CAR_Public/080603.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 3, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 109
  
                            Headlines

APRIA HEALTHCARE: Court Vacates Hearings Set for Labor Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: N.Y. Lawsuit Accuses Bank of "Double-Dipping"
BELL CANADA: Consumers Union Sue Over Fraudulent Advertising
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Still to Certify Class in ERISA Lawsuit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Reverses Dismissal of Mass. Litigation

CALIFORNIA: Doctors Sue to Block Across-the-Board Medicaid Cut
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Settlement Reached in Calif. Employee's Suit
CEDAR FUNDING: Calif. Suit Claims Ponzi Scheme Took $15 Million
CHECKFREE CORP: Georgia Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CHECKFREE CORP: Del. Court Dismisses Fisery Acquisition Lawsuit

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO: Fire Victims Plan Lawsuit Over Negligence
CREDIT CARD LITIGATION: Judge's Ruling Ends Four FACTA Lawsuits
D.R. HORTON: Georgia Court Dismisses RESPA Violations Complaint
DE BEERS: Judge Approves $297-Million Antitrust Suit Settlement
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Black Farmers Demand More From USDA

ESCALA GROUP: Settles Shareholder and Derivative Litigation
GUAM GOVERNMENT: Pays Residents EITC as Part of Suit Settlement
GUIDANT CORP: Court Yet to Rule in Minn. Suit Dismissal Appeal
GUIDANT CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Pacemakers, Defibrillators
GUIDANT CORP: To Settle U.S. Pacemakers, Defibrillators Lawsuits

HOMETOWN BUFFET: Calif. Court Still to OK $7.2MM Suit Settlement
HOMETOWN BUFFET: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in California
INTEGRATED SILICON: Settles SRAM Antitrust Suits & Faces Others
MCKESSON CORP: Connecticut Brings Price Inflation Claim to Court
MENU FOODS: Tainted Pet Food Litigation Settlement Gets Approval

MERCK FROSST: Seeks Appellate Review of Vioxx Case Certification
PFIZER INC: Lawsuit Over Depo-Provera Certified as Class Action
PREMIERE GLOBAL: Parties Finalize Terms in "Gibson" Settlement
PROVIDENT BANK: New Md. Law Could Affect Recovery in "Bednar"
RYAN'S RESTAURANT: Faces Wage, Hour Violations Lawsuit in W.Va.

SUN-TIMES MEDIA: Ill. Court Okays Settlement in Securities Suits
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Calif. Suit Over Falsely Promised Rebates


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CREDIT SUISSE: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Brower Piven Commences Mass. Securities Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Wis.
NEXCEN BRANDS: Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
RAYMOND JAMES: Stull & Brody Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit

TOMOTHERAPY INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Wis. Securities Fraud Suit
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Bernard Gross Files Wis. Securities Fraud Suit
TRM CORP: Brualdi Law Firm Files Oregon Securities Fraud Lawsuit



                           *********


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Court Vacates Hearings Set for Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco
vacated multiple hearing dates that it scheduled for a purported
class action lawsuit filed against Apria Healthcare Group, Inc.,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit contains blanket claims of liability under various
California employee protection statutes and regulations relating
to:

     -- payment of regular and overtime wages;  

     -- the timeliness of such payments;

     -- the maintenance and provision of access to required  
        payroll records; and  

     -- the provision of meal and rest periods.  

The suit is captioned, "Venegas v. Apria Healthcare, Inc., et
al., Case No. CGC-06-449669," and was filed on Feb. 21, 2006.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount as well as other relief on behalf of a
purported class consisting of certain hourly employees of the
company in the State of California.  

An answer to the complaint was filed, denying all material
allegations and asserting a number of affirmative defenses, and
the company said it successfully pursued motions for summary
adjudication eliminating certain tort based claims and claims
for unjust enrichment and declaratory relief.

At a case management conference held on April 14, 2008, the
Court vacated its previous order establishing a date for trial
and has not established a new one.

In addition, the Court allowed an amendment to the complaint
expanding the definition of the putative class to include all
classifications of drivers employed by the company and reserved
the issue of whether the case may be certified as a class action
for hearing at an unspecified future date.  

Apria Healthcare, Inc. -- http://www.apria.com/-- provides a  
range of home   healthcare services through approximately 475
branch locations that serve patients in all 50 states throughout
the U.S.  The company has three service lines: home respiratory
therapy, home infusion therapy and home medical equipment.  


BANK OF AMERICA: N.Y. Lawsuit Accuses Bank of "Double-Dipping"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
District Court in Manhattan alleging it abuses its fiduciary
accounts to enrich itself at customers' expense, uses the
accounts "as 'cookie jars' to unjustly enrich itself" charges
for unnecessary, unearned, "'double dipping' fees," CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The complaint cites massive layoffs in the bank trust
departments, which were "replaced by centralized fiduciary
account administration through regional 'Call centers' and other
similar impersonal means."

In addition to taking the unwarranted charges, the class claims,
the bank does not even provide its customers "the services to
which they were and/or are legally entitled."

The complaint continues, "After each new acquisition of another
'Acquired Bank' by BAC and the Bank, the fiduciary services
offered by the Bank were further rationalized, including the
elimination of individualized fiduciary services to which
beneficiaries were and/or are entitled.  At the same time, in
order to general additional profits from economies of scale, the
Bank and the Acquired Banks unilaterally divested themselves of
responsibility for many of the direct duties of a corporate
fiduciary."

The class demands disgorgement and damages for breach of
fiduciary and unjust enrichment.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Brower, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


BELL CANADA: Consumers Union Sue Over Fraudulent Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec's Consumers' Union and a Montreal consumer, Myrna
Raphael, ask the Supreme Court to authorize a class action
lawsuit against Bell Canada on behalf of all Quebec consumers
subscribed, before or after October 28, 2007, to one of ihe
company's DSL Internet access services, according to CNW Telbec.

Bell Canada, which announces in the promotion of its Internet
access services "a constant speed, an access that is always
fast, without frustrating slowdowns, even at peak hours" has
installed on its network since last fall, surreptitiously, a
mechanism that deliberately slows down, at peak hours, the
transfer speed of its subscribers' data.

The report relates that to inspect the users' data and manage
the Internet traffic, Bell uses a technology called Deep Packet
Inspection, which breaches the right to privacy of the consumers
using their Internet access services.

Ms. Raphael has signed in 2006 a three-year contract, wanting to
take advantage of the constant speed offered by Bell Canada, CNW
Telbec recounts.  For this consumer, as well as thousands of
others, the constant speed was a key factor in her choice.  
Since Bell has systematically applied its slowdown measures, Ms.
Raphael and her spouse could not, in the evening, perform on the
Internet any of the activities for which she had subscribed.

The Consumers' Union therefore asks of the Court to declare
illicit Bell Canada's policy regarding the unilateral and
systematic slowdown of data transfer towards its hundreds of
thousands of subscribers and to force Bell Canada to reimburse
these consumers, to whom Bell does not offer what they paid for,
80% of the sum of their monthly subscription.  The Consumers'
Union also asks of the Court to force Bell Canada to pay
CDN600 in damages for any and all false representations made to
their subscribers regarding the constant speed of the Internet
access that it committed to provide them, to order Bell to cease
all breaches to the right to privacy of its subscribers and to
force the company to pay them CDN1,500 for breaching their right
to privacy.

The Consumers' Union and Ms. Raphael, the designated person, are
represented by the law firm Unterberg Labelle Lebeau.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Still to Certify Class in ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on a motion seeking certification of a class in a
consolidated lawsuit that alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against Boston Scientific
Corp., according to Boston Scientific's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Jan. 19, 2006, George Larson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the
company's 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (401(k) Plan) and
Global Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

The plaintiff alleges that the company and certain of the
company's officers and employees violated certain provisions
under the ERISA and Department of Labor Regulations.

Robert Hochstadt, Jeff Klunke, Kirk Harvey, Michael Lowe and
Douglas Fletcher, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, filed separate purported class action complaints early
in 2006 in the same Massachusetts court on behalf of the
participants and beneficiaries in the company's Plans alleging
similar misconduct and seeking similar relief as in the Larson
lawsuit.

On April 3, 2006, the court issued an order consolidating the
actions and appointing Jeffrey Klunke and Michael Lowe as
interim lead plaintiffs.

On Aug. 23, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
that purports to bring a class action suit on behalf of all
participants and beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) Plan
during the period May 7, 2004, through Jan. 26, 2006, alleging
that the company, its 401(k) Administrative and Investment
Committee, members of the Committee, and certain directors
violated certain provisions of ERISA.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan's
participants.

It seeks equitable and monetary relief.  The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated suit on Oct. 10, 2006, which
request was denied by the Court on Aug. 27, 2007.

On March 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

The suit is "In re: Boston Scientific Corp. ERISA Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-10105-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph L. Tauro,
presiding.

