CAR_Public/080604.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 110
  
                            Headlines

ACTIVISION INC: June 30 Hearing Set for Vivendi Deal Lawsuit
ACXIOM CORP: Parties in Fla. DPPA Suit Agree to Stay Proceedings
ALBERTSONS: Suit Alleges Sale of Pharmacy Info to Data Miners
AT&T INC: Reaches Settlement in Third Party Mobile Content Suit
BROCADE COMMS: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit for $160MM

CANADIAN EDUCATION MINISTER: $30M Deal Claimants May File Online
CME GROUP: Faces Suits Over Proposed Purchase of NYMEX Holdings
DONA ANA COUNTY: Judge Approves $5.3MM Deal in Strip-Search Suit
DREW INDUSTRIES: Dismissed as Defendant in "Better Bath" Lawsuit
DREW INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Approves Toy Hauler Trailers Deal

DRS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces N.J. Suit Over Finmeccanica Transaction
EMERY WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face WARN Violations Suit in Ohio
FOREST LABORATORIES: No Trial Date Yet for N.Y. Securities Suit
FOREST LABORATORIES: D.C. Court Considers Appeal in Tiazac Suit
GOOGLE INC: Summary Judgment in Calif. Ad Program Lawsuit Denied

HARTFORD FIRE: Class Action Status Upheld in Auto Body Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Settles Securities Suit for $20 Million
MASSACHUSETTS: Deal Reached for Persons with Brain Injuries
MCKESSON HBOC: Initial Distribution of Net Settlement Funds Out
MODINE MANUFACTURING: Reaches Settlement in "Gates" Litigation  

NICOR GAS: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over Alleged Fraudulent Bills
ONLINE TRAVEL COS: Houston Sues Over Occupancy Tax Money
SEARS HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Suit
SEARS HOLDINGS: Ill. Court Denies Appeal Petition in "Fischer"
SEARS HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery Ongoing in "Levie" Litigation

SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in California
SEARS ROEBUCK: Ill. Court Gives Final OK to $15.5-Mln Settlement
TIDEWATER INC: California Wage, Hour Violations Lawsuit Settled
TRIARC COS: Faces Ohio Litigation Over Wendy's Merger Agreement
TRIPLE-S INC: Fla. Court Approves Settlement in "Thomas" Matter

TYSON FOODS: Withdraws Raised-Without-Antibiotics Chicken Label
VAN KAMPEN: Court Refuses to Dismiss 2003 Mutual Funds Lawsuit
ZUMIEZ INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Wash.
ZUMIEZ INC: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Schatz Nobel Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
NEXCEN BRANDS: Holzer & Fistel Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Roy Jacobs Commences Wisconsin Securities Suit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ACTIVISION INC: June 30 Hearing Set for Vivendi Deal Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A June 30, 2008 hearing was set for a purported class action
suit against Activision, Inc., challenging the transactions
contemplated by a business combination agreement, dated as of
Dec. 1, 2007, among Activision; Vivendi, S.A.; Vivendi Games,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivendi; and VGAC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Vivendi and the sole stockholder of Vivendi
Games.

On Feb. 8, 2008, the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System
filed the lawsuit as a putative class action against the parties
to that business combination agreement as well as certain
members of the company's board of directors.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that certain of
Activision's directors failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties
with regard to the transactions by "surrendering" the
negotiating process to "conflicted management," that those
breaches were aided and abetted by Vivendi and those of its
subsidiaries named in the complaint, and that a preliminary
proxy statement contains certain statements that the plaintiff
alleges are false and misleading.

The suit seeks a ruling from the court that, among other things,
certifies the case as a class action, enjoins the transaction,
requires the defendants to disclose all material information,
declares that the transaction is in breach of the directors'
fiduciary duties and therefore unlawful and unenforceable,
awards the plaintiff and the putative class damages for all
profits and special benefits obtained by the defendant in
connection with the transaction and tender offer, and awards the
plaintiff its cost and expense, including attorney's fees.

In a ruling on March 12, 2008, the court initially declined to
schedule a preliminary injunction hearing or allow broad
discovery, pending the company's filing of a revised preliminary
proxy statement in connection with the proposed transactions.

The court did order the parties to initiate discovery of core
documents, and the company made an initial production of
documents.

Moreover, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on  
grounds that were detailed in a brief filed on April 30, 2008.
The company also filed a motion to stay discovery in the case
pending a ruling on its dismissal motion.

Separately, Vivendi and its defendant-subsidiaries also
requested the court to dismiss the sole claim alleged against
them.

On May 8, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
allegations related to a revised preliminary proxy statement
filed by the company on April 30, 2008.  That same date, the
plaintiff also renewed its motion for expedited proceedings.

The company as well as the Vivendi entities also moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.  

The court then scheduled a combined hearing for June 30, 2008,
in connection with the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction and the defendants' dismissal motions.

On May 28, 2008, the court ordered that expedited discovery
proceed as to certain claims and that final briefing on the
motions to be heard on June 30 be filed with the court theree
days prior, according to the company's May 30, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

Activision, Inc. -- http://www.activision.com/-- is an  
international publisher of interactive entertainment software
products.  During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, the
Company's product portfolio included products, such as Call of
Duty 3, Guitar Hero II, Tony Hawk’s Project 8, Tony Hawk’s
Downhill Jam, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, Over the Hedge, and X-
Men: The Official Game.  The Company's products cover game
categories, including action/adventure, action sports, racing,
role-playing, simulation, first-person action and strategy. The
Company operates in two business segments: publishing and
distribution.  


ACXIOM CORP: Parties in Fla. DPPA Suit Agree to Stay Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties to a purported class action suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
Acxiom Corp. and several other information providers, alleging
violations of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, have agreed  
to stay the proceedings in the matter while mediation is
conducted under the purview of the Court.

The suit, "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct,   
Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," was originally filed with the
state court, but was later removed to federal court in May 2003.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and used
driver's license data in violation of the federal Drivers
Privacy Protection Act.  

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, and   
attorneys' fees.  To date, a class has not been certified.

Acxiom has made an informal offer to settle the case and has
accrued $4.0 million for the offer of settlement and possible
expenses associated with the notice and claims administration
process.  

The parties have agreed to stay the proceedings while mediation
is conducted under the purview of the Court, according to the
company's May 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2008.

The suit is "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data
Direct, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Jose
E. Martinez, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. (ta@aronovitzlaw.com)
         Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
         150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower
         Miami, FL 33130
         Phone: 305-372-2772
         Fax: 305-375-0243

         Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
         James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich
         3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200
         Tallahassee, FL 32308
         Phone: 850-325-2680
         Fax: 850-325-2681

         Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq.
         (lgoodman@devinegoodman.com)
         Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells
         777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-374-8200
         Fax: 305-374-8208

              - and -

         James Kellogg Green, Esq. (jameskgreen@bellsouth.net)
         222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650 Esperante
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401
         Phone: 561-659-2029
         Fax: 561-655-1357


ALBERTSONS: Suit Alleges Sale of Pharmacy Info to Data Miners
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Albertson's Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleging
that the grocery chain and Cerberus Capital Management violated
customers' medical privacy by selling information about the
prescription drugs they buy at Albertson's cooperating drug
stores -- including Sav-On and Osco Drugs -- so pharmaceutical
companies and data-miners can track doctors' prescription
writing practices, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action seeks to curtail defendants' practice in California
of selling, without patient consent, authorization or disclosure
to Albertson's Pharmacy patients, their prescription information
shared by the patient with an Albertson's Pharmacy pharmacist
solely for the purpose of having his/her prescription filled in
accordance with his/her doctor's (or other care givers)
prescription.

According to the complaint, "Defendants' use of a patient's
prescription drug information -- without the patient's
authorization, knowledge or consent -- is part of the marketing
campaign undertaken by pharmaceutical companies that use the
resulting information to increase prescription drugs sales of
their drug products."

Pharmaceutical companies pay the data mining firms for patient
prescription information in order to increase the sale of their
drugs. Defendants sell Plaintiff and the Class members'
prescription drug information in order to allow the data mining
firms and, in turn, their pharmaceutical company clients to
identify the prescription writing habits of doctors (or other
care givers) and thereby enhance the pharmaceutical industries'
marketing effectiveness in using huge cadres of representatives,
called 'detail men' or 'detail women' who confront doctors at
their places of business armed with the resulting prescription
writing profile information and, invariably, use that
information to reinforce prescription writing habits or alter
their prescription writing regimen.

The complaint claims, "Defendants thus enter into contracts with
data mining companies that pay them for the patient prescription
drug information contained in patient prescriptions that have
been entrusted to their retail pharmacies for the purpose, and
only the purpose, of filling a patient's prescription.

"A lucrative market exists for the data identifying the
prescribing practices of individual health care providers --
called 'prescription-identifiable data'.  Defendants acquire
prescription data in the ordinary course of their pharmacy
business.  Data mining companies -- such as IMS and Verispan --
purchase the prescription data from Defendants and have the
information identifying individual patients removed before
transmission by the data mining company to its pharmaceutical
company clients after combining the remaining information with
data allowing easy identification by the pharmaceutical company
of the doctor prescriber.  In selling the resulting data to
purchasers, the data miners' biggest clients by far are large
pharmaceutical companies that use the data to develop marketing
plans targeted to specific prescribers. . . .

"At each Albertsons Pharmacy location, including those located
in California, the patient's prescription data is ultimately
aggregated with data from other outlets and stored in a central
database maintained, operated and controlled by the Defendants,"
the complaint states.

The complaint notes the pharmacies affiliated with Albertsons
include Albertsons, Sav-On Drugs, and Osco Drugs or Jewel-Osco
Drugs.

