CAR_Public/080602.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 2, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 108
  
                            Headlines

ADIO FOOTWEAR: Recalls Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard
BLOUNT FINE: Recalls Clam Chowders for Undeclared Shrimp Content
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Alleging Consumer Fraud
CAPTARIS INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of TCPA Suit in Ill.
CHICO'S FAS: Calif. Court Approves Settlement in Labor Lawsuit

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Ark. Suit Over Colossus
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in California
COVIDIEN LTD: Ninth Circuit Denies Appeal Request in Calif. Suit
COVIDIEN LTD: No Trial Date Set for "Natchitoches Parish" Case
FARMERS GROUP: Cheats on Medical Payments, California Suit Says

FIFTH THIRD: Still Faces N.Y. Payment Card Interchange Fee Suit
FIFTH THIRD: First Circuit Yet to Rule in TJX Litigation Appeal
HIA INC: Stock Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 17
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuits in Ohio
HUTCHINSON: 8th Circuit Yet to Rule on Appeal of Suit Dismissal

MET-RX USA: Court Denies Certification Motion in Prohormone Suit
MET-RX USA: N.J. Suit Over Prohormone Supplements Remains Stayed
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces Philadelphia Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
O'NEAL DOG SELLER: Sued in Texas for Selling Sick Dogs Online
ONTARIO GOVERNMENT: Court Denies Bid to Kill Caledonia Lawsuit

PLANTRONICS INC: Seeks Nixing of Calif. Bluetooth Headsets Suit
RAWLINGS: Recalls Helmets Due to Lead Paint Standard Violation
RED ROBIN: Reaches Settlements in Calif. Labor Violations Suits
RED ROBIN: June 6 Hearing Set for Derivative Suit Settlement
REXALL SUNDOWN: Calif. Lawsuit Over Nutrition Bars Still Stayed

RIDLEY INC: Quebec Court Approves BSE Claims Settlement Deal
SAVIENT PHARMA: Court to Rule on Appeal in N.J. Suit Dismissal
SEARS ROEBUCK: Customers Sue Over Poor-Quality Home Appliances
THIRD FEDERAL: Appeals Court Mulls Appeal in "Greenspan" Lawsuit
TRANSUNION: Gives Free Credit Report Monitoring to Consumers

TRIMAX CORP: Settles Nev. Litigation by PLC Network Shareholders
VALASSIS COMMS: Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Securities Suit

* AEI Legal Center Releases Study on Milberg Weiss Prosecution


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Charles Johnson Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Holzer & Fistel Files Calif. Securities Suit
NEXCEN BRANDS: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
NEXCEN BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ADIO FOOTWEAR: Recalls Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Adio Footwear, of Carlsbad, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 300 Boy's
Hooded Zip Fleece Sweatshirts.

The company said the garments have a drawstring through the
hood, which can pose a strangulation hazard to children.  In
February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children
from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.
No injuries have been reported.

The boy's "Champ Custom" hooded zip fleece sweatshirt (style #
40305.HZB) is white with blue pin-stripes on the front and red
panels on the sides. ADIO is spelled out across the front.  The
sweatshirt was sold in boys' sizes: small, medium, large and x-
large.

These recalled children's hoodies were manufactured in China and
were being sold at Tilly's and Bob's stores nationwide from
October 2007 through December 2007 for about $40.

A picture of the recalled children's hoodies can be found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08288.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from
the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard, and return the item to
the place of purchase or to Adio Footwear for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Adio Footwear at 800-995-
6069 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday,
or visit the firm's Web site at: http://www.adiofootwear.com/


BLOUNT FINE: Recalls Clam Chowders for Undeclared Shrimp Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blount Fine Foods of Fall River, in Massachusetts, is recalling
Blount All Natural New England Clam Chowder, Net Wt. 20 oz with
Lot: 0424086D, Sell by date: 6/23/2008, because it may contain
undeclared shrimp.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to shrimp run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.  The firm has recovered 1,385 of
1,416 units produced, 31 units are in distribution.

Blount New England Clam Chowder was distributed through the
following supermarket chains:

     -- Shaw's Supermarkets (in Massachusetts and Connecticut),
     -- Omni Foods (in Weston, MA),
     -- Donelan Market (in Acton and Littleton, MA),
     -- The Cirelli Marketplace store (Middleboro, MA), and
     -- The Blount Factory Store (Warren, RI).

The product is identified as a 20-oz plastic cup with a film
seal and plastic lid.  The dark blue product label reads: Blount
Signature Soups All Natural New England Clam Chowder, Keep
Refrigerated.  The lot code and sell by date are printed in
black ink on the bottom of the cup.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing shrimp was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of shrimp.  Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by an isolated, temporary
breakdown in the company's production and packaging processes.

Consumers who have purchased Blount All Natural New England Clam
Chowder are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Consumers who have health-related concerns should
contact their physician.  Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-800-274-2526.  Additional information is
available at http://www.blountfinefoods.com/


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Alleging Consumer Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
BMW of North America and Bridgestone Firestone are facing a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey accusing the companies of defrauding
consumers by equipping 2006-7 Series 3 BMWs with Turanza run-
flat tires that allegedly wear unevenly and need to be replaced
after 10,000 miles, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this action to obtain restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive and other relief on behalf of all
current and former owners and lessees of the Vehicles that were
equipped with Turanzas sold or leased in the United States.

This action is brought to remedy violations of applicable law in
connection with the defendants' design, manufacture, marketing,
distribution and sale of 2006 and 2007 BMW 3 series vehicles,
including the Turanza run-flat tires designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed and sold by Bridgestone, which were
equipped on the Vehicles.

The Turanzas on the Vehicles are defective and wear unevenly and
prematurely, resulting in an extremely rough ride and excessive
and disruptive noise from the tires.  In addition, the tires on
the Vehicles must be replaced prematurely -- in many cases after
less than 10,000 miles, and very often after less than 20,000
miles.

The plaintiffs assert claims, on behalf of themselves and the
Class, for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 2301, et seq. (Magnuson-Moss Act), breach of
express and implied warranty, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, as well as claims under the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-1, et seq. and,
in the alternative, under other similar consumer protection
statutes of other states.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     a. whether the defendants omitted and concealed material
        facts from the plaintiffs and the class regarding the
        defective Turanzas;

     b. whether, by the misconduct set forth in this complaint,
        BMW has engaged in unfair or unlawful business practices
        with respect to the sale of the Vehicles;

     c. whether the defendants had a duty to disclose the defect
        to the plaintiffs and the class;

     d. whether, by its conduct, BMW violated the CFA and
        other consumer protection statutes;

     e. whether, by its conduct, Bridgestone breached its
        express warranties with the plaintiffs and the class;

     f. whether, by their conduct, the defendants breached their
        implied warranties with the plaintiffs and the class;

     g. whether, by its conduct, BMW breached its duty of good
        faith and fair dealing;

     h. whether the Turanzas are defective;

     i. whether, as a result of the defendants' misconduct,
        the plaintiffs and the class are entitled to damages;
        and

     j. whether, as a result of the defendants' misconduct,
        the plaintiffs and the class are entitled to equitable
        relief and other relief, and, if so, the nature of
        such relief.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying this action as a class action,
        appointing the plaintiffs as representatives of the
        class and appointing their attorneys as class counsel;

     -- all compensatory damages on all applicable claims in
        an amount to be proven at trial;

     -- treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
        Act;

     -- an order directing disgorgement or restitution of
        all improperly retained amounts by the defendants;

     -- an order permanently enjoining each defendant from
        engaging in the alleged unlawful practices;

     -- an award of attorney fees, costs and expenses; and

     -- such other and further relief, including equitable
        and injunctive relief, that the Court deems appropriate
        and just under all of the circumstances.