Representing plaintiff Jeff Klunke are:

         Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: 212-594-5300
         Fax: 212-868-1229
         e-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com

              - and -

         Nancy F. Gans, Esq. (nfgans@gmail.com)
         Moulton & Gans, P.C.
         55 Cleveland Road
         Wellesley, MA 02481
         Phone: 781-235-2246
         Fax: 781-239-0353

Representing the defendants is:

         Stuart J. Baskin, Esq.
         Shearman & Sterling LLP
         599 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-848-4000
         Fax: 212-848-7179


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Reverses Dismissal of Mass. Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reverses the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts of a consolidated amended complaint in a
securities fraud class action against Boston Scientific Corp.
and certain of its officers, according to Boston Scientific's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Srinivasan Shankar filed a purported securities class action
suit on Sept. 23, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities during the period
March 31, 2003, through Aug. 23, 2005, alleging that the company
and certain of its officers violated certain sections of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Jack Yopp, Robert L. Garber, Betty C. Meyer and John Ryan, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
separately filed additional purported securities class action
complaints in the same court on behalf of the same purported
class.

On Feb. 15, 2006, the court ordered that the five class action
suits be consolidated and appointed the Mississippi Public
Employee Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff.  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2006.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the company made
material misstatements and omissions by failing to disclose the
supposed merit of the litigation between the company and
Medinol, Ltd., the company's stent supplier, and Department of
Justice investigation relating to the 1998 NIR ON Ranger with
Sox stent recall, problems with the TAXUS drug-eluting coronary
stent systems that led to product recalls, and the company's
ability to satisfy U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations
concerning medical device quality.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on June 8, 2006, which request was granted by
the court on March 30, 2007.  

The court's dismissal order was appealed on April 27, 2007, by
the Mississippi Public Employee Retirement System Group.  

On April 16, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit only reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' TAXUS
stent recall related claims and remanded the matter for further
proceedings.

The suit is "Shankar v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv- 11934-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph L. Tauro presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com)
         Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Suite 501, 651 Nicollet Mall
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-341-0400
         Fax: 612-341-0844
    
              - and -

         Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. (gmfishbein@locklaw.com)
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.
         Suite 2200, 100 Washington Avenue South
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Phone: 612-339-6900
         Fax: 612-339-0981

Representing the defendants are:

         Miranda Hooker, Esq. (miranda.hooker@wilmerhale.com)
         William H. Paine, Esq. (william.paine@wilmerhale.com)
         Monika A. Wirtz, Esq. (monika.wirtz@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
         60 State Street
         Boston, MA 02115
         Phone: 617-526-6000
                617-526-6896
         Fax: 617-526-5000
              617-526-5000

              - and -    

         Timothy J. Perla, Esq. (timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com)
         U.S. District Court, 1 Courthouse Way
         Boston, MA 02210
         Phone: 617-526-6696
         Fax: 617-526-6000


CALIFORNIA: Doctors Sue to Block Across-the-Board Medicaid Cut
--------------------------------------------------------------
California doctors have sued the state to stop a 10% across-the-
board Medicaid payment cut that they say further would damage
patients' access to care, Amy Lynn Sorrel writes for AMNews.

According to the report, the California Medical Association led
a coalition of physicians, hospitals and other health care
groups in a class-action lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County
Superior Court earlier last month to block the payment
reductions, which total $600 million.  The decreases, authorized
by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature in February
2008, are scheduled to take effect on July 1.

AMNews relates that doctors worry the problem will be compounded
if the state adopts the governor's revised fiscal 2008-09 budget
proposal, which would cut $3.4 billion from California Health &
Human Services Agency programs.  This figure includes the
already approved physician cuts.  The new plan would reduce
eligibility for Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, to 61%
of the federal poverty level for two-parent households and would
pare services.

State officials say the move is part of an across-the-board
effort to plug a projected $17-billion budget shortfall, avoid
tax hikes and establish a rainy-day fund to avoid future crises.

However, in their lawsuit, doctors say the planned rate
decreases violate state and federal laws requiring that Medicaid
payments be adequate to enlist enough doctors and other health
care professionals to ensure the availability of basic services
promised under the program.

In addition, the suit notes that the Dept. of Health Care
Services has failed for the last 15 years to audit Medi-Cal
annually to make sure it meets the mandated access-to-care
criteria.  During that time, doctors saw payments increase just
once, in 2001.  

California ranks last in the nation for Medicaid physician
payment, AMNews points out.

Low rates continue to force many physicians to close their doors
to Medi-Cal patients, and the cuts would throw access to care
into further turmoil, Dev GnanaDev, MD, president-elect of the
California Medical Assn, told AMNews.

"California already has another half million uninsured who end
up in the emergency room for routine care.  Add Medi-Cal
patients to that, and it becomes unmanageable," said Dr.
GnanaDev, a trauma and vascular surgeon and chief of surgery at
Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton, Calif.  He also
said that patients come to the facility's emergency department
from 200 miles away with broken bones because they cannot see a
local doctor for an x-ray.  About 70 emergency departments
across the state have closed in the past 10 years or so, he
added, which hurts access for private-paying patients, as well.

"We have to put the state on the spot and say you have to follow
the law, and if they do, they would realize there is not decent
access for Medi-Cal patients," Dr. GnanaDev further shared with
AMNews.

The pay reductions could jeopardize as much as $1.3 billion in
Medicaid funds, including matching federal dollars, AMNews cites
Craig J. Cannizzo, Esq. -- the attorney representing the CMA,
the state chapter of the American College of Emergency
Physicians, the California Hospital Assn. and the other
plaintiffs in the case -- as saying.  CMA data show that
California ranks last in the nation for Medicaid physician
payment, he said.

Average per-enrollee Medicaid spending in California was $2,701
in 2005, compared with $4,662 nationwide, according to Kaiser
Family Foundation data.

AMNews says that state officials declined to comment on the
lawsuit.  Regarding the pay reductions, Gov. Schwarzenegger said
he hopes they force the state toward health system reform.

"The governor fully understands the devastating impact of these
cuts, which is why he continues to push for comprehensive health
care reform and structural budget reform," spokeswoman Lisa Page
said.  "Together, these reforms will bring stability to Medi-Cal
budgeting and ensure the state never has to make such drastic
cuts again."

Medi-Cal is the second largest state-funded program in
California.

The report stresses out that a health system reform plan backed
by Gov. Schwarzenegger and passed by the state assembly included
a 23% increase in doctors' Medicaid rates.  Yet, the proposal
fell apart in the Senate earlier this year due to cost concerns
once the budget deficit figures came out.  The governor hopes to
avoid a similar outcome in the future by establishing a savings
account to sustain health care programs during a budget crisis.

Dept. of Health spokesman Anthony Cava agreed that reform is the
end goal.  Meanwhile, he said, "Medi-Cal is the second largest
state-funded program behind education, and we had to be part of
the solution."

Doctors say the planned reductions cannot come at the expense of
patient care.  "[The state] has to be brave and come up with
better solutions rather than just cutting across the board," Dr.
GnanaDev said.  "It's unfair to these poor people who have to
jump through all these hoops to get simple care."

The report recounts that this recent lawsuit is not the first
time doctors have rallied to stave off impending Medi-Cal cuts.
The case follows a similar one the CMA and others brought
against the state in 2003.  They eventually succeeded in halting
a 5% rate reduction sought by then-Gov. Gray Davis.


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Settlement Reached in Calif. Employee's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a purported class action suit
accusing California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., of violating laws that
require employers to provide specific meal and rest periods,
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 class action complaint was filed on March 21, 2007, in the
San Diego County Superior Court.  In it, the plaintiff claims
that the company failed to provide its employees with
uninterrupted meal periods when required, and that it deprived
its employees of second meal periods and paid rest periods as
required by law.

The lawsuit alleged violations of state wage and hour laws
involving meal and rest breaks, and sought an unspecified amount
in damages.  The amount of potential damages, if any, associated
with the claim did not exceed 10% of the company's current
assets.

On March 6, 2008, the company entered into a tentative
settlement of all claims in action.  On May 2, 2008, a judge
granted preliminary approval to the class action settlement.  

The administration process commenced on May 12, 2008, and will
last for approximately 11 months.  The settlement, subject to
final court approval, will result in the dismissal of the
lawsuit's claims against the company.

Under the proposed settlement, class members can submit claims
pursuant to a Court-approved process wherein the company would
pay an aggregate amount not to exceed $3.2 million to settle
claims asserted on behalf of the class.

California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. -- http://www.cpk.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant chain with a particular focus on the
pizza segment.


CEDAR FUNDING: Calif. Suit Claims Ponzi Scheme Took $15 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Nilsen and his Cedar Funding, Inc., are facing a class-
action complaint filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Monterey, accusing them of defrauding investors of
$15 million in a Ponzi scheme that promised 10.8% to 13% returns
on supposed "mortgage investments," CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Catherine C. Lau, an elderly widow, says she
lost $835,000.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all other
investors who invested in the "Robinson loan" with the
defendants, such loan to be secured by the said real property,
and such other investors have suffered losses as a result of the
same acts of defendants alleged.

The Plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- imposition of an equitable lien, or, in the
        alternative, a constructive trust as to the real
        property, in the sum of $535,000 on behalf of plaintiff,
        an in the event her class is certified for a class
        action herein, the sum of $15,290,888.74 on behalf of
        said class;

     -- damages according to proof;

     -- exemplary and punitive damages, according to proof;

     -- reasonable attorney's fees, if certified as a class
        action, under CCP S1021.5, and under the common-
        benefit or private-attorney-general doctrines;

     -- costs of suit; and

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

The suit is "Catherine C. Lau et al. v. Cedar Funding, Inc. et
al., Case No. M90854," filed before the Superior Court of
California, County of Monterey.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Allen C. Kaplan, Esq.
          David W. Brown, Esq.
          40 Bonifacio Plaza
          Monterey, CA 93940
          Phone: 408-375-5100
          Fax: 408-649-2376


CHECKFREE CORP: Georgia Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
granted a motion that sought the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class-action complaint that was filed against
CheckFree Corp., an acquisition of Fiserv, Inc., according to
Checkfree's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On or about April 10, 2007, the first of two related shareholder
securities putative class action suits was filed against
CheckFree Corp. and Messrs. Peter J. Kight and David E. Mangum
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The suits are:

       -- "Skubella v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civil
          Action No. 1:07-CV-0796-TWT," and

       -- "Gattelaro v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civil
          Action No. 1:07-CV-0945-TWT."

On June 29, 2007, the Court consolidated these two lawsuit and
appointed Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust as the lead
plaintiff.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated
class action complaint for violation of the federal securities
laws on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of CheckFree between April 25, 2006,
and Oct. 24, 2006.

The amended complaint sought undisclosed damages against
defendants for violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as for violation of Section 20(a) against
the individual defendants, related to CheckFree's disclosures
concerning its Electronic Commerce and Payment Services
business.  The plaintiffs seek undisclosed damages.

On Oct. 11, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint.  On April 25, 2008, the
Court granted the defendants' dismissal request, without
prejudice.

The suit is "Rudolf Skubella, et al. v. CheckFree Corporation,
et al., Case No. 07-CV-00796," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Thomas W. Thrash,
Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 888-873-3999
          Fax: 404-876-4476
          e-mail: attorney@chitwoodlaw.com

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA, 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0200
          Fax: 925-945-8792
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com

               - and -

          Scott & Scott LLC
          P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: 860-537-5537
          Fax: 860-537-4432
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


CHECKFREE CORP: Del. Court Dismisses Fisery Acquisition Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County granted a proposed order of dismissal that was
filed by plaintiffs in a consolidated shareholder's lawsuit over
CheckFree Corp.'s announcement of its proposed acquisition by
Fiserv, Inc.

Initially, on or about Aug. 30, 2007, the first of two related
derivative action complaints were filed.  The two suits are:

      1. "Tawil v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civ. Action
         No. 3193-CC;" and

      2. "Weil v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civ. Action
         No. 3260-CC."

On Oct. 10, 2007, the cases were consolidated as "In re
CheckFree Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated Civ.
Action No. 3193-CC."

The complaint names as defendants CheckFree, Mark A. Johnson,
Eugene F. Quinn, William P. Boardman, James D. Dixon, Peter J.
Kight, C. Kim Goodwin, Jeffrey M. Wilkins, and Fiserv, Inc.

The action was filed on behalf of a putative class of the public
stockholders of CheckFree, and seeks, among other things, to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of CheckFree by Fiserv or, in
the alternative, to rescind the transaction or award the class
rescissory damages.

On Sept. 26, 2007, defendant CheckFree filed its motion to
dismiss the claims, and the other defendants followed suit
afterward.  These motions to dismiss are pending.

On Oct. 18, 2007, the Court of Chancery denied the plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the proposed
acquisition.

On March 12, 2008, the Court of Chancery granted the plaintiffs'
proposed Order of Dismissal, which dismissed the case without
prejudice, 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.

CheckFree Corp. -- http://www.checkfreecorp.com/-- is an   
electronic payment processing company and is a provider of
financial electronic commerce products and services.  


COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO: Fire Victims Plan Lawsuit Over Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wildfire survivor and District 2 supervisorial candidate Rudy
Reyes disclosed plans to file a class action lawsuit against the
County of San Diego and the county supervisors alleging
negligence and seeking compensation for thousands of fire
victims, Ramona Sentinel reports.

Ramona Sentinel relates that a news release from Mr. Reyes
indicated that the San Diego Grand Jury investigation report
released last week laid the blame on county supervisors for
ignoring warnings from experts and failing to provide essential
public safety services.  Mr. Reyes was burned -- over 60% of his
body -- and was nearly killed in the Cedar Fire in 2003.

Mr. Reyes said that elected officials must be held accountable
for needlessly jeopardizing lives and property.  He said that he
is filing a lawsuit to assist those who lost homes, property or
loved ones, and to send a strong message to the supervisors that
this must never happen again.

The grand jury concluded that the region was woefully unprepared
for firestorms in 2003 and 2007, Ramona Sentinel notes.

Public safety is and must continue to be the job of the county
supervisors, the investigation report concluded.  "This cannot
be treated as a political issue.  A budget with sustainable
funding needs to be put in place as soon as possible."

Moreover, the report faulted supervisors for closing work camps
where prisoners used to cut brush and create firebreaks and
noted that the investigation revealed that probation officers
who supervised work camp crews have been warning officials of
the danger of closing these camps for the last decade.  The
report also criticized supervisors for not providing adequate
fire protection equipment.

According to Ramona Sentinel, county supervisors have 90 days to
respond to the grand jury recommendations.

Dianne Jacob and the other supervisors who have served together
for more than a decade are responsible for closing those camps
and putting lives at risk and for failing to take other steps
recommended over and over again by fire officials and other
experts, Mr. Reyes said.  He added that it is time for the
supervisors to be fired and hold them financially accountable to
the people, because taxpayers in San Diego County deserve more
for their money.

Mr. Reyes contended that the supervisors need to compensate
those who have been harmed and take important steps to protect
public safety  before the next wildfire strikes.


CREDIT CARD LITIGATION: Judge's Ruling Ends Four FACTA Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge William Acker Jr. has ruled unconstitutional
a federal law that assessed punitive damages against retailers
that printed too much credit card information on customers'
receipts, The Birmingham News reports.

Birmingham News relates that in doing so, Judge Acker dismissed
four lawsuits in Birmingham's federal court that accused
businesses of violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction
Act, which banned retailers from showing more than the last five
digits of a person's account number or the card's expiration
date on a receipt.

Judge Acker wrote in an opinion on May 28, 2008, that the law,
which was passed in 2003, is "on its face and its application to
these defendants, a bomb that has already exploded or is sure so
to explode that it needs defusing."

Judge Acker said the law imposes disproportionate punitive
damages on defendants who cause no actual harm.

The law gave businesses, depending on the equipment used to
generate receipts, until at least 2006 to comply with the
credit-card information disclosure limit.  The law provided that
juries could award "not less than $100 and not more than $1,000"
for each willful violation.

According to Birmingham News, named as defendants in the four
cases before Acker were Rave Motion Pictures, Express Oil
Change, Mexican Specialty Foods and Hooters of East Birmingham.  
Hundreds of suits have been filed across the country.  The
Birmingham suits, like those nationwide, sought class-action
status.

Judge Acker noted the statute gave a vague description of the
damages -- the most obvious denial of due process.  "This court
could not in good conscience tell a jury to award 'not less than
$100 and not more than $1,000' and then wait for the jury's
puzzled look," Judge Acker wrote.

Judge Acker said one jury can decide that a particular violation
calls for $100, while another jury can decide the same violation
by the same vendor is worth $1,000, "while other juries can,
willy-nilly, award something in between."

Judge Acker further wrote that a class recovery would put each
defendant out of business.


D.R. HORTON: Georgia Court Dismisses RESPA Violations Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
dismissed with prejudice a purported class action complaint
filed against D.R. Horton, Inc., that alleges violations of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  

The suit was filed by John R. Yeatman on June 15, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, under
the caption, "John R. Yeatman, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et
al."  It was filed against D.R. Horton and its mortgage company,
DHI Mortgage Co.  Mr. Yeatman is seeking class-action status for
the suit.  

Mr. Yeatman claims that he was forced to use the company's
affiliated mortgage service to buy his home so that the company
could get discounts and incentives.

The complaint seeks certification of a class alleged to include
persons who, within the year preceding the filing of the suit,
purchased a home from the company and obtained a mortgage for
such purchase from its affiliated mortgage company subsidiary.

The complaint alleges that the company violated Section 8 of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by effectively requiring
its homebuyers to use its affiliated mortgage company to finance
their home purchases by offering certain discounts and
incentives.

The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive
relief.

On April 23, 2008, the Court granted the company's request and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice, according to D.R.
Horton'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 "Yeatman et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. et al., Case
No. 4:07-cv-00081-BAE-GRS," filed before the U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Georgia, Judge B. Avant Edenfield,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
          Gillen, Cromwell, Parker & Withers, LLC
          P.O. Box 10164
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Phone: 912-447-8400
          Fax: 912-233-6584

Representing the defendants is:

          David M. Souders, Esq.
          Weiner, Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, PC
          1300 19th Street, NW
          Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-628-2000
          Fax: 202-628-2011


DE BEERS: Judge Approves $297-Million Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court in New
Jersey has approved on a final basis the settlement in the
matter, "Shawn Sullivan, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04-02819 (SRC)," the Consumer Affairs reports.

Under the settlement, De Beers, the world's largest diamond
importer, would pay out roughly $297 million to consumers,
diamond merchants and resellers.  De Beers would pay
$22.5 million to the "direct purchaser class members" and
$272.5 million to "indirect purchaser class members."