Named plaintiff Raymond London brings this representative action
on behalf of all California residents who, as of the date of the
commencement of this action and within the applicable
limitations periods, filled a prescription at or by an
Albertson's, Sav-on Drug, Osco Drug, or Jewel Osco pharmacy and
had their prescriptions information commercially sold, shared,
or otherwise used by a database mining company that paid
defendants for such unauthorized disclosure.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants are liable for their activities in
         accordance with the CMIA and the amount of statutory
         damage thus owing;

     (b) whether defendants are liable for violating privacy
         rights including informational privacy and the amount
         of damages;

     (c) whether defendants breached their implied-in-fact
         contract with their pharmacy patients;

     (d) whether defendants are liable for false and misleading
         advertising based on their communications and course of
         dealing with Albertson's Pharmacy patients;

     (e) whether defendants' activities in selling a patient in
         selling a patient's prescription drug information is a
         violation of California law and operates as a fraud
         or deceit on the class, and is susceptible to class
         treatment and, if so, the liability of defendants;

     (f) whether defendants were obligated to but failed to act
         as a quasi-fiduciary to members of the class;

     (g) whether defendants are liable for suppression of fact
         to plaintiff London and the class;

     (h) whether defendants are have acted in breach of the
         implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

     (i) the nature and extent of damages, equitable and other
         remedies to which plaintiff London and the other
         members of the class are entitled; and

     (j) have the defendants been unjustly enriched and, if so,
         the damages owed as a result.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

      -- all declaratory and equitable relief reasonably
         available including enjoining defendants from the
         further sale of prescription medical data and
         information;

      -- an order certifying a class deemed appropriate
         relative to the above causes of action;

      -- an order requiring that defendants disgorge the full
         monetary benefit received as a result of any act or
         practice declared by the court to be an unlawful,
         misleading, deceptive or unfair business act or
         practice;

      -- compensatory damages as permitted under the CLRA in an
         amount to be proven at trial, including any other
         damages as permitted under the CMIA;

      -- compensatory and statutory damages as permitted under
         the CMIA;

      -- treble damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 3345;

      -- pre- and post-judgment interest;

      -- attorneys fees pursuant to, inter alia, the private
         Attorney General doctrine and Cal. Code Civ. Proc.
         Section 1021.5 as may be appropriate, and for all costs
         of suit incurred; and

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

The suit is "Raymond W. London et al. v. New Albertson's Inc. et
al., Case No. 37-2008-00084792-CU-MC-CTL," filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          William R. Restis, Esq.
          Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3579


AT&T INC: Reaches Settlement in Third Party Mobile Content Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached with AT&T in a class action
litigation involving claims that third-party mobile content
providers have placed unauthorized charges on the cell phone
bills of customers throughout the country.

The settlement, which was preliminarily approved by a Georgia
court, entitles AT&T Mobility customers to receive refunds of
unauthorized charges.

Third party mobile content refers to products such as ringtones,
games, graphics and news or other alerts that generally are
purchased over the internet and are charged directly to
customers' cell phone bills.  Although these products were not
available in the United States as recently as five years ago,
they have evolved to form a large and increasingly important
industry.  The lawsuits alleged that there were not adequate
safeguards in place to ensure that customers are only billed for
services they agreed to purchase.

This is the first nationwide settlement of its kind and promises
to serve as a benchmark for the mobile content industry more
generally.  Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile face similar lawsuits.

Attorneys Jay Edelson, Esq., Myles McGuire, Esq., and Scott A.
Kamber, Esq., of KamberEdelson, LLC, were appointed by the Court
to serve as the co-lead attorneys for the class.

"Most defendants who are sued tell us that their primary goal is
to protect their customers," explained Mr. Edelson.  "By
agreeing to provide this type of unprecedented relief, AT&T
proves that it stands behind its words.  This is both a great
result for the class and should put a lot of pressure on other
carriers to demonstrate that they, too, are serious about their
customers' welfare."

The settlement involves over a dozen lawsuits that were filed
throughout the country.  After preliminary negotiations, the
parties mediated with the assistance of respected mediator
Rodney Max of Upchurch Watson White & Max Mediation Group, who
helped the parties reach a settlement.

Third Party Mobile Content Litigation online:
http://www.thirdpartycontentrefund.com

Based in San Antonio, AT&T Inc. offers telecommunication
services in the United States and internationally.


BROCADE COMMS: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit for $160MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP, one of the nation's leading
plaintiffs law firms, has reached a $160-million settlement on
behalf of the class and its client, the Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, in the Brocade Securities
Litigation, a securities fraud class action regarding the
backdating of stock options.

This settlement is the largest to date in an options backdating
class action.  It is also believed to be one of the largest
settlements in a securities fraud case in terms of the ratio of
settlement amount to actual investor damages.

The case was filed in May 2005 against Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc., a technology firm based in San Jose, California,
and several of the company's officers and directors.  The
settlement follows three years of hard-fought litigation in
federal court in San Francisco.

"This is an outstanding recovery," said Gail Stone, executive
director of APERS, the lead plaintiff.  "A recent study showed
that most securities fraud class actions settle for less than 10
percent of investor losses.  Our $160 million settlement is the
largest backdating settlement to date but, more importantly, it
is close to a 100 percent recovery of the class's total
damages."

Sue Weber, controller for the Erie County (PA) Employees
Retirement System, the co-class representative, added, "We are
thrilled with the result that has been achieved."

"Recovering such a large percentage of actual damages is unheard
of, but after we won summary judgment on liability, the only
other option for the defendants was to face a trial," said Brad
Beckworth, Esq., counsel for the class and a partner with Nix,
Patterson & Roach.  "This settlement shows just how important it
is to have thoughtful and determined institutional investors,
like APERS, fighting to maximize recoveries in securities fraud
cases."

The Brocade Securities Litigation was one of the first
securities fraud cases involving allegations of stock option
backdating and was the subject of a Pulitzer Prize-winning
article in The Wall Street Journal.  APERS alleged that former
Brocade CEO Greg Reyes, former CFO Antonio Canova, and several
former directors, including prominent Silicon Valley attorney
Larry Sonsini, Esq., committed securities fraud when the company
failed to disclose millions of stock options with improperly
altered grant dates.  As the case progressed, APERS won summary
judgment on the issue of liability against Brocade and
Mr. Reyes, unprecedented in securities fraud class actions.

While APERS and Nix, Patterson & Roach were conducting discovery
and preparing for trial, Brocade attempted to settle a parallel
derivative case against several third parties.  Although APERS
was not a party in that litigation, it joined together with the
Puerto Rico Government Employees Retirement System to object to
the settlement, claiming it was the result of improper collusion
among Brocade, Mr. Sonsini, and the company's outside law firm,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC.  As a result of this
objection, the parties withdrew the derivative settlement and
Brocade was forced to appoint a special litigation committee and
hire independent counsel.

Brocade has settled a civil case with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for $7 million, and the SEC still has cases
pending against Messrs. Reyes and Canova, as well as Stephanie
Jensen, the company's former vice president of human resources.

In 2007, Mr. Reyes and Ms. Jensen were convicted on multiple
counts in separate criminal trials and sentenced to time in
prison.
    
The settlement is subject to final approval by the court, and
formal notice of the settlement will be issued at a later date.

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., provides networked storage
solutions that help organizations connect, share, and manage
their information.

This suit is "Brocade Securities Litigation, Consolidated Case
No. 3:05-CV-02042-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

For more information, contact:

          Eric Wetzel, Esq.
          Nix, Patterson & Roach
          Phone: 512-474-7514


CANADIAN EDUCATION MINISTER: $30M Deal Claimants May File Online
----------------------------------------------------------------
Winning a $30 million class-action suit against the Minister of
Education took the Montreal boutique law firm Sternthal
Katznelson Montigny almost 10 years and a trip to the Supreme
Court of Canada.  But the money-recovery process is going to be
as easy as the click of a mouse for the 80,000 former Quebec
CEGEP and university students who are potential claimants.

Starting today, claimants will be able to go onto the Minister's
Web site -- http://www.afe.gouv.qc.ca-- to file their claim.   
No documents or paperwork will be required when filing -- the
amount of money the claimant is owed will be calculated
automatically and, if the claimant accepts, the cheque will be
in the mailbox in less than a week.

"To my knowledge, this is the first time in Quebec that a class-
action recovery process for that large a body of claimants is
being done strictly online," said Guy St-Germain, a partner with
Sternthal Katznelson Montigny which successfully litigated the
class action.  "This is as streamlined a process as any I have
seen."

The class-action recovery follows a favorable ruling by the
Supreme Court of Canada in a case involving the Minister of
Education's illegal charging of interest on loans contracted by
CEGEP and university students prior to April 30, 1998.  Mr. St-
Germain says that the average payment to a qualifying claimant
will be approximately $375, although it will vary depending on
the amount of the loan and the resulting interest overcharge.

Harry Dikranian, a McGill law graduate affected by the illegal
charge, initiated the class action in 1999.  The SKM legal team,
which included Mr. St-Germain and SKM litigation partner Leon
Greenberg, argued the case.  It was a bit of a departure for the
boutique law firm that normally specializes in corporate,
commercial law and litigation for small and medium size
businesses.

Under the terms of the recovery, the Minister today began
mailing out personal notices explaining the claim process to
every class-action member using government database resources to
determine the last-known address of each potential claimant.
There will also be newspaper notices published on June 7.

"Historically, when a claims process is too complicated, people
tend to give up and not be bothered," said Mr. St-Germain.  "In
this particular instance, all the claimant has to do is register
on the Minister's website and confirm his or her claim."

Since the class action judgment was handed down two years ago,
the SKM legal team has been as relentless in its pursuit of a
streamlined recovery process as it was in winning the class
action.

Mr. St-Germain explained that a third party administrator or the
court normally manages the class-action recovery process.
Although SKM's lawyers had proposed a third party administrator
-- given that the Court would have had difficulty dealing with
such a large number of claimants -- the Minister subsequently
sought the right to handle the claims process itself, which the
Court allowed.

"Winning the class action was satisfying from a legal point of
view," remarked Mr. St-Germain.  "However, our real goal is to
get full recovery of the money for the former students.  A
complicated recovery procedure is often the downfall of a class
action."

Is Mr. St-Germain prepared to venture a guess as to how many
eligible claimants will avail themselves of this streamlined
recovery process?

"Obviously, we are aiming for 100%," he replied.  "Even though
the addresses have been updated, we have no clue how effective
the government-administered recovery process will prove to be or
how difficult it will be to reach everyone, especially those who
have moved outside Quebec.  We're hoping people who know about
it -- such as family or friends of potential claimants or
perhaps former classmates -- will pass the word on to them."

