,
FSB, which was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998, and their
related entities, customers were charged attorney document
preparation fees, recording fees and facsimile fees allegedly in
violation of:

     -- the federal Truth in Lending Act,
     -- the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
     -- the Fair Debt Collection Act, and
     -- the New York State Deceptive Practices Act

The suit also alleges unjust enrichment and common law fraud.

Astoria Federal previously moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part
-- dismissing claims based on violations of RESPA and FDCA.  The
Court further determined that class certification would be
considered prior to considering summary judgment.

On Sept. 19, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  Astoria Federal has denied the claims set
forth in the complaint.

Both the company and the plaintiffs have filed motions for
summary judgment.

The District Court, on Sept. 12, 2007, granted the company's
motion for summary judgment on the basis that all named
plaintiffs' Truth in Lending claims are time-barred.   

All other aspects of the plaintiffs' and the defendant's motions
for summary judgment were dismissed without prejudice.

The Court found the named plaintiffs to be inadequate class
representatives and provided their counsel an opportunity to
submit a motion for the substitution or intervention of new
named plaintiffs.  

The plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion with the District Court
for partial reconsideration of its decision.  The District
Court, by order dated Jan. 25, 2008, granted the plaintiffs'
motion for partial reconsideration and again determined that all
named plaintiffs' Truth in Lending claims are time-barred.  

The plaintiffs' counsel subsequently submitted a motion to
intervene or substitute plaintiff proposing a single substitute
plaintiff.

On April 18, 2008, the company filed with the District Court its
opposition to such motion, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing before the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "McAnaney et al. v. Astoria Financial Corp. et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-01101-JFB-WDW," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Joseph F.
Bianco, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         G. Oliver Koppell, Esq. (okoppell@koppellaw.com)
         99 Park Avenue, Suite 800
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-368-0400
         Fax: 212-973-9494

              - and -

         Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. (joseph@whalen-tusa.com)
         Whalen & Tusa, P.C.
         90 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-786-7377
         Fax: 212-658-9685

Representing the defendants is:

         Alfred W.J. Marks, Esq. (awjmarks@dbh.com)
         Day, Berry & Howard, LLP
         875 Third Avenue, 28th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-829-3634
         Fax: 212-829-3601


C-COR INC: Faces Lawsuit in Tennessee Alleging FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
C-COR, Inc., an acquisition of ARRIS Group, Inc., is facing a
purported class action lawsuit in Tennessee, alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to ARRIS Group's May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee on Feb. 12, 2008.  It was filed by Joe
Brasfield and 21 other named plaintiffs, all current or former
installers or technicians servicing cable TV customers in
Memphis, Tennessee, against Source Broadband Services, LLC, and
C-COR, alleging that the plaintiffs were not properly paid for
overtime.

Source Broadband purchased C-COR's installation business in June
2007.  The plaintiffs are attempting to have the case certified
as a class action.

The suit is "Brasfield et al v. Source Broadband Services, LLC
et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-02092-JPM-dkv," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Judge Jon
Phipps McCalla presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas Franklin Donaldson, Jr., Esq.
          (tfdonaldson@donaldsonlawfirm.com)
          Thomas F. Donaldson, Jr., Attorney at Law
          P.O. Box 949
          Marion, AR 72364
          Phone: 870-739-4403

               - and -

          Donald A. Donati, Esq. (don@donatilawfirm.com)
          Donati Law Firm LLP
          1545 Union Ave.
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Phone: 901-278-1004
          Fax: 901-278-3111

Representing the defendants are:

          Benjamin D. Briggs, Esq.   
          (benjamin.briggs@troutmansanders.com)
          Troutman Sanders
          Bank of America Plaza
          600 Peachtree St., N.E.
          Ste. 5200
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-885-3000

               - and -

          Louis P. Britt, III, Esq. (lbritt@fordharrison.com)
          Ford & Harrison, LLP
          795 Ridge Lake Blvd.
          Ste. 300
          Memphis, TN 38120
          Phone: 901-291-1500
          Fax: 901-291-1501


CFS ENTERPRISE: Faces Kansas Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Tactics
--------------------------------------------------------------
CFS Enterprise, Inc., doing business as Chad Franklin Suzuki of
Kansas City, is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
District Court of Wyasndotte County, Kansas, accusing it of
using bait-and-switch tactics to sell autos on unconscionable
terms, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action suit seeking redress and relief for
deceptive and fraudulent practices relating to the advertising,
promotion, financing, sale and performance of obligations
pursuant to purchase agreements for Suzuki brand automobiles.

This action is brought on behalf of all natural persons who,
within the applicable statutes of limitation, purchased cars
from defendants pursuant to the program advertised and marketed
by defendants.

The plaintiffs ask the court for an order:

     -- declaring this to be a proper class action under RSA
        Section 60-223(c);

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class all actual damages
        under all counts;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class punitive damages under
        Count II for fraud;

     -- awarding plaintiffs all contract damages under Count III
        for Breach of Contract;

     -- awarding plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and
        costs; and

     -- awarding plaintiffs appropriate equitable relief, such
        as but not limited to declaration, injunction,
        rescission, restitution or specific performance.

The suit is "Kensey and Sara Russell et al. v. CFS Enterprise,
Inc., Case No. 08CV968," filed before the U.S. District Court in
the District of Wyandotte County, Kansas.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Scott F. Walterbach, Esq.
          Feldhausen & Schoenlaub PC
          10601 N. Ambassador Dr., Suite F
          Kansas City, MO 64153
          Phone: 816-891-2500
          Fax: 816-891-2515
   

EL POLLO: Discovery Ongoing in Assistant Shift Managers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Written discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit
against El Pollo Loco, Inc. -- a wholly owned subsidiary of EPL
Intermediate, Inc. -- that was filed before a state court in Los
Angeles County.

In April 2007, Dora Santana filed the purported class action
complaint on behalf of all "Assistant Shift Managers."  The
plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations including working off
the clock, failure to pay overtime, and meal break violations on
behalf of the purported class, currently defined as all
Assistant Managers from April 2003 to present.

Written discovery has just begun on the limited issue of class
certification, according to EPL Intermediate's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 26, 2008.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.elpolloloco.com/--  
formerly EPL Holdings, Inc. own, operate and franchise
restaurants specializing in marinated, flame-grilled chicken.  
The Company is a subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc.


EL POLLO: "Amezcua" Labor Suit in Calif. Stayed While on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit against El Pollo Loco, Inc. -- a
wholly owned subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc. -- filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, is being stayed while it is pending before the Court of
Appeal.

Generally, the suit alleges violations of California labor laws
and the California Business and Professions Code.

The plaintiff, Salvador Amezcua, filed the suit on Oct. 18,
2005, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
based on, among other things, failure to pay overtime
compensation, unlawful deductions from earnings and unfair
competition by the company.   

The suit requested remedies that include compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 16, 2006, Carlos Olvera replaced Mr. Amezcua as the
named class representative.

The court denied EPL's motion to compel arbitration, and the
company has appealed that decision.  This matter is subject to
an automatic stay while it is pending before the Court of
Appeal, according to EPL Intermediate's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 26, 2008.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.elpolloloco.com/--  
formerly EPL Holdings, Inc. own, operate and franchise
restaurants specializing in marinated, flame-grilled chicken.  
The Company is a subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc.


ELI LILLY: Admits Wrongdoing in Indianapolis Noose Incident
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly now admits that it failed to report a noose found
outside its Indianapolis headquarters in February.  Lilly did
not thoroughly investigate the incident until the Federal Bureau
of Investigation launched a federal hate crime investigation in
March, based on reports from a concerned member of the NAACP.  

Bob Reilley, director of global security for Eli Lilly, stated
in a company newsletter recently that the corporation's
investigation found that on the morning of Feb. 9, 2008, a rope
with a knotted loop was observed in a tree outside of the
parking garage of the Lilly Corporate Center.

Lilly officials admit they began internal investigations in
cooperation with the FBI several weeks following the incident,
which may have affected the potential for gathering
uncompromised evidence from the alleged crime scene.

Mr. Reilley expressed regret that an initial incident report was
not handled appropriately and that a thorough investigation was
not immediately begun after receiving the report.  "We regret
that this delay occurred," he said.

Indianapolis FBI Manager of Investigations Special Agent Mark
Mahon could not comment on the details of the Eli Lilly
investigation, but did say "the more evidence that is available
the better the investigation."  He further stated that alleged
hate crime investigation has been turned over to the U.S.
Department of Justice for further action.

The discovery of the noose is the latest in a series of
troubling incidents at the pharmaceutical giant.  In November
2007, the NAACP joined in a class action lawsuit brought by
hundreds of current and former African American employees to end
what they describe as pervasive race discrimination in
promotions, terminations, pay, retaliation and racially hostile
working environments at Eli Lilly, one of the world's largest
pharmaceutical companies.