Consumers who purchased diamonds from De Beers directly or
indirectly between 1994 and 2006 will be eligible to receive a
rebate.  The rebate amount will be determined based on the
quality of the diamond.

De Beers said it had done nothing wrong.  In a statement, the
company said, "We believe that settling these class actions has
allowed us to put these matters behind us, and is in the best
interests of our shareholders, our clients and, most
importantly, consumers’ confidence in diamonds."

                        Case Background

In 2001, lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against
De Beers and entities associated with the company.  The other
defendants are:

       -- De Beers S.A.,

       -- DB Investments, Inc.,

       -- De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd.,

       -- De Beers A.G., Diamond Trading Company, Ltd.,

       -- CSO Valuations A.G.,

       -- Central Selling Organization, Central Holdings, Ltd.,
          and

       -- De Beers Centenary A.G. Defendants are the largest
          supplier of rough diamonds in the world.

The lawsuits claim that the defendants unlawfully monopolized
the supply of Rough Gem Diamonds, sponsored false and misleading
advertising and unlawfully raised the prices of Gem Diamonds
higher than they should have been, all of which violated certain
federal and state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair
competition laws.

The lawsuits being settled by the proposed settlement are:

       -- "Sullivan, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al.,
          USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04-02819 (SRC);"

       -- "Hopkins v. De Beers Centenary A.G., et al., San
          Francisco County, Ca. No. CGC-04-432954;"

       -- "Cornwell v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., Maricopa
          Co., Az. No. CV2005-2968;"

       -- "Null, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., D.N.J.
          Civil Action Index No. 05-04849 (SRC);"

       -- "Leider, et al. v. Ralfe, et al., D.N.J. Civil Action
          Index No. 06-00908 (SRC);"

       -- "Anco Industrial Diamond Corp. v. DB Investments,
          Inc., et al., D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 01-04463
          (SRC);" and

       -- "British Diamond Import Company v. Central Holdings
          Ltd., et al., USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04-
          04098 (SRC)."

                           Settlement

People and business entities in the U.S. who purchased gem
diamonds directly from De Beers and other diamond mining
companies from Sept. 20, 1997, to March 31, 2006, or who
purchased loose gem diamonds, diamond jewelry or other products
containing a gem diamond from a seller other than a mining
company from Jan. 1, 1994, to March 31, 2006,
(Direct Purchaser Class) are included in the settlement.

For more details, contact:

        Diamond Settlement Administrator
        Phone: 1-800-760-5431
               612-359-2002
        e-mail: Administrator@diamondsclassaction.com
        Web site: https://diamondsclassaction.com/


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Black Farmers Demand More From USDA
---------------------------------------------------------
Black farmers filed a class-action complaint with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia demanding more than
$100 million plus $3,000 per class member from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, claiming the USDA racially
discriminated in loan and benefit programs from 1981 through
1986, and denied 63,000 Southern farmers the opportunity to file
for relief, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The USDA administers nationwide programs to provide loans and
benefits to farmers.

The action is filed on behalf of all African American farmers
who:

     -- farmed, or attempted to farm, between Jan. 1, 1981 and
        Dec. 31, 1996;

     -- applied to the United States Department of Agriculture
        during that time period for participation in a
        federal farm credit or benefit program and who believed
        that they were discriminated against on the basis of
        race in USDA's response to that application; and

     -- filed a discrimination complaint on or before July 1,
        1997, regarding USDA's treatment of such farm credit or
        benefit application.

The class claims the USDA also failed to properly account for,
investigate, process or resolve years of civil rights
complaints.

It claims that Congress, under a consent degree resulting from
consolidated litigation, set up a $100 million fund for about
15,000 Pigford class members.

However, the plaintiffs say that of 65,991 people who petitioned
to file a late claim, only 2,699 petitions were approved,
denying 63,292 people the opportunity to file claims.

They say the $100 million will not be enough money to fairly
compensate everyone.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether USDA's complete failure to properly account
         for, investigate, process and resolve plaintiffs' and
         class members' complaints of discrimination, following
         on the acts of discrimination themselves, harm the
         class;

     (b) whether defendant's agency discriminated against
         plaintiffs and class members in granting credit and
         other farm program benefits;

     (c) whether defendant's agency failed to provide plaintiffs
         and class members equal opportunity for and access to
         credit and other farm program benefits;

     (d) whether defendant's agency's actions violated
         plaintiffs' and class members' rights under ECOA or the
         APA;

     (e) whether the limited fund of $1 million made available
         for damages under section 14012 is severely inadequate
         to pay all successful claimants and, if so, how should
         it equitably be disbursed among the claimants; and

     (f) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         monetary relief and attorney's fees.

The plaintiffs request the court to;

      -- provide them and class members with a determination of
         their claims under section 14012 of the 2008 farm bill;

      -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and class members
         with credit claims finding that USDA discriminated
         against them in the farm loan and loan servicing
         process, and award them damages;

      -- enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and class
         members with noncredit claims finding that USDA
         discriminated against them in the award and delivery of
         farm program benefits, and award them damages of
         $3,000;

      -- enter an appropriate order to preserve the $1 million
         available under subsection (i)(1) of section 14012
         until the claims of all the plaintiffs and class
         members are adjudicated and the total amount of damages
         is determined;

      -- enter an appropriate order allocating the $1 million
         among all plaintiffs and class members who are awarded
         damages on a fair and equitable pro rate basis;

      -- award attorney's fees, costs and expenses to
         plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to ECOA and the Equal
         Access to Justice Act; and

      -- award such other relief as the court might deem
         equitable, necessary and proper.

The suit is "Forest Kimbrough et al. v. Ed Schafer et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-00901," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          J. L. Chestnut, Jr.
          Henry Sanders
          Rose M. Sanders
          Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders Pettaway & Campbell LLC
          One Union Street
          Selma, Alabama 36702
          Phone: 334-875-9264
          Fax: 334-875-9853


ESCALA GROUP: Settles Shareholder and Derivative Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Escala Group (ESCL.PK), a global collectibles company in stamps,
coins, precious metals trading, and art and antiques, has
entered into agreements to settle the securities class action
lawsuit and shareholder derivative action commenced against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in May 2006.

As part of the settlement of the derivative action, the Company
will recover $5.50 million from insurers on behalf of certain of
the named defendants on both proceedings.  The Company has also
agreed to adopt certain corporate governance policies and
procedures, and to pay all court-approved attorneys' fees, up to
a maximum of $925,000, together with approved expenses not to
exceed $70,000.  The Company's insurer will fund $475,000 of
these amounts.

The proposed settlement of the class action litigation provides
for the Company to contribute an aggregate of $6 million in cash
and 4 million newly issued shares of its stock (subject to
increase under certain circumstances) to a settlement fund for
the benefit of the class.  A substantial portion of the cash
contribution will be funded by insurers. If approved by the
Court, all claims against the Company and its current and former
officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and
without any admission of liability or wrongdoing.  The Company's
net cash payment obligations under the proposed settlements,
after taking into account recoveries, is approximately $1
million.

The agreements are subject to certain conditions, including
approval by the court and by the trustees of Afinsa Bienes
Tangibles, S.A. and its subsidiary Auctentia, S.A., the
Company's majority shareholders.  Both companies, which are
named defendants in the litigation, are in bankruptcy
proceedings in the U.S. and Spain.  The Company understands that
the trustees are seeking approval of the settlement under
applicable bankruptcy laws.

Antonio Arenas, Executive Chairman, said, "We are pleased to
have reached a mutually satisfactory settlement in principle
with the plaintiffs and we are hopeful that the settlements will
be finalized shortly."

Greg Roberts, President and CEO, added, "This development is a
significant step forward in our efforts to put the problems of
our past behind us and focus on the future of the Company."

The Company also announced that it has asserted claims against
Greg Manning, its former President and CEO, for, among other
things, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment, arising out of actions taken by Mr. Manning when he
was employed by the Company.  The Company is seeking damages
against Mr. Manning of not less than $40 million.  In addition,
the Company is seeking a declaration that Mr. Manning is not
entitled to indemnification by the Company.  Mr. Manning has
made claims against the Company, seeking approximately
$34 million in damages for, among other things, wrongful
termination, failure to pay accrued vacation and other
compensation, unjust enrichment and alleged harm caused by the
Company to Mr. Manning's name and business reputation.  The
Company intends to defend against these claims vigorously.
Pursuant to the terms of Mr. Manning's employment contract, the
parties' dispute will be heard in arbitration.  The Company
terminated Mr. Manning's arrangement with the Company for
"cause" in April 2007.

Escala Group, Inc. -- http://www.escalagroup.com/-- operates as    
a global collectibles merchant and auction house network with  
operations in North America, Europe, and Asia, as well as on the  
Internet.


GUAM GOVERNMENT: Pays Residents EITC as Part of Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guam's low-income workers may find money in their mailboxes by
mid-June, according to Pacific Daily News.

The report says that, according to a release from the Office of
the Governor, the government of Guam will begin issuing Earned
Income Tax Credits to residents unable to file between 1995 and
2000.  EITC payouts will average about $2,000 to $3,000,
according to Pacific Daily News files.

The Guam Government must pay the checks because of a settlement
approved in April by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Frances
Tydingco-Gatewood, Pacific Daily News recalls.  Three lawsuits
filed in 2004 fused into a single class-action suit against
Guam.