In addition to the government website and SKM's Web site –
http://www.skm.ca/-- there is also a Facebook group created to  
keep members informed.  The government also has a toll free
telephone line at 866-584-3979.

For more information, contact:

          Sternthal Katznelson Montigny
          Toll-free: 877-878-9040
          e-mail: classaction@skm.ca


CME GROUP: Faces Suits Over Proposed Purchase of NYMEX Holdings
---------------------------------------------------------------
CME Group, Inc., is facing purported class action lawsuits filed
before the Delaware Court of Chancery in connection with the
proposed sale of NYMEX Holdings, Inc., to the company, according
to CME Group's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 21, 2008.

Specifically, on March 17, 2008, Cataldo J. Capozza filed a
putative class action complaint against NYMEX Holdings, the
NYMEX Holdings board of directors, and CME Group.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that NYMEX Holdings
and its board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the merger agreement by failing to take steps to
maximize the value of NYMEX Holdings to its public shareholders,
failing to properly value NYMEX Holdings and taking steps to
avoid competitive bidding, to cap the price of NYMEX Holdings'
common stock and to give CME Group an unfair advantage by
failing to solicit other potential buyers or alternative
transactions.

The complaint further alleges that CME Group aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On April 14, 2008, Polly Winters filed a putative class action
complaint, also in the Delaware Court of Chancery, against NYMEX
Holdings, the NYMEX Holdings board of directors and CME Group.

On April 15, 2008, Joan Haedrich also filed a similar putative
class action complaint against the same defendants.

The allegations of the Winters and Haedrich complaints are, in
substance, the same as those asserted in the Capozza complaint.

The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger.

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

CME Group Inc. -- http://www.cmegroup.com/-- formerly Chicago  
Mercantile Exchange Holdings Inc., offers a range of products
available across all asset classes, including futures and
options on futures based on interest rates, equity indexes,
foreign exchange, agricultural commodities and alternative
investments, such as weather and real estate.  The Company is
the holding company for Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., Board
of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., and their subsidiaries.  


DONA ANA COUNTY: Judge Approves $5.3MM Deal in Strip-Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson approved on a final basis
the $5.3-million settlement of a class-action lawsuit that
charged illegal strip searches were routinely conducted at the
Dona Ana County Detention Center, Jose L. Medina writes for Las
Cruces Sun-News.

The report relates that the county settled the lawsuit in 2007
but did not admit wrongdoing, though the jail's strip search
policy has since been revised.  According to court filings, the
detention center's strip-search policy has been modified so that
pre-arraignment detainees "charged with offenses not involving
violence, drugs or weapons will not be strip searched upon
admission without reasonable suspicion that a strip search would
be productive of contraband or weapons."

Judge Johnson ruled that the settlement was "fair, reasonable
and adequate" during an hour-long hearing in Las Cruces, New
Mexico.

Under the agreement, hundreds of former detention center inmates
booked into the jail from March 7, 2003, to March 7, 2006, would
be eligible for payments ranging from $750 to $2,400.  The exact
amount depends on how many of the 4,400 claims filed thus far
are verified as valid.

The deadline to file a claim is 30 days from the May 12
approval.  Those wishing to file a claim can find more
information on the Web at http://www.liravdonaanacounty.com/ It  
is expected that checks will be sent by the end of the year,
John Bienvenu, Esq., the Santa Fe-based attorney for the
plaintiffs, said.

The settlement includes $1.6 million for the team of attorneys
for the plaintiffs and $25,000 each for the eight plaintiffs
specifically named in the lawsuit.

Mr. Bienvenu said that attorneys were pleased with the court's
final approval of the deal, and were also pleased that the
detention center is "no longer engaging in unconstitutional
strip-search policies."

Raul Carrillo, Esq., attorney for the county, deferred comment
to county spokesman Jess Williams, who said that the ruling
"brings this matter to an end and the full amount of the
settlement was approved with the consent of our insurance
carrier."

Sun-News recounts that the lawsuit was filed in March 2006 and a
"hotly contested" legal battle followed before the suit was
settled in August 2007.

Though strip searches are lawful in some cases, the lawsuit
argued that the detention center for years engaged in a policy
of strip searching most inmates who are booked into the jail, in
violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures, the Eighth Amendment right
to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and the 14th
Amendment right to due process.  Other courts have ruled that
such searches are allowed only when reasonable suspicion exists
that a person might be attempting to smuggle contraband or
weapons.

Seven of the eight named plaintiffs were strip-searched
following arrests for either drunken driving or failure to pay
traffic fines, the report further recalls.


DREW INDUSTRIES: Dismissed as Defendant in "Better Bath" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed Drew Industries, Inc., as one of the defendants in a
suit alleging that certain bathtubs sold under the name "Better
Bath" fail to comply with certain fire spread control standards,
according to Drew Industries' May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2008.

On or about Jan. 3, 2007, a complaint, entitled "Gonzalez vs.
Drew Industries Inc., Kinro, Inc., Kinro TexasLimited
Partnership d/b/a Better Bath Components; Skyline Corporation,
and Skylines Homes, Inc. (Case No. CV06-08233)," was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,

The case purports to be a class action on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all others similarly situated.

The plaintiff alleges that certain bathtubs manufactured by
Kinro Texas Limited Partnership, a subsidiary of Kinro, Inc.,
(itself a wholly owned active subsidiary of Drew Industries,
Inc.) and sold under the name "Better Bath" for use in
manufactured homes, fail to comply with certain safety standards
relating to fire spread control established by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The plaintiff alleges that sale of these products is in
violation of various provisions of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act (Sec. 1770 et seq.), the Magnuson- Moss
Warranty Act (Sec. 2301 et seq.), and the California Song-
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Sec. 1790 et seq.).

The suit seeks to require the defendants to notify members of
the class of the allegations in the proceeding and the claims
made to repair or replace the allegedly defective products; to
reimburse members of the class for repair, replacement and
consequential costs; to cease the sale and distribution of the
allegedly defective products; and to pay actual and punitive
damages and plaintiffs' attorneys fees.

In October 2007, the parties participated in voluntary non-
binding mediation in an effort to reach a settlement.  

Kinro offered a settlement deal consistent with its belief
regarding the merits of the plaintiff's allegations.  

Although no settlement was reached, the parties have since had
intermittent discussions.  The outcome of such settlement
efforts cannot be predicted, Drew Industries said.

On Jan. 29, 2008, the Court issued an order denying
certification of a class with the named plaintiff as class
representative.  The Court ruled that the named plaintiff,
Gonzalez, may not be an appropriate class representative for
injunctive relief because her bathtub had been replaced.  

The Court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to
add a different plaintiff.  

The Court also denied, without prejudice, Kinro's motion for
sanctions based on spoliation of evidence because testing the
bathtub of the new plaintiff may affect the ruling on the
motion.

On March 10, 2008, the plaintiff amended her complaint to
include an additional plaintiff, Robert Royalty, who states that
his bathtub was not tested to determine whether it complies with
HUD standards.

Mr. Royalty's allegations are based on "information and belief,'
including the testing of plaintiff Gonzalez's bathtub and other
evidence.

Kinro denies Mr. Royalty's allegations, and intends to continue
its vigorous defense against both plaintiffs' claims.

On April 1 2008, the Court issued an order granting Drew's
motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.  
This decision resulted in the dismissal of Drew Industries as
one of the defendants in the case.

Drew Industries Inc. -- http://www.drewindustries.com/--
manufactures and markets components primarily for recreational
vehicles and manufactured homes.  The Company has two reportable
operating segments: the recreational vehicle products segment,
and the manufactured housing products segment.  Its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Kinro, Inc,. and its subsidiaries, and Lippert
Components, Inc., and its subsidiaries, each have operations in
both the RV Segment and the MH Segment.  Kinro manufactures and
markets components primarily for RVs and manufactured homes,
including windows, doors and screens, and thermoformed bath and
kitchen products.  It manufactures and markets components
primarily for RVs and manufactured homes, including steel
chassis, steel chassis parts, RV slide-out mechanisms and
related power units, electric stabilizer jacks, levelling
devices, bed lifts, suspension systems, ramp doors, axles and
steps.


DREW INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Approves Toy Hauler Trailers Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento, gave final approval to a proposed settlement in two
purported class action suits filed against Drew Industries,
Inc.'s indirect subsidiary, Zieman Manufacturing Co., according
to Drew Industries' May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2008.

On or about Oct. 11, 2005, and Oct. 12, 2005, two complaints
were commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California,  
County of Sacramento, entitled:

   (1) "Arlen Williams, Jr. vs. Weekend Warrior Trailers, Inc.,
       Zieman Manufacturing Company, et. al., Case No.
       CV027691," and

   (2) "Joseph Giordano and Dennis Gish, vs. Weekend Warrior
       Trailers, Inc, and Zieman Manufacturing Company, et. al.,
       Case No. 05AS04523."

Each case purports to be a class action on behalf of the named  
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated.  The complaints in  
both cases are substantially identical and the cases were  
consolidated.  Defendant Zieman Manufacturing Co. is a
subsidiary of Lippert Components Inc. (itself a wholly owned
active subsidiary of Drew Industries, Inc.).

The plaintiffs alleged that defendant Weekend Warrior sold
certain toy hauler trailers during the model years 1999–2005
equipped with frames manufactured by Zieman that were defective
in design and manufacture, causing damage to the trailers and
the towing vehicles.

They sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount (including
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages), punitive
damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorney's fees and costs.

Mandatory mediation was conducted.  The parties reached a
settlement, and entered into a final settlement agreement.  

On Feb. 22, 2008, the Court signed a judgment approving the
settlement, which is now final and unappealable.

Drew Industries Inc. -- http://www.drewindustries.com/--
manufactures and markets components primarily for recreational
vehicles and manufactured homes.  The Company has two reportable
operating segments: the recreational vehicle products segment,
and the manufactured housing products segment.  Its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Kinro, Inc., and its subsidiaries, and Lippert
Components, Inc., and its subsidiaries, each have operations in
both the RV Segment and the MH Segment.  Kinro manufactures and
markets components primarily for RVs and manufactured homes,
including windows, doors and screens, and thermoformed bath and
kitchen products.  It manufactures and markets components
primarily for RVs and manufactured homes, including steel
chassis, steel chassis parts, RV slide-out mechanisms and
related power units, electric stabilizer jacks, leveling
devices, bed lifts, suspension systems, ramp doors, axles and
steps.