The suit is "Arvind Chandran et al. v. BMW of North America, LLC
et al., Case No. 2:33-av-00001," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi
          Stewart & Olstein, PC
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: 973-994-1700


CAPTARIS INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of TCPA Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit against a subsidiary of
Captaris, Inc., in the Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois,
filed an appellate brief in connection to the dismissal of their
case.

The lawsuit was filed by Travel 100 Group, Inc., against
Mediterranean Shipping Co.  The complaint alleges violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in connection with the
receipt of facsimile advertisements that were transmitted by
MediaTel Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Captaris, on behalf
of travel service providers, including Mediterranean.  

All of the assets of MediaTel were sold to a subsidiary of PTEK
Holdings, Inc., on Sept. 1, 2003.

The Travel 100 complaint sought injunctive relief and
unspecified damages and certification as a class action on
behalf of Travel 100 and others similarly situated throughout
the U.S. that received the facsimile advertisements.

Mediterranean named Captaris as a third-party defendant and
asserted that Captaris should be liable under theories of
indemnification, contribution or breach of contract for any
damages suffered by Mediterranean.

Both Captaris and MediaTel have denied any liability in the
cases because, among other facts and defenses, MediaTel
understood that the database and lists of travel agent
recipients to whom faxes were sent had authorized that
information could be sent to them by fax.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court in the Mediterranean case granted
summary judgment in favor of Mediterranean and Captaris and
dismissed the case.

In granting summary judgment, the court ruled that Travel 100
had invited the facsimile advertisements and there was no
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Travel 100
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied.

Travel 100 then filed a notice of appeal on Dec. 29, 2006.  On
July 20, 2007, Travel 100 filed its Appellate brief.

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

Captaris, Inc. -- http://www.captaris.com/-- develops software   
products that automate business processes, manage documents
electronically and provide efficient information delivery.  With
a comprehensive suite of software and services, Captaris
specializes in automating the slow and inefficient unstructured
and paper-based document processes that are found in every
organization.  Its products and services address business needs
in the fax server and electronic document delivery market; the
workflow and business process automation market, and the
enterprise content management market.  The Company's products
run on off-the-shelf personal computer servers and Microsoft
software platforms, including Microsoft Windows NT, Windows
2000, Windows 2003 and Windows XP.  Captaris utilizes
Microsoft.NET development tools in its suite of products and
integrate with a variety of hardware equipment and enterprise
software products.


CHICO'S FAS: Calif. Court Approves Settlement in Labor Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, granted final approval to a proposed settlement in the
putative class action "Linda Balint v. Chico's FAS, Inc. et al."

On May 9, 2007, Chico's FAS was served with the lawsuit, which
alleges that the company, in violation of California law, failed
to:

       -- pay overtime wages, and

       -- provide meal periods, among other claims.  

In October 2007, the parties participated in an early mediation
of the matter and subsequently reached a settlement.  

In January 2008, the Court gave its preliminary approval of the
settlement and notice of the settlement has been sent to all
class members.  

Class members had until April 21, 2008, to partake in, opt out
of, or object to the settlement.

On May 20, 2008, the Court granted its final approval of the
settlement, according to the company's May 28, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2008.

Chico's FAS, Inc. -- http://www.chicos.com/-- is a specialty  
retailer of private-label, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates,
complementary accessories and other non-clothing gift items.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Ark. Suit Over Colossus
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action suit filed in the Miller
County Circuit Court (Arkansas) against Computer Sciences Corp.
claiming that the defendants conspired to wrongfully use the
Colossus software products licensed by the company and the other
software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees'
insureds for bodily injury claims, according to Computer
Sciences' May 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 15, 2008.

The suit, entitled "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp.,
et al.," was filed as a putative nationwide class action suit on
Feb. 7, 2005.  It was originally filed by plaintiff Georgia
Hensley, individually and as a class representative (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2008).

The suit faults the defendants for civil conspiracy, breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unjust enrichment, and fraud.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief of less than
$75,000 for each class member, as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

The case is currently in the discovery phase and it is expected
that discovery will continue at least through the remainder of
fiscal year 2009.  The court has not issued a scheduling order
for the case.  Therefore, there is no deadline for completion of
discovery in the case nor has a date been set for a hearing on
class certification.

The suit is "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp., et al.,
Case No. CV-2005-0059-3," filed in the Miller County Circuit
Court (Arkansas), Judge Kirk Johnson presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         John Goodson, Esq.
         Keil & Goodson, P.A.
         611 Pecan Street
         Texarkana, AR 71854
         Phone: 870-772-4113

Representing defendants are:

         Mark Burgess, Esq.
         2301 Moores Lane
         P.O. Box 6297
         Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297
         Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com/

              - and -

         Jason Horton, Esq.
         Crisp, Boyd, Poff & Burgess, L.L.P.
         Moores Lane, P.O. Box 6297
         Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297
         Phone: 903-838-6123
         Fax: 903-832-8489
         Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corp. is facing a purported class action suit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's May 27, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 15, 2008.

The company and certain directors and other individuals have
also been sued in a class action proceeding alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act statute related
to claims of alleged backdating of stock options.  

The case was initially filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, but was recently transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, at the request of the company.  

The suit is "Walter Gray et al v. Computer Sciences Corporation
et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-02409-SJO-JWJ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge S.
James Otero presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull Stull and Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com


COVIDIEN LTD: Ninth Circuit Denies Appeal Request in Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
plaintiffs' request for leave to appeal the lower court's denial
of class certification in the matter, "In re: Pulse Oximetry
Antitrust litigation," which names Covidien Ltd., as a
defendant, according to Covidien's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 28, 2008.

Beginning on Aug. 29, 2005, the suit, captioned "Allied
Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, L.P., and
Mallinckrodt Inc.," and eleven other consumer class action
complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

In all of the complaints, the putative class representatives, on
behalf of themselves and others, seek to recover overcharges
they allege they paid for pulse oximetry products as a result of
anticompetitive conduct by the Company in violation of the
federal antitrust laws.

All the complaints were subsequently consolidated into a single
proceeding styled, "In re: Pulse Oximetry Antitrust litigation."

By stipulation among the parties, five putative class
representatives dismissed their claims against the company,
leaving seven remaining putative class representatives as
plaintiffs in the consolidated proceeding.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the district court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On March 14, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to appeal the
district court's denial of their motion for class certification.  

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

Covidien Ltd. -- http://www.covidien.com/-- is engaged in the  
development, manufacture and sale of healthcare products for use
in clinical and home settings.  The Company operates its
business through four segments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceutical
Products, Imaging Solutions and Medical Supplies.  The Company's
customers include hospitals, surgi-centers, imaging centers,
alternate site facilities, drug manufacturers and major
retailers worldwide.


COVIDIEN LTD: No Trial Date Set for "Natchitoches Parish" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date was set yet for the class action, "Natchitoches
Parish Hospital Service District v. Tyco International, Ltd., et
al.," which names Covidien, Ltd., as a defendant.

The class action complaint was filed against the company on
Sept. 15, 2005, before the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.

In the complaint, the putative class representative, on behalf
of itself and others, seeks to recover overcharges it alleges
that it and others paid for sharps containers as a result of
anticompetitive conduct by the Company in violation of federal
antitrust laws.

The parties are in the discovery stage.  The district court held
hearings on the plaintiff's motion for class certification on
April 13, 2007, and on Sept. 18, 2007.  No trial date has been
scheduled.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2008.