An earlier Pacific Daily report relates that Judge Tydingco-
Gatewood, in an April 23 order, approved the settlement
agreement, which awarded $72 million to the thousands of members
of the class-action suit.  The April 23 order also approves
almost $3.3 million in attorney's fees to four law firms that
represent different taxpayer groups whose cases were later
consolidated.  The Phillips and Bordallo law firm will receive
the bulk of the attorney fees with its $3-million share.

The report notes that release from the Office of the Governor
stated that more than $16 million was set aside to make
payments.  The amount will pay for claims from 1995, 1996 and
most of 1999.  The Department of Revenue and Taxation began
processing the EITC claims, which will be turned over to the
Department of Administration for the printing and release of
checks.

"This is welcome news for Guam's families, especially during
this time when prices are rising and the cost of living is
becoming less affordable," Gov. Felix Camacho said in the news
release.

According to Pacific Daily News files, a portion of EITC claims
from 1997 and 1998 was paid in 2007.  The $16 million will clear
the remaining balance, the release said.

John Camacho, acting director of the Department of
Administration, said additional claims will be paid as money
becomes available.  Whenever the Guam Government pays out tax
refunds, it will set aside an additional 15% for EITC claims, he
said.

The report recounts that Sen. Ben Pangelinan led the court
challenge in the late 1990s when Rev and Tax at the time stopped
taxpayers from claiming the EITC.  The federally required credit
is provided to taxpayers who have low incomes to help keep them
from dropping out of the work force.

"The EITC is one of the most effective anti-poverty programs we
have in this country," Sen. Pangelinan explained.  On Guam,
close to 65% of individual taxpayers qualify for the tax credit
because they're paid "substandard wages" in the private sector,
he added.


GUIDANT CORP: Court Yet to Rule in Minn. Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to
rule on the plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of their
consolidated amended complaint in a securities fraud class
action suit against Guidant Corp., an acquisition of Boston
Scientific Corp.

On Nov. 3, 2005, a securities class-action complaint was filed
on behalf of purchasers of Guidant stock between Dec. 1, 2004,
and Oct. 18, 2005, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, against Guidant and several of its officers
and directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants concealed adverse
information about Guidant's defibrillators and pacemakers and
sold stock in violation of federal securities laws.

The complaint seeks a declaration that the lawsuit can be
maintained as a class action, monetary damages, and injunctive
relief.

Several additional, related securities class action suits were
filed in November 2005 and January 2006, and were consolidated
with the initial complaint filed on Nov. 3, 2005.  The Court
then appointed the Iron Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension
Plan and David Fannon as lead plaintiffs.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  In
August 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

On Feb. 27, 2008, the District Court granted the dismissal
motion and entered final judgment in favor of all the
defendants.

On March 13, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
amend the final judgment to permit the filing of a further
amended complaint.  On March 28, 2008, the defendants opposed
the motion.  The motion remains pending, according to Boston
Scientific's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Boston Scientific Corp. -- http://www.bostonscientific.com/-–  
is a developer, manufacturer and marketer of medical devices
worldwide that are used in a range of interventional medical
specialties including interventional cardiology, cardiac rhythm
management, peripheral interventions, cardiac surgery, vascular
surgery, electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention,
endoscopy, urology, gynecology and neuromodulation.  


GUIDANT CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Pacemakers, Defibrillators
------------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corp., an acquisition of Boston Scientific Corp., is
facing several purported class action suits in Canada, which
concerns the company's pacemakers and defibrillators.

Five of those suits are pending in Canada and are all putative
class actions.  

A hearing on whether the first of these putative class actions
should be certified as a class was held in mid-January 2008 and
on April 10, 2008, the Court certified a class of all persons in
whom defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of
family members with derivative claims.  

Guidant intends to appeal the Court's class-certification
decision, according to the Boston Scientific's May 2008 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Boston Scientific Corp. -- http://www.bostonscientific.com/-–  
is a developer, manufacturer and marketer of medical devices
worldwide that are used in a range of interventional medical
specialties including interventional cardiology, cardiac rhythm
management, peripheral interventions, cardiac surgery, vascular
surgery, electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention,
endoscopy, urology, gynecology and neuromodulation.  


GUIDANT CORP: To Settle U.S. Pacemakers, Defibrillators Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corp., an acquisition of Boston Scientific Corp., is
working to settle purported class actions in the U.S., which
concerns the company's pacemakers and defibrillators, according
to the Boston Scientific's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Approximately 75 product liability class actions and more than
2,200 individual lawsuits involving approximately 5,500
individual plaintiffs are pending in various state and federal
jurisdictions against Guidant alleging personal injuries
associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in the
2005 and 2006 product communications.

The majority of the cases in the U.S. are pending in federal
court, but approximately 250 cases are currently pending in
state courts.

On Nov. 7, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
established MDL-1708 (MDL) with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota and appointed a single judge to preside
over all the cases in the MDL.

In April 2006, the personal injury plaintiffs and certain third-
party payors served a Master Complaint in the MDL asserting
claims for class action certification, alleging claims of strict
liability, negligence, fraud, breach of warranty and other
common law and statutory claims and seeking punitive damages.

The majority of claimants allege no physical injury, but are
suing for medical monitoring and anxiety.  

On July 12, 2007, the company reached an agreement to settle
certain claims associated with the 2005 and 2006 product
communications, which was amended on Nov. 19, 2007.

Under the terms of the amended agreement, subject to certain
conditions, the company will pay a total of up to $240 million
covering 8,550 patient claims, including all of the claims that
have been consolidated in the MDL as well as other filed and
unfiled claims throughout the U.S.  

On June 13, 2006, the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a single
judge to preside over all Minnesota state court lawsuits
involving cases arising from the product communications.  

The plaintiffs in those cases are eligible to participate in the
settlement, and activities in all Minnesota State court cases
are currently stayed pending individual plaintiff's decisions
whether to participate in the settlement.

Boston Scientific Corp. -- http://www.bostonscientific.com/-–  
is a developer, manufacturer and marketer of medical devices
worldwide that are used in a range of interventional medical
specialties including interventional cardiology, cardiac rhythm
management, peripheral interventions, cardiac surgery, vascular
surgery, electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention,
endoscopy, urology, gynecology and neuromodulation.  


HOMETOWN BUFFET: Calif. Court Still to OK $7.2MM Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to grant final approval to the $7.2-million settlement
of a labor class action suit filed against HomeTown Buffet,
Inc., a subsidiary of Buffets Holdings, Inc.

On Nov. 12, 2004, two former restaurant managers of the of
HomeTown Buffet, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a class action suit in California
Superior Court in San Francisco County.  

The lawsuit alleges that HomeTown Buffet violated California
wage and hour laws by failing to pay all of its California
managers and assistant managers overtime, and for making
deductions from bonus compensation based on the company's
workers' compensation costs.  

In March 2006, the plaintiffs amended the complaint in the
lawsuit to add OCB Restaurant Co., LLC, as a defendant, and to
limit the claims to those managers below the level of restaurant
General Manager.  

In April 2006, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  

The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, penalties,
restitution of unpaid overtime and deductions, pre-judgment
interest, cost of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.  The
complaint did not make a specific monetary demand.

During the course of discovery, but prior to a motion for
certification of a class, the parties reached a tentative
$7.2-million settlement of the case in mediation in late
February 2007.  

The settlement, which anticipated payments of approximately
$7.2 million, received preliminary court approval on Sept. 12,
2007, but final court approval was not obtained prior to the
time that the Buffets Holdings filed for bankruptcy.  

The matter represents a pre-petition unsecured claim subject to
resolution under the bankruptcy proceeding, according to Buffets
Holdings' May 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2008.

The suit is "Tiffany, et al. v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., Case No.   
4:06-cv-02524-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James F. Clapp, Esq. (jclapp@sdlaw.com)
          Dostart Clapp Gordon & Coveney, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: 858-623-4200
          Fax: 858-623-4299

Representing the defendants is:

          Paul R. Lynd, Esq. (plynd@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Phone: 415-433-1940
          Fax: 415-743-6653


HOMETOWN BUFFET: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
HomeTown Buffet, Inc., a subsidiary of Buffets Holdings, Inc.,
is facing a purported class action suit that is pending with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
according to Buffets Holdings' May 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 2, 2008.

On April 2, 2007, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against HomeTown Buffet, Inc.. and Buffets Holdings, Inc.. in
California state court in San Bernardino County.

The lawsuit alleges that HomeTown Buffet violated California
wage and hour laws by failing to pay its hourly employees
overtime, for failing to provide meal and rest period breaks as
provided by the California Labor Code, and for charging
employees for uniforms and equipment.

The complaint does not make a specific monetary demand.

The defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on June 28, 2007.   

This contested action has likewise been stayed by Buffets
Holdings' bankruptcy proceeding.  It was in a preliminary stage
at the time of the filing and the pre-petition liability has not
been established.