DRS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces N.J. Suit Over Finmeccanica Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
DRS Technologies, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit
in New Jersey that challenges the company's proposed transaction
with Finmeccanica, S.p.A., according to DRS Tech's May 30, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

In May 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company and each of its directors in the Superior
Court of the State of New Jersey.

The complaint, captioned "Scheidt v. DRS Technologies, Inc., et
al," alleges, among other things, that the proposed transaction
arises out of a flawed process, that the individual defendants
are engaged in self-dealing in connection with the transaction,
and that the company's stockholders will be divested of a large
portion of the company's assets for inadequate consideration if
the transaction is consummated.

The complaint asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duties
against the individual defendants and a claim for aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against the company.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the
defendants from consummating the transaction and directing the
individual defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of the
company's stockholders.

DRS Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.drs.com/-- is a supplier  
of defense electronic products and systems and military support
services.  It provides technology products and services to all
branches of the U.S. military, aerospace and defense prime
contractors, government intelligence agencies, international
military forces and industrial markets.  DRS focuses on several
areas of importance to the U.S. Department of Defense, such as
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, power management,
advanced communications and network systems.  It is also a
provider of thermal imaging devices, combat display
workstations, electronic sensor systems, power systems,
battlefield digitization systems, air combat training systems,
mission recorders, deployable flight incident recorders,
environmental and telecommunication systems, aircraft loaders,
military trailers and shelters, and integrated logistics support
services.


EMERY WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face WARN Violations Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emery Worldwide Airlines, a subsidiary of Con-way, Inc., is
still facing a labor-related class action suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  

The suit alleges violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act in connection with employee layoffs
and ultimate terminations due to the August 2001 grounding of
Emery Worldwide's airline operations and the shutdown of the
airline operations in December 2001.

The court subsequently certified the lawsuit as a class action
on behalf of affected employees laid off between Aug. 11 and
Aug. 15, 2001.  

The WARN Act generally requires employers to give 60-days
notice, or 60-days pay and benefits in lieu of notice, of any
shutdown of operations or mass layoff at a site of employment.

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

The suit is "Bledsoe, et al. v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, et
al., Case No. 3:02-cv-00069-WHR-SLO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Walter H.
Rice presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         David Gerard Torchia, Esq. (davet@tktlaw.com)
         Tobias & Kraus
         414 Walnut Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-241-8137
         Fax: 513-241-8137

Representing the company are:

         Michelle R. Arendt, Esq. (marendt@ulmer.com)
         Thomas H. Barnard, Jr., Esq. (tbarnard@ulmer.com)
         Ulmer and Berne
         Penton Media Building
         1300 E. Ninth Street, Suite 900
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 216-931-6056
         Fax: 216-931-6057

              - and -

         Jacqueline Schuster Hobbs, Esq.
         (Jacqueline.Hobbs@Cinergy.com)
         Cinergy Services, Inc.
         139 East Fourth Street 25ATII
         Cincinnati, OH 45201-0960
         Phone: 513-287-1238
         Fax: 513-287-2996


FOREST LABORATORIES: No Trial Date Yet for N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has yet to be set for a consolidated securities
fraud class action suit filed against Forest Laboratories, Inc.,
and certain of its officers, according to the company's May 30,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

Initially, several lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of all purchasers of the company's securities
between Aug. 15, 2002, and Aug. 31, 2004, or Sept. 1, 2004.  

These actions, the first of which was filed on March 11, 2005,
were consolidated under the caption, "In re Forest Laboratories,
Inc. Securities Litigation, 05-CV-2827-RMB."  

The consolidated complaint, which asserts substantially similar
claims, alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts
with respect to the company's business, prospects and
operations, including the company's drugs for the treatment of
depression and Alzheimer's disease, in violation of Section
19(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5.  

In July 2006, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
company's motion to dismiss the case.  Claims remain pending
with respect to alleged marketing statements and omissions with
respect to the company's drugs for the treatment of depression.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

Fact and expert discovery have been completed and a trial date
is expected to be set shortly.

The suit is "In re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-02827-RMB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Richard M. Berman presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Matthew Montgomery, Esq. (mattm@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

          Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq. (jonc@cuneolaw.com)
          Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca. LLP
          Washington, DC 20002
          507 C Street, Ne
          Phone: 202-789-3960
          Fax: 202-789 1813

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq. (bnarwold@motleyrice.com)
          Motley Rice LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 860-882-1676
          Fax: 860-882-1682

Representing the defendants is:

          Gary W. Kubek, Esq. (gwkubek@debevoise.com)
          Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-909-6000
          Fax: 212-909-6836

    
FOREST LABORATORIES: D.C. Court Considers Appeal in Tiazac Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's decision
in the matter, "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc. and
Rochester Drug Cooperative v. Biovail Corporation and Forest
Laboratories, Inc." is now sub judice before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Forest Laboratories was named defendant in the action, which was
filed on Dec. 27, 2004.  The complaint alleges attempts to
monopolize under Section 2 of the Sherman Act with respect to
the product Tiazac resulting from Biovail's January 2001 patent
listing in the Food and Drug Administration's "Orange Book" of
Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations.

Biovail withdrew the Orange Book listing of the patent at issue
following an April 2002 Consent Order between Biovail and the
Federal Trade Commission.  Biovail is the owner of the NDA
covering Tiazac which Forest Labs distribute in the U.S. under
license from Biovail.

The action, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Tiazac directly
from Forest Labs from Feb. 12, 2001, to the present, seeks
treble damages and related relief arising from the allegedly
unlawful acts.

By way of a ruling dated March 31, 2005, the court granted
Biovail's motion for summary judgment in a related action, "Twin
Cities v. Biovail," to which the company is not a party.

The plaintiffs in the Louisiana Wholesale case then amended
their complaint to add a conspiracy charge against Biovail and
Forest and an allegation that the plaintiffs were damaged as a
result of a delay by Biovail and Forest in marketing their own
generic version of Tiazac.

The company and Biovail filed a motion for summary judgment and
a motion to dismiss the complaint.

By way of a decision dated June 22, 2006, the court granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment, both with respect to
original claims, as well as the newly added claim asserted by
the Louisiana Wholesale plaintiffs.

That decision, along with the original Twin Cities decision, is
now sub judice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia, according to Forest Labs' May 30, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. et al v. Biovail  
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02235-JR," which was filed
before the U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, Judge
James Robertson presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David U. Fierst, Esq. (dfierst@steinmitchell.com)
         Stein, Mitchell & Mezines, LLP
         1100 Connecticut Avenue
         NW Suite 1100
         Washington, DC 20036-4195
         Phone: 202-737-7777
         Fax: 202-296-8312

              - and -

         Anne K. Fornecker, Esq. (afornecker@garwingerstein.com)
         Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, LLP
         1501 Broadway, Suite 1416
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-398-0055

Representing the defendants are:  

         Lawrence Saul Robbins, Esq.
         (lrobbins@robbinsrussell.com)
         Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner
         1801 K Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20006-1301
         Phone: 202-775-4501

              - and -

         Peter J. Venaglia, Esq. (venaglia@dsswlaw.com)
         Dornbush Schaeffer Strongin & Weinstein, LLP
         747 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-759-3300
         Fax: 212-753-7673


GOOGLE INC: Summary Judgment in Calif. Ad Program Lawsuit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
recently ruled that a lawsuit challenging Google Inc.'s AdWords
billing practices may proceed.

AdWords is Google's primary advertising program and is the main
source of its revenue.  AdWords ads appear on Google.com as well
as on Google partner sites like Ask.com (Class Action Reporter,
April 24, 2008).  AdWords ads, however, may also appear on
third-party Web sites, which use AdSense, the other side of the
Google advertising model.

Google charges its advertising customers when someone "clicks"
on one of their ads.  During the sign-up process, users tell
Google the maximum that they are willing to pay per "click."

During this process, users encounter two adjacent boxes.  Into
the first, customers enter the amount they wish to pay per
"click" of an ad displayed on Google.com.  The second box is
marked "optional."  Into this box, a user can enter the amount
they would be willing to pay per "click" of an ad appearing on a
third party web page.  But leaving the box blank does not
prevent ads from appearing on third-party sites.

Instead, Google places the ads on third-party sites anyway.  And
users are automatically charged per click based on the amount
they entered into the first box.  This suit arises from the fact
that both actions occur without the user being informed.

Ads on third-party sites are widely-acknowledged to be far less
effective (and therefore less valuable to the advertiser) than
ads on Google.com.  Google, of course, still profits greatly
from these ads.

Filed in 2005, plaintiffs in the suit seek to represent all
Google AdWords advertisers who have been charged more than their
per day daily budget, and will request the Court to certify the
lawsuit as a class action.

On May 14, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied, in part, Google's motion for
summary judgment, and determined that a lawsuit challenging,
among other things, Google's practice of charging AdWords
advertisers more than an advertiser's specified per day "daily
budget" may proceed.

The suit is "CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc.,
Case Number: 5:2005cv03649," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware,
presiding.

For more information, contact:

          Shel F. Raphael, Esq.
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: +1-212-459-4600


HARTFORD FIRE: Class Action Status Upheld in Auto Body Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Supreme Court has decided that a lawsuit by auto
body repairers, alleging that Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
improperly steers customers to certain repair shops, can proceed
as a class action, Diane Levick writes for the Hartford Courant.

The report says that the Auto Body Association of Connecticut
last week hailed the new ruling as a victory, though the ruling
is not on the merits of its 2003 suit alleging unfair trade
practices.  Instead, the unanimous Supreme Court ruling upholds
a lower court's 2006 decision that granted the plaintiffs -- the
association plus three body shops -- certification to make their
suit a class action.

Hartford Fire had asked the Supreme Court to overturn the
certification but lost.  The auto body association says the
class could include hundreds of independent repair shops across
the state.