The suit is "Natchitoches Parish Hospital Service District v.
Tyco International, Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-12024-PBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Patti B. Saris, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel Berger, Esq. (danberger@bm.net)
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-875-3026
          Fax: 215-875-4604

               - and -

          Brett Cebulash, Esq. (bcebulash@garwingerstein.com)
          Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP
          1501 Broadway, Suite 1416
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-398-0055
          Fax: 212-764-6620

Representing the defendants are:

          Margaret Branick-Abilla, Esq.
          (mbranickabilla@cooley.com)
          Cooley Godward LLP
          3000 El Camino Real, Five Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Phone: 650-843-5067
          Fax: 650-857-0663

               - and -

          Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq.
          (CDusseault@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Phone: 213-229-7855
          Fax: 213-229-7520


FARMERS GROUP: Cheats on Medical Payments, California Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers Group is facing a class-action complaint filed in the  
Superior Court in Los Angeles alleging it illegally demands
reimbursement for medical payments from policyholders who were
not made whole by their settlements, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The class claims Farmers and its many alter egos refuse to
deduct from their demands the money that policyholders paid in
attorneys' fees necessary to get their settlements.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Michael J. Bidart, Esq.
          Shernoff, Bidart, Darras & Echeverria LLP
          600 South Indian Hill Blvd.
          Claremont, CA 91711-5444
          Phone: 909-621-4935 or
                 800-458-3386
          Fax: 909-625-6915
          Web site: http://www.sbd-law.com/


FIFTH THIRD: Still Faces N.Y. Payment Card Interchange Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp continues to face a consolidated antitrust
class action suit, captioned "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee
and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No.
1:05-md-01720-JG-JO," which is pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On April 26, 2006, the company was added as a defendant in the
consolidated lawsuit, which was originally filed against Visa,
MasterCard, and several other major financial institutions.

The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses
throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the
interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable
and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

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

The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-
JG-JO," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Judge John Gleeson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Darla Jo Boggs, Esq. (djboggs@locklaw.com)
          Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.,
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-339-6900
          Fax: 612-339-0981

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq. (chrisb@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Jason S. Cowart, Esq. (jasoncowart@yahoo.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665

Representing the company is:

          Patrick F. Fischer, Esq. (pfischer@kmklaw.com)
          Keating Muething & Klekamp
          One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-579-6400
          Fax: 513-579-6457


FIFTH THIRD: First Circuit Yet to Rule in TJX Litigation Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has yet to rule
on defendants' appeal of a series of rulings entered by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts in the
consolidated cases brought by financial institutions that now
fall under the caption, "In Re TJX Security Breach Litigation,"
which names Fifth Third Bancorp as one of the defendants.

Fifth Third was the transaction processor for the TJX companies,
and therefore responsible for ensuring security of the card
information.

Initially, several putative class-action complaints were filed
against the company in various federal and state courts.  The
federal cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation and are now known as "In Re TJX
Security Breach Litigation."  The state court actions have been
removed to federal court and have been consolidated into that
same case.

The complaints relate to the alleged intrusion of The TJX
Companies, Inc.'s computer system and the potential theft of the
customers' non-public information and alleged violations of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Some of the complaints were filed by consumers and seek
unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons
who transacted business at any one of TJX's stores during the
period of the alleged intrusion.  

Another was filed by financial institutions and seeks
unquantified damages on behalf of other similarly situated
entities that suffered losses in relation to the alleged
intrusion.

The U.S. District Court has granted Fifth Third's motion to
dismiss certain of the claims, but additional claims remain
pending.

On Nov. 29, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the consolidated cases brought by
financial institutions.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the District Court entered its final order in
the Financial Institution Track litigation:

       -- denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
          their complaint, without prejudice;

       -- dismissing the case for lack of subject matter
          jurisdiction; and

       -- transferring the case from the U.S District Court to
          the Massachusetts Superior Court in and for the County
          of Middlesex.

TJX Companies then filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit as to that portion of the Court's
order transferring the case to Massachusetts State Court and an
emergency motion to stay the Massachusetts State Court
proceedings pending the appeal.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the First Circuit granted the request for stay
until a further order by the Court.  

On Dec. 20, 2007, Fifth Third likewise filed a notice of appeal
to the First Circuit solely as to that portion of the District
Court's Dec. 18, 2007 Order transferring the case to the
Massachusetts State Court.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal
in the First Circuit as to the entirety of the District Court's
Dec. 18, 2007 Order and also as to all other prior "adverse
rulings" including, without limitation, the District Court's
denial of class certification and dismissal of various claims.

Both TJX and Fifth Third amended their Notices of Appeal to
likewise appeal all adverse rulings by the District Court,
according to Fifth Third's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified   
financial services company.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp
operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers,
including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside
select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines
in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri.  The
Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial
Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors
and Fifth Third Processing Solutions.  


HIA INC: Stock Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court for the State of New York, County of New York,
will hold a hearing on September 17, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., to
consider approval of the settlement agreement in a class action
suit involving HIA, Inc.

The class involves all persons who owned less than 45,000 shares
of common stock of HIA, Inc., on Aug. 29, 2005, who either sold
their stock or had their stock acquired in the 45,000 to 1
reverse split stock transaction approved by HIA on Feb. 13,
2006.

Specifically, at the hearing, the court will determine:

     (1) whether the proposed settlement of the case for
         $1,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair,
         reasonable, and adequate;

     (2) whether the motion of plaintiffs' counsel for an award
         of attorney's fees and reimbursement of litigation
         expenses should be approved; and

     (3) whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice.

Deadline to file for exclusion is on July 12, 2008.  Deadline to
file claims is on September 10, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@abrahamlaw.com)
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuits in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares, Inc., is facing class action lawsuits
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security 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.

Between Feb. 20, 2008, and Feb. 29, 2008, three putative class
action lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio against the company, the
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated Pension Review Committee, the
Huntington Investment and Tax Savings Plan Administrative
Committee, and certain of the company's officers and directors
purportedly on behalf of participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan between July 1, 2007, or July 20, 2007, and the present.

The complaints seek to allege breaches of fiduciary duties in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
relating to the company's stock being offered as an investment
alternative for participants in the Plan.  They seek money
damages and equitable relief.  

The first identified suit is "Riccio v. Huntington Bancshares
Incorporated et al., Case No.  2:08-cv-00165-GLF-TPK," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge
Gregory L. Frost presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Mark D. Lewis, Esq. (mlewis@kitricklaw.com)
          Kitrick & Lewis Co LPA
          515 E. Main Street, Suite 515
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-224-7711


HUTCHINSON: 8th Circuit Yet to Rule on Appeal of Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has yet to rule
on the plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action suit filed against
Hutchinson Technology, Inc.

The company and six of its present executive officers, two of
which are directors, were named as defendants in a consolidated
complaint filed by several investors on May 1, 2006.  The
consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of all persons, except the defendants, who purchased
company stock in the open market between Oct. 4, 2004, and
Aug. 29, 2005.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements about the company, and the business
and prospects, in a press releases and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings during the class period, and that
the market price of the company's stock was artificially
inflated as a result.

Additionally, the consolidated complaint also alleges claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

The suit seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged
class in an unspecified amount, interest, an award of attorneys'
fees and costs of litigation, and unspecified
equitable/injunctive relief.

By Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on June 4, 2007, the
District Court granted the defendants' request and dismissed the
consolidated complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the appeal remains 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 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Hutchinson Technologies Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-02095-PJS-JJG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Patrick J.
Schiltz, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         58 S. Service Rd., Ste. 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-454-7722

         Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. (gmfishbein@locklaw.com)
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP
         100 Washington Ave., S. Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981

              - and -

         Sharon M. Lee, Esq. (smlee@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         1 Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-631-8605

Representing the defendants is:

         Ahna M. Thoresen, Esq. (athoresen@faegre.com)
         Faegre & Benson, LLP
         90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
         Phone: 612-766-7000
         Fax: 612-766-1600


MET-RX USA: Court Denies Certification Motion in Prohormone Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court denied a motion seeking certification of a
class in a purported class action suit against MET-Rx USA, Inc.,
an indirect subsidiary of Rexall Sundown, Inc., in connection
with the advertising and marketing of certain pro-hormone
supplements, according to NBTY, Inc.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

On July 25, 2002, a putative consumer class-action was filed
with the California state court against MET-Rx, claiming that
the advertising and marketing of certain pro-hormone supplements
were false and misleading, or alternatively, that the pro-
hormone products contained ingredients that were controlled
substances under California law.  The plaintiffs seek equitable
and monetary relief.