The suit is "Charles Frank et al v. Hometown Buffet Inc et al.,
Case No. 5:07-cv-00798-VAP-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Virginia A.
Phillips, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Matthew John Matern, Esq. (mjm@rastegar-matern.com)
          Rastegar & Matern
          1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100
          Torrance, CA 90501-2056
          Phone: 310-218-5500

Representing the defendants is:

          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. (rfliegel@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson
          650 California Street
          20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-433-1940


INTEGRATED SILICON: Settles SRAM Antitrust Suits & Faces Others
---------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., settled several lawsuits in
the U.S. and Canada relating to the sale and pricing of static
random access memory products, but continues to face several
other cases, according to its May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

                        U.S. Litigation

Initially, 33 purported class action lawsuits were filed by U.S.
Direct-Purchaser and U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs against
the company and other SRAM suppliers in various U.S. federal
courts, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, violations of
state unfair competition laws, and unjust enrichment.

The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in a single federal
court for coordinated pre-trail proceedings.  

The complaints seek treble damages for the alleged damages
sustained by purported class members, in addition to
restitution, costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as an injunction
against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

As of Aug. 30, 2007, the company was voluntarily dismissed from
29 of the 33 pending lawsuits pursuant to a Tolling Agreement
between the company and the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs.  

The U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs agreed not to name the
company as a defendant unless the Tolling Agreement is
terminated according to terms specified in that agreement.

On Jan. 9, 2008, the company was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice from one more lawsuit, which was brought by the U.S.
Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs.  However, it remains a defendant in
three remaining suits brought by the U.S. Direct-Purchaser
Plaintiffs.

                      Canadian Litigation

Three purported class action complaints were filed against the
company and other SRAM suppliers in three Canadian courts
alleging violation of the Canadian Competition Act and other
unlawful conduct.

The Canadian complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages,
in addition to declaratory relief, restitution, and costs.

As of March 20, 2008, the company entered into a Tolling
Agreement with the Canadian Plaintiffs.  Pursuant to the Tolling
Agreement, on March 25, 2008, one of the Canadian lawsuits was
discontinued as to the company and the other two Canadian
lawsuits are to be discontinued as to the company.

Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com/-- is  
a fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets high-
performance integrated circuits for various markets, such as
digital consumer electronics, networking, mobile communications
and automotive electronics.  The Company's primary products are
high-speed and low-power static random access memory and low-
and medium-density dynamic random access memory.  It also
designs and markets electrically erasable programmable ready
only memory, SmartCards, controller chips for flash memory
sticks and card reader- writers, and wireless chipsets.


MCKESSON CORP: Connecticut Brings Price Inflation Claim to Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut filed a lawsuit against pharmaceutical distribution
giant McKesson Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on May 29, accusing the company of violating
federal anti-racketeering laws by inflating drug prices for
state-funded health care, according to Jurist Legal News and
Research.

The report relates that Connecticut Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal alleged that McKesson and drug-price publisher First
DataBank conspired to increase the difference between the retail
price of prescription drugs and the average wholesale price
beginning as early as 2001.  The increase in the price
difference allowed for greater profits for health care providers
and companies such as McKesson, but cost consumers millions in
extra dollars on drugs such as Allegra, Celebrex, Nexium and
Valium.

Specifically, according to Reuters, the suit alleges that
McKesson and First DataBank conspired to expand to 25% from 20%
the difference between the price retailers paid for prescription
drugs, known as the wholesale acquisition cost, or WAC, and
average wholesale price, or AWP.

The suit alleges that First DataBank, which publishes
directories of drug prices, in late 2001 agreed to increase the
AWP figures regardless of actual market prices, Reuters says.
That made it more profitable for retailers to sell drugs
distributed by McKesson, according to the suit.

"To conceal the scheme, McKesson and First Data agreed to
typically effectuate price changes only when some other WAC-
based price announcement was made by a drug manufacturer," the
suit states.

According to Jurist, the state is seeking monetary damages for
the alleged anti-racketeering violations, as well as alleged
violations of anti-trust and state fair trade laws.

Jurist points out that this is not the first time that McKesson
and First DataBank have been sued for alleged price inflation.  
A 2005 class-action lawsuit led by the New England Carpenters
Health Benefits Fund and includes more than 11,000 members,
accused McKesson of artificially inflating prices, resulting in
as much as a $4-billion total overpayment by consumers.  Earlier
last month, the city of San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit
accusing McKesson of artificially inflating drug costs for more
than 50,000 San Franciscans.


MENU FOODS: Tainted Pet Food Litigation Settlement Gets Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has preliminarily approved the comprehensive Settlement
Agreement in the Pet Food Multi-District Litigation against  
Menu Foods Income Fund (TSX:MEW.UN).

The Settlement Agreement would resolve more than 100 class
action lawsuits filed in U.S. and Canadian courts.  Similar
motions for approval will soon be heard in the Canadian courts.

The Settlement Agreement creates a Settlement Fund of
US$24 million that will allow a potential recovery of up to 100%
of all economic damages incurred by pet owners, subject to
certain limitations.  The Settlement Fund, administered by a
neutral claims administrator, will be available to persons in
the United States and Canada who purchased or obtained, or whose
pets used or consumed, recalled pet food.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Fund will
be funded by the defendants, including Menu Foods and its
product liability insurer. Menu Foods' corporate contribution to
the settlement is within Menu Foods' previously published
estimate for recall costs of C$55 million.

A motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement has been
scheduled in the U.S. District Court for October 14, 2008.

Paul Henderson, CEO of Menu Foods commented, "Menu Foods is
pleased with this negotiated settlement.  If finally approved,
the agreement will provide restitution to the pet owners
affected by the 2007 pet food recalls.  We feel that the pet
owners, along with Menu and other pet food producers, were
victims of a terrible fraud committed by a company in China.
This settlement will enable Menu Foods to focus on rebuilding
our business, the cornerstone of which is producing and selling
high-quality pet food."

Persons with potential claims should not contact Menu Foods, but
can contact the claims administrator as follows:

          In re Pet Food Products Liability Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          P.O. Box 890
          Philadelphia, PA 19105-0890
          Phone: 1-800-392-7785
          Web site: http://www.petfoodsettlement.com/


MERCK FROSST: Seeks Appellate Review of Vioxx Case Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. has learned that the Saskatchewan Court
of Queen's Bench has decided to expand the scope of previously
certified class proceedings in a VIOXX lawsuit from a class
primarily consisting of Saskatchewan residents to a class of
Canadian residents outside Quebec who purchased or ingested
VIOXX.

The Company intends to seek appellate review of the decision
because it believes that each plaintiff's case should be tried
separately.

"Our legal approach remains the same," said Maurice Laprairie,
of MacPherson, Leslie & Tyerman LLP, Saskatchewan counsel for
Merck Frosst and Merck & Co., Inc.  "Although we argued against
the creation, and later expansion, of a class, the Court's
decision still requires that each plaintiff must prove his or
her claims on an individual basis because each plaintiff's case
is unique and depends on an individual set of facts.  For
example, heart attacks are unfortunately common in the
population and caused by many different risk factors."

"The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously over the
coming years, and we are confident that the courts will decide
these cases based on sound science," said Mary M. Thomson, of
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Canadian national counsel for
Merck Frosst and Merck & Co., Inc.  "We are seeking prompt
appellate resolution of the Saskatchewan ruling and will
continue to argue that centralized judicial management of
individual cases, not a class action, is the preferable
procedure for trying each case in a fair and expeditious
manner."

Evidence shows that Merck acted responsibly -- from researching
VIOXX prior to approval in clinical trials involving almost
10,000 patients, to monitoring the medicine while it was on the
market, to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine in September
2004.

Filed in early 2007, the suit alleges the painkiller Vioxx
caused serious, even fatal, side effects including heart
problems (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2007).

On Nov. 9, 2007, Merck & Co., Inc entered into a resolution
agreement concerning individual product liability claims against
the Company in the United States.  That agreement does not admit
fault or causation and does not apply to Canada.  VIOXX lawsuits
outside the United States are in various stages of the legal
process in different countries with different rules and judicial
processes.

Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. --  http://www.merckfrosst.com/-- is a   
research-driven pharmaceutical company. Merck Frosst discovers,
develops and markets a broad range of innovative medicines to
improve human health.  The Merck Frosst Centre for Therapeutic
Research, one of the largest biomedical research facilities in
Canada, has the mandate to discover new therapies for the
treatment of respiratory diseases, inflammatory diseases,
diabetes and osteoporosis.

For more information, contact:

          Maurice Laprairie, Esq. (mlaprairie@mlt.com)
          MacPherson, Leslie & Tyerman LLP
          1500 Hill Centre I
          1874 Scarth Street
          Regina, SK S4P 4E9   
          Phone: 306-347-8422
          Fax: 306-352-5250
          Web site: http://www.mlt.com/


PFIZER INC: Lawsuit Over Depo-Provera Certified as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A national class action has just been certified against Pfizer
regarding its sales of Depo-Provera, a contraceptive in the form
of an injection that has been widely prescribed in Canada.

In September 2005, a motion for authorization to institute a
class action suit was filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on
behalf of all persons resident in Canada having used Depo-
Provera.

Depo-Provera is a contraceptive marketed by Pfizer in the form
of an injection.  An injection of Depo-Provera provides
protection against pregnancy for three months.  Women who use it
for this purpose therefore receive four injections per year.
Depo-Provera is also used in the treatment of endometriosis,
recurrent or metastatic endometre or kidney cell cancer as well
as in the treatment of recurrent, inoperable or metastatic
breast cancer in menopausal women.

On June 30, 2005, Pfizer admitted in the context of a public
notice that two clinical studies indicate that women using Depo-
Provera may be subject to a considerable reduction in their bone
mineral density.  The bone loss observed is proportionate to the
length of usage and may not be entirely reversible.  This
finding is particularly preoccupying in the case of adolescents
whose mineral bone density should rather increase.  The
reduction in mineral bone density can lead to osteoporosis and
increase the risk of fractures, particularly for menopausal
women.  Depo-Provera is still distributed in Canada.

On May 28, 2008, the Honorable Danielle Grenier, S.C.J.,
authorized the plaintiffs to institute a class action on behalf
of any person domiciled in Canada who claims to be suffering or
to have suffered a reduction of bone mineral density as a result
of her or his use of DEPO-PROVERA.

Depo-Provera class action information is available online at:
http://www.recourscollectif.info.

For more information, contact:

          Daniel Belleau
          Belleau Lapointe
          306, Place d'Youville, Suite B-10
          Montreal, Quebec
          Canada H2Y 2B6
          Phone: 514-987-6680


PREMIERE GLOBAL: Parties Finalize Terms in "Gibson" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
All parties in the purported class action, "Gibson & Co. Ins.
Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The Quizno's Corp., et al.," including
defendant Premiere Global Services, Inc., have finalized a
confidential term sheet for the settlement of the case, which is
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to Premiere's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

On May 18, 2007, Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers served an amended
complaint upon Premiere Global Services and its subsidiary,
Xpedite Systems, LLC, in relation to the purported class action.
This is with regard to the court's earlier order granting
Quiznos' motion to file a third-party complaint to add Premiere
Global and Xpedite as defendants.  

The underlying complaint alleges that Quizno's sent unsolicited
facsimile advertisements on or about Nov. 1, 2005, in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended, and seeks damages of $1,500 per facsimile for alleged
willful conduct in sending of the faxes.

On June 26, 2007, Premiere Global answered the plaintiff's
amended complaint, including asserting cross-claims against the
Quizno's defendants.

On June 29, 2007, Quizno's defendants filed their answer and
asserted cross-claims against the company and Xpedite.  

On July 31, 2007, the court entered an order in which it granted
certain Quizno's defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the
motion with respect to other Quizno's entities.

On Sept. 7, 2007, the plaintiff proceeded to file another
amended complaint against the Quizno's defendants, Growth
Partners (Quizno's consultant), Xpedite, and the company.  

On Sept. 21, 2007, the company filed its answer and affirmative
defenses.  Certain Quizno's defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss, which was denied by the Court on Dec. 7, 2007.

Subsequently, Premiere filed cross-claims against the other
defendants, and the Quizno's defendants filed cross-claims
against Premiere.

The case is currently in discovery, and no class has yet been
certified.  

On Feb. 12-13, 2008, the parties engaged in mediation.  The
parties have reached a global settlement in principle that
should resolve all claims and have filed a stipulation with the
court informing the court and extending the various deadlines.

Pursuant to the court's order extending deadlines, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on April 1,
2008, and an opposition brief would have been due on May 19,
2008.

On May 9, 2008, all parties finalized a confidential term sheet
for the settlement.  The parties have agreed to extend all
deadlines by at least six weeks.  

The suit is "Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The
Quizno's Corp., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05849-PSG-PLA," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          C. Darryl Cordero, Esq. (cdc@paynefears.com)
          Payne and Fears
          660 South Figueroa, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-439-9911

Representing the defendants is:

          Nancy M. Barnes, Esq.
          Thompson Hine, LLP
          3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-566-5578


PROVIDENT BANK: New Md. Law Could Affect Recovery in "Bednar"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Governor of Maryland signed legislation that limits the
potential recovery of plaintiffs in a purported class action
lawsuit over the recapture of home equity loan closing costs
filed against Provident Bank of Maryland, a unit of Provident
Bankshares Corp., according to the Bank's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

In 2005, a lawsuit captioned, "Bednar v. Provident Bank of
Maryland," was initiated in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
(Maryland) by a former Bank customer.  

The suit is asserting that, upon early payoff, the Bank's
recapture of home equity loan closing costs initially paid by
the Bank on the borrower's behalf constituted a prepayment
charge prohibited by state law.

The Baltimore City Circuit Court ruled in the Bank's favor,
finding that the recapture of loan closing costs was not an
unlawful charge, a position consistent with that taken by the
State of Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation.

However, on appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed this
ruling and found in favor of the borrower.  The case was
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.  

The complaint is styled as a class action complaint.  However,
to date, no class has been certified.

On April 8, 2008, the Governor of Maryland signed legislation
that limits the potential recovery of Bank customers in the
Bednar litigation to the amount of closing costs recovered by
the Bank upon early payoff.  

The Bank reporter no further development in the matter in its
regulatory SEC disclosure.

Provident Bankshares Corp. -- http://web.provbank.com/-- is the   
bank holding company for Provident Bank, which serves
individuals and businesses through a network of banking offices
and automated teller machines in Maryland, Virginia, and
southern York County, Pennsylvania.  Related financial services
are offered through its wholly owned subsidiaries.  Securities
brokerage, investment management and related insurance services
are available through Provident Investment Company and leases
through Court Square Leasing.  


RYAN'S RESTAURANT: Faces Wage, Hour Violations Lawsuit in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan's Restaurant Group, which is owned by Buffets Holdings,
Inc., is facing a purported class action suit in West Virginia,
alleging wage and hour violations, according to Buffets
Holdings' May 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2008.

In June 2006, a lawsuit was filed in the Berkeley County (West
Virginia) circuit court on behalf of three plaintiffs alleging
wage and hour violations against Ryan's Restaurant Group, Inc.
and certain of its executives.  The complaint is a class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of hourly employees who worked for
Ryan's in West Virginia since July 2001.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, penalties, restitution
of unpaid wages and deductions, pre-judgment interest, costs of
suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.  The complaint does not
make a specific monetary demand.

In July 2006, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.  The
plaintiffs wanted to remand the matter back to West Virginia
state court, but their request was denied by the court.  

At the time of the Buffets Holdings' bankruptcy filing, the West
Virginia action was in preliminary stages and the company's
liability, if any, was undeterminable.

The matter represents a contested pre-petition claim that is
stayed pursuant to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Buffets Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.buffet.com/-- is the  
holding company of Buffets, Inc.  It owns and operates a chain
of restaurants in the U.S. under the names of Ryan's, Fire
Mountain, North's, Old Country Buffet, Country Buffet, HomeTown
Buffet, Granny's Buffet and Tahoe Joe's Famous Steakhouse.  The
Company operates primarily in the family dining segment.


SUN-TIMES MEDIA: Ill. Court Okays Settlement in Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
gave preliminary approval to the settlement of the purported
class action, "In re Hollinger International Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 04C-0834," and similar actions that were
initiated in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada, which
names Sun-Times Media Group, Inc., (formerly Hollinger
International, Inc.), as a defendant, according to Sun-Times'
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

In February and April 2004, the Teachers' Retirement System of
Louisiana, Kenneth Mozingo, and Washington Area Carpenters
Pension and Retirement Fund initiated purported class actions
against:

      -- the company;

      -- certain of the company's former executive officers and  
         former directors of the company;

      -- The Ravelston Corp. Ltd.;

      -- certain affiliated entities; and  

      -- KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered public  
         accounting firm.

The suit asserts claims under federal and Illinois securities
laws and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting in breaches of fiduciary duty (Class Action Reporter,
April 29, 2007).

On July 9, 2004, the court consolidated the three actions for
pretrial purposes.  The consolidated action is "In re Hollinger
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834," (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2006).

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint on Aug. 2, 2004, and a second consolidated amended
class action complaint on Nov. 19, 2004.  

The named plaintiffs in the second consolidated amended class
action complaint are Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana,
Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund, and E.
Dean Carlson.  They are purporting to sue on behalf of an
alleged class consisting of themselves and all other purchasers
of securities of the company between and including Aug. 13,
1999, and Dec. 11, 2002.  

The second consolidated amended class action complaint asserts
claims under federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting in breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with misleading disclosures and
omissions regarding: certain "non-competition" payments, the
payment of allegedly excessive management fees, allegedly
inflated circulation figures at the Chicago Sun-Times, and other
alleged misconduct.   

On Sept. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a third consolidated
amended class action complaint.  The new complaint adds an
additional named plaintiff, Cardinal Mid-Cap Value Equity
Partners, L.P., but is otherwise identical to the prior
complaint and asserts the same claims.  

On Oct. 27, 2006, the company moved to dismiss the third
consolidated amended class action complaint.  The company's
motion is pending.

On May 7, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted preliminary approval to a
settlement of the consolidated shareholder class action,
entitled, "In re Hollinger International Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 04C-0834," and similar actions that were
initiated in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada.

The settlement still requires preliminary approval in each of
the Canadian jurisdictions, and final approval in the U.S.
District Court and each of the Canadian courts.