The suit says Hartford Fire steered consumers to its "preferred"
repair shops and improperly established artificially low hourly
reimbursement rates for shops that were not part of the
preferred network.  The company, which is part of The Hartford
Financial Services Group, used positive and negative incentives
to pressure supposedly independent appraisers to limit their
appraisals in various ways, the suit alleges.

The plaintiffs claim that they lost business because of the
company's actions and were forced to charge below-market labor
rates.

Though Hartford Fire is disappointed about the state Supreme
Court's ruling, it won't appeal and is "eager to move ahead to
the merits of the case," company spokesman Thomas Hambrick told
Hartford Courant.

"The Hartford believes its direct (preferred) auto body repair
program is fully consistent with Connecticut law and works to
the benefit of The Hartford's policyholders," Mr. Hambrick
further said.  "We will continue to defend the case vigorously
and are confident of prevailing on the merits."

A trial in the case is tentatively scheduled for December 2008,
the auto body association shared with Hartford Courant.

The suit is part of the auto body association's long-time
campaign against steering and labor rates it considers too low.
The association, which has enlisted Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal's support, has advocated for stronger enforcement of
current anti-steering laws and got legislation passed this year
for more notification to consumers about their right to choose a
repairer, the report recounts.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Settles Securities Suit for $20 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP, Klafter & Olsen LLP, and International
Business Machines Corporation (IBM) have received preliminary
court approval for an agreement settling the securities class
action suit titled "In re IBM Securities Litigation, No. 1:05-
cv-6279 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.)," for $20 million.

The settlement, still subject to final court approval, will
resolve claims brought on behalf of the class of persons who
purchased IBM's common stock between April 5, 2005, and
April 14, 2005.

In this litigation, the plaintiffs alleged that members of the
class were damaged by misrepresentations and omissions in IBM's
April 5, 2005 announcement that it would begin stock option
expensing in the first quarter of 2005.  Specifically, the
plaintiffs alleged that IBM misled investors as to its expected
financial results and the anticipated size of its stock option
expense for the quarter. IBM disputes that it made any
misrepresentations to investors, and denies all allegations of
wrongdoing.

IBM develops and manufactures information technologies,
including computer systems, software, networking systems,
storage devices, and microelectronics worldwide.  The company is
based in Armonk, New York.


MASSACHUSETTS: Deal Reached for Persons with Brain Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 2000 individuals with brain injuries will be able to move
out of nursing facilities and other institutions under a
landmark settlement agreement signed today by state officials
and attorneys for the plaintiffs.

The settlement resolves a class action lawsuit, Hutchinson v.
Patrick, which was filed in US District Court in Springfield
last year on behalf of five individuals, the Brain Injury
Association of Massachusetts (BIA-MA) and the Stavros Center for
Independent Living.

The complaint charges that the Commonwealth is violating the
Americans with Disabilities Act for failing to provide adequate
community services.

"This is a historic moment for persons with brain injuries in
Massachusetts, many of whom have been unnecessarily
institutionalized in nursing facilities, often for decades,"
said Steven J. Schwartz, Esq., of the Center for Public
Representation, lead counsel for the plaintiffs.  "As a result
of the settlement, close to 2000 persons with brain injuries
finally will be able to live in integrated settings, nearer to
their families and their home communities."

Approximately 8000 people with brain injuries currently reside
in nursing and rehabilitative facilities in Massachusetts.  At
least a quarter of them could successfully transition to
integrated community settings if services were available,
according to plaintiffs' co-counsel, Richard Johnston, Esq., a
partner at Wilmer Hale Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

"Today's agreement is a first in the nation for people with
brain injuries and will serve as a model for other states," said
Arlene Korab, Executive Director of BIA-MA.

The Centers for Disease Control report that 5.3 million
Americans are living with disabilities as a result of traumatic
brain injuries (TBI) -- head injuries caused by external events,
such as falls or accidents.  Acquired brain injuries (ABI) --
caused by internal medical events such as stroke, disease or
poisoning -- also are significantly prevalent: more than 700,000
Americans suffer new or recurrent strokes every year.

This case and the settlement agreement apply to Medicaid-
eligible residents of nursing and rehabilitation facilities who
have either kind of brain injury.  It is the first lawsuit in
the nation that seeks community services for persons with all
forms of brain injuries, regardless of the cause.

Under the settlement agreement, which is still subject to court
approval, the Commonwealth will create two new waiver programs
designed to transition individuals with brain injuries from
nursing facilities and other institutions to community
residences.  The programs must be approved by the federal
government, which will pay half the cost of both programs.  The
first program, called the ABI waiver, will serve up to 300
individuals with acquired brain injuries who currently are
living in nursing and rehabilitation facilities.  The second,
called the Community First Demonstration Project, will offer
transitional services and provide community placements to 1600
persons with brain injuries in nursing facilities.  The programs
will be implemented over several years, but should result in
approximately 200-250 persons a year leaving nursing facilities.

"When I first learned about the issues being resolved, I was so
happy, I filled up with tears," Catherine Hutchinson, 55, the
lead named plaintiff, wrote in a recent email.  A mute
quadriplegic as a result of a brain-stem stroke in 1996, she
lived for more than a decade at the Middleboro Skilled Care
Center.  "I think about the residents (with brain injury) . . .
and I know what their empty lives are like," wrote Ms.
Hutchinson, who recently moved to The Boston Home, a specialized
care facility in Dorchester.

The agreement also requires the Commonwealth to create a new
system of community services for persons with brain injuries,
including new policies and procedures, a new treatment planning
process, a new appeal process for individuals and families, and
new quality standards for community services.  People in nursing
facilities will be offered a choice to receive services in the
most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, including
their own homes and apartments, or shared living arrangements.
In addition, the Commonwealth will establish an education and
outreach initiative to inform persons with brain injuries and
their families about the new waiver programs as well as the
benefits of community living.

Ms. Korab applauded the courage of the named plaintiffs who
"have opened the door for individuals with brain injury to live
independently in the community."

The majority of people with brain injuries spend weeks or months
in acute care hospitals and rehabilitative facilities.  Once the
acute treatment ends, these individuals still need some level of
assistance with personal care and activities of daily living
rehabilitative care.  However, due to the lack of community-
based options for continued rehabilitative care, most of them
have no choice but to be admitted to nursing and rehabilitative
facilities to have their basic needs met.

When the lawsuit was filed May 17, 2007, Ms. Hutchinson
described her decade-long institutionalization as being "in
prison for a crime I didn't commit."

In a written statement, she added, "We must find a way to allow
people like me to live as independently as possible.  I should
not have to fight the system when each day I must already fight
to communicate, to be understood, make choices and express my
feelings."

The settlement agreement will provide transitional and community
services to Ms. Hutchinson, the other named plaintiffs and all
class members.  "For them, the promise of the Americans with
Disabilities Act will become a reality," said Mr. Schwartz.

In addition to Ms. Hutchinson, originally from Attleboro, the
other named plaintiffs are:

     -- Raymond Puchalski, 59, a Millers Falls resident who has
        lived for three years at the Kindred/Goddard Hospital's
        neurobehavioral unit in Stoughton;

     -- Glen Jones, 58, of Haverhill, who has resided at the
        Worcester Skilled Care Center since 1990; and

     -- Nathaniel Wilson, 55, of Springfield, who resides at
        Wingate of Wilbraham.

A fifth named plaintiff, Jason Cates of Westfield, died last
fall.

A preliminary hearing on the settlement agreement will be
scheduled for mid-June before District Court Judge Michael A.
Ponsor in Springfield.

Judge Ponsor has been asked to set a final fairness hearing on
the agreement for July 25, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Pam Bush
          Brain Injury Assn of Massachusetts
          Phone: 508-475-0032, ext. 18

          Kathryn Rucker
          Center for Public Representation
          Phone: 617-965-0776

               - or -
       
          Lauren Coppola
          WilmerHale
          Phone: 617-526-6998


MCKESSON HBOC: Initial Distribution of Net Settlement Funds Out
---------------------------------------------------------------
Initial distribution of the Net Settlement Funds in "In re
McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-CV-20743
RMW (PVT)," recently has been made to all Settlement Class
Members who submitted a Claim to the Claims Administrator,
Analytics Incorporated, and who did not receive from the Claims
Administrator notice that such Claim had been recommended for
complete rejection.

The class consists of all persons or entities who:

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
        securities of HBOC during the period from January 20,
        1997, through and including January 12, 1999;

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired call options or sold put
        options of HBOC during the period from January 20, 1997,
        through and including April 27, 1999;

     -- purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
        securities or call options, or who sold put options, of
        McKesson Corporation or of McKesson HBOC, Inc. during
        the period from October 18, 1998, through and including
        April 27, 1999; or

     -- held McKesson common stock on November 27, 1998 and
        still held those shares on January 12, 1999, and were
        injured thereby.

The suit was filed in April 1999 against McKesson, HBOC,
McKesson HBOC, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., Arthur Andersen, LLP,
and certain officers or directors of McKesson or HBOC.

The litigation alleges that HBOC, and after the merger with
McKesson, McKesson HBOC reported fraudulent revenues, income and
assets, which caused members of the class to suffer losses.

The lead plaintiff -- the New York State Common Retirement Fund
-- has entered into a proposed settlement of the Litigation with
defendant Arthur Andersen LLP.

The Lead Plaintiff believes that $72.5 million in cash, plus
interest, confers a substantial benefit to the settlement class
after more than seven years of litigation (Class Action
Reporter, April 9, 2007).

The Lead Plaintiff considered, among other factors:

     -- the immediacy of the recovery to the Settlement Class in
        lieu of protracted litigation through trial and appeals;

     -- the defenses asserted in the Litigation; the inherent
        uncertainty and risk associated with a complex action,
        such as this one;

     -- the ability of AALLP to withstand a judgment in a great
        amount; and

     -- the claims against the remaining Non-Settling Defendant.

The AALLP Settlement, however, is only a partial settlement of
the Litigation, and the Lead Plaintiff will continue to pursue
claims against Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.