That case, known as Welch et. al v Eli Lilly Co. , and is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.  

"The NAACP views the hanging of a noose as a hate crime and
fully supports the investigation by the FBI," said NAACP Greater
Indianapolis Branch President Cornell Burris.

Dawn Johnson, the security guard who discovered the noose on the
Lilly headquarters campus has been terrorized by the experience
and referred to the FBI Victims Assistance program for hate
crime victims.

Securitas, Eli Lilly's contracted security company and Johnson's
employer, just earlier this month, moved Johnson's work
assignment away from the Lilly campus and retains financially
substantial contracts with the drug manufacturer.

"We take seriously any report that is suggestive of possible
racial, ethnic or religious intolerance," said Bob Armitage,
Lilly senior vice president and general counsel.  

Yet, when plaintiffs in the race discrimination lawsuit
requested records from Lilly about the alleged noose incident,
Lilly stated (Official Legal Response available/attached):

Lilly objects . . . on the grounds that [the request] is [not]
relevant to the subject matter of this action . . Lilly further
objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague and
argumentative, including but not limited to the use of the terms
"resembling," hangman's noose," and "noose."

Cassandra Welch, the lead plaintiff in the class action suit,
reports that in 2004 she found a black doll with a hangman's
noose around its neck dangling from her desk at Lilly following
her filing a discrimination complaint.

"Sounds like the same Lilly pattern of cover up and sweep under
the rug," said Ms. Welch.  "If Lilly really had intentions to
take the [noose] matter seriously and do the right thing it
would gladly cooperate and turn over its results."  Legal action
is expected to force release of Lilly and Securitas records.

Given the history of lynching in the United States, a noose
today is a powerful symbol of American white supremacy and pure
barbarism.  The FBI began investigating what are now known as
hate crimes as far back as the early 1920s, when they opened
their first Ku Klux Klan case.  Today, they remain dedicated to
working with state and local authorities to prevent these crimes
and to bring to justice those who commit them.

Mr. Johnson contacted Ms. Welch and is seeking assistance in
retaining NAACP and other legal representation in the matter.
Her case is under legal review.  

A national campaign -- http://www.fremeinc.com/-- of awareness  
is underway to create a public discourse around civil rights
violations, inequality in employment and to investigate the
emotional toll that discrimination plays on the American
workforce.

Details of the class action lawsuit can be found at


For more information, contact:

          Rose & Rose PC
          1320 19th Street, N.W., Suite 601
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Phone: 202-331-8556
          Web site: http://www.roselawyers.com/


EPL INTERMEDIATE: Limited Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit
against EPL Intermediate, Inc., filed before the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, according to
EPL Intermediate's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 26, 2008.

On April 16, 2004, former managers Haroldo Elias, Marco Ramirez
and Javier Rivera filed the purported class action suit against
EPL on behalf of all putative class members -- former and
current general managers and restaurant managers from April 2000
to present -- alleging certain violations of California labor
laws, including alleged improper classification of general
managers and restaurant managers as exempt employees.

The requested remedies include compensatory damages for unpaid
wages, interest, certain statutory penalties, disgorgement of
alleged profits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs
as well as certain injunctive relief.

The court has lifted the stay on the class action pursuant to a
recent California Supreme Court decision.  

The matter is now proceeding in Superior Court, and the parties
are conducting limited discovery on the issue of class
certification.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.elpolloloco.com/--  
formerly EPL Holdings, Inc. own, operate and franchise
restaurants specializing in marinated, flame-grilled chicken.  
The Company is a subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc.

    
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Court Dismisses FCRA-FACTA Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed a purported class action lawsuit against EPL
Intermediate, Inc., alleging violations of the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act and Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act.

Veronica Blanco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, filed the suit on Jan. 11, 2007, before the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The Court issued an order on Nov. 1, 2007, striking the class
allegations on its own motion.  This matter was dismissed on
March 28, 2008, according to EPL Intermediate's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 26, 2008.

The suit is "Blanco v. El Pollo Loco Inc. et al., Case No. 8:07-
cv-00054-JVS-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge James V. Selna presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         James Mark Moore, Esq. (mark@spiromoss.com)
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendant is:

         Ralph H. Blakeney, Esq.
         Pillsbury Winthrop
         650 Town Center Dr, 7th Fl.
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7122
         Phone: 714-436-6800
         Fax: 714-436-2800


GABLE'S RESIDENTIAL: Faces Texas Lawsuit Alleging Racial Bias
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gable's Residential Services, which owns and manages residential
communities across the United States, is facing a class-action
complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas alleging racial discrimination, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The complaint states that the company has only one black manager
in its more than 200 managerial positions, and that person was
hired only after the company was sued for racial discrimination.

Named plaintiff Benita Bluford brings this case on behalf of
other black employees, former employees and applicants for
employment of Gables who have been denied employment, jobs or
promotions at Gables.

The plaintiff demands:

     -- judgment declaring that the acts and practices of
        defendant violate Section 1981 and Title VII;

     -- judgment awarding plaintiff and the other class members
        all relief, legal or equitable to which they may be
        justly entitled including all actual and punitive
        damages;

     -- injunctive relief necessary to end defendant's
        discriminatory practice and remedy its past
        discriminatory practices;

     -- costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- prejudgment and post-judgment interest as provided by
        law; and

     -- such other and further relief, in law and in equity, to
        which plaintiff and the class may be justly entitled.

The suit is "Venita Bluford et al v. Gables Residential
Services, Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          G. Scott Fiddler, Esq.
          9601 Jones Road, Suite 250
          Houston, Texas 77065
          Phone: 281-897-0070
          Fax: 281-897-0078


GENERAL NUTRITION: Mediation Fails to Resolve Andro Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
A mediation session for several lawsuits against General
Nutrition Centers, Inc., in connection to Andro Products has
failed resolve the matters.

The company is currently defending against five lawsuits --
Andro Actions -- relating to the sale by GNC of certain
nutritional products alleged to contain the ingredients commonly
known as Androstenedione, Androstenediol, Norandrostenedione,
and Norandrostenediol (Andro Products).

These five lawsuits were filed in California, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Florida.

In each of the five cases, the plaintiffs have sought, or are
seeking, to certify a class and obtain damages on behalf of the
class representatives and all those similarly situated who
purchased certain nutritional supplements from us alleged to
contain one or more Andro Products.

On April 17 and 18, 2006, the company filed pleadings seeking to
remove each of the Andro Actions to the respective federal
district courts in which the respective Andro Actions are
pending.

At the same time, the company filed motions seeking to transfer
each of the Andro Actions to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York based on "related to" bankruptcy
jurisdiction, as one of the manufacturers supplying them with
Andro Products, and to whom they sought indemnity, MuscleTech
Research and Development, Inc., filed bankruptcy.

The company was successful in removing the New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Florida Andro Actions to federal court and
transferring these actions to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York based on bankruptcy jurisdiction.
The California case was not removed and remains pending in state
court.

Following the conclusion of the MuscleTech Bankruptcy case,
plaintiffs, in September 2007, filed a stipulation dismissing
all claims related to the sale of MuscleTech products in the
four cases currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Florida cases).  

Additionally, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand these
actions to the respective state courts where they were
originally filed, asserting that the federal court is divested
of jurisdiction because the MuscleTech bankruptcy action is no
longer pending.  The motions to remand remain pending before the
District Court.

A more detailed description, listed by original stated court
proceeding and current style, follows:

     "Harry Rodriguez v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc."

The case was previously pending with the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County, New York, Index No.
02/126277.  

Upon its transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, it was styled, "Harry Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
General Nutrition Companies, Inc. Case No. 1:06-cv-02987-JSR."

The plaintiffs filed this putative class action suit on or about
July 25, 2002.  The Second Amended Complaint, filed in December
2002, alleged claims for unjust enrichment, violation of General
Business Law Section 349 (misleading and deceptive trade
practices), and violation of General Business Law Section 350
(false advertising).

On July 2, 2003, the court granted part of the GNC motion to
dismiss and dismissed the unjust enrichment cause of action.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the court conducted a hearing on the GNC motion
for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, both of which remain pending.

     "Everett Abrams v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc."

The case was previously pending with the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Mercer County, New Jersey, Docket No. L-3789-02.  Upon
transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York it was styled, "Everett Abrams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. General Nutrition
Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-07881-JSR."

The plaintiffs filed this putative class action on July 25,
2002.  The Second Amended Complaint, filed in December 2002,
alleged claims for false and deceptive marketing and omissions
and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On Nov. 18, 2003, the court signed an order dismissing
plaintiff's claims for affirmative misrepresentation and
sponsorship with prejudice.  The claim for knowing omissions
remains pending.

   "Shawn Brown, Ozan Cirak, Thomas Hannon, and Luke Smith v.
               General Nutrition Companies, Inc."