The suit is "In Re: Hollinger Int'l Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-00834," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge David H. Coar, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq. (cgilden@cmht.com)
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          190 S. LaSalle Street
          Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-357-0370
          Fax: 312-357-0369

Representing the defendants are:

          Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. (neimer@eimerstahl.com)
          Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP
          224 South Michigan Avenue
          Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: 312-660-7600

          James R. Figliulo, Esq. (jfigliulo@fslegal.com)
          Figliulo & Silverman
          Ten South LaSalle Street
          Suite 3600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-251-4600

               - and -

          David C. Jacobson, Esq. (djacobson@sonnenschein.com)
          Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive
          Sears Tower
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-876-8000


T-MOBILE USA: Faces Calif. Suit Over Falsely Promised Rebates
-------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA is facing a class-action complaint filed before the  
Superior Court in Los Angeles accusing it of cheating customers
by falsely promising rebates, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint states that if customers buy a Razr phone through
its Web site, it then pulls a "bait and switch" and denies the
rebate by sending a rebate form with restrictions that
contradict the promises made online.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Daniel Warshaw, Esq.
          Pearson, Simon, Soter
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, California 91403
          Phone: 818-788-8300  
          Fax: 818-788-8104
          Web site: http://www.psswplaw.com/


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CREDIT SUISSE: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 30, 2008, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action suit
against Credit Suisse Group and certain officers and directors
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The action is on behalf of those purchasing Credit Suisse ADRs
during the period beginning February 15, 2007, and through
February 19, 2008, inclusive, for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the Company's
investment banking operations and that, as a result, the price
of the Company's ADRs was inflated during the Class Period,
thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Credit
Suisse issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's risk profile and financial results.
Among other things, Defendants concealed the Company's failure
to write down impaired collateralized debt obligations and
mortgage-backed securities.  As a result of defendants' false
statements and omissions, Credit Suisse ADRs traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On November 1, 2007, the Company stunned investors when it
reported its third quarter net income fell 31% to CHF1.3 billion
(Swiss francs), or $1.1 billion, attributing the loss to
"extreme market conditions" and credit market swings that caused
write downs of $1.9 billion.

Then, on February 19, 2008, the Company announced that it was
taking another $2.85 billion charge because it failed to
properly value certain complex debt securities.  During this
time frame, Credit Suisse ADRs declined sharply from $67.70 to
$48.22, or 28.8%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 20,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          108 Norwich Avenue
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: 800-404-7770
                 860-537-5537
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Brower Piven Commences Mass. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for District
of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
The First Marblehead Corporation between August 10, 2006, and
April 7, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
Company, and certain of its officers and directors, violated
federal securities laws by withholding material facts from the
investing public, including: that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls to anticipate and address its
increasing default rates which affected performance because loan
guarantor arrangements failed to cover sufficient defaulted
loans.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the foregoing and
other factors, Company statements about its financial well-being
and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
basis when made.  Thereafter, the price of First Marblehead
shares declined.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com


MGIC INVESTMENT: Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Wis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of MGIC
Investment Corporation common stock during the period between
October 12, 2006, and February 12, 2008.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
Company, and certain of its officers and directors, violated
federal securities laws by withholding material facts from the
investing public, including: that the Company's investment in
Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC (C-BASS) was
materially impaired from increasing margin calls and rapidly
declining value; that the Company was materially overstating its
financial results by failing to properly value its investment in
C-BASS in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;
and that the Company's loss and default exposure was far greater
than previously disclosed.

On February 13, 2008, MGIC announced its fourth quarter 2007
results reporting a net loss for the quarter of $1.47 billion,
including an after-tax charge of $33 million related to equity
losses incurred by C-BASS.  After this announcement, MGIC's
stock traded at the lowest price it had traded in over 13 years.

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

For more information, contact:

          Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Director of Shareholder Relations
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006,
          Phone: 877-495-1877
                 212-952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


NEXCEN BRANDS: Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. commenced a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of those investors who acquired the
securities of NexCen Brands, Inc. (NEXC), between May 10, 2007,
and May 19, 2008.

During the class period, defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented
and failed to disclose:

     (i) that the NexCen Brands, Inc. was able to finance a
         portion of the 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;

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

   (iii) that the Company had no reasonable basis for its
         earnings guidance for fiscal 2008; and

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

Then, on May 19, 2008, the Company announced that it "expects to
amend the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2007."

The Company also stated that its prior financial guidance for
2008 "is no longer applicable."  Moreover, the Company revealed
that it "is actively exploring all strategic alternatives to
enhance its liquidity, including potential capital market
transactions, the possible sale of one or more of its
businesses, and discussions with the company's lender."

Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $1.95 per
share, or 77%, to close at $0.58 per share, on heavy trading
volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Director of Shareholder Relations
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006,
          Phone: 877-495-1877
                 212-952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


RAYMOND JAMES: Stull & Brody Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Auction
Rate Securities from Raymond James Financial Inc., Raymond James
& Associates, Inc., and Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.,
between April 8, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive, who
continued to hold those securities as of February 13, 2008.

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

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

Raymond James offered and sold Auction Rate Securities to the
public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles that are
suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds.

A decision of all major broker-dealers on February 13, 2008 to
"withdraw their support" for the periodic auctions at which the
interest rates paid on Auction Rate Securities are set is
alleged to have impacted the ability of holders of Auction Rate
Securities to liquidate their positions in these securities.

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

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

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

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

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Wis. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP has filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of TomoTherapy
Inc. common stock during the period between February 13, 2008,
and April 17, 2008.

The complaint charges TomoTherapy and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

TomoTherapy develops, markets, and sells the Hi-Art system, a
radiation therapy system for the treatment of various types of
cancers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding TomoTherapy's revenues and net income.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that on February 13, 2008, the Company
reported that for fiscal 2008 it "anticipates revenue of $290
million to $310 million and net income per share in the range of
$0.34 to $0.39 per diluted share."  Moreover, the Company touted
a strong second half 2008 due to "strong order flow in the
second half of 2007 and the projected timing of customers'
construction projects."

Unbeknownst to shareholders, defendants knew, or should have
known, that a greater percentage of TomoTherapy's backlogged
orders were for multi-unit Hi-Art Systems ordered by for-profit
entities who had scheduled delivery of the units sequentially.
As a result of this delivery schedule, these units would remain
in backlog longer than single-unit orders and delivery would be
pushed further back in 2008 and even into 2009.  Therefore,
TomoTherapy had no reasonable basis for its revenue and net
income projections for fiscal 2008 because the Company would not
be able to recognize revenue for these multi-unit Hi-Art Systems
until late 2008 or 2009.

Then, on April 17, 2008, the Company announced its estimated
2008 first-quarter results and revised its fiscal 2008 outlook.
Specifically, the Company estimated that 2008 revenues would be
in the range of $255 million to $290 million and 2008 net income
would be in the range of $0.14 to $0.33 per diluted share.
Moreover, the Company reported that it received fewer new sales
orders in Europe and that it had to hire a new Managing Director
for European and Middle East operations in April 2008.

Upon this news, on April 17, 2008, the price of TomoTherapy
common stock dropped 32%, to close at $9.10 per share, on
extraordinary trading volume in excess of eight million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of TomoTherapy common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Bernard Gross Files Wis. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of
Wisconsin, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
TomoTherapy, Inc., between February 13, 2008, and April 17,
2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges TOMO and its Chief Executive Officer with
violations of the Federal Securities Laws.

TOMO develops, markets and sells the Hi-Art system, is a
radiation therapy system for the treatment of various types of
cancer.

As alleged in the complaint, defendants concealed in their
February Press Release that:

     (a) a larger percentage of TOMO's revenue backlog at
         December 31, 2007 and TOMO's new orders received
         through February 12, 2008 were from for-profit entities
         which had ordered multi-unit Hi-Art Systems and had
         scheduled deliveries of the multi-units sequentially
         throughout 2008 and 2009;

     (b) the average selling prices were lower in Q1'08 by
         approximately 11% than they had been in Q1'07 because
         Q1'07 sales included a large number of European sales
         denominated in Euros;

     (c) new sales orders from Europe had slowed in Q1'08
         through February 12, 2008 and TOMO was experiencing a
         serious delay in closing European orders;

     (d) TOMO's gross margins in Q1'08 were and would continue
         to be approximately 20% lower than they had been in
         Q1'07; and

     (e) TOMO's revenues in Q1'08 would be substantially lower
         and would not show increased growth from either Q1'07
         or Q4'07 and that TOMO would suffer a loss in Q1'08.

Shortly after the February Release, director Neis sold
approximately 917,621 shares of TOMO common stock during
February 26, 2008 through March 14, 2008.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased the common stock of TomoTherapy between February 13,
2008, and April 17, 2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 29,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building
          100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 866-561-3600


TRM CORP: Brualdi Law Firm Files Oregon Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court of Oregon
on behalf of purchasers of TRM Corporation common stock during
the period between Mar 16, 2006, through May 22, 2007.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued positive statements about the Company's
financial health and performance.  As alleged in the complaint,
these statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose:

     (a) that the Company's financial results were artificially
         inflated due to the failure to timely write down
         certain assets, which were materially overvalued in the
         Company's financial statements;

     (b) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         procedures necessary to ascertain its true financial
         condition and worth; and

     (c) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to
         continue its operations and remain a going-concern was
         in serious doubt.

At the end of the Class Period, the Company provided investors
with details about the progress of its restructuring plan and
announced new management positions.  Following this disclosure,
shares of the Company's stock declined dramatically.

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

For more information, contact:

          Tali Leger (tleger@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Director of Shareholder Relations
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006,
          Phone: 877-495-1877
                 212-952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.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  * * *