The proposed settlement amount is in addition to the
$960-million settlement with defendants McKesson HBOC, Inc. and
HBO & Co. previously approved by the Court.

On Feb. 14, 2008, the court ordered the initial distribution of
the net settlement funds.

McKesson HBOC Inc. Securities Litigation on the net:

           http://www.mckessonhbocsettlement.com/

The suit is "In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMV (PVT)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Patricia V.
Trumbull.

Class counsel are:

          David Stickney, Esq.
          Timothy A. DeLange, Esq.
          McKesson HBOC Inc. Securities Litigation
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130

               - and -

          Leonard Barrack, Esq.
          M. Richard Komins, Esq.
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

Representing the defendants are:

          Lyn Robyn Agre, Esq. (lra@topelgoodmanc.com)
          Topel & Goodman
          832 Sansome St. 4th Flr.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-421-6140,
          Fax: 415-398-5030

          Sima Saran Ahuja, Esq.
          Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
          One New York Plaza
          New York, NY 10004,
          Phone: 212-820-8000

               - and -

          William F. Alderman, Esq. (walderman@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe,
          405 Howard St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5944
          Fax: 415-773-5700


MODINE MANUFACTURING: Reaches Settlement in "Gates" Litigation  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Modine Manufacturing Co. has reached a settlement in a purported
class action suit filed against the company, as well as against
Rohm & Haas Co., Morton International, and Huntsman Corp., in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, according to the company's May 30, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

The case, "Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Co., et al., Case No.
06-1743," involves allegations of personal injury from exposure
to solvents that were allegedly released to groundwater and air
for an undetermined period of time.  

The suit seeks damages for medical monitoring and property value
diminution for a putative class of residents of a community that
are allegedly at risk for personal injuries as a result of
exposure to this same allegedly contaminated groundwater and
air.  The plaintiffs' counsel had threatened to file further
personal injury cases.

The company mediated the cases in December 2007 and has executed
agreements with the plaintiffs' counsel settling the class
action.

The deal is awaiting a final fairness hearing in late June 2008,
at which time it is expected that the company will be dismissed
with prejudice from the case at the conclusion of the final
hearing.

The suit is "Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company, et al.,
Case No. 06-1743," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Gene E.K. Pratter,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq. (ajf@layserfreiwald.com)
         Layser & Freiwald PC
         1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 215-875-8000

Representing the defendants is:

         Albert G. Bixler, Esq. (abixler@eckertseamans.com)
         Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
         1515 Market Street, 9th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Phone: 215-851-8412


NICOR GAS: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over Alleged Fraudulent Bills
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor Gas Co. is facing a class-action suit filed before the
Circuit Court of Cook county, Illinois, alleging that it
fraudulently bills customers by using estimates rather than
reading the meters, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action brought for breach of contract and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The class claims Nicor compounds the fraud by underestimating
use when gas is cheap, then reading the meters when gas is
expensive, and making up for the underestimates by billing at
the higher rate.

Named plaintiff Alan Dikcis asserts that Nicor under-billed him
for months through estimates, when the base price was 65 to 87
cents per therm.  In those months, his bills were for $45, $58
and $71. Then the price rose to 99 cents per therm, he says, and
Nicor whacked him with a monthly bill of $434.

The plaintiff brings this action action on behalf of all
residential Nicor customers who were billed based upon estimated
gas usage during the winter of 2007-8 based upon estimates for
two or more consecutive months.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Nicor breached its contracts with plaintiff and
         the class;

     (b) if so, whether Nicor overcharged plaintiff and the
         class by charging them in April for gas that was
         actually used in the earlier months when the prevailing
         prices were much lower than the rates actually charged
         to plaintiff and the class in April;

     (c) whether Nico acted deliberately, recklessly or
         negligently; and

     (d) whether plaintiff and the class have been damaged and
         the proper measure of damages.

Plaintiff requests for judgment as follows:

     -- certify this action as a class action, designate
        plaintiff as class representative and designate his
        attorneys as class counsel on behalf of the class;

     -- award plaintiff and the class damages in an amount to be
        determined at trial;

     -- award the plaintiff and the class attorneys' fees and
        costs; and

     -- award such other and further relief as the court deems
        appropriate.

The suit is “Alan Dikcis et al v. Nicor Gas Co., Case No.
08Ch18895,” filed with the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Jeffrey J. Halldin, Esq.
          Touhy & Touhy, Ltd.
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-372-2209


ONLINE TRAVEL COS: Houston Sues Over Occupancy Tax Money
--------------------------------------------------------
The city of Houston has filed a lawsuit against online hotel
bookers for keeping money the city claims should go towards its
occupancy tax, writes Mike Sachoff of WebProNews.

"We believe the (online) companies are, essentially, pocketing
the money that should go to occupancy tax," Mayor Bill White
told the Houston Chronicle.  "It's unfair to those who are
paying the price where the full taxes are paid."

If the lawsuit is successful, Mayor White said, it should not
hurt tourism in Houston.  "The Internet companies are obligated
to charge a certain percentage of what they've collected," he
said.  "It should not affect hotel rates."

WebProNews notes that hotels in Houston are required to pay the
city the hotel-occupancy tax of 7%, based on the price of the
rooms they sell.  The city brought in $57 million in occupancy
taxes in 2007.

According to WebProNews, the lawsuit is similar to one in San
Antonio that won approval for class-action status recently,
allowing other cites in the state and nation to join the suit.
Houston says it will pursue its own case for now.

WebProNews recounts that last week, a federal judge granted San
Antonio's motion for class-action certification in its lawsuit
against 16 companies including Hotels.com, Expedia.com,
Priceline.com and Orbitz.  The San Antonio suit alleges the
online companies collect hotel tax at the retail rate but only
pay taxes on the bulk wholesale rate they are charged.

The companies maintain they do not control occupancy and only
offer a service for customers and should not have to pay the
difference.  They say the suit could hurt tourism.

"It just doesn't make sense that increasing the costs of travel
won't decrease the amount of travel," Paul Chronis, Esq.,
Orbitz's lawyer, told WebProNews.  "That's pretty basic stuff."


SEARS HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merits discovery is underway in the purported class action suit
"In re: Sears Holdings Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:06-cv-04053-JES."

In May and July 2006, two putative class action complaints --
each naming as defendants Sears Holdings Corp. and Edward S.
Lampert -- were filed before U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a class
of persons that sold shares of Kmart Holding Corp. stock on or
after May 6, 2003, through June 4, 2004.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. merged with Kmart which resulted in the
2004 formation of Sears Holdings.

The plaintiffs in each case allege that Kmart's Plan of
Reorganization and Disclosure Statement filed on Jan. 24, 2003,
which was amended on Feb. 25, 2003, misrepresented Kmart's
assets, particularly its real estate holdings, as evidenced by
the prices at which Kmart subsequently sold certain of its
stores in June 2004 to Home Depot and Sears.

The plaintiffs seek damages for alleged misrepresentations.  

On Dec. 19, 2006, the Court consolidated the two suits and a
consolidated complaint was later filed.

On April 15, 2008, the Court denied without prejudice a motion
by the defendants to dismiss the case.  Merits discovery is
underway, according to Sears Holdings' May 30, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2008.

The suit is "In re: Sears Holdings Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-04053-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John
E. Sprizzo, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

          Mark Casser Gardy, Esq. (mgardy@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue
          Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337

               - and -

          Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Esq. (gjarvis@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer, PA
          Chase Manhattan Centre
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7040
          Fax: 302-622-7100

Representing the defendants is:

          David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com)
          Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-403-1000
          Fax: 212-403-2000


SEARS HOLDINGS: Ill. Court Denies Appeal Petition in "Fischer"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court denied an amended petition for leave
to appeal a decision handed down in the matter, "William
Fischer, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et al.," which was a
consolidated action filed before the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, against Sears, Roebuck and Co., a subsidiary
of the Sears Holdings Corp.

The purported class action suit was in relation to Sears' merger
with Kmart Holding Corp., which resulted in the 2004 formation
of Sears Holdings as the parent of both companies.

The suit asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of Sears
stockholders against the company and certain of its officers and
directors, together with Kmart, Edward S. Lampert, William C.
Crowley and other affiliated entities, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the merger and seeking
damages.

The plaintiffs allege that the merger favors interested
defendants by awarding them disproportionate benefits, and that
the defendants failed to take appropriate steps to maximize the
value of a merger transaction for Sears' stockholders.

On Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
court's Aug. 8, 2006 order dismissing their amended complaint.

Pursuant to an order dated Dec. 21, 2007, the Appellate Court
affirmed the Circuit Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs'
amended complaint.

The plaintiffs then petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court for
leave to appeal the dismissal, which the Supreme Court
subsequently denied without prejudice.  They then filed an
amended petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which
the Supreme Court denied, according to Sears Holdings' May 30,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2008.

Sears Holdings Corp. -- http://www.searsholdings.com/-- is a   
broadline retailer with approximately 2,300 full-line and 1,100
specialty retail stores in the U.S. operating through Kmart
Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co., and
approximately 370 full-line and specialty retail stores in
Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Merits Discovery Ongoing in "Levie" Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merits Discovery is ongoing in the matter, "Maurice Levie, et
al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al.," which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Sears, Roebuck and Co., a subsidiary of Sears Holdings
Corp.

The purported class action suit is in relation to Sears' merger
with Kmart Holding Corp., which resulted in the 2004 formation
of Sears Holdings, as the parent of both companies.

The suit asserts claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of a purported class of Sears' stockholders against Sears
and Alan J. Lacy, for allegedly failing to make timely
disclosure of merger discussions with Kmart during the period
from Sept. 9 through Nov. 16, 2004.  The suit seeks damages.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and an
amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2005.   

The amended complaint names Edward S. Lampert and ESL Partners
L.P. as additional defendants, and purports to assert claims on
behalf of sellers of Sears stock during the same period.  

The defendants have answered the amended complaint.

On July 17, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the plaintiffs' request for class certification -- certifying a
class of Sears stockholders who sold shares of Sears stock
between Sept. 9, 2004, and Nov. 16, 2004, but excluding short
sellers who covered their positions during the class period.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied
the defendants' petition for leave to appeal the class
certification order.  

Merits discovery is underway, according to Sears Holdings'
May 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2008.