The case was previously pending with the 15th Judicial Circuit
Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, Index. No. CA-02-14221AB.  
Upon its transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, it was styled, "Shawn Brown, Ozan Cirak,
Thomas Hannon and Like Smith, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. General Nutrition Companies,
Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-06356-UA."

The plaintiffs filed this putative class action on July 25,
2002.  The Second Amended Complaint, filed in November 2002,
alleged claims for violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and violation of
Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act.  These claims
remain pending.

   "Andrew Toth v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., et al."

The case was previously pending with the Common Pleas Court of
Philadelphia County, Philadelphia, Class Action No. 02-703886.  
Upon transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York it was styled, "Andrew Toth and Richard
Zatta, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bodyonics, LTD, d/b/a Pinnacle and General Nutrition
Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-02721-JSR."

The plaintiffs filed this putative class action suit on July 25,
2002.  The Amended Complaint, filed in April 2003, alleged
claims for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, and unjust enrichment.  The court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and that order has
been affirmed on appeal.

The plaintiffs thereafter filed a petition in the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court asking that the court consider an appeal of the
order denying class certification.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the petition after the
case against GNC was removed as described above.  

The Claims for the violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law and unjust enrichment remain pending.

                       Guzman Litigation

The suit "Santiago Guzman, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
General Nutrition Companies, Inc.," was previously pending with
the California Judicial Counsel, Coordination Proceeding No.
4363, Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on Feb. 17,
2004.  The Second Amended Complaint, filed in November 2006,
alleged claims for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, violation of the Unfair Competition Act, and unjust
enrichment.  These claims remain pending.

                          Mediation

On Jan. 25, 2008, a mediation was held for the Andro Actions and
no resolution was reached, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a  
holding company that, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
global specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements (VMHS)
products, sports nutrition products, diet products and other
wellness products.  Its product mix is sold under its GNC
brands, including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance and
Preventive Nutrition, and under third-party brands.  The Company
operates through three business segments: Retail, Franchise and
Manufacturing/Wholesale. The Retail segment generates revenues
primarily from sales of products to customers at Company-owned
stores in the U.S. and Canada, and through GNC's Web site at
http://www.gnc.com/ The Franchise segment consists of the  
Company's domestic and international franchise operations.  The
Manufacturing/Wholesale segment consists of GNC's manufacturing
operations in South Carolina and its wholesale sales business.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Court Okays Overtime Wage Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas approved a
settlement reached in the purported class action captioned,
"Most, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-02330-CM-GLR," which was filed primarily against
General Nutrition Centers, Inc., according to the company's May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Aug. 11, 2006, Michelle L. Most and Mark A. Kelso sued the
company on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated over unpaid overtime wages.   

The lawsuit purports to certify a nationwide class of GNC store
managers and assistant managers and alleges that GNC failed to
pay time and a half for working more than 40 hours per week.  

The counsel for the plaintiffs contends that the company and
General Nutrition Corporation improperly applied fluctuating
work week calculations and procedures for docking pay for
working less than 40 hours per week under a fluctuating work
week.

In May 2007, the parties entered in to a settlement of the
claims, which is subject to court approval.  

On or about July 3, 2007, the company sent a notice to all
potential claimants, who may then elect to opt in to the
settlement.

On July 23, 2007, the court approved the settlement of claims as
fair, reasonable, and adequate.  The total amount paid to the
class approximated $0.1 million.

The suit is "Most, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., et  
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02330-CM-GLR," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas, Judge Carlos Murguia
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael F. Brady, Esq. (brady@mbradylaw.com)
         Law Offices of Michael F. Brady
         10901 Lowell Ave., Suite #280
         Overland Park, KS 66210
         Phone: 913-696-0925
         Fax: 913-696-0468

              - and -

         Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. (brendan@donelonpc.com)
         DONELON, P.C.
         802 Broadway, 7th Flr.
         Kansas City, MO 64105
         Phone: 816-221-7100
         Fax: 816-472-6805

Representing the defendants is:

         Erin A. Webber, Esq. (ewebber@littler.com)
         Littler Mendelson, P.C.
         2300 Main, Suite #900
         Kansas City, MO 64108
         Phone: 816-448-3358, x3561
         Fax: 816-817-0735,


GENERAL NUTRITION: Settles Suits Over Third-Party Product Sold
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Centers, Inc., settled several purported class
action lawsuits in connection with a third-party product sold by
the Company, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Initially, five class action lawsuits were filed against the
company in the state courts of Alabama, California, Illinois,
and Texas with respect to claims that the labeling, packaging,
and advertising with respect to a third-party product sold by
the Company were misleading and deceptive.

As a result of mediation, the parties agreed to a national
settlement of the lawsuits, which was preliminarily approved by
the court.

Notice of the proposed settlement was made by national media
publication and mail to approximately 2.4 million GNC Gold Card
members.

Each class member who purchased the third-party product and
presented a cash register receipt or original product packaging
received a cash reimbursement equal to the retail price paid,
net of sales tax.  Class members who purchased the product, but
did not have a cash register receipt or original product
packaging, were given an opportunity to submit a signed
affidavit that entitled them to receive one or more coupons.

Each coupon had a cash value of $10.00 valid toward any purchase
of $25.00 or more at a GNC store.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, all coupons had been redeemed or had
expired.  The settlement did not have a material adverse effect
on the company's business or financial condition.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a  
holding company that, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
global specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements products,
sports nutrition products, diet products and other wellness
products.  Its product mix is sold under its GNC brands,
including Mega Men, Ultra Mega, Pro Performance and Preventive
Nutrition, and under third-party brands.  The Company operates
through three business segments: Retail, Franchise and
Manufacturing/Wholesale. The Retail segment generates revenues
primarily from sales of products to customers at Company-owned
stores in the U.S. and Canada, and through GNC's Web site.  The
Franchise segment consists of the Company's domestic and
international franchise operations.  The Manufacturing/Wholesale
segment consists of GNC's manufacturing operations in South
Carolina and its wholesale sales business.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Wage, Break Claim Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Centers, Inc., is facing a wage and break
claim litigation filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, according to the company's May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On April 24, 2007, Kristin Casarez and Tyler Goodell filed a
lawsuit against the company in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Orange.  

The company later removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

The plaintiffs purport to bring the action on their own behalf,
on behalf of a class of all current and former non-exempt
employees of GNC throughout the State of California employed on
or after Aug. 24, 2004, and as private attorney general on
behalf of the general public.

They allege that they and the members of the putative class were
not provided all of the rest periods and meal periods to which
they were entitled under California law, and further allege that
GNC failed to pay them split shift and overtime compensation to
which they were entitled to under California law.

The suit is "Casarez et al v. General Nutrition Centers Inc et
al., Case No. 8:2007cv00875," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge James V. Selna
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq. (jps@spencerlaw.net)
         Jeffrey P Spencer Law Offices
         635 Camino De Los Mares, Ste. 312
         San Clemente, CA 92673
         Phone: 949-240-8595

              - and -  

         Jeffrey N. Wilens, Esq. (jeff@lakeshorelaw.org)
         Lakeshore Law Center
         17476 Yorba Linda Blvd, Ste 221
         Yorba Linda, CA 92886
         Phone: 714-854-7205

Representing the defendants is:

         Maria R. Harrington, Esq. (mharrington@littler.com)
         Littler Mendelson
         2050 Main Street
         Suite 900
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Phone: 949-705-3000
         Fax: 949-724-1201


GNC FRANCHISING: November 2008 Trial Slated for "Ahussain" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A November 2008 trial is slated for the purported class action  
"Ahussain v. GNC Franchising LLC, Case No. 8:2006cv01090," which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against units of General Nutrition Centers, Inc.

On Nov. 7, 2006, Abdul Ahussain, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, sued GNC Franchising, LLC, and
General Nutrition Corp.

The plaintiffs, who are all current franchisees, filed a
putative class action lawsuit seeking to certify a class of
current and former California GNCF franchisees.

The suit alleges that GNC engages in unfair business practices
designed to earn a profit at its franchisees' expense.  

These alleged practices include:

       -- requiring its franchises to carry slow moving
          products, which cannot be returned to GNC after
          expiration, with the franchise bearing the loss;
      
       -- requiring franchised stores to purchase new or
          experimental products, effectively forcing the
          franchisees to provide free market research;

       -- using the Gold Card program to collect information on
          franchised store customers and then soliciting
          business from such customers;

       -- underselling its franchised stores by selling products
          through the GNC website at prices below or close to
          the wholesale price, thereby forcing franchises to
          sell the same products at a loss; and

       -- manipulating prices at which franchised stores can
          purchase products from third-party suppliers, so as to
          maintain GNC's favored position as a product
          wholesaler.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an unspecified amount and
equitable and injunctive relief.

On March 19, 2008, the court certified a class as to only
plaintiffs' claim for violation of California Business &
Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq.

The class consists of all persons or entities who are or were
GNC franchisees in the State of California from November 13,
2002, to the date of adjudication.

The plaintiffs' other claims remain as individual claims in this
lawsuit.

A trial is scheduled for November 2008, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Ahussain v. GNC Franchising LLC, Case Number:
8:2006cv01090," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Abel E. Aguilera, Esq. (eaguilera@bmkalaw.com)
          Bohm Matsen Kegel and Aguilera
          695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-384-6500

               - and -

          Omar Ahmed Siddiqui, Esq. (osiddiqui@usllp.com)
          Ulwelling Siddiqui
          Park Tower
          695 Town Center Drive
          Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-384-6650

Representing the defendants are:

          Christopher C. Eck, Esq. (chris-eck@gnc-hq.com)
          General Nutrition Corporation
          300 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-288-4600

               - and -

          Brad A. Funari, Esq. (bfunari@mcguirewoods.com)
          McGuire Woods
          Dominion Tower
          625 Liberty Avenue, 23rd - 27th Floors
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Phone: 412-667-6000


HEALTH NET: Faces Rescinded Members' Litigation in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc., is facing a putative class action suit filed
in April 2008 before the Los Angeles Superior Court, in which
rescinded members allege that the company unlawfully rescinded
their coverage, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The lawsuits generally seek to recover the cost of medical
services that were not paid for as a result of the rescission,
and in some cases they also seek damages for emotional distress,
attorney fees and punitive damages.

Health Net, Inc. -- https://www.healthnet.com/ -- is an
integrated managed care organization that delivers managed
healthcare services through health plans and government-
sponsored, managed-care plans.  The Company operates and
conducts its businesses through its subsidiaries.  Health Net's
health plans and government contracts subsidiaries provide
health benefits through its health maintenance organizations,
insured preferred provider organizations and point-of-service
plans to approximately 6.6 million individuals across the
country through group, individual, Medicare, (including the
Medicare prescription drug benefit commonly referred to as Part
D), Medicaid, TRICARE and Veterans Affairs programs.  The
Company operates within two segments: Health Plan Services and
Government Contracts.  


HEALTH NET: Court Sets July 24 Hearing for ERISA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey set a
July 24, 2008 final fairness hearing for the settlement of
several purported class action suits against Health Net, Inc.,
that generally allege violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

The company was named as a defendant in three lawsuits that are
styled as nationwide class actions:

        1. "McCoy v. Health Net, Inc. et al.,"

        2. "Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., et al.," and

        3. "Scharfman, et al v. Health Net, Inc., et al."

                   McCoy & Wachtel Litigation

The McCoy and Wachtel cases are pending with the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class of
subscribers in a number of the company's large and small
employer group plans.

The Wachtel complaint initially was filed as a single plaintiff
case in New Jersey State court on July 23, 2001.  Subsequently,
the company removed the Wachtel complaint to federal court, and
plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert claims on behalf of
a class of subscribers in small employer group plans in New
Jersey on Dec. 4, 2001.

The McCoy complaint was filed on April 23, 2003, and asserts
claims on behalf of a nationwide class of Health Net
subscribers.  

These two cases have been consolidated for purposes of trial.  
In  it the plaintiffs allege that Health Net, Inc., Health Net
of the Northeast, Inc. and Health Net of New Jersey, Inc.
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in
connection with various practices related to the reimbursement
of claims for services provided by out-of-network providers.

The plaintiffs seek relief in the form of payment of additional
benefits, injunctive and other equitable relief, and attorneys'
fees.

In September 2006, the District Court in McCoy/Wachtel certified
two nationwide classes of Health Net subscribers who received
medical services or supplies from an out-of-network provider and
to whom the defendants paid less than the providers billed
charges from 1995 through Aug. 31, 2004.  

Class notices were mailed and published in various newspapers at
the beginning of July 2007.

                      Scharfman Litigation

On Jan. 13, 2005, counsel for the plaintiffs in the
McCoy/Wachtel actions filed a separate class action complaint
against Health Net; Health Net of the Northeast, Inc.; Health
Net of New York, Inc.; and Health Net Life Insurance Co.,
captioned, "Scharfman, et al. v. Health Net, Inc., et al., 05-
CV-00301 (FSH)(PS)."  The suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

On March 12, 2007, the Scharfman complaint was amended to add
plaintiffs in "McCoy," and "Wachtel," as named plaintiffs and to
add a non-ERISA claim.

The Scharfman complaint now alleges both ERISA and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims based on conduct
similar to that alleged in the McCoy/Wachtel actions.

The alleged claims in "Scharfman" run from Sept. 1, 2004 until
the present.

The plaintiffs in the Scharfman action seek relief in the form
of payment of additional benefits, civil penalties, restitution,
compensatory, and consequential damages, treble damages,
prejudgment interest and costs, attorney's fees and injunctive
and other equitable relief.

On April 10, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss all
counts of that complaint, which is pending.  On July 25, 2007,
the Magistrate issued her recommendations to the Court on this
motion, recommending denying the motion to dismiss with respect
to the ERISA claims, granting the motion to dismiss with respect
to the State RICO claims, and dismissing the federal RICO claims
with leave to file an amended complaint and a direction to file
a RICO case statement.

              McCoy/Wachtel Litigation Developments

In the McCoy/Wachtel actions, on August 9, 2005, the plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking sanctions against the defendants for a
variety of alleged misconduct, discovery abuses and fraud on the
District Court.

The District Court held 12 days of hearings on the plaintiffs'
sanctions motion between October 2005 and March 2006.

During the course of the hearings, and in their post-hearings
submissions, the plaintiffs also alleged that some of Health
Net's witnesses engaged in perjury and obstruction of justice.  
Health Net denied all such allegations.

While the sanctions proceedings were progressing, the District
Court and the Magistrate Judge overseeing discovery entered a
number of orders relating, inter alia, to production of
documents.

In an order dated May 5, 2006 (May 5 Order), the District Court
ordered the restoration, search and review of backed-up emails
of 59 current and former Health Net associates.  

The restoration process was complex, time consuming and
expensive as it involved dealing with over 14 billion pages of
documents.

Health Net was unable to complete the project by the deadline
and the District Court denied additional time to complete the
project.  The project was completed two months after the
deadline.

The May 5 Order also set forth certain findings regarding
plaintiffs' argument that the "crime-fraud" exception to the
attorney-client privilege should be applied to certain documents
for which Health Net claimed a privilege.

In this ruling, the District Court made preliminary findings
that a showing of a possible crime or fraud was made.  

The review of privileged documents under the "crime-fraud"
exception was assigned by the District Court to the Magistrate
Judge, who was to review the documents and make a recommendation
to the District Court.

On Jan. 22, 2007, the Magistrate Judge made a recommendation
that the assertion of privilege for a number of the documents
was vitiated by the crime-fraud exception.  Health Net has
appealed this ruling to the District Court.

In June 2007, the District Court asked the Magistrate Judge to
determine if plaintiffs had established a prima facie case that
Health Net had committed a crime or fraud that would vitiate the
attorney-client privilege claimed for an additional set of
Health Net documents.

The Magistrate Judge so found and referred the matter to a
Special Master for further review.  No determination has yet
been made by the Special Master.

On Dec. 6, 2006, the District Court issued an opinion and order
finding that Health Net's conduct in connection with the
discovery process was sanctionable (December 6 Order).

The District Court ordered a number of sanctions against Health
Net, including, but not limited to:

       -- striking a number of Health Net's trial exhibits and
          witnesses;

       -- deeming a number of facts to be established against
          Health Net;

       -- requiring Health Net to pay for a discovery monitor to
          oversee the completion of discovery in these cases;

       -- ordering that a monetary sanction be imposed upon
          Health Net once the District Court reviews Health
          Net's financial records;

       -- ordering Health Net to pay plaintiffs' counsel's fees
          and expenses associated with the sanctions motion and
          motions to enforce the District Court's discovery
          orders and re-deposing Health Net witnesses.

In connection therewith, on June 19, 2007, the District Court
ordered Health Net to pay plaintiffs' counsel fees of
$6,723,883, which were paid on July 3, 2007; this amount was
accrued for as of June 30, 2007.  The District Court has not yet
announced what, if any, additional penalties will be imposed.

In its December 6 Order, the District Court also ordered that
Health Net produce a large number of privileged documents that
were first discovered and revealed by Health Net as a result of
the e-mail backup tape restoration effort.  The company appealed
that order to the Third Circuit where it is still pending.

Finally, pursuant to the December 6 Order, the District Court
appointed a Special Master to determine if the company has
complied with all discovery orders.

In her Report, the Special Master found, among other things,
that:

       -- "There was no evidence of intentional or deliberate
          destruction of emails;"

       -- "There is no evidence of destruction of emails by any
          individual;" and

       -- "There was no evidence of intentional, malicious or
          bad faith conduct."

As a result of these findings, plaintiffs requested that the
District Court accept the Special Master's Report, but reject
the portion containing the above quotes.  

The company has opposed the request that portions of the Report
be expunged.  The Court has yet to rule on plaintiffs' request.

                      Settlement Negotiations

In August 2007, the company engaged in mediation with the
plaintiffs that resulted in an agreement in principle to settle
McCoy, Wachtel and Scharfman actions.

A final settlement agreement was signed with the plaintiffs on
March 13, 2008.  

The material terms of the company's agreement with the
plaintiffs are as follows:

       -- Health Net will establish a $175 million cash
          settlement fund which will be utilized to pay class
          members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses and
          regulatory remediation of claims up to $15 million
          paid by Health Net to members in New Jersey relating
          to Health Net's failure to comply with specific New
          Jersey state laws relating to ONET and certain other
          claims payment practices;

       -- Health Net will establish a $40 million prove-up fund
          to compensate eligible class members who can prove
          that they paid out of pocket for certain ONET claims
          or who have received balance bills for such services
          after May 5, 2005; and

       -- Health Net will implement various business practice
          changes relating to its handling of ONET claims,
          including changes designed to enhance information
          provided to its members on ONET reimbursements and
          enhanced reimbursement for certain ONET services.

In addition, the parties have agreed to jointly request that the
District Court forego the imposition of any further sanctions,
penalties or fines against Health Net or its representatives.

Due to the length of time it took to negotiate a series of
complex settlement terms with plaintiffs, the company agreed
with plaintiffs to deposit $160 million into an escrow fund to
be used as the cash settlement fund referenced above when a
settlement is finally agreed to and approved by the District
Court.

On Jan. 28, 2008, the $160 million was placed into an escrow
account where it will accrue interest until the settlement is
approved by the District Court.

On April 24, 2008, the District Court conducted a preliminary
fairness hearing and subsequently signed an order on that date
preliminarily approving the settlement agreement.  Notice of the
settlement agreement's terms will be provided to class members
in May 2008.  

After class members are given an opportunity to raise any
objections to the settlement, the court will conduct a final
fairness hearing on July 24, 2008, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Health Net, Inc. -- https://www.healthnet.com -- is an
integrated managed care organization that delivers managed
healthcare services through health plans and government-
sponsored, managed-care plans.  The Company operates and
conducts its businesses through its subsidiaries.  Health Net's
health plans and government contracts subsidiaries provide
health benefits through its health maintenance organizations
(HMOs), insured preferred provider organizations (PPOs) and
point-of-service (POS) plans to approximately 6.6 million
individuals across the country through group, individual,
Medicare, (including the Medicare prescription drug benefit
commonly referred to as Part D), Medicaid, TRICARE and Veterans
Affairs programs.  The Company operates within two segments:
Health Plan Services and Government Contracts.  


HOLLINGER INC: Davidson Kempner Settlement Gets Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement entered into by Hollinger Inc. with Davidson
Kempner Management LLC and certain of its affiliates and Sun-
Times Media Group, Inc., has received court approval, The
Canadian Press reports.

DK is the holder of approximately 42% of the outstanding
principal amount of Hollinger's secured notes issued pursuant to
indentures dated March 10, 2003, and September 30, 2004.  
Hollinger holds approximately 70% voting interest and 19.7%
equity interest in Sun-Times.  

Hollinger and its subsidiaries, Sugra Ltd. and 4322525 Canada
Inc. are subject to proceedings in Canada under the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act and in the United States under Chapter
15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

An agreement between Hollinger and Sun-Times was filed by before
the Ontario Court on April 10, 2008, in connection with the CCAA
proceeding (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008).  The
Settlement replaces the Sun-Times Agreement.

The Settlement provides that DK will withdraw its motion seeking
the bankruptcies of the Applicants, and that DK will support
Court Approval of the Settlement and the other relief sought by
the Applicants in their Notice of Motion dated April 10, 2008.  

The effect of the agreement is that Hollinger Inc. will
relinquish its voting control over the last major newspaper
operating company in Conrad Black's former business empire.

Under the proposed deal, the insolvent Toronto-based company,
Davidson Kempner Management LLC of New York will end up
controlling Hollinger Inc.'s stake in Sun-Times Media.

In return for about 16.5 million class A shares of Sun-Times
Media and a $1.5-million fee plus up to $3 million for
reasonable legal costs, Davidson Kempner will drop its efforts
to push Hollinger into full bankruptcy.

Under the multi-stage process in the agreement with Davidson
Kempner, the multiple-vote class B shares of Sun-Times Media
that Hollinger holds would be exchanged for an equal number of
single-vote A shares.

Davidson Kempner Management LLC would end up with indirect
ownership of about 15 million A shares from Hollinger's holdings
and a further 1.5 million A shares from Sun-Times Media.

The Settlement provides that John D. Ground, a retired justice
of the Ontario Court of Justice (Commercial List), shall be
appointed as an officer of the Court to perform the role of
litigation trustee of all claims and causes of action in favor
of the Applicants on such terms as may be agreed between the
Applicants and justice Ground and subject to approval by the
Court.  An advisory committee shall be established to provide
advice and direction to the Litigation Trustee comprised of the
Litigation Trustee, one representative of DK and one
representative of the Applicants.

For more information, contact:

          G. Wesley Voorheis (wvoorheis@hollingerinc.com)  
          Chief Executive Officer
          Hollinger Inc.
          Phone: 416-363-8721 ext. 237 or ext. 262

               - and -

          William E. Aziz (baziz@hollingerinc.com)
          Chief Financial Officer
          Hollinger Inc.
          Phone: 416-363-8721 ext. 237 or ext. 262


INVERNESS MEDICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc., is facing a purported class
action lawsuit in Massachusetts, alleging that the company's
prospectus supplement with respect to its November 2007 public
offering was inaccurate and misleading and omitted material
facts, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

On April 10, 2008, Pyramid Holdings Inc., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported
federal securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company; its
chief executive officer, Ron Zwanziger; and its chief financial
officer, David Teitel.

The complaint seeks damages and interest, rescissory damages for
class members who have sold their shares, and recovery of
reasonable costs and expenses of this litigation.

The suit is "Pyramid Holdings Inc. v. Inverness Medical
Innovations Inc. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-10615-JLT," filed
before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Joseph L. Tauro presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

Representing the defendants is:

          Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
          (BPastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com)
          Goodwin Procter LLP
          Exchange Place
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-570-1094
          Fax: 617-523-1231


ISILON SYSTEMS: Faces Wash. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isilon Systems, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud
class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, according to the company's May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Nov. 1, 2007, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.  The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under, as
well as under Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.

Substantially similar complaints were filed in the same court in
December 2007.

These cases, which were subsequently consolidated, purport to be
brought on behalf of a class of individuals or entities who
purchased or acquired the company's stock during the period
Dec. 16, 2006, to Oct. 3, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws during this period of time by, among other
things, issuing a false and misleading registration statement
and prospectus in connection with the company's Dec. 16, 2006
initial public offering, and by publicly misrepresenting the
company's current and prospective business and financial
results.

The plaintiffs claim that, as a result of these alleged wrongs,
the company's stock price was artificially inflated during the
purported class period.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive
relief.  

On April 18, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the company, certain of its current and former
directors and officers, underwriters and venture capital firms.  

Isilon Systems, Inc. -- http://www.isilon.com/-- is a provider   
of clustered storage systems for digital content.  The Company
has designed and developed its clustered storage systems
specifically to address the needs of storing and managing
digital content.


ISOLAGEN INC: Pa. Court Sets June 2, 2008 Mediation for Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
set a June 2, 2008 mediation session for the matter, "Isolagen,
Inc., Securities & Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:06-md-
01741-RB."

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are defendants in class action cases pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In August 2005 and September 2005, various lawsuits were filed
against the company alleging securities fraud and asserting
claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of publicly
traded Isolagen securities between March 3, 2004, and Aug. 1,
2005.

These lawsuits were:

       -- "Elliot Liff v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No. H-05-
          2887," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
          Southern District of Texas;

       -- "Michael Cummiskey v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
          05-cv-03105," filed in the U.S. District Court for
          the Southern District of Texas;

       -- "Ronald A. Gargiulo v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
          05-cv-4983," filed in the U.S. District Court for
          the Eastern District of Pennsylvania," and

       -- "Gregory J. Newman v. Frank M. DeLape, et al., C.A.
          No. 05-cv-5090," filed in the U.S. District Court
          for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Liff and Cummiskey actions were consolidated on Oct. 7,
2005.  The Gargiolo and Newman actions were consolidated on
Nov. 29, 2005.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the Federal
Securities Actions to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The Liff and Cummiskey actions were stayed on Nov. 23, 2005,
pending resolution of the MDL Motion.  The Gargiulo and Newman
actions were also stayed on Dec. 7, 2005, pending resolution of
the MDL Motion.

On Feb. 23, 2006, the MDL Motion was granted and the actions
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where they have been
captioned, "In re Isolagen, Inc. Securities & Derivative
Litigation, MDL No. 1741."

On April 4, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania appointed Silverback Asset Management,
LLC, Silverback Master, Ltd., Silverback Life Sciences Master
Fund, Ltd., Context Capital Management, LLC and Michael F.
McNulty as Lead Plaintiffs, and the law firms of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
as Lead Counsel in the Federal Securities Litigation.

On July 14, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint in the Federal Securities Litigation on behalf
of a putative class of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Isolagen common stock or convertible debt
securities between March 3, 2004, and Aug. 9, 2005.

The complaint purports to assert claims for securities fraud in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against Isolagen and certain of its former officers
and directors.

The complaint also purports to assert claims for violations of
Section 11 and 12 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 against the
Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers in connection with the registration and sale of certain
shares of Isolagen common stock and certain convertible debt
securities.

The complaint also purports to assert claims against CIBC World
Markets Corp., Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., Canaccord Adams,
Inc. and UBS Securities LLC as underwriters in connection with
an April 2004 public offering of Isolagen common stock and a
2005 sale of convertible notes.

On Nov. 1, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
On Sept. 26, 2007, the court denied the company's motions to
dismiss the complaint.

On Nov. 6, 2007, the court entered a scheduling order that
provides for discovery to be completed by June 8, 2009.  

On April 1, 2008, the court entered an order staying the
schedule set forth in its Nov. 6, 2007 order for a period of 90
days and directing the parties to participate in mediation
before a private mediator.  

The mediation is currently scheduled for June 2, 2008, according
to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Isolagen, Inc., Securities & Derivative Litigation,  
Case No. 2:06-md-01741-RB," filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Ronald L.
Buckwalter presiding.  
  
Representing the plaintiffs are:  
  
         Richard Eugene Norman, Esq.
         Crowley Douglas, et al.
         1301 McKinney, Suite 3500
         Houston, TX 77010
         Phone: 713-651-1771

              - and -
  
         Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
         Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: 212-594-5300
     
Representing the company are:  
  
         Charles W. Schwartz, Esq.
         Skadden Arps, et al.
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 6800
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-655-5160

              - and -
  
         Robert W. Hayes, Esq. (rhayes@cozen.com)
         Cozen O'Connor
         1900 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-665-2094
         Fax: 215-665-2013


JOHN MUIR: EEOC Files Lawsuit Over Discrimination of Nurse Hires
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal
class action suit against John Muir Health for discrimination of
nurse hires, John Simerman of the Contra Costa Times reports.

The suit contends that the local hospital operator illegally
yanked job offers from at least seven nurses after a doctor
wrongly diagnosed them with severe allergies to latex.

Reports of allergic reactions to latex have risen in recent
years, especially in health care, according to the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention.  Latex can be found in
disposable gloves, blood pressure cuffs, stethoscopes, syringes,
catheters and intravenous tubing, among other hospital staples.
Allergies to latex can produce skin rashes, hives and itching,
eye or sinus symptoms, asthma and, rarely, shock.  Estimates of
latex allergies vary widely, from 1% to 6% of the population,
according to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and
Immunology.  About 220 cases of severe reaction, and about three
deaths, are attributable each year to latex allergies.  Some
hospitals prohibit latex balloons as a precaution.

According to EEOC officials, the Walnut Creek-based health
organization relied on a doctor who was not an allergist and who
failed to confirm results from a blood test known to produce
false-positive results.  Specialists later determined that some
of the nurses had no latex allergies, and others had milder
forms, said Marcia Mitchell, lead attorney in the case.

The lawsuit contends the organization acted "with malice and/or
reckless indifference to (the nurses') federally protected
rights."

The complaint seeks unspecified back pay, lost wages, punitive
damages and compensation for the nurses' emotional distress,
pain and suffering.  Federal law caps emotional distress, pain
and suffering and punitive damages at $300,000 for each party.

The hospital did not respond to repeated requests from the
Contra Costa Times for comment on the lawsuit.

John Muir Health runs namesake medical centers in Walnut Creek
and Concord, a Brentwood outpatient facility and many other
programs in Contra Costa County.


KENNETH COLE: Settlement Deal Concludes Calif. SBCCA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Diego, approved a settlement in the purported class action
lawsuit against Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., that alleges the
company of violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The class action complaint was filed before the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Diego, on April 17,
2007, against Kenneth Cole.  

The suit alleges that the company's policies and practices
regarding the request of personal information during credit card
purchases violate the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.  The
complaint seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2008, the parties reached an
agreement to settle the dispute and the court approved the
settlement, which had been accrued at Dec. 31, 2007, and did not
have a significant impact on the company's consolidated
financial statements.

The limitations period to appeal the judgment has expired and
the company has honored all of its obligations under the
settlement.  As such, the matter is considered closed.

Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. -- http://www.kennethcole.com/--
designs, sources and markets a range of fashion footwear and
handbags.  Through license agreements, the company designs an
markets apparel and accessories under its Kenneth Cole New York,
Kenneth Cole Reaction, Unlisted and Tribeca brand names.  In
addition, Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. through a license
agreement has the rights to use the Bongo trademark for
footwear, as well as Gentle Souls for footwear under a
trademark.  


KOPPERS INC: Plaintiffs in "Batts" Voluntarily Dismiss Pa. Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Batts et al v. Koppers, Inc., Case
No. 2:07-cv-01381-AJS," voluntarily dismissed their case against
Koppers, Inc.

The company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit which sought the establishment of a medical monitoring
program and the costs of periodic health screening and
diagnostic testing for a class of approximately 7,500 people who
have lived or currently live in Somerville, but who have not
experienced any diseases.

The case was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania in October 2007.  The
plaintiffs alleged that they had been exposed to harmful levels
of various toxic chemicals from the Somerville wood treatment
plant.  They sought unspecified damages, equitable relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Koppers Inc. -- http://www.koppers.com/-- is an integrated   
global provider of carbon compounds and commercial wood
treatment products.  The Company's products are used in various
applications in a range of end markets, including the aluminum,
railroad, specialty chemical, utility, rubber and steel
industries.  The Company operates two principal businesses:
Carbon Materials and Chemicals, and Railroad and Utility
Products.  In the Carbon Materials and Chemicals business,
Koppers is engaged in distilling coal tar in North America,
Australia, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia.  In the Railroad
and Utility Products business, the Company provides various
products and services to railroads, supplies treated wood poles
to electric and telephone utilities and provides products to,
and performs various wood treating services for, vineyards,
construction and other commercial applications.


LOUISIANA: State Faces Lawsuit Over Constitutional Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Louisiana and its 5th Circuit Court of Appeal are
facing a class-action complaint filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana alleging that they
unconstitutionally treated state prisoners' pro se claims
differently from lawsuits filed with assistance of counsel,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Ted Addison claims that "an en banc meeting was
held on February 8, 1994, wherein all presiding judges [agreed]
that pro se writ applications would be treated differently from
writ applications filed by parties who were represented by
retained counsel."

From then until 2007, "the judges of the Louisiana Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeal and their employees have used a process created
to dispose of pro se writ applications denying pro se litigants
constitutional review," the complaint states.

Pro se writs received by the court were forwarded to former
Central Staff Director Jerrold "Jerry" Peterson, it states.
Rather than assigning the pro se writs a random panel, as is
standard with new filings, the class action claims that Peterson
reviewed the applications and assigned them rulings himself,
which he selected from a typical rulings list.  Mr. Peterson's
rulings were written on sticky notes that also contained
information "such as a particular pair of alphabetical letters,
'W.D.' which the secretary was trained to interpret as an order
to deny the writ, or 'writ denied'."

When Mr. Peterson was finished with the writs, they were passed
along to a Central Staff secretary, who typed the numbered
ruling onto the customary court disposition sheet, the complaint
states.  The secretary was instructed to look at the typical
rulings list to get the language for the writ disposition sheet
and to change the ruling to conform to information on the sticky
note.

Once the writ disposition sheet was completed, Mr. Peterson took
it to Judge Edward Dufresne for his signature, the complaint
states.  It adds, "The pro se writ disposition sheets gave the
impression that a three-judge panel had ruled on the case
because they had the signature of one judge and the typed names
of two other judges."

This "ghost" panel of three judges was to give the appearance
that each ruling complied with the "Louisiana Uniform Rules of
Courts of Appeal, Rules 1-5, Louisiana statutory law and the
right to judicial review afforded by the state and federal
constitutions."

The practice ended in May 2007, when Mr. Peterson retired, the
complaint states.  The class demands judicial review for
constitutional violations.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- a declaratory judgment stating that the defendants
        violated plaintiffs' rights to Due Process, Judicial
        Review, Equal Protection and Access to the Courts in
        violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
        United States Constitution and Article 1 Sections 1, 2,
        3, 19 and 22 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974;

     -- compensatory and punitive monetary damages for the
        deliberate abuse of authority intended to violate
        plaintiffs' rights to Due Process, Judicial Review,
        Equal Protection and Access to the Courts in violation
        of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
        States Constitution and Article 1 Sections 1, 2, 3, 19
        and 22 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974;

     -- attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC Section 1988, plus
        costs;

     -- injunctive relief ordering full disclosure by defendants
        and an investigation of defendants;

     -- injunctive relief ordering full disclosure by defendants
        and an investigation of defendants;

     -- injunctive relief ordering re-review of plaintiffs'
        claims which were not presented to a three-judge panel;
        and

     -- certification of the matter as a class action.

The suit is "Ted Addison et al. v. The State of Louisiana et
al., Case No. 08-3530," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Martin E. Regan, Jr.
          Karla M. Baker, Esq.
          Martin E. Regan and Associates, PLC
          2125 St. Charles Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-522-7260
          Fax: 504-522-7507


NUVELO INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Securities Fraud Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nuvelo, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

The company and certain of its former and current officers and
directors were named as defendants in the purported securities
class action suit, which was filed on Feb. 9, 2007.

The suit alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase,
which the company announced on Dec. 11, 2006.  Specifically, the
suit alleges that the company misled investors regarding the
efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood of success.

The suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers of
company's common stock during the period between Jan. 5, 2006
and Dec. 8, 2006.  

Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of
New York in February and March 2007.  

On April 18, 2007, the company filed a motion to transfer all
four cases to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The transfer motion was granted by the New York
Court in July 2007.

Separate motions to consolidate the cases, appoint lead
plaintiff, and appoint lead plaintiff's counsel were
subsequently filed.  A consolidated complaint was then filed in
the Northern District of California on Nov. 9, 2007.  

On Dec. 21, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed this
dismissal motion on Feb. 4, 2008.  

The company's dismissal motion is still pending, according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Nuvelo, Inc. -- http://www.nuvelo.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical  
company engaged in the discovery, development and
commercialization of drugs for acute cardiovascular disease,
cancer and other debilitating medical conditions.  The Company's
development pipeline includes alfimeprase, a direct-acting
fibrinolytic in Phase II development for the treatment of
thrombotic-related disorders, including acute ischemic stroke
and catheter occlusion (CO); NU172, a direct thrombin inhibitor
in Phase I development for use as a short-acting anticoagulant
during medical or surgical procedures, and preclinical candidate
NU206 for the treatment of chemotherapy/radiation therapy-
induced mucositis and inflammatory bowel disease.  In addition,
Nuvelo has research programs in leukemia therapeutic antibodies
and Wnt signaling pathway therapeutics to further expand its
pipeline and create additional partnering and licensing
opportunities.


OIL COS: Sued Over Employee Exposure to Carcinogenic Materials
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oil companies and pipe maintenance firms are facing a class-
action complaint filed before the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, accusing them of exposing
workers to carcinogenic and radioactive materials, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

These oil company defendants are:

     -- ExxonMobil Corp
     -- Chevron USA, Inc.
     -- ConocoPhillips Company
     -- Marathon Oil Company
     -- Shell Offshore, Inc.
     -- Shell Oil Company
     -- American Oil Company
     -- BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
     -- Union Oil Company of California
     -- Maxus Bulgaria, Inc.
     -- Placid Oil Company
     -- SWEPI LP
     -- Humble Inc.
     -- Alpha Technical Services Inc.
     -- Thomas Energy Services, Inc.
     -- French Jordan, Inc.
     -- OFS, Inc.
     -- Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc.

The suit is "Cheryl Aucoin, et al. v. ExxonMobil Corp. et al.,
Case No. 08-5595," filed before the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeremiah A. Sprague, Esq.
          Timothy J. Falcon, Esq.
          Falcon Law Firm
          5044 Lapalco Boulevard
          Marrero, LA 70072
          Phone: 504-341-1234
          Fax: 504-341-8115


STEC INC: Settles Calif. Consumer Litigation Over Hard Drives
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEC, Inc., settled a purported nationwide class action suit
filed before the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, over its hard drive products, according
to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit alleges that the company's description of the capacity
of its hard drives constitutes fraudulent, unfair, deceptive and
false advertising under California Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 and 17500 and violates the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

Filed by Boris Brand on Oct. 6, 2006, suit also alleges that the
company's description of the storage capacity on its hard drives
uses a decimal basis for measuring gigabytes which results in a
lower storage capacity when the hard drives are incorporated
into an operating system that uses a binary gigabyte basis for
measurement.

The plaintiff seeks restitution, disgorgement, compensatory
damages and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

Reaching a tentative settlement, the company has agreed to
provide qualifying class members the means to claim a rebate of
6% of the purchase price of the storage device for a period of
three months from the announcement of the program.  

In addition, the company will pay a portion of the plaintiff's
legal fees as determined by an arbitration proceeding which
concluded on March 10, 2008.  The terms of the settlement remain
subject to court approval.

STEC, Inc., -- http://www.stec-inc.com/-- formerly SimpleTech,  
Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and markets custom memory
solutions based on Flash memory and dynamic random access memory
(DRAM) technologies.  


STRATEGIC ENERGY: Faces Pa. Litigation Over Electricity Service
---------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Energy, L.L.C. -- a business segment of Great Plains
Energy, Inc. -- is facing a purported class action lawsuit in
Pennsylvania, entitled "Tech Met, Inc., et al. v. Strategic
Energy," according to Great Plains' May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

On Nov. 21, 2005, a class action complaint for breach of
contract was filed against Strategic Energy in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  The five named
plaintiffs in the complaint purportedly represent the interests
of customers in Pennsylvania who entered into Power Supply
Coordination Service Agreements for electricity service.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages, attorney fees and costs
and a declaration that the customers may terminate their
Agreements with Strategic Energy.  

In response to Strategic Energy's preliminary objections, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  After additional
objections from Strategic Energy, the plaintiffs agreed to file
a second amended complaint.  

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

Great Plains Energy, Inc. -- http://www.greatplainsenergy.com/
-- is a public utility holding company and does not own or
operate any significant assets other than the stock of its
subsidiaries.  Great Plains Energy has four direct subsidiaries
with operations: Kansas City Power & Light Company, KLT Inc.,
Innovative Energy Consultants Inc. and Great Plains Energy
Services Incorporated.  KCP&L's sole reportable business segment
is KCP&L.  Strategic Energy, L.L.C. is the subsidiary of KLT
Energy Services.  Great Plains Energy, through its direct and
indirect subsidiaries, has two business segments: KCP&L and
Strategic Energy.  KLT, Inc. is an intermediate holding company
that primarily holds, directly or indirectly, interests in
Strategic Energy, which provides retail electricity supply
services in several electricity markets offering retail choice,
and holds investments in housing limited partnerships.


TD AMERITRADE: Settlement Discussions Ongoing in "Zigler" Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class action lawsuit alleging that TD
Ameritrade, Inc., illegally sold e-mail addresses to spammers
are engaging in settlement discussions in an effort to resolve
the case, which is currently pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit was filed by Brad Zigler on Sept. 26, 2007.  The  
factual allegations and the relief sought are substantially the
same as those in the matter, entitled, "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade,
Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ."

In general, "Elvey" alleges that TD Ameritrade provides spammers
with its accountholders' private e-mail addresses, which sent
and continue to send unsolicited commercial e-mail (particularly
e-mail promoting certain penny stocks or stock spam) to these
private e-mail addresses (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2008).

The exposure of its accountholders' e-mail addresses allegedly
violated and breached TD Ameritrade's privacy policy.

Mr. Zigler's complaint was brought on behalf of a purported
nationwide class of accountholders.

The parties in the suit are engaged in settlement discussions,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
04903-MJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Christopher Parisi, Esq. (dcparisi@msn.com)
          Parisi & Havens LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: 818-990-1299
          Fax: 818-501-7852

Representing the defendants is:

          Shirish Gupta, Esq. (sgupta@mayerbrown.com)
          Mayer Brown LLP
          Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300, 3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Phone: 650-331-2025
          Fax: 650-331-2060


TD AMERITRADE: Settlement Discussions Ongoing in "Elvey" Matter
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class action lawsuit accusing TD
Ameritrade, Inc., of illegally selling e-mail addresses to
spammers are engaging in settlement discussions in a bid to
resolve the matter, which is pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Named plaintiff Matthew Elvey alleges that TD Ameritrade
provides spammers with its accountholders' private e-mail
addresses, sending unsolicited commercial e-mail (particularly
e-mail promoting certain penny stocks or stock spam) to these
private e-mail addresses (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2008).

The exposure of its accountholders' e-mail addresses allegedly
violated and breached TD Ameritrade's privacy policy.

Mr. Elvey brings the class action on behalf of two classes:

     -- TD AmeriTrade accountholders residing in California
        (California Resident Class); and

     -- Internet access services which received spam sent to TD
        AmeriTrade accountholder's e-mail addresses which is
        traceable to TD AmeriTrade's breach of its privacy
        policy (CAN SPAM Class).

The complaint alleges that TD AmeriTrade's provision of its
accountholder's e-mail addresses not only facilitated the
transmission of spam to its accountholder's e-mail addresses, it
did so in violation of express representations in it privacy
policy that it would not share its accountholder's personal
information with third parties.  

On behalf of the California Resident Class, Mr. Elvey seeks
injunctive relief under California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, equitable relief under California's Unfair Competition Law,
and damages and equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duty.

Further, TD AmeriTrade's provision of its accountholder's emails
facilitated and initiated the transmission of various stock spam
to their Internet facilities, in violation of the CAN SPAM Act
of 2003.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether TD AmeriTrade expose or provided e-mail
         addresses of the California Resident Class members to
         spammers;

     (b) whether such exposure violated TD AmeriTrade's Privacy
         Statement;

     (c) whether such exposure was intentional or unintentional
         on TD AmeriTrade's part;

     (d) whether TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement represented
         that TD AmeriTrade's services have characteristics,
         uses and benefits, or quantities which they do not
         have, in violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section
         1770(a)(14);

     (e) whether TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement represented
         that TD AmeriTrade's services confer or involves
         rights, remedies, obligations which they do not confer
         or involve, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
         Section 17200;

     (f) whether, in light of the exposure and provision of
         California Resident Class members' e-mail addresses to
         spammers, TD AmeriTrade's Privacy Statement was
         deceptive under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200;

     (g) whether TD AmeriTrade owed California Class members
         fiduciary duty as their broker;

     (h) whether TD AmeriTrade owed the California class members
         a fiduciary duty by dint of its collection of personal
         information under the Privacy Statement;

     (i) whether TD AmeriTrade breached such fiduciary duties
         through the violation of its Privacy Statement;

     (j) whether TD AmeriTrade failed to fully and accurately
         disclose the exposure and provision of California
         Resident Class members' e-mail addresses to spammers  
         and any underlying security breach;

     (k) whether, in light of Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.82, TD
         AmeriTrade's failure to disclose any security breach
         violated its fiduciary duties to the California
         Resident Class members;

     (l) whether, in light of its fiduciary duties, TD
         AmeriTrade's failure to disclose any security brach
         violated its fiduciary duties to the California
         Resident Class members;

     (m) whether TD AmeriTrade violated the CLRA;

     (n) whether TD AmeriTrade violated the UCL; and

     (o) whether plaintiff and the California Resident Class are
         entitled to relief, and the nature of such relief.

The plaintiff prays that court enter judgment:

     -- certifying the action as a class action and designating
        plaintiff and his counsel as representatives of the
        California Resident Class, the CAN SPAM Class;

     -- with respect to Counts I, II, and III, providing
        equitable relief for the California Resident Class,
        including an order for accounting, an order enjoining
        the misconduct alleged, restitution of property gained
        by this misconduct and disgorgement of profits obtained
        while the breach of fiduciary duty was on going, such as
        commissions on trades;

     -- with respect to Count III, award of damages in an amount
        to be determined at trial for the California Resident
        Class;

     -- with respect to Count IV, providing an injunction
        against further violations of CAN SPAM, statutory
        damages for each Traced Spam to each CAN SPAM class
        member, and reasonable costs, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees under the CAN SPAM Act, for the CAN SPAM
        Class;

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

     -- granting such other and further relief as the court may
        deem just and proper.

On July 10, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction.   

On July 18, 2007, TDA, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's amended complaint, which request the plaintiff has
opposed.

Currently, the parties are engaged in settlement discussions,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
02852-BZ," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
          2757 Leonis Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90058
          Phone: 323-585-8696
          Fax: 323-585-8198
          e-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net

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

               - and -

          Ethan Mark Preston, Esq. (preston@kamberedelson.com)
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-920-3072
          Fax: 212-920-xxxx


UNITED GENERAL: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Refinancing Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
United General Title Insurance Co. is facing a class-action
complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas alleging that the company charges more for
title insurance on refinancings than is permitted by state law,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is filed on behalf of all borrowers who refinanced
their home mortgages in Texas and were charged lender title
insurance premiums by Defendant that exceeded the discounted
reissue rates mandated by Texas law.

The class includes all persons who, within seven years after the
date of their existing mortgage on their real property in Texas,
refinanced or otherwise replaced their existing mortgage and
were charged a premium for a new lender title insurance policy
issued by Defendant United General Title Insurance Company that
did not include the refinance credit mandated by Texas law.

The plaintiffs seek relief under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, 12 USC 5 2607 (b).  Accordingly, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. g 1331, this Court has federal question subject matter
jurisdiction over this dispute, and has supplemental
jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' other claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1367.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (1) whether the plaintiffs refinanced an existing mortgage
         within seven years after the closing of the existing
         mortgage;

     (2) whether the plaintiffs qualify for mandatory reissue
         discount in connection with the reissue lender title
         policy;

     (3) the dollar amount of the reissue discount required to
         be applied to the plaintiffs' transaction;

     (4) whether the defendant split the unearned discounts
         with its agents;

     (5) whether the defendant's splitting of the unearned
         premiums with title agents violated Section 8(b) of
         RESPA;

    (6) whether the defendant breached other legal duties to
        class members failing to give them the discounted
        reissue premium rates mandated Texas law and retaining
        those unearned premiums;

    (7) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover three
        times the amount charged for the reissue lender title
        insurance policies, pursuant to 12 U.S. C. g 2607(d)(2);
        and

    (8) what declaratory or injunctive relief should
        appropriately be awarded to the Class.

The suit is "Archie and Meiling Davis et al. v. United General
Title Insurance Company, Case No. A08CA 398LY," filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.


WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: Suit Over Heather Bresch Scandal Looms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charleston law firm Freeman and Chiartas is looking into the
possibility of filing a class-action lawsuit after the Heather
Bresch Degree scandal, Amanda Barren writes for WSAZ.com.

The WSAZ report recalls that an independent panel determined
that the Governor's Daughter, Heather Bresch, did not earn the
degree she received.

As reported by the Associated Press on May 6, 2008, the
independent panel concluded on April 23 that administrators and
educators at West Virginia University last fall retroactively
gave Governor Joe Manchin's daughter, Heather Bresch, an
executive master of business administration degree that the
panel said she did not earn.

The AP report noted that Ms. Bresch is now chief operating
officer of generic drug maker Mylan Inc., which WVU President
Mike Garrison, a longtime friend of hers, once represented as a
lobbyist.  Mylan's chairman, Milan "Mike" Puskar, has given tens
of millions to the university, which named its football stadium
after him.  

Greg Chiartas, Esq., a WVU Law graduate himself, told WSAZ.com
that his law firm received three phone calls about possibly
filing a lawsuit.  So they put an ad in the paper to see how
much interest was really out there.  

The West Virginia Record notes that Mr. Chiartas said he is
receiving a dozen calls a day, as well as several e-mails from
parents, students and faculty interested in the suit or who are
concerned about the validity of their degrees.

"One person for example was looking to go to grad school and
somebody in the admissions office made a snide remark about the
degree from WVU," Mr. Chiartas told WSAZ.com.  He added that
this is not about money but about restoring integrity to his
alma matter.

"Here is an offer I will make it right here.  We've decided if
this is a class-action lawsuit, if the University -- the Board
of Governors -- will take the appropriate measures and replaces
Mike Garrison, we will donate our fee, whatever it is, to the
WVU Foundation."

WSAZ.com says it will keep checking to see if a class-action
suit is filed.

Mr. Chiatras told West Virginia Record that they are going to
wait until June 6 when Mr. Garrison releases his own report and
the Board meets again to determine whether to possibly file a
suit.

WVU had no comment on the ads or the potential lawsuit, West
Virginia Record says.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Charles Johnson Files Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates commenced a class action lawsuit
before the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of purchasers of Downey Financial
Corporation publicly traded securities during the period
October 16, 2006, through March 14, 2008.

The complaint alleges 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:

     1) 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;

     2) 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;

     3) defendants failed to properly account for highly
        leveraged loans;

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

     5) 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:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN  55112
          Phone: 651-633-5685


TRM CORP: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the for the District of Oregon on behalf of purchasers
of TRM Corporation (OTCBB: TRMM) common stock during the period
between March 16, 2006, and May 22, 2007.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
Company, and certain of its officers and directors, violated
federal securities laws by withholding material facts from the
investing public, including:

     -- that the Company's financial results were artificially
        inflated due to the failure to timely write down certain
        materially overvalued assets;

     -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
        procedures necessary to ascertain its true financial
        condition and worth; and that the Company's ability to
        continue its operations and remain a going-concern was
        in serious doubt.

After the Company provided investors with details about the
progress of its restructuring plan and announced new management
positions, the price of Company shares continued their decline.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 22,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

            Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
            The World Trade Center-Baltimore
            401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
            Baltimore, Maryland 21202
            Phone: 410-332-0030
            e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
            Web site: http://www.browerpiven.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  * * *