On June 18, 2004, the case was coordinated with several other
class actions brought against other companies relating to the
sale of products containing androstenediol, one of the pro-
hormones contained in MET-Rx products.

The coordinated proceedings have been assigned to a coordination
judge for further pretrial proceedings.

The plaintiffs request for class certification in 2007, and on
Feb. 22, 2008, the court denied this request.  

MET-Rx recently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on
the plaintiffs' failure to diligently prosecute the case.  That
motion was heard on Feb. 7, 2008, but the court has not yet
issued a ruling as of this date.  No trial date has been set.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a leading global  
vertically integrated manufacturer, marketer and retailer of a
broad line of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements
in the U.S. and throughout the world.  It markets approximately
22,000 products under several brands, including Nature's
Bounty(R), Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland &
Barrett(R), Rexall(R), Osteo-Bi-Flex(R), Flex-a-min(R), Knox(R),
Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), WORLDWIDE Sport Nutrition(R), American
Health(R), DeTuinen(R), Le Naturiste(TM), SISU(R), Solgar(R) and
Ester-C(R).


MET-RX USA: N.J. Suit Over Prohormone Supplements Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit pending in New Jersey against MET-Rx USA,
Inc., an indirect subsidiary of Rexall Sundown, Inc., in
connection with the advertising and marketing of certain
prohormone supplements remains stayed, according to NBTY, Inc.'s
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

In March 2004, a putative class action complaint was filed in
New Jersey against MET-Rx, claiming that the advertising and
marketing of certain prohormone supplements were false and
misleading and that the plaintiff and the putative class of New
Jersey purchasers of these products were entitled to damages and
injunctive relief.

Because these allegations are virtually identical to allegations
made in a putative nationwide class-action previously filed in
California, the company moved to dismiss or stay the New Jersey
action pending the outcome of the California action.

The motion was granted, and the New Jersey action is stayed at
this time.

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a leading global  
vertically integrated manufacturer, marketer and retailer of a
broad line of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements
in the U.S. and throughout the world.  It markets approximately
22,000 products under several brands, including Nature's
Bounty(R), Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland &
Barrett(R), Rexall(R), Osteo-Bi-Flex(R), Flex-a-min(R), Knox(R),
Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), WORLDWIDE Sport Nutrition(R), American
Health(R), DeTuinen(R), Le Naturiste(TM), SISU(R), Solgar(R) and
Ester-C(R).


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces Philadelphia Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
NutriSystem Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed before
the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia alleging it failed to
pay overtime to an estimated 400 sales associates, Jane M. Von
Bergen of the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

Named plaintiff Adrian E. Parker, a former sales associate,
filed the suit on behalf of himself and an estimated 400 call
center salespeople who were paid a minimum rate of $10 an hour,
but could earn more, supplanting the base pay with a flat rate
of $18 to $40 for every sale made.  Class members would include
all associates employed as salespeople as of May 28, 2005.

The lawsuit said that because of the way the flat rate is paid,
it is not actually a commission.  The plaintiff's lawyer, Shanon
Carson, Esq., of Berger and Montague in Center City, said the
associates should be paid overtime according to a calculation
based on their flat-rate compensation.

In its annual report, NutriSystem said sales associates are paid
primarily on commission.  Commissioned salespeople are typically
not eligible for overtime under federal labor law.

"We feel the compensation plan is in accordance with applicable
law, both state and federal," said NutriSystem's lawyer, Sarah
E. Bouchard, Esq., of Morgan Lewis in Philadelphia.

According to the report, company spokeswoman Sheri Keiles said
NutriSystem just completed an employee satisfaction survey and
received no complaints about the company's compensation
structure.

To contact Ms. Bouchard:

          Sarah E. Bouchard, Esq.
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: 215-963-5077
          Fax: 215-963-5001


O'NEAL DOG SELLER: Sued in Texas for Selling Sick Dogs Online
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Internet dog-seller is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the District Court of Travis County, Texas, accusing it of
running a puppy mill: selling more than 50 sickly bulldogs for
$1,500 to $2,500 apiece, and falsely claiming to have bred and
raised them, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs claim that Kristy and Charles O'Neal of North
Richmond Hills, Texas, do business through misrepresentations on
their Web site, http://www.Epuppypro.com/

According to the complaint, defendants have sold in excess of 50
bulldogs with serious or fatal medical issues for between $1,500
to $2,500 [sic] or more.

The plaintiffs claim that the O'Neals misrepresent their
business by falsely claiming that "We breed English Bulldogs &
French Bulldogs. . . . We know that we are the #1 Place for Top
Quality Bulldog Puppies you can find, with excellent health. . .
. We consider all the puppies we have part of our family & we
love and care for them."

The plaintiffs say, "Defendants do not breed English or French
bulldogs.  Defendants admit, instead, that they are a bulldog
'broker' and run 'an Internet-based marketing company for
English and French bulldogs' that distributes bulldogs. . . .
The bulldogs defendants purportedly breed in Texas are, in fact,
shipped en masse by 'heads' and 'boxes' from Russia and signed
for at Houston airport by defendants. . . . The City of North
Richland Hills Humane Division has been inundated with enough
consumer complaints regarding the poor health of defendants'
bulldogs that said Humane Division launched an investigation
into defendants' activities . . . Defendants do not furnish
purchasers with 'Full Registration,' or any registration
whatsoever, for its bulldog puppies.  Hence it is impossible to
ascertain whether in fact these puppies are 'Champion Sired' or
possess 'Champion Bloodlines.'"

Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, named
plaintiff Joette Watson brings this action on behalf of all U.S.
Consumers who purchased less than good and merchantable quality
bulldogs from defendants since may 27, 2006 through the present.

Mr. Watson wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants represented that they actually
         bred the puppies they sell, and whether they in
         fact breed puppies;

     (b) whether the puppies the defendants sell are of good and
         merchantable quality;

     (c) whether the defendants cared for the puppies in its
         possession prior to their sale to consumers in the
         manner in which they describe;

     (d) whether the defendants represent that they are endorsed
         by or affiliated with the AKC, UKC, ANKC, or similar;

     (e) whether the defendants represent that their puppies are
         registered and whether such registrations demonstrate
         champion lineage;

     (f) whether the defendants' conduct constitutes a violation
         of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act;

     (g) whether the defendants' conduct constitutes a legal
         breach of warranty, either express or implied, to
         members of the class;

     (h) whether the defendants acted with a malicious manner
         and callous disregard for the rights of its customers,
         whereby it should be subjected to the assessment of
         punitive damages;

     (i) whether the members of the class have sustained
         damages; and

     (j) whether damages can be established on a class-wide
         basis and, if so, what is the proper measure of
         damages.

The plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- certify the class, and appropriate subclasses, if any;

     -- appoint Sutton Kleinman PLLC as class counsel;

     -- award compensatory damages and restitution relief in an
        amount to be established at trial;

     -- award punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish
        and make an example of defendants; and

     -- award costs and attorneys' fees to the extent permitted
        by law.

The suit is "Joette Watson et al. v. Kristy Danielle O'Neal et
al. Case No. D-1-GN-001811," filed in the District Court of
Travis County, Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert B. Kleinman, Esq.
          Sutton Kleinman PLLC
          710 W. 14th Street, Suite A
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: 512-276-5040
          Fax: 512-355-4155


ONTARIO GOVERNMENT: Court Denies Bid to Kill Caledonia Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario government has been denied an appeal in its bid to
block a potential class-action lawsuit filed in Caledonia, The
Canadian Press reports.

According to the report, Justice David Crane dismissed the
Ontario government's application to kill the lawsuit in December
2007 and has now ruled that the province cannot appeal his
decision.

The Canadian Press relates that the lawsuit, which is being
pursued by four Caledonia businesses and 14 residents, still
needs to be certified as a class action before it can be fought
in court.  The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for damages
related to the aboriginal occupation in Caledonia that has
dragged on since February 2006.

Lawyer John Findlay, of Findlay McCarthy LLP, says the suit
focuses on four incidents that affected residents and businesses
in the months after protesters occupied the former Douglas Creek
Estates subdivision.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 20, 2006,
Mr. Findlay initially represented two unnamed businesses in
Caledonia in filing the class action suit complaining of
financial losses arising from a road closure after native
protesters barricaded roads to the Douglas Creek Estates
property in 2006.

According to the 2006 CAR report, the suit was filed on June 12
that year against the Corporation of Haldimand County, Ontario
Provincial Police Commissioner Gwen Boniface, and the Cayuga
Detachment Commander of the OPP.  The Government of Ontario was
also put on notice as additional defendant.  The suit is based
on the alleged failure of the parties to keep roads open and
follow court injunctions issued in March 2006 to remove the
protesters from Douglas Creek Estates.


Specifically, Canadian Press says, the suit alleges that the
county, police and province broke laws by allowing the closure
of Argyle Street, the closure of the Highway 6 bypass, and
interruption of hydro in Caledonia.


PLANTRONICS INC: Seeks Nixing of Calif. Bluetooth Headsets Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plantronics, Inc., along with several other defendants, is
seeking the dismissal of a consolidated class action suit
alleging that the defendants' Bluetooth headsets may cause
noise-induced hearing loss, according to the company's May 27,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 29, 2008.

Initially, six purported class action complaints were filed.  
These are:

      1. "Shannon Wars et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which was
         filed on Nov. 14, 2006, before the U.S. District Court
         for the Eastern District of Texas.  

      2. "Lori Raines, et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which was
         filed on Oct. 20, 2006, before the U.S. District Court
         for the Central District of California.

      3. "Kyle Edwards, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which was
         filed on Oct. 17, 2006, before the U.S. District Court
         for the Middle District of Florida.  

      4. "Ralph Cook vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which was filed on
         Feb. 8, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of Virginia.  

      5. "Randy Pierce vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which was filed
         on Jan. 10, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for
         the Eastern District of Arkansas.  

      6. "Bruce Schiller, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc.," which
         was filed on Oct. 10, 2006, before the Superior Court
         of the State of California in and for the County of Los
         Angeles.  

The complaints state that they do not seek damages for personal
injury to any individual.  These complaints seek various
remedies, including injunctive relief requiring the company to
include certain additional warnings with its Bluetooth headsets
and to redesign the headsets to limit the volume produced, or,
alternatively, to provide the user with the ability to determine
the level of sound emitted from the headset.  

The plaintiffs also seek unspecified general, special, and
punitive damages, as well as restitution.  

The federal cases have been consolidated for all pre-trial
purposes with the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of Los Angeles before Judge Fischer.  The California State Court
case was dismissed by the plaintiffs.  

The parties have provided a limited amount of discovery to each
other.  The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, which is
likely to be heard in mid-August 2008.  

Plantronics, Inc. -- http://www.plantronics.com/-- is a  
worldwide designer, manufacturer, and marketer of lightweight
communications headsets, telephone headset systems, and
accessories for the business and consumer markets under the
Plantronics brand.  It is also a manufacturer and marketer of
docking audio products, computer and home entertainment sound
systems, and a line of headphones for personal digital media
under the Altec Lansing brand.  In addition, it manufactures and
markets under its Clarity brand specialty telephone products,
such as telephones for the hearing impaired, and other related
products for people with special communication needs.  The
company ships a range of communications products to over 80
countries through a worldwide network of distributors,
retailers, wireless carriers, original equipment manufacturers
and telephony service providers. It has developed distribution
channels in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand,
where use of its products is widespread.


RAWLINGS: Recalls Helmets Due to Lead Paint Standard Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rawlings Sporting Goods Co. Inc., of St. Louis, Mo., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 2,300 Rawlings Junior Batting Helmets.

The company said the surface paint on the helmets contains
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves junior batting helmets with model number
CFHLJR.  The helmets come in yellow and orange with black
accents.  The model number can be found on the rear of the
helmet.

These recalled helmets were manufactured in China and were being
sold by sporting goods retailers nationwide from July 2007
through November 2007 for about $40.

A picture of the recalled helmets can be found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08575.jpg

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled helmets and
contact either the retailer where the product was purchased or
Rawlings for a free replacement product.

For additional information, contact Rawlings 800-729-5464
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit the company's Web site at: http://www.rawlings.com/


RED ROBIN: Reaches Settlements in Calif. Labor Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., settled several labor-related
class action suits filed in California courts against Robin
International, Inc., according to Red Robin's May 23, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 20, 2008.

Initially, a lawsuit, captioned, "Huggett v. Red Robin
International, Inc.," was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California on January 2006.  The suit is related to an
alleged failure of the company to comply with California wage
and hour regulations, including those governing meal and rest
periods, payment of wages upon termination and provision of
itemized statements to employees, as well as unlawful business
practices and unfair competition.  

The complaint states claims for damages, including punitive and
exemplary damages, and injunctive relief.   

The company filed an answer to the Huggett complaint and removed
the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of  
California.   

On March 13, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case to the California state court.  On June 9, 2006, the court
denied this remand request.

In December 2006, the company was served with two additional
purported class action complaints alleging claims similar to the
Huggett matter.

The suits - both filed in the Superior Court of California --
are:

      -- "William Harper v. Red Robin International, Inc.;" and

      -- "Marie Hill vs. Red Robin International, Inc."

The Harper matter is alleging failure by the company to provide
meal and rest breaks in compliance with California wage and hour
regulations.

In the Hill case, a former employee alleges failure to comply
with California wage and hour regulations including failure to
pay overtime, misclassification of managers, and failure to pay
for or provide meal and rest breaks.  An answer was filed and
the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

                          Settlements

The company entered into settlement agreements in the Harper
matter to settle all pending claims, including an extended class
period to include putative class members in the Huggett matter.

The plaintiff in the Huggett case joined in the Harper
settlement with no additional money being added to the
settlement.

The Harper and Huggett cases were consolidated, and on Oct. 22,
2007, the court granted preliminary approval of the
Harper/Huggett Settlement.

The class has begun to receive notice of the settlement, and
claims are currently being processed.  A hearing on the final
settlement approval was set for March 2008.  

However, on Feb. 12, 2008, former legal counsel in "Huggett"
filed a motion to intervene in the settlement.  A hearing on a
motion for final approval and fairness of the settlement and
former counsel's objection, was held on May 19, 2008.

Following oral argument, the court took all matters under
advisement for ruling at later date.

The company has also entered into a settlement agreement in the
Hill matter, which was preliminarily approved on Nov. 19, 2007.
The class has received notice of the settlement, and claims are
currently being processed.  The Court granted final settlement
approval on April 14, 2008.  Once the claimants are paid, this
matter will be closed.

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. -- http://www.redrobin.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, is a casual dining restaurant
chain focused on serving gourmet burgers.  As of Dec. 30, 2007,
the Company owned and operated, or franchised 384 restaurants,
of which 249 were Company-owned, 135 were operated under
franchise agreements including one restaurant that was managed
by the Company under a management agreement with the franchisee.
Also, as of Dec. 30, 2007, there were Red Robin restaurants in
40 states and two Canadian provinces.  The Company's menu
features its signature product, the gourmet burger, made from
beef, chicken, veggie patties, pork, fish or turkey and serve in
a variety of recipes.  Red Robin offers a selection of toppings
for gourmet burgers, including fresh guacamole, barbeque sauce,
grilled pineapple, crispy onion straws, sauteed mushrooms, a
choice of seven different cheeses and even a fried egg.


RED ROBIN: June 6 Hearing Set for Derivative Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A June 6, 2008 final fairness hearing is set to consider the
approval of a settlement in a stockholder derivative lawsuit
pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado against Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc.

The action was against the company as a nominal defendant and
against the former chief executive officer, then-current board
members and the company's current senior vice president and
chief concept officer (Corporate Litigation Reporter, June 29,
2007).  It was filed by Elliot Wilster on Aug. 31, 2005.

The parties executed a settlement agreement on Nov. 19, 2007.
The proposed settlement involves the company paying $250,000 to
plaintiff's counsel, which is covered by the company's
insurance, and the adoption by the company of certain corporate
governance measures.

Preliminary approval was granted by the Court on April 1, 2008.  
The class has begun to receive notice.  

A hearing to approve the settlement on a final basis has been
scheduled for June 6, 2008, according to the company's May 23,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 20, 2008.

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. -- http://www.redrobin.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, is a casual dining restaurant
chain focused on serving gourmet burgers.  As of Dec. 30, 2007,
the Company owned and operated, or franchised 384 restaurants,
of which 249 were Company-owned, 135 were operated under
franchise agreements including one restaurant that was managed
by the Company under a management agreement with the franchisee.
Also, as of Dec. 30, 2007, there were Red Robin restaurants in
40 states and two Canadian provinces.  The Company's menu
features its signature product, the gourmet burger, made from
beef, chicken, veggie patties, pork, fish or turkey and serve in
a variety of recipes.  Red Robin offers a selection of toppings
for gourmet burgers, including fresh guacamole, barbeque sauce,
grilled pineapple, crispy onion straws, sauteed mushrooms, a
choice of seven different cheeses and even a fried egg.


REXALL SUNDOWN: Calif. Lawsuit Over Nutrition Bars Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit brought in 2002 against Rexall
Sundown, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of all
California consumers who bought various nutrition bars remains
stayed, according to NBTY, Inc.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

The plaintiffs allege misbranding of nutrition bars and
violations of California unfair competition statutes, misleading
advertising and other similar causes of action.  They are
seeking restitution, legal fees and injunctive relief.

In December 2007, while Rexall's and the other defendants'
renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending, the
Court again stayed the case for all purposes, pending rulings on
relevant cases before the California Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on February 11, 2008, but the
parties to the case have indicated an intention to file a
petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the case remains stayed, and Rexall cannot estimate
how long the case will be stayed.  

NBTY, Inc. -- http://www.nbty.com/-- is a leading global  
vertically integrated manufacturer, marketer and retailer of a
broad line of high-quality, value-priced nutritional supplements
in the U.S. and throughout the world.  It markets approximately
22,000 products under several brands, including Nature's
Bounty(R), Vitamin World(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland &
Barrett(R), Rexall(R), Osteo-Bi-Flex(R), Flex-a-min(R), Knox(R),
Sundown(R), MET-Rx(R), WORLDWIDE Sport Nutrition(R), American
Health(R), DeTuinen(R), Le Naturiste(TM), SISU(R), Solgar(R) and
Ester-C(R).


RIDLEY INC: Quebec Court Approves BSE Claims Settlement Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision released on May 28, 2008, the Quebec Superior
Court approved on a final basis the settlement agreement entered
into by Ridley Inc. and the representative plaintiffs in the BSE
class action lawsuits.

While affecting only the Quebec lawsuit, the Quebec court's
order is a significant step toward final resolution of the
pending BSE cases against Ridley.

Under the settlement agreement, Ridley will pay CDN$6 million
into a plaintiffs' settlement trust fund that will effectively
cap its exposure to the plaintiffs' claims.  Ridley will remain
a participant in the plaintiffs' continuing litigation against
the Government of Canada.  In agreeing to the settlement, Ridley
made no admission of liability or wrongdoing in the matter, and
will continue to contest any allegation it was responsible for
the plaintiffs' damages.

The plaintiffs filed claims in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and
Saskatchewan in April 2005 against Ridley Inc. and the
Government of Canada for losses allegedly incurred by Canadian
cattle farmers as a result of international bans on trade in
Canadian beef following the May 2003 diagnosis of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy in an Alberta cow.  The Quebec lawsuit
was authorized as a class action on June 15, 2007.  None of the
remaining actions have been certified to proceed to trial as a
class action in any other province.

Counsel for the plaintiffs have applied to the Ontario court for
approval of the settlement agreement and Ridley will consent to
certification of the Ontario class action for settlement
purposes.  Subject to the Ontario court's approval and any
directions from the Alberta court, the settlement agreement will
be finalized and Ridley will pay the settlement funds, provided
the number of class member opt-outs is below an agreed
threshold.

A hearing is scheduled before the Superior Court of Justice for
Ontario on June 9, 2008, for the approval of the settlement
agreement in the Ontario action.

Ridley Inc. -- http://www.ridleyinc.com/-- headquartered in   
Mankato, Minnesota and Winnipeg, Manitoba, is one of North
America's leading commercial animal nutrition companies.  Ridley
manufactures and/or distributes a full range of animal nutrition
products under a number of highly regarded trade names.


SAVIENT PHARMA: Court to Rule on Appeal in N.J. Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to rule
on the plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of a purported
class action suit, "In re Bio-Technology General Corp.
Securities Litigation."

The original class-action complaints were filed against in
December 2002, and January 2003, against Bio-Technology General
Corp., now known as Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  They were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of investors who had
purchased shares of Bio-Technology General during an alleged
Class Period of April 19, 1999, through Aug. 2, 2002.  The
complaints alleged that the investors had been defrauded
because, on Sept. 25, 2002, the company filed restated year-end
and quarterly reports of its earnings and related financial
statements for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, which the company
had previously announced would be forthcoming in its Form 8-K
and accompanying press release issued Aug. 2, 2002.

In September 2003, the actions were consolidated and co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel were appointed in accordance with
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation which
provided for the lead plaintiff to file an amended consolidated
complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action
complaint on Sept. 25, 2003.  

On August 10, 2005, citing the failure of the amended complaint
to set forth particularized facts that give rise to a strong
inference that the defendants acted with the required state of
mind, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
action without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint.

On Oct. 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, again seeking unspecified compensatory damages,
purporting to set forth particularized facts to support their
allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by us and our former
officers.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  

On Oct. 26, 2006, the District Court dismissed, with prejudice,
the second amended complaint.  The District Court declined to
allow the plaintiffs to file another amended complaint.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, which is currently pending.  

Oral arguments for the appeal have been tentatively scheduled
for late June 2008 and a decision on this case is not expected
until sometime later in 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 "In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-6048," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Harold A. Ackerman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the company is:

          Roger B. Kaplan, Esq. (kaplanr@gtlaw.com)
          Greenberg Traurig, LLP
          200 Campus Drive, P.O. Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Phone: 973-360-7957
          Fax: 973-301-8410


SEARS ROEBUCK: Customers Sue Over Poor-Quality Home Appliances
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck systematically refuses to back up its promise of
"Satisfaction Guaranteed or Your Money Back" on expensive home
appliances, a class action claims in Superior Court, Courthouse
News reports.

Named plaintiff Connie Han says that she paid $4,811 for a home
air conditioner -- $3,430 for the machine and $1,381 for labor.  
She says the air conditioner is from Sears, which is the
nation's fourth-largest retailer of home appliances.

Ms. Han relates that the air conditioner failed after a few
hours of work, and a Sears' technician tried to fix it but could
not.  She says that Sears refused to respond to her request for
a refund.  She claims that Sears "systematically" refuses to
honor its promise.

The plaintiffs in the suit are represented by Adam Gutride,
Esq., of Gutride Safier, in San Francisco, and Craig Borison,
Esq., of Encino.


THIRD FEDERAL: Appeals Court Mulls Appeal in "Greenspan" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th District Court of Appeals has yet to rule on a Joint
Motion to Waive Oral Argument that was filed in connection with
a purported class action suit that names Third Federal Savings
and Loan Association of Cleveland, a unit of TFS Financial
Corp., as a defendant.

The suit, which was filed on June 13, 2006, under the caption,
"Gary A. Greenspan vs. Third Federal Savings and Loan" is a
dispute over "document preparation fees."  It was originally  
filed in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas.

The plaintiffs allege that Third Federal Savings and Loan
impermissibly charged customers a "document preparation fee"
that included the cost of preparing legal documents relating to
mortgage loans.

The suit asserts that the Association should disgorge the
document preparation fees because the document preparation
constituted the practice of law and was performed by employees
who are not licensed attorneys in the State of Ohio.

The plaintiffs seek a refund of all document preparation fees
from June 13, 2000, to the present (approximately $26.9 million
from June 13, 2000 through March 31, 2007), as well as
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of the lawsuit.

Third Federal Savings and Loan Association vigorously disputes
these allegations and answered the plaintiff's complaint with a
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On April 26, 2007, the Court of Common Pleas issued a final
order which granted the Association's motion.

On May 11, 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the final order of the
Court of Common Pleas to the 8th District Court of Appeals
(Cuyahoga County).  

The plaintiffs filed an appellate brief and the Association
filed its answer brief on July 20, 2007.

On March 13, 2008, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Waive
Oral Argument and now await the Court's ruling, 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.

TFS Financial Corp. -- http://www.thirdfederal.com/-- was  
established as a mid-tier stock holding company for Third
Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, and the
ownership of Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of
Cleveland is its primary business activity.  


TRANSUNION: Gives Free Credit Report Monitoring to Consumers
------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion will soon begin providing eligible U.S. consumers up
to nine months of free credit monitoring and related services.
The offering is part of a preliminary settlement of a lawsuit
that has been pending for many years and arose from a business
TransUnion discontinued in 2001.

This offering is consistent with TransUnion's commitment to
providing consumers with tools and resources that empower them
to actively manage their credit health.


On May 28, a judge of the Eastern Division of the U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of Illinois granted preliminary
approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit that claims
the Defendants violated state laws and the Fair Credit Reporting
Act when they sold certain marketing lists.

"We understand that many consumers are concerned about privacy
and hope that this settlement demonstrates our commitment to
empowering consumers to better understand, manage and protect
their credit information," said Colleen Ryan, vice president of
corporate and community affairs for TransUnion.

The Class includes all individuals who had an open credit
account or an open line of credit from a credit grantor
(including, for instance automobile loans, bank credit cards,
department store credit cards, other retail store credit cards,
finance company loans, mortgage loans, and student loans)
located in the United States anytime from January 1, 1987, to
May 28, 2008.

To receive credit monitoring and related services from the
settlement, class members must go to  
http://www.listclassaction.com/

The settlement administrator expects to have this site
accessible to the public no later than June 16, 2008.

"TransUnion is committed to providing consumers with tools and
services that empower them to manage their own credit health,"
said Ms. Ryan.  "The services offered through this settlement
complement our many consumer empowering initiatives.  These
include:

     -- Providing the resources consumers need to make educated
        decisions regarding their credit

     -- Becoming the only major credit bureau to provide
        consumers with access to live operators who can help
        answer their questions

     -- Being the first to announce that consumers concerned
        about identity theft can freeze their credit file in all
        50 states

     -- Partnering with programs like Operation Hope to help
        inner city families learn how to build and manage their
        finances.

"The bottom line is that TransUnion is a company based on
integrity and there has been no finding that any law was
violated," said Ms. Ryan.  "As a company, we are very pleased
with this settlement that entitles so many consumers to these
beneficial services."

                    About TransUnion

As a global leader in credit and information management,
TransUnion -- http://www.transunion.com/-- creates advantages  
for millions of people around the world by gathering, analyzing
and delivering information.  For businesses, TransUnion helps
improve efficiency, manage risk, reduce costs and increase
revenue by delivering comprehensive data and advanced analytics
and decisioning.  For consumers, TransUnion provides the tools,
resources and education to help manage their credit health and
achieve their financial goals.  Through these and other efforts,
TransUnion is working to build stronger economies worldwide.
Founded in 1968 and headquartered in Chicago, TransUnion employs
more than 3,600 employees in 25 countries on five continents.


TRIMAX CORP: Settles Nev. Litigation by PLC Network Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trimax Corp. reached a settlement in a purported class action
suit in Nevada filed by former shareholders of subsidiary PLC
Network Solutions Inc., according to Trimax's May 27, 2008 Form
10KSB/A filing with the U.S. Securities and exchange Commission
for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The company was sued in the State of Nevada, in a class action
lawsuit involving multiple plaintiffs, all of whom are former
shareholders to PLC Network.

The company has negotiated a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs, which deal has been accepted in writing.  The
settlement is for a payment of $120,000 over a period of eight
months.

It is expected that all settlement papers will be signed by the
company and finalized on or before Jan. 31, 2007.

Trimax Corp. -- http://www.plcnetsolutions.com/-- formerly  
Urbanesq.com Inc., is a broadband over powerline integrator and
service provider.  Using powerline infrastructures, it delivers
data, voice and video communications to commercial, residential
and other markets.  Trimax and its wholly owned subsidiary, PLC
Network Solutions Inc., are providers of BPL communication
technologies.  Trimax specializes in the development,
distribution, implementation, and servicing technologies that
use the power grid to deliver 128-bit encrypted high-speed
symmetrical broadband for data, voice and video transmission.  
The Company's technologies use the existing electrical wiring as
a smart network to deliver broadband access to computers, video
on demand, VOIP phones, surveillance cameras and elevator
applications, as well as connect printers, faxes and
entertainment systems on the hotel, office or home network.


VALASSIS COMMS: Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied a
motion by Valassis Communications, Inc., that sought the
dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud litigation filed
against the company.

Upon the company's completion of the acquisition of ADVO, Inc.,
it assumed responsibility for ADVO's pending securities class
actions.

In September 2006, three securities class actions were filed:

       -- "Robert Kelleher v. ADVO, Inc., et al.,"
       -- "Jorge Cornet v. ADVO, Inc., et al.,"
       -- "Richard L. Field v. ADVO, Inc., et al.,"

The suits were filed against ADVO and certain of its officers
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut by
certain ADVO shareholders seeking to certify a class of all
persons who purchased ADVO stock between July 6, 2006, and
Aug. 30, 2006.

These complaints generally allege ADVO violated federal
securities law by making a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning ADVO's business and financial
results in connection with the proposed merger with Valassis
and, as a result, the price of ADVO's stock was allegedly
inflated.

On Dec. 12, 2006, the Kelleher plaintiffs filed a Motion to
Partially Lift Discovery Stay, in response to which the
defendants filed an opposition on Jan. 16, 2007.  The presiding
judge denied the plaintiff's motion to lift the stay on
discovery.

In addition, the court ordered the matters consolidated under a
single action, entitled, "Robert Kelleher et al. v. ADVO, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:06CV01422(AVC)."

A revised, consolidated complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on
June 8, 2007.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint.  The plaintiffs filed a brief in
opposition to the defendants' dismissal motion on Oct. 10, 2007.  

On April 25, 2008, the defendant's dismissal request was denied,
according to Valassis' May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Robert Kelleher et al. v. ADVO, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:06CV01422(AVC)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Alfred V. Covello presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jennifer L. Gmitro, Esq. (JGmitro@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7243

               - and -

          Ari J. Hoffman, Esq. (ahoffman@cohenandwolf.com)
          Cohen & Wolf, P.C.
          1115 Broad St., Po Box 1821
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Phone: 203-368-0211
          Fax: 203-394-9901

Representing the defendants are:

          Sharleen Joy Davis, Esq. (sharleen.davis@klgates.com)
          Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP
          State Street Financial Center
          One Lincoln Street
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: 617-261-3255
          Fax: 617-261-3175

               - and -

          Shawn M. Harpen, Esq. (sharpen@mwe.com)
          McDermott Will & Emery, LLP
          18191 Von Karman Avenue
          Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: 949-757-6061
          Fax: 949-851-9348


* AEI Legal Center Releases Study on Milberg Weiss Prosecution
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 29, 2008, the AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest
released an important new empirical study with implications for
the Milberg Weiss indictment and the recent Congressional debate
over securities litigation reform and trial lawyer corruption.

Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman and a spin-off firm led by
William Lerach dominated securities class actions over the last
20 years.  But in 2006 and 2007, prosecutors indicted the
Milberg firm, Lerach, Mel Weiss, David Bershad, and Steven
Schulman for paying kickbacks to "class representative"
plaintiffs, who were supposed to protect the interests of the
class over those of the attorneys.  The attorneys have since
pleaded guilty.  On May 19, Lerach reported to prison in Lompoc,
California; on June 2, Mel Weiss will be sentenced.  As the
indictment against the law firm is pending, some argue that the
crimes in the indictments were victimless.

In his new paper "The Milberg Weiss Prosecution: No Harm, No
Foul?" -- http://www.aei.org/publication28060-- published as  
part of the AEI Legal Center's Briefly series, law professor
Michael Perino examines the Milberg Weiss indictment in detail
and analyzes whether these kickback payments harmed class
members.  Using a database of approximately 730 class action
settlements and fee awards, Professor Perino found:

     * In cases where Milberg Weiss attorneys are alleged to
       have paid kickbacks, Milberg Weiss received statistically
       significantly higher attorneys' fees;

     * Milberg Weiss's claim that kickbacks created an incentive
       for plaintiffs to seek better settlements is not
       supported by the evidence;

     * The data supports the government's theory that investors
       were ultimately hurt by the illegal kickbacks.

Professor Perino presented this paper at an AEI conference on  
May 28.  Materials, video, audio, and a transcript can be found
at http://www.aei.org/event1735along with a PDF of the paper.   
AEI resident fellow Peter Wallison, who has proposed
comprehensive reform of civil securities litigation, discussed
the paper and its implications for securities litigation.
AEI Legal Center Director Theodore H. Frank, who moderated the
discussion, testified before Congress about the Milberg Weiss
indictments and securities litigation reform in 2006.  

Professor Perino, Mr. Wallison, and Mr. Frank are available for
comment.

Professor Perino can be reached at:

          Phone: 718-990-1928                  
          e-mail: Perinom@stjohns.edu

Mr. Wallison can be reached at:

          Phone: 202-862-5864                        
          e-mail: PWallison@aei.org
          or through his assistant Karen Dubas at: 202-862-5212

Mr. Frank can be reached at:

          Phone: 202-862-5857          
          e-mail: TFrank@aei.org
          or through his assistant Sara Wexler at: 202-862-5820


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INT'L: Charles Johnson Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates commenced a class action suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of American International
Group, Inc., publicly traded securities during the period May
11, 2007, through May 9, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false and misleading press releases,
financial statements, filings with the SEC and statements during
investor conference calls.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants repeatedly reassured investors that AIG had
successfully insulated itself from the recent turmoil in the
housing and credit markets due to its superior risk management.

The defendants touted the security of AIGFP's "super senior"
credit default swap portfolio, making numerous statements that
this portfolio was secure and that AIG's method for accounting
for the valuations of this portfolio accurately reflected its
value.

Investors began to learn the truth regarding AIG's financial
condition and the Company's exposure to the mortgage market
when, on February 11, 2008, the Company disclosed that its
outside auditor had determined that there was "material weakness
in its internal control" over the financial reporting and
oversight relating specifically to its accounting for the CDS
portfolio, and that the Company was revising the loss valuations
it previously reported.

Under the new valuations, losses on the CDS portfolio more than
quadrupled, from the $1.4 billion reported on the CDS portfolio
just weeks before to over $4.5 billion.  Two weeks later, on
Feb. 28, 2008, AIG disclosed that the market valuations on the
CDS portfolio would increase to $11.5 billion and revealed for
the first time that the Company had estimated exposure of
$6.5 billion in liquidity puts written on collateralized debt
obligations linked to the sup-prime mortgage market.

Finally, on May 8, 2008, the Company disclosed that market
valuation losses on the CDS portfolio for the quarter climbed an
additional $9.1 billion, for a cumulative loss of $20.6 billion,
and that the Company was expecting actual losses on the
portfolio to be about $2.4 billion.  As a result of these
disclosures, the price of AIG stock plunged from a Class Period
high of $75.24 per share on June 5, 2008, to $38.37 per share on
May 12, 2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 21,
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


DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Holzer & Fistel Files Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed by Holzer
Holzer & Fistel in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against Downey Financial
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors on behalf
of purchasers of Downey common stock, who purchased or sold
between October 16, 2006, and March 14, 2008, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Securities Act
of 1934 by making false and misleading statements to the public
in its press releases and in its Securities Exchange Commission
filings.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Downey understated the
risks and costs associated with its portfolios and its exposure
to subprime mortgages.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Toll-free: 888-508-6832


NEXCEN BRANDS: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of NexCen Brands,
Inc. between May 10, 2007, and May 19, 2008.

The class action complaint alleges that the defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose that:

     -- NexCen was able to finance a portion of its Great
        American Cookies acquisition by agreeing to an
        accelerated-redemption feature, which would force the
        Company to pay back half of its borrowing by a certain   
        date;

     -- the Company was unable to comply with this accelerated-
        redemption feature, which would reduce the amount of
        cash available to the Company;

     -- the Company had no reasonable basis for its earnings
        guidance for fiscal 2008; and

     -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to
        continue as a going concern was in serious doubt.

On May 19, 2008, the Company announced that it expected to amend
its Form 10-K annual report for the year ended December 31, 2007
and that its prior financial guidance for 2008 was "no longer
applicable."

In response, shares of the Company's stock fell more than 75%,
on heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, Colorado 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764


NEXCEN BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of purchasers of NexCen Brands, Inc. common
stock during the period between May 10, 2007, and May 19, 2008.

The complaint asserts that NexCen and certain of its officers
and directors failed to adequately disclose to investors certain
details of an accelerated-redemption feature on financing it
obtained in connection with its acquisition of Great American
Cookies, which required the Company to pay half of its borrowing
by a date certain; that the Company was unable to comply with
the accelerated-redemption; that the Company had no reasonable
basis for its earnings guidance for fiscal 2008; and
consequently, the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern was in serious doubt.

On May 19, 2008, the Company announced that it expected to amend
its Form 10-K annual report for the year ended December 31, 2007
and that its prior financial guidance for 2008 was "no longer
applicable."

In response, shares of the Company's stock fell more than 75%,
on heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 28,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone:  212-686-1060
          Weekends Phone: 917-797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.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  * * *