Sears Holdings Corp. -- http://www.searsholdings.com/-- is a   
broadline retailer with approximately 2,300 full-line and 1,100
specialty retail stores in the U.S. operating through Kmart
Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co., and
approximately 370 full-line and specialty retail stores in
Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Labor-Related Litigation in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sears, Roebuck and Co., a subsidiary of Sears Holdings Corp., is
facing a purported class action suit, entitled "Moldowan, et al.
v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, et al.," according to Sears
Holdings' May 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2008.

The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 12, 2004, before the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Sonoma.  In it, the
plaintiffs allege that Sears failed to pay them for all hours
worked and otherwise failed to pay them correctly for work
performed in accordance with California law.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount,
together with attorneys' fees, interest, statutory penalties and
punitive damages.

Their motion for class certification is fully briefed and a
hearing on the motion has not been scheduled pending settlement
discussions between the parties which are ongoing.

Sears Holdings Corp. -- http://www.searsholdings.com/-- is a   
broadline retailer with approximately 2,300 full-line and 1,100
specialty retail stores in the U.S. operating through Kmart
Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co., and
approximately 370 full-line and specialty retail stores in
Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Ill. Court Gives Final OK to $15.5-Mln Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
gave final approval to the proposed $15,500,000 settlement in
the matter "Thomas G. Ong, et al., v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et
al., Case No. 03-04142," which was filed against Sears, Roebuck
and Co., a subsidiary of the Sears Holdings Corp.,

                        Case Background

The suit generally alleges, among other things, that the
defendants issued materially false and misleading press releases
and other statements regarding Sears' credit card operations
during the Class Period -— Oct. 24, 2001, through and including
Oct. 17, 2002 —- in an effort to make those operations appear
more stable and profitable than they actually were.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, the defendants concealed material adverse information
concerning the financial condition, performance and prospects of
Sears' credit card operations, and that the Sears Defendants
issued a series of falsely positive statements in which, inter
alia, they allegedly:

       -- misrepresented the performance and quality of Sears'
          credit card operations and concealed the deteriorating
          condition of those operations;

       -- misled the investing public into believing that the
          delinquency and charge-off rates of Sears' credit card
          products were comparable to, or better than, those of
          other leading credit card issuers; and

       -- failed to disclose that Sears' reserves for bad credit
          card debt were materially inadequate.  

The complaint alleges that these purported material
misrepresentations and omissions caused Sears and Sears
Holdings' public statements issued during the Class Period to be
materially false and misleading, in violation of the federal
securities laws.  

The parties eventually reached a deal to settle the matter.

On May 1, 2008, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement, according to Sears Holdings' May 30, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2008.

For more details, contact:

       Settlement Administrator
       Ong v. Sears Roebuck and Co. Securities Settlement
       c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
       P.O. Box 24793
       West Palm Beach, FL 33416
       Phone: 866-591-7266
       e-mail: info@searsroebuckacceptancecorpbondsettlement.com

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

            - and -

       Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
       Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
       1818 Market Street, 25th Floor
       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
       Phone: 888-844-5862
              215-496-0300
       Fax: 215-496-6611
       e-mail: classaction@srk-law.com


TIDEWATER INC: California Wage, Hour Violations Lawsuit Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater, Inc., settled a class action styled suit in
California, alleging certain labor and wage and hour law
violations claimed by certain current and former employees,
according to the company's May 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2008.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2008, the company provided
$3.0 million for a court-approved settlement of the California
wage issue, which is inclusive of interest and attorney fees.

The plaintiffs to the class action suit had until January 2008
to submit a notice of claim.  The majority of plaintiffs
responded to the settlement and the matter closed in March 2008
when full and final settlements were paid.  No additional
accruals were needed for this matter.

Tidewater, Inc. -- http://www.tdw.com/-- provides offshore  
supply vessels and marine support services to the offshore
energy industry through the operation of offshore marine service
vessels.  At March 31, 2007, the Company had over 463 vessels,
including 48 stacked vessels, 29 vessels withdrawn from service
and 13 vessels operated pursuant to joint venture.  The Company
operates in most of the world’s significant oil and gas
exploration and production markets and provides services
supporting all phases of offshore exploration, development and
production, including towing of and anchor handling of mobile
drilling rigs and equipment; transporting supplies and personnel
necessary to sustain drilling, workover and production
activities; assisting in offshore construction activities, and a
range of specialized services, including pipe laying, cable
laying and 3-dimensional (3-D) seismic work.


TRIARC COS: Faces Ohio Litigation Over Wendy's Merger Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triarc Cos., Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit in
Ohio over a definitive merger agreement that Triarc signed with
Wendy's International, Inc., according to Triarc's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 9, 2008.

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

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties arising out of
a definitive merger agreement that Triarc signed with Wendy's on
April 24, 2008.  That agreement called for an all-stock
transaction in which Wendy's shareholders would receive a fixed
ratio of 4.25 shares of Triarc's Class A Common Stock for each
share of Wendy's common stock they own and in which Wendy's
would become a wholly owned subsidiary of Triarc.

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

Triarc Cos., Inc. -- http://www.triarc.com/-- is a holding  
company and, through its subsidiary Arby's Restaurant Group,
Inc., is the franchisor of the Arby's restaurant system. The
Arby's restaurant system comprises approximately 3,700
restaurants, of which, as of Dec. 30, 2007, 1,106 were owned and
operated by the Company's subsidiaries.  In addition to various
slow-roasted roast beef sandwiches, Arby's offers a menu of
chicken, turkey and ham sandwiches, snack items and salads.  The
Arby's Market Fresh line includes fresh salads made with
ingredients, such as fresh apples, dried cranberries, corn salsa
and black beans.  Arby's also offers Market Fresh wrap
sandwiches with the same ingredients as its Market Fresh
sandwiches inside a tortilla wrap.  


TRIPLE-S INC: Fla. Court Approves Settlement in "Thomas" Matter
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
gave final approval to the proposed settlement in the matter
"Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D., et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association, Case No. 03-21296-CIV-MORENO," which names
Triple-S, Inc., a unit of Triple-S Management Corp., as a
defendant.

The class action suit was filed on May 22, 2003, by medical
doctors Kenneth A. Thomas and Michael Kutell on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated and the Connecticut
State Medical Society against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Assoc. and multiple other insurance companies including Triple-
S.  

The individual plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants, which they
allege have resulted in a loss of their property and a detriment
to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive relief to
end those practices and prevent further losses.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a
timely manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.
  
The class action complaint alleges that the health care plans
are the agents of Blue Cross licensed entities, and as such have
committed the alleged acts, and acted within the scope of their
agency, with the consent, permission, authorization and
knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of both their
interest and the interests of other defendants.
  
The company believes that it was dragged into litigation for the
sole reason of being associated with Blue Cross.

However, on June 18, 2004, the complaint was amended to name
additional plaintiffs.

The defendants sought to dismiss the complaint on multiple
grounds, including but not limited to arbitration and
applicability of the McCarran Ferguson Act.

The parties have been ordered to engage in mediation by the
District Court, and 24 plans, including TSI, are actively
participating in mediation efforts.

The mediation resulted in the creation of a settlement agreement
that was filed before the Court on April 27, 2007.  The District
Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement in May
2007.

On April 19, 2008, the Court approved the settlement on a final
basis, according to Triple-S Management'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 "Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D., et al. v. Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, Case No. 03-21296-CIV-MORENO," filed  
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Judge Federico A. Moreno presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicole Miles Acchione, Esq.
         Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards
         226 W Rittenhouse Square, The Penthouse,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-731-9004
         Fax: 215-731-9044

Representing the defendants are:

         Cesar T. Alcover-Costa, Esq. (calcover@cabprlaw.com)
         Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez
         254 Munoz Rivera Avenue
         PO Box 363507
         San Juan, PR 00936-3507
         Phone: 787-753-3113
         Fax: 250-7545

         Michael Garrett Austin, Esq. (maustin@mwe.com)
         McDermott Will & Emery, LLP
         201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2200
         Miami, FL 33131-4336
         Phone: 305-347-6517
         Fax: 305-347-6500

              - and -

         Laura Besvinick, Esq. (lbesvinick@hhlaw.com)
         Hogan & Hartson, 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-459-6500
         Fax: 459-6550


TYSON FOODS: Withdraws Raised-Without-Antibiotics Chicken Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Due to uncertainty and controversy over product labeling
regulations and advertising claims, Tyson Foods, Inc., has
notified the USDA it is voluntarily withdrawing its qualified
Raised Without Antibiotics chicken label. In addition, company
officials have asked the USDA to consider initiating a public
process to bring more clarity and consistency to labeling and
advertising rules involving antibiotic-related product claims
and all raising claims in general.

"We still support the idea of marketing chicken raised without
antibiotics because we know it's what most consumers want," said
Dave Hogberg, senior vice president of Consumer Products for
Tyson Foods.  "However, in order to preserve the integrity of
our label and our reputation as a premier company in the food
industry, we believe there needs to be more specific labeling
and advertising protocols developed to ensure the rules are
clear and application of the rules is equitable."

                           Background

In May 2007, the USDA approved Tyson's Raised Without Antibiotic
chicken label application, which noted Tyson's chicken feed
ingredients include commonly-used antimicrobials known as
ionophores.  However, by fall, USDA officials reversed their
position, saying they made a mistake, since some organizations
have narrowly classified ionophores as antibiotics, though they
are not used in human medicine.  In December 2007, the USDA
approved a new label and subsequently issued industry guidelines
for the claim "Chicken Raised Without Antibiotics That Impact
Antibiotic Resistance in Humans."  Tyson then moved forward with
a change to this "qualified" claim on its packaging and in
advertising.

The initial label, the revised or "qualified" label, as well as
all supporting advertising and marketing materials have become
the subject of a lawsuit by two competitors, a petition to USDA
by three competitors, and a purported class action lawsuit
allegedly on behalf of consumers.

                           Transition

The transition away from Tyson's qualified Raised Without
Antibiotics product label to a new label with no antibiotic
claim will be implemented.  The company has already begun
designing and ordering new labeling and packaging materials and
will start using them as soon as they arrive.  Packages with the
new labels, which will not make any reference to antibiotics,
should start arriving at stores within the next six weeks. Some
products with the original and qualified labels will continue to
be in the marketplace for several months, since they are in
frozen inventory and have not yet been placed in a retail meat
case.

Assuming the USDA will conduct public hearings or establish some
type of rulemaking process, Tyson and other poultry companies
would make future antibiotic claims only when consistent with
the new rules or protocols adopted by the USDA, if any.

Tyson's voluntary withdrawal of the qualified Raised Without
Antibiotics chicken label is not expected to result in any major
changes in the way Tyson protects the health of its birds.  The
company does not use antibiotics for the purpose of growth
promotion.  On those rare occasions when antibiotics are used to
treat illness, it is on a prescription basis only to protect
bird health and administered under the direction of a
veterinarian and according to FDA guidelines.

Based in Springdale, Arkansas, Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE:TSN) --
http://www.tysonfoods.com/-- is a processor and marketer of
chicken, beef, and pork.  The company makes a wide variety of
protein-based and prepared food products at its 123 processing
plants.  Tyson has approximately 114,000 Team Members employed
at more than 300 facilities and offices in 26 states and 80
countries.

Tyson's U.S. beef plants are located in Amarillo, Texas; Dakota
City, Nebraska; Denison, Iowa; Finney County, Kansas; Joslin,
Illinois, Lexington, Nebraska and Pasco, Washington.  The
company also has a beef complex in Canada, and is involved in a
vertically integrated beef operation in Argentina.


VAN KAMPEN: Court Refuses to Dismiss 2003 Mutual Funds Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron has rejected a
motion to dismiss a class action complaint filed in 2003 against
Van Kampen mutual funds, Steve Korris writes for St. Clair
Record.

The report relates that Judge Byron's recent order granted
Stephen Tillery, Esq., an opportunity to prove that shareholders
of mutual funds own the assets of the funds.  Mr. Tillery's
client, Avery Jackson, filed the suit in 2003.

St. Clair Record recounts that at a March 25 hearing, Tillery
associate Robert King, Esq., told Judge Byron that shareholder
ownership of assets would override laws barring individual
shareholder claims.

According to the report, Judge Byron asked for briefs and
received them on May 2.  He sealed 42 pages of exhibits that Mr.
King submitted with his brief.

Judge Byron read the briefs and denied the motion to dismiss.

"This Court feels discovery should proceed fully so that a
complete factual basis may be established, so that if there is a
final appellate determination on the issues here in Illinois, it
will be rendered on a complete fixed factual basis," the judge
wrote.  He added that Maryland law applied and no holdings there
would affect this action.

"There are other holdings in other jurisdictions that appear to
allow individual claims to be asserted against mutual funds," he
further wrote.

The judge also stated that the plaintiff's claim "is based on an
individual injury sustained by the fund shareholders through the
actions of the defendant; the contention being that the
shareholders are the true beneficial owners of the fund's
assets."

"There is nothing in Illinois law that would bar plaintiff's
position, though Illinois is silent on this exact issue; but
unless there is intervening law out of Maryland barring
individual claims in this matter, it would be premature to allow
Van Kampen's motion to dismiss at this time," Judge Byron wrote.

The report notes that in this lawsuit and others, Mr. Tillery
claims mutual funds afforded an unfair advantage to shareholders
who timed their trades according to market action overseas.

Mr. King also argued in his May 2 brief that market timing
injures some shareholders and not others, and that if it injured
the fund it would injure all shareholders equally.  Sales to
market timers instantly and irrevocably dilute ownership of
others, Mr. King said.

Van Kampen attorney Jack Carey, Esq., replied in his brief that,
"This is nonsense."  He added, "Ignoring the corporate form of
mutual funds would effectively turn them into investment
partnerships, creating entirely new and wholly unintended duties
and obligations between otherwise completely independent
shareholders."

Mr. Carey further said, "Plaintiff's argument that mutual funds
are somehow structurally different from other companies because
a shareholder pays taxes on the gains merely demonstrates
Plaintiff's misunderstanding of mutual funds and the laws that
govern them."


ZUMIEZ INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud class
action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, according to the company's May 30, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2008.

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

A substantially similar complaint was filed before the same
court on Dec. 14, 2007.  

These cases, which were subsequently consolidated, purport to be
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's
stock during the period March 14, 2007, to Nov. 7, 2007.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 5,
2008, extending the class period to Jan. 4, 2008, and alleging
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws during
this period of time by, among other things, making
misrepresentations about the company's projected financial
results in order to artificially inflate the company's stock
price.  

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

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

Zumiez, Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based   
specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear,
equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.


ZUMIEZ INC: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date was set for the purported class action suit
entitled "Evan Johnson v. Zumiez, Inc., et al., Case No.
RG08374968," which was filed in the Alameda County Superior
Court.

The suit was filed on March 5, 2008, by a former Zumiez
employee, alleging that the company failed to pay all overtime
wages owing to him and other employees, failed to provide meal
breaks as required by California law, failed to provide
employees with proper itemized wage statements (pay stubs) as
required by California law, and failed to pay terminated
employees waiting time penalties under California Labor Code
section 203.  

The plaintiff recently filed a first amended complaint which
adds an additional claim that employees under age 18 worked more
hours than permitted by the Labor Code.  The first amended
complaint also seeks to recover penalties under the Private
Attorney General Act for alleged violation of various Labor Code
sections.  

The suit was filed as a putative class action, but no motion
requesting certification of the case as a class action has been
filed.  

No trial date has been set for the case yet, according to the
company's May 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2008.

Zumiez, Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based   
specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear,
equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
commenced a class action suit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all
purchasers of securities of Downey Financial Corp. from
October 16, 2006, through March 14, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Downey and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Downey is the parent company of Downey Savings and Loan
Association, F.A., which provides financial services to
corporate and individual customers.  Downey invests in
residential real estate mortgage loans, mortgage-backed
securities, investment securities, and sells loans to investors
in the secondary markets.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company's option adjustable-rate mortgages
         (Option ARMs) portfolio contained significant amounts
         of securities backed by subprime mortgage loans;

     (2) that the Company had aggressively engaged in the
         acquisition of loans that were very high in risk;

     (3) that the Company's Option ARMs portfolio was materially
         impaired;

     (4) that the Company had improperly accounted for mortgage
         backed securities and other highly leveraged loans;

     (5) that the Company had inadequate reserves; and

     (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls.

On October 10, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it had been adversely impacted by the housing
market and that it expected to incur an operating loss of
$23 million for the quarter.  The Company stated that it had
tightened its lending guidelines, activated a loan modification
group to work with borrowers, and provided necessary resources
to dispose of homes acquired through foreclosures on a timely
basis.  Despite the dismal news, the Company stated that it was
well positioned to continue funding loans because of its strong
capital positions and stable source of funds from its retail
branch franchise.  Upon the release of this news, the Company's
shares declined $6.25 per share, or 10.53 percent, to close on
October 10, 2007 at $53.12 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Then, on March 17, 2008, the Company reported selected financial
results for the 13 months ended February 29, 2008.  These
results showed a decrease in assets and home loans, as well as
that non-performing assets were nearly 11% of total assets, as
compared to 1.2% of total assets in May 2007.  The Company
reported $13.4 billion in assets, as compared to $15.5 billion a
year earlier, and home loans of $75.7 million as compared to
$127.4 million one month earlier.  On this news, the Company's
shares declined, closing at $18.82 on March 17, 2008.  During
the Class Period, shares of the Company's stock had traded as
high as $74.85.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

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

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
                 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Gildan
Activewear Inc. common stock during the period between August 2,
2007, and April 29, 2008.

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

Gildan supplies activewear for the wholesale imprinted
sportswear market in the United States and Canada, as well as in
Europe.  The Company sells T-shirts, sport shirts, and fleece in
large quantities to wholesale distributors as undecorated
blanks, which are subsequently decorated by screenprinters with
designs and logos.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading because defendants failed to
disclose and misrepresented:

     (i) that sales of Gildan's activewear were performing below
         internal expectations as a result of a shortfall in
         production from its Dominican Republic textile
         facility;

    (ii) that Gildan was failing to timely write down an
         impairment in the value of its inventories, thereby
         materially overstating its financial results; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants had no
         reasonable basis for their earnings guidance for fiscal
         2008 and other positive statements about the Company
         and its business.

Then, on April 29, 2008, Gildan issued a press release
announcing that it was reducing its earnings per share guidance
for the second quarter and full year of fiscal 2008.  Upon this
news, shares of the Company's stock fell $10.99 per share, or
30%, to close at $24.93 per share, on heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Gildan 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
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Schatz Nobel Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, disclosed that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Gildan Activewear Inc. between
August 2, 2007, and April 29, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Gildan and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's financial performance and prospects.  
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading because defendants failed to
disclose and misrepresented:

     (i) that sales of Gildan's activewear were performing below
         internal expectations as a result of a shortfall in
         production from its Dominican Republic textile
         facility;

    (ii) that Gildan was failing to timely write down an
         impairment in the value of its inventories, thereby
         materially overstating its financial results; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants had no
         reasonable basis for their earnings guidance for fiscal
         2008 and other positive statements about the Company
         and its business.

On April 29, 2008, Gildan issued a press release announcing that
it was reducing its earnings per share guidance for the second
quarter and full year of fiscal 2008.  On this news, shares of
the Company's stock fell $10.99 per share, or 30%, to close at
$24.93 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 1,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


NEXCEN BRANDS: Holzer & Fistel Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, filed a shareholder class action
lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against NexCen
Brands, Inc. on half of purchasers of NexCen common stock
between May 10, 2007, and May 19, 2008.

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that
misrepresented and failed to disclose:

     (i) that the Company 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.

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

For more information, contact:

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


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Roy Jacobs Commences Wisconsin Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates 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.,
from February 13, 2008, through April 17, 2008, alleging claims
for securities fraud.

The complaint charges TOMO and its Chief Executive Officer
Thomas R. MacKie with violations of the Federal Securities Laws.
TOMO develops, markets and sells the Hi-Art system, 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.

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

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *