---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, June 5, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 111
  
                            Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: Ark. Court Certifies Class in "McGinnis" Case
ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeals Pa. Court's Arbitration Order in "King"
ADVANCE AMERICA: Unit Still Faces S.C. Suits Over Credit Check
AON CORP: Approval of Daniel Suit Settlement Under Appeal
AON CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal RICO Claims Dismissal in N.J. Suits

AON CORP: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Litigation in Illinois
AON CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Litigation in Ill.
BANKERS LIFE: Faces Labor Violations Lawsuit in California
CBOE: Settlement Reached in Chicago Board of Trade Lawsuit
CONSECO INC: Completes Settlement in Calif. Insurance Fraud Suit

CONSECO LIFE: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Illegal Rate Hikes
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Cheats $14 At A Time, La. Suit Alleges
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Faces Canadian Payday Loans Litigation
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Appeal Court Reverses Dismissal of "Bufil"
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Elderly Abuse Suit in Calif.

DYNEGY INC: Still Faces Gas Index Pricing Litigation in Nevada
FIRST FRANKLIN: Faces California Suit for Racial Discrimination
GULFPORT ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Robotti Lawsuit in Delaware
HANNAFORD BROS: Judges May Consolidate Nine Breach Lawsuits
HERTZ CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Price-Fixing Suit

HERTZ CORP: Seeks Transfer of Calif. Tourism Assessment Fee Suit
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Class Certification Sought in LDW Charges Suit
HUMANA INC: Named in Suits Over ERISA Violations and Rate Fixing
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Faces Lawsuit in La. After Rape Conviction
INVEST MANAGER: Calif. Suit Says Internet Ponzi Scheme Took $1MM

MAZDA MOTOR: Sued by Customers for Not Honoring Warranty
NYMEX HOLDINGS: Capozza Expects Favorable Ruling in Del. Suit
OCWEN LOAN: Wrongfully Charged Homebuyers File Wisconsin Lawsuit
OPES PRIME: U.S. Firm to Fund Suit; Administrator Seeks Support
RESOURCE LIFE: Faces Ga. Policyholders' Lawsuit Over Auto Loans

REX ENERGY: August 2008 Jury Trial for Ill. H2S Emissions Suit
ROCKWOOD SPECIALTIES: Customer Faces N.J. Suit Over Prosthesis
ROYAL GROUP: N.Y. Court Approves $9-Million Lawsuit Settlement
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces Calif. Suit Over Excluded "Last Horse"
SPECIALTY LAMP: Recalls Fake Circuit Breakers Due to Fire Hazard

USAGENCIES: Potential Class Members in "Marsh" to Get Notice
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Reaches Settlement in Pa. OSB Antitrust Lawsuit
WILLIS GROUP: N.J. Court Dismisses RICO Violations Lawsuit
WILLIS GROUP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Gender Bias Suit Deal
WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Ex-Worker's Gender Bias Case

* Senator Calls for Tying Class Action Fees to Actual Recovery


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Stull & Brody Files Illinois Securities Lawsuit
NEXCEN BRANDS: Brower Piven Commences N.Y. Securities Frau Suit
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
WCI COMMUNITIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida



                           *********


ADVANCE AMERICA: Ark. Court Certifies Class in "McGinnis" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas, certified a class  
in the matter, "Brenda McGinnis v. Advance America Servicing of
Arkansas, Inc. et al.," according to Advance America's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The putative class action suit was filed on Feb. 27, 2007.  The
suit alleges violations of the Arkansas usury law, the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and a 2001 class action settlement
agreement entered into by the company's prior subsidiary in
Arkansas.  The complaint also alleges that the company's current
subsidiary made usurious loans under the Arkansas Check Cashers
Act beginning on May 15, 2001.  

The suit seeks compensatory damages in amount equal to twice the
interest paid on the loans, a declaration that the contracts are
void, enforcement of the 2001 class action settlement agreement,
attorneys fees and costs.

The class was certified on April 22, 2008.  The trial court has
denied the company's motion to compel arbitration and the
company will appeal that decision, which appeal will run
concurrently with the trial court proceedings.

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

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com/-- is a provider of payday  
cash advance services in the U.S.  Advance America Servicing of
Arkansas, Inc., is a subsidiary of Advance America, Cash
Advance.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Appeals Pa. Court's Arbitration Order in "King"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., and Cash Advance
Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC, are appealing an arbitration order
by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in the purported class action "Raymond King and
Sandra Coates v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of
Pennsylvania, LLC."

The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2007, on behalf of customers of
BankWest -- the lending bank for which the company marketed,
processed, and serviced payday cash advances in Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs are alleging various causes of action, including
that the Pennsylvania subsidiary made illegal payday loans in
the state in violation of Pennsylvania's usury law, the
Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act, the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act and the
Pennsylvania Credit Services Act.

The complaint further alleges that BankWest was not the "true
lender" on the advances that the company marketed, processed and
serviced for BankWest in Pennsylvania and that the company was
the "lender in fact."  

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys fees,
punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.

The company filed a motion to compel arbitration in March 2007.

In January 2008, the trial court entered an order compelling the
purported class representatives to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis, unless deemed otherwise by the arbiter.

The company has appealed this order, according to its May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "King et al. v. Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-00237-JF," filed
before the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge John P. Fullam,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David A. Searles, Esq. (dsearles@donovansearles.com)
         Donovan Searles, LLC
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-732-6067
         Fax: 215-732-8060

              - and -

         Deborah Zuckerman, Esq. (dzuckerman@aarp.org)
         AARP Foundation Litigation
         601 E. Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20049
         Phone: 202-434-6045
         Fax: 202-434-6424

Representing the defendants is:

         Mark J. Levin, Esq. (levinm@ballardspahr.com)
         Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll
         1735 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
         Phone: 215-864-8235


ADVANCE AMERICA: Unit Still Faces S.C. Suits Over Credit Check
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Advance Centers Inc. -- a subsidiary of Advance America --
continues to face several purported class action suits that are
pending either with the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina or with a state court, according to Advance
America's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Initially, seven separate putative class action complaints were
filed in South Carolina against Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers Inc., Cash Advance Centers of South Carolina, Inc., and
several other unaffiliated defendants.

These suits were filed by:

     1. John and Rebecca Morgan, on Aug. 27, 2007, before the
        Horry County Court of Common Pleas;

     2. Margaret Horne, on Sept. 6, 2007, before the Spartanburg
        County Court of Common Pleas;

     3. Tawan Smalls, on Sept. 10, 2007, before the Charleston
        County Court of Commons Pleas;

     4. Chadric and Lisa Wiley, on Sept. 27, 2007, before the
        Richland County Court of Common Pleas;

     5. Mildred Weaver, on Sept. 27, 2007, before the Darlington
        County Court of Common Pleas;

     6. Lisa Johnson and Gilbert Herbert, on Oct. 2, 2007,
        before the Georgetown County Court of Common Pleas; and

     7. Kimberly Kinney, on Oct. 12, 2007, before the Marion
        County Court of Common Pleas.

The allegations and relief sought are similar in each case.  The
plaintiffs allege that the company's South Carolina subsidiary
violated the South Carolina Deferred Presentment Services Act
and the Consumer Protection Code by failing to perform a credit
check and evaluate a customer's ability to repay the advance.

Each complaint seeks an injunction to prohibit the company from
continuing its operations, the return of fees and interest,
actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Each of the lawsuits has been removed to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina.

The complaint filed by Lisa Johnson and Gilbert Herbert has been
remanded to state court and the company will seek appeal.

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

South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com/-- is a provider of payday  
cash advance services in the U.S.  Advance America Servicing of
Arkansas, Inc., is a subsidiary of Advance America, Cash
Advance.


AON CORP: Approval of Daniel Suit Settlement Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties that objected to a $38-million settlement proposal
in the purported class action suit "Daniel v. Aon Corp."
continue to appeal the Circuit Court of Cook County's final
approval of the deal.

Several suits were initially filed against Aon Corp.'s units --
Affinity Insurance Services Inc. and K&K Insurance Group --
alleging that they entered into profit-sharing relationships
with the underwriters without disclosing the income to their
policyholder clients.

The suits seek to determine whether the defendants' having
received or being eligible for receipt, without consent of its
clients, undisclosed commissions or kickbacks in connection with
the placement of insurance, violates the fiduciary or
confidential obligations imposed under Illinois law.  These
suits were later consolidated.

The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of current or former
policyholders of the Aon Corp., Aon Group, and Aon Services
Group as class members alongside lead plaintiffs Alan S. Daniel
and the Williamson County (Illinois) Agricultural Association.

On July 28, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On March 9, 2005, the court gave preliminary approval to a
nationwide class action settlement within the $38-million
reserve established in the fourth quarter of 2004.

The court granted final approval to the settlement in March
2006.  Parties that opposed the settlement have appealed.

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

Settlement Administrator's contact:

         Daniel Settlement Administrator
         2807 Allen St., PMB #801
         Dallas, TX, 75204-4094
         Phone: 1-800-714-9815
         Web site: http://www.aon-daniel-settlement.com/

The suit is "Daniel v. Aon (Affinity), Case No. 1999-CH-11893,"
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Judge Julia
M. Nowicki, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Hartunian Futterman & How
         122 S. Michigan 1850
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-427-3600

Representing the company is:

         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 E. Randolph Dr.
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-2000


AON CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal RICO Claims Dismissal in N.J. Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in several purported class action suits against
Aon Corp. that allege violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act are appealing the dismissal of their
claims by the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Beginning in June 2004, a number of other putative class action
lawsuits were filed against Aon and other companies by purported
classes of clients under a variety of legal theories, including
state tort, contract, fiduciary duty, antitrust and statutory
theories and federal antitrust and RICO theories.

The federal actions were consolidated with the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, and a state court
collective action was filed in California.

In the New Jersey actions, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
federal antitrust and RICO claims in separate orders in August
and October 2007, respectively.  

The plaintiffs have appealed these dismissals, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.  No
further development on the matter was reported.

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com/-- through its various   
subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three
operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which
acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage
their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk
with insurance carriers through its global distribution network;
Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting,
communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource
consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting;
and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance
products.


AON CORP: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Litigation in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corp. continues to face a consolidated class action suit
entitled, "In re Aon ERISA Litigation, 04 C 6875," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois and which alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

The case is about the defendants' alleged ERISA violations,
arising out of their investment of material assets of the Aon
Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan in Aon Corporation stock during
a relevant time period -- Oct. 31, 2002, to the present.  
Specifically, the suit asserts that the defendants invested Plan
assets in Aon Stock despite the company's engaging in admittedly
improper business practices throughout the relevant time period,
an undisclosed bid-rigging and kickback scheme that rendered
such investment imprudent.

According to the suit, the plaintiffs and the other members of
the class entrusted their retirement savings to the defendants,
who, by investing Plan assets in Aon Stock during the relevant
time period, breached their statutory fiduciary duties of
loyalty, care, skill, prudence, and diligence.  

The lawsuit alleges that the fiduciaries of the Aon Savings Plan
violated their fiduciary duties by their investment of Plan
assets in Aon stock during the class period, wherein Aon failed
to disclose certain harmful business practices.  Those
practices, which increased Aon's income at the expense of its  
clients, included:

     -- suggesting that an insurer raise its quote for a      
        client's business in order to settle a debt to the
        insurer and increase its contingent commission payout;    

     -- promising increased retail business to insurers in  
        return for their commitments to use Aon's reinsurance   
        services;

     -- entering into "producer funding agreements" whereby  
        insurers directly funded the hiring of Aon brokers who  
        held themselves out as Aon employees without disclosing  
        that their positions were funded by the paying insurer;

     -- entering into secret "pay-to-play" arrangements with  
        insurers whereby Aon required compensation from insurers  
        that wished to bid on a client's business;
  
     -- agreeing with preferred insurers to "freeze out" a  
        competing insurer from Aon placements when that insurer  
        did not provide comparable improper compensation to Aon;

     -- withholding a lower quote and placing a client with a  
        higher bidding insurer with which Aon had a contingent  
        commission agreement; and

     -- providing preferred insurers with first looks, last  
        looks, and exclusive looks on preferred business in  
        exchange for improper compensation.

As set forth in the complaint, these illegal business practices
can generally, though not entirely, be grouped into three types
of wrongdoing: "contingent commissions," "client steering," and
"clawbacks."

While Aon was engaged in the wrongful practices that led to the
present litigation, the defendants, in their fiduciary
capacities, made Aon Stock a vital and material part of the Plan
and never provided Plan participants -- including the plaintiffs
and the other members of the class -- with the truth regarding
Aon's business operations and the risks associated with
investing Plan assets in Aon Stock.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plan participants and beneficiaries, in
violation of SS 404 and 405 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. SS 1104 and
1105, by, inter alia:   

     (a) overconcentrating the Plan's investment purchases and  
         holdings in Aon Stock;  

     (b) imprudently permitting the Plan to purchase or hold Aon  
         Stock during the Relevant Time Period, which, in turn,  
         caused Aon Stock to trade at artificially inflated  
         prices during the Relevant Time Period;  

     (c) providing employer matching contributions to Plan  
         participants' Plan contributions in the form of    
         knowingly overvalued Aon stock, thereby failing to  
         provide Plan participants with true matching value for  
         their Plan contributions;  

     (d) failing to provide Plan participants, including  
         Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class, with  
         complete and accurate information sufficient to advise   
         the participants of the true risks associated with  
         investing in the Plan; and  

     (e) failing to properly monitor the Plan and its  
         fiduciaries.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 22, 2005,
and in November 2006, Judge Charles R. Norgle ruled that the
action may proceed as a class action.  Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLC was also officially appointed as class
counsel over the consolidated actions.

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

For more details, contact:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-984-0000


AON CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Litigation in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corp. continues to face several purported class action
lawsuits that were filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the
securities laws.

On Oct. 25, 2004, David Roth and other similarly situated
parties initiated a class action suit against Aon Corp. and
certain of its officers, alleging material misrepresentation of
its investors leading to stock losses (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 5, 2007).  

The complaint charges Aon and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Aon, through its various subsidiaries worldwide, serves
its clients through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance
Brokerage Services, Consulting and Insurance Underwriting.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Aon and its top
officers violated the federal securities laws by disseminating
false and misleading statements concerning the company's results
and operations.  The true facts, which were known by each of the
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
class period, were:

     -- that the Company was receiving illegal and concealed
        "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal
        "contingent commission agreements";

     -- that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and
        such "contingent commission agreements," the
        defendants violated applicable principles of fiduciary
        law, subjecting the Company to enormous fines and
        penalties totaling potentially tens, if not hundreds,
        of millions of dollars; and

     -- that as a result, the company's prior reported revenue
        and income was grossly overstated.

The complaint further alleges that on Oct. 14, 2004, New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced he had charged several
of the nation's largest insurance companies and the largest
broker with bid rigging and pay-offs that he claimed violated
fraud and competition laws.  Upon revelation of these illegal
acts, the company's shares fell to $23.03, a loss of 16%.  

Then on Oct. 19, 2004, The Wall Street Journal published an
article on A.G. Spitzer's investigation of Aon, which stated
that the reinsurance business, or insurance policies for
insurance companies, was the focus of the probe, because A.G.
Spitzer suspected Aon's insurance-buying clients may not have
received the best deal.  On these revelations, the company's
shares fell again, from $21.20 to $19.20, a drop of 9%.

On May 12, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class.  In November 2006, Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. granted
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

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

The suit is "David Roth, et al. v. Aon Corporation, et al., Case
No. 04-CV-6835," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
          100 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10017
          Phone: 212-907-0800
          Fax: 212-684-6083

               - and -
     
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Phone: 206-749-5544
          Fax: 206-749-9978
          e-mail: info@lerachlaw.com


BANKERS LIFE: Faces Labor Violations Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Bankers Life & Casualty Co., a subsidiary of Conseco, Inc., is
facing a purported class action suit in California over various
violations of labor laws, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Jan. 16, 2008, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Alameda.  The suit is captioned, "Robin Fletcher
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
Bankers Life and Casualty Company, and Does 1 through 100, Case
No. RG08366328."

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged nonpayment by Bankers
Life of overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, failure to reimburse expenses, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements to its sales representatives in the
State of California for the time period Jan. 16, 2004 to
present.

Additionally, the complaint alleges failure to pay wages on
termination and unfair business practices.

Conseco, Inc. -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding
company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout
the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health
insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other
insurance products.  The Company focuses on serving the senior
and middle-income markets.  CNO sells its products through three
distribution channels: career agents, professional independent
producers (some of whom sell one or more of its product lines)
and direct marketing.  The Company manages its business through
three primary business segments: Bankers Life, Conseco Insurance
Group and Colonial Penn.


CBOE: Settlement Reached in Chicago Board of Trade Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Board Options Exchange has reached a settlement with
the plaintiffs in a class action suit launched by former members
of the Chicago Board of Trade.

This suit had been the major impediment to the CBOE management's
plan to demutualize and launch an Initial Public Offering.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, which are subject to
execution of a definitive Class Settlement Agreement and its
approval by CBOE’s membership and the Delaware Court, the
plaintiff class would receive an 18% equity interest in a CBOE
demutualization plus a cash payment of $300 million.

To qualify as a class member, a person must directly own, on a
date to be specified, one CBOT B-1 membership, one Exercise
Right Privilege and 10,251.5 shares of Class A Common Stock of
CME Group, Inc.  The amount of equity and cash that any
individual could receive in the settlement would be subject to
caps.

As part of the agreement, following final court approval, the
appeal of the SEC order will be withdrawn and the parties will
agree that there are no longer any persons eligible to become
CBOE members under the CBOE exercise right.  All claims that
were or could be brought in Delaware court would be dismissed.

CBOE would be free to demutualize and would agree to take
reasonable steps to demutualize as soon as commercially
possible.  Post demutualization, class members who remain
temporary members of CBOE at demutualization will be offered
trading permits on the same basis as other regular CBOE members.

Finally, individuals who owned a CBOT B-1 membership, an ERP and
the required number of shares on July 1, 2007, and paid access
fees to CBOE to continue trading on CBOE, would receive a
payment equal to the access fees that the individual paid,
subject to an aggregate cap.

According to the company's statement, attempting to reach
agreement on this contentious issue has been difficult.  Both
sides include a variety of constituents with a broad range of
views on what is fair or appropriate, and each side believes
they have strong legal cases.

While the company is quite comfortable with CBOE’s legal
position, they also recognize that litigation is a distraction
and always involves the risk of unexpected outcomes.  More
importantly, a protracted legal battle could significantly
impede CBOE’s strategic options in a rapidly changing
environment.

Over the past several years U.S. exchanges have largely migrated
from floor-based to screen-based trading.  Technology and
regulatory changes have reduced barriers to entry.  Most
exchanges have demutualized and become for-profit entities.
These changes have brought about multiple waves of consolidation
that are now becoming global in scope.  Many of their
competitors are now partnered with larger, well-funded entities.

In this environment, the company believes that ongoing
litigation would exact an unquantifiable cost to CBOE and its
seat owners.

As the company evaluated the various scenarios and timetables,
it is clear that litigation, including appeals, could drag on
for up to three years.

The company believes a settlement could be finalized in a period
of six to twelve months.  Given these alternatives the company
believes that the proposed settlement is in the best interest of
CBOE and its seat owners.


CONSECO INC: Completes Settlement in Calif. Insurance Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc., completed the implementation of a settlement
reached in the matter "In Re Conseco Life Insurance Co. Cost of
Insurance Litigation, Cause No. MDL 1610," which was pending
with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

The company and certain subsidiaries, including Conseco Life
Insurance Co., were named in numerous purported class action and
individual lawsuits alleging, among other things, breach of
contract, fraud and misrepresentation with regard to a change
made in 2003 and 2004 in the way cost of insurance charges are
calculated for life insurance policies sold primarily under the
names Lifestyle and Lifetime.  

Approximately 86,500 of these policies were subject to the
change, which resulted in increased monthly charges to the
policyholders' accounts.  Many of the purported class action
suits were filed in federal courts across the U.S.  

In June 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated these lawsuits into the action now referred to as
"In Re Conseco Life Insurance Co. Cost of Insurance Litigation,  
Cause No. MDL 1610."

In September 2004, the plaintiffs in the multi-district action
filed an amended consolidated complaint and, at that time, added
Conseco, Inc., as a defendant.  The amended complaint alleges,
among other things, that the change enabled Conseco to add
$360 million to its balance sheet.  

The consolidated suit seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive
and exemplary damages as well as an injunction that would
require the company to reinstate the prior method of calculating
cost of insurance charges and refund any increased charges that
resulted from the change.  

On April 26, 2005, the judge in the multi-district action
certified a nationwide class on the claims for breach of
contract and injunctive relief.  The judge also issued an order
certifying a statewide California class for injunctive and
restitutionary relief pursuant to California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 and breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing, but denied certification on the claims
for fraud and intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent
concealment.

The company announced on Aug. 1, 2006, that it had reached a
proposed settlement of this case.

Under the proposed settlement, inforce policyholders were given
an option to choose a form of policy benefit enhancement and
certain former policyholders will share in a settlement fund by
either receiving cash or electing to reinstate their policies
with enhanced benefits.

At a May 21, 2007 fairness hearing, the court granted final
approval of the settlement.  The Court subsequently entered
final judgment in the case on July 5, 2007.  

The company began implementing the settlement with the inforce
and certain former policyholders in the last half of 2007.  It
previously recognized costs related to this litigation totaling
$267.2 million (none of which was recognized in the first three
months of 2008).
  
The suit is, "In re Conseco Life Insurance Company Cost of  
Insurance Litigation, Case No. 2:04-ml-01610-AHM-MC," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge A. Howard Matz, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Timothy P. Dillon, Esq. (timothy@dillonlaw.net)
         Timothy P. Dillon Law Offices
         361 Forest Avenue, Suite 205
         Laguna Beach, CA 92651
         Phone: 949-376-2800

              - and -

         John A. Yanchunis, Esq. (jyanchunis@jameshoyer.com)
         James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich
         1 Urban Centre
         4830 W Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 550
         Tampa, FL 33609
         Phone: 813-286-4100

Representing the company are:

         Timothy G. Majors, Esq. (tmajors@kirkland.com)
         Brent L. Caslin, Esq. (bcaslin@kirkland.com)
         Michael S. McCauley, Esq. (mmccauley@kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis
         777 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 3700
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-680-8400
                213-680-8686


CONSECO LIFE: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Illegal Rate Hikes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Life Insurance Co. continues to face a purported class
action suit filed on March 4, 2008, before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, accusing it of
illegally imposing staggering rate hikes on policyholders that
are so huge and so sudden that they cannot possibly be based on
expectations as to future mortality, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The complaint is entitled, "Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of
the class of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
General Public v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, successor to
Philadelphia Life Insurance Company and formerly known as
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company, Cause No. CV08-
01506 CAS."

The suit states that the court ruled against the defendant in a
previous national class action, entitled "Rosenbaum et al. v.
Philadelphia Life Insurance Co., (Conseco's predecessor)" (Class
Action Reporter, March 7, 2008).  After that ruling, Defendant
Conseco Life was forced to return all the unlawful cost of
insurance charges, plus interest, to its policyholders.  The
policies at issue in this action have the exact same cost of
insurance provisions as the policies adjudicated by this Court
in the Rosenbaum Action, the complaint states.

Named plaintiff Celedonia X. Yue brings the action on behalf of
all owners of Valuelife and Valuterm universal life insurance
policies administered by defendant.  The plaintiff seeks an
injunction requiring the defendant to reverse the unlawful
increases in cost of insurance charges on the policies and to
fulfill their contractual and other obligations to the class.

The plaintiff seeks a corresponding declaration that the
defendant must determine the cost of insurance charges for the
policies in accordance with the terms of the policies and
reinstate the cost of insurance charges that existed before the
recent unlawful increases.

The plaintiff also seeks corresponding monetary relief requiring
defendant to repay to the class, or restore to the accumulation
accounts of the policies, the amount of any unlawful
overcharges.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's actions to increase the cost of
         insurance charges on the policies violated the terms of
         the policies;

     (b) whether Conseco Life breached its contracts with the
         plaintiff and members of the class;

     (c) whether the defendant breached obligations of good
         faith and fair dealing owed to plaintiff and members of
         the class;

     (d) whether the defendant committed acts of unfair
         competition as defined by California Business and
         Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (e) whether the plaintiff and members of the class are
         entitled to specific performance, injunctive relief or
         other equitable relief against the defendant; and

     (f) whether the plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         receive incidental monetary relief or, alternatively,
         damages as a result of the unlawful conduct by the
         defendant alleged.

The plaintiffs request for judgment providing:

      -- injunctive relief to preliminarily and permanently
         enjoin the defendant, its representatives, and all]
         others acting with it or on its behalf:

         (a) from changing the cost of insurance and the
             attendant cost of insurance charges, other than for
             expectations as to future mortality experience,
             respecting the policies; and

         (b) from increasing the cost of insurance charges for
             the policies and requiring those charges to be
             returned to the levels that existed prior to the
             unlawful increases imposed by defendant;

      -- injunctive relief requiring the defendant, its
         representatives, and all others acting with it or on
         its behalf to reinstate any policyholder whose policy
         was canceled or surrendered as a result of the intended
         unlawful cost of insurance increases;

      -- incidental or other monetary relief in the form of
         repayments to the plaintiff and members of the class of
         all overcharges resulting from the cost of insurance
         increases complained of and payment of such amounts  
         into the accumulation accounts of the policies;

      -- alternatively, general damages, consequential damages,
         and other incidental damages in a sum to be determined
         at the time of trial;

      -- restitutionary relief requiring defendant to disgorge
         and divest all money received from policyholders as a  
         result of, or caused by, the artificial and sham
         increase in the cost of insurance (mortality) charges;

      -- a declaration that the increases in cost of insurance
         charges are in material breach of the policies and that
         defendant must determine the cost of insurance charges
         as explicitly set forth in the policies;

      -- attorneys' fees expended and incurred in recovery of
         benefits and enforcement of the terms of the policies
         against defendant in a sum to be determined at the time
         of trial;

      -- costs of suit incurred; and

      -- award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The plaintiff has not yet filed a motion for certification of
the class.

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

The suit is "Celedonia X. Yue et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance,
et al., Case No. CV08-01506 CAS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Timothy P. Dillon, Esq. (timothy@dillon.net)
          Law Office of Timothy P. Dillon
          361 Forest Avenue, Suite 205
          Laguna Beach, CA 92651
          Phone: 949-376-2800
          Fax: 949-376-2808

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@BFFB.com)
          Bonnet, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.
          2901 N. Central, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-776-5902
          Fax: 602-274-1199


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Cheats $14 At A Time, La. Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Financial is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
alleging it cheats homebuyers by charging them a "County
Recording Fee" when they refinance, but not paying the fee,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Jennifer Webber says that when she refinanced
her home mortgage loan, Countrywide charged her $14 for a
"County Recording Fee," which she paid.

"Plaintiff received a cancellation instrument from Countrywide,"
the complaint states, "however, Plaintiff had to pay a recording
fee individually to the County Recorder for having the
cancellation instrument recorded. . . . (A)t the time
Countrywide assessed and collected these charges from Plaintiff,
Countrywide knew it did not return these charges along with the
cancellation instrument for the cancellation of the mortgage
and, through its silence, Countrywide suppressed the facts
surrounding the charges so that it could obtain an unjust
advantage through collection of these charges against plaintiff
and other members of the class."

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or
entities, other than employees of Countrywide, who have from
March 31, 1998, to the present, requested payoff and who have
been assessed and have paid "county Recording Fee" calculated as
a flat rate, and for whom Countrywide never paid to the County
Recorder a County Recording fee.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Countrywide suppressed the truth in assessing
         and collecting the County Recording fee;

     (b) whether Countrywide assessed and collected a County
         Recording fee in bad faith;

     (c) whether countrywide paid the County Recording Fee to
         the County Recorder of cancellation of the mortgage;

     (d) whether Countrywide assessed and collected these County
         Recording Fees against all persons or entities who paid
         off a loan, and if so, for how long the process has
         continued;

     (e) whether Countrywide intended to obtain an unjust
         advantage over the members of the plaintiff class;

     (f) whether Countrywide intended to cause loss or
         inconvenience to the plaintiff class;

     (g) whether the members of the plaintiff class have
         suffered damages as a consequence of the actions of           
         Countrywide;

     (h) whether the members of the plaintiff class are entitled
         to rescission of the County Recording Fee;

     (i) whether injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent the
         continued assessment and collection of the County
         Recording Fee;

     (j) whether defendants are liable to plaintiff and the
         putative class for compensatory damages; and

     (k) all implied questions of law and fact.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

      -- a return of the County Recording Fee;

      -- all damages suffered as a consequence of the assessment
         and collection of the unpaid charges, whether said
         damages were foreseeable or not;

      -- legal interest on the County Recording Fee collected
         from the date of collection until paid; and

      -- expenses of litigation including reasonable attorneys'
         fees and costs and for all general and equitable relief
         deemed proper by the court.

The suit is "Jennifer Jeanene Webber et al. v. Countrywide
Financial Corp., Case No. 08-3587," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Darleen M. Jacobs, Esq.
          A Professional Law Corporation
          823 St. Louis Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Phone: 504-522-0155
                 504-522-3287


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Faces Canadian Payday Loans Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. and its Canadian subsidiary, Dollar
Financial Group, Inc., continue to face several purported class
action lawsuits in Canada filed by customers who were allegedly
subjected to usurious charges in payday loan transactions,
according to DFC's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

                        Smith Litigation

On Aug. 19, 2003, a former Dollar Financial customer in Ontario,
Canada, Margaret Smith, commenced a lawsuit against the Canadian
subsidiary on behalf of a purported class of Ontario borrowers
who, Smith claims, were subjected to usurious charges in payday-
loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law
proscribing usury, seeks restitution and damages, including
punitive damages, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting
further alleged usurious charges.

The Canadian subsidiary's motion to stay the action on grounds
of arbitrability was denied.  DFG's motion to stay the action
for lack of jurisdiction was denied and the appeal was
dismissed.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted on
Jan. 5, 2007, and leave to appeal from the decision was denied.

In July 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada released two decisions
regarding arbitrability in the class action context.  As a
result, the company's Canadian subsidiary has brought a new
application to stay the action and to decertify it.  

The plaintiff has responded by bringing a cross-motion for
summary judgment on selected issues.  These motions will be
heard in May 2008.

The action is presently in the discovery phase and a trial,
while not yet scheduled, is not expected until calendar year
2009.

                     Mortillaro Litigation

On Oct. 21, 2003, another former customer, Kenneth D.
Mortillaro, commenced a similar action against the Canadian
subsidiary, but this action has since been stayed on consent
because it is a duplicate action.

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the
Mortillaro action are substantially the same as those in the
Smith action.

                        Young Litigation

On Nov. 6, 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a
purported class action suit in the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class of consumers who obtained
short-term loans from the Canadian subsidiary in Alberta,
alleging, among other things, that the charge to borrowers in
connection with such loans is usurious.

The action seeks restitution and damages, including punitive
damages.

On Dec. 9, 2005, the Canadian subsidiary settled this action,
subject to court approval.  

On March 3, 2006, just prior to the date scheduled for final
court approval of the settlement, the plaintiff's lawyers
advised that they would not proceed with the settlement and
indicated their intention to join a purported national class
action.  No steps have been taken in the action since March
2006.

Subsequently, the Canadian subsidiary commenced an action
against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer for breach of
contract.  That action has not proceeded past the pleadings
stage.

                       Day Litigation

On or about March 5, 2007, a former customer, H. Craig Day,
commenced an action against the Canadian subsidiary and several
of DFC's franchisees in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta,
Canada on behalf of a putative class of consumers who obtained
short-term loans from the Canadian subsidiary in Alberta.

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the Day
action are substantially the same as those in the Young action
but relate to a claim period that commences before and ends
after the claim period in the Young action and excludes the
claim period described in that action.

                    MacKinnon Litigation

On Jan. 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced
an action against the Canadian subsidiary and 26 other Canadian
lenders on behalf of a purported class of British Columbia
residents who, MacKinnon claims, were overcharged in payday-loan
transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, alleges violations of laws proscribing usury and
unconscionable trade practices and seeks restitution and
damages, including punitive damages, in an unknown amount.

Following initial denial, MacKinnon obtained an order permitting
him to re-apply for class certification which was appealed.  The
Court of Appeal granted MacKinnon the right to apply to the
original judge to have her amend her order denying
certification.

On June 14, 2006, the original judge granted the request and the
Canadian subsidiary's request for leave to appeal the order was
dismissed.

The certification motion in this action proceeded in conjunction
with the certification motion in the Parsons action described
below.

                      Parsons Litigation

On April 15, 2005, the solicitor acting for MacKinnon commenced
a proposed class action suit against the Canadian subsidiary on
behalf of another former customer, Louise Parsons.

Class certification was granted on March 14, 2007.  An appeal
from this certification decision is pending.  The action is
presently in the discovery phase and a trial, while not yet
scheduled, is expected in 2008.

Class certification was granted on March 14, 2007.  An appeal
from this certification decision was to be argued on Feb. 8,
2008.

As a result of recently released decisions of the Supreme Court
of Canada regarding the interplay between arbitration clauses
and class actions, Money Mart raised the issue of its
arbitration clauses as a ground for appeal.

The Court of Appeal responded by adjourning the appeal and
remanding the matter to the motions judge to hear argument on
Money Mart's motion for a stay.  That motion was argued on
April 28 and 29, 2008.  

The judge has reserved her decision regarding the motion.

The action is presently in the discovery phase and a trial,
while not yet scheduled, is expected in 2009.

In December 2007 the plaintiffs delivered a motion in which they
were seeking to add the company as a defendant to this action.  

In March 2008 an order was granted adding the company as a
defendant in the action.  

A motion to certify the action against the company is scheduled
to proceed on July 14, 2008.  The company intends to oppose the
motion vigorously.

                        Other Lawsuits

Similar purported class actions have been commenced against the
Canadian subsidiary in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland.

The company is named as a defendant in the actions commenced in
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.  The claims in these additional
actions are substantially similar to those of the Ontario
actions.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- Dollar  
Financial Corp. is an international financial services company
serving under-banked consumers.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Appeal Court Reverses Dismissal of "Bufil"
------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal reversed an earlier court order
dismissing a labor-related class action suit filed against
Dollar Financial Corp. in California, which suit alleges that
the company failed to provide non-management employees with meal
and rest breaks required under state law.

Caren Bufil filed the suit on Sept. 11, 2006, seeking class
certification of the action against the company for failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage
statements and unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business
practices under California law.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and other
relief.

The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
arguing that the Bufil case is duplicative of a recently settled
case and should be dismissed.

The plaintiff filed her motion for class certification.  The
company's motion was granted, while Ms. Bufil's motion was
denied.

Ms. Bufil has appealed both rulings.  On April 17, 2008, the
Court of Appeal issued its decision, and reversed the trial
court's dismissal order, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- Dollar  
Financial Corp. is an international financial services company
serving under-banked consumers.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Elderly Abuse Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Corp. and its 'We the People Forms and Services
Centers USA' business continue to face a class-action complaint
filed on Sept. 19, 2007, with the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Alameda accusing them of
financial elder abuse, fraud, and unauthorized practice of law.

Named plaintiff Jacqueline Fitzgibbons brings the action on
behalf of all persons over the age of 65 at the time of
purchase, who paid for and received any document preparation
service involving living trusts, wills, probate matters,
quitclaim deeds and advance health care directives and powers of
attorney from a franchise office of WTP-USA (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 15, 2008).

Ms. Fitzgibbons wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the WTP defendants were engaged in the
         unauthorized and illegal practice of law without a
         license within the state of California;

     (b) whether the WTP defendants fraudulently induced
         plaintiffs to pay money to an illegal and wrongful
         business that was in violation of state law;

     (c) whether the WTP defendants were engaged in an illegal
         running and capping business for the attorney
         defendants, prohibited by Business and Professions Code
         Sections 11651 and 1652;

     (d) whether the attorney defendants, were in violation of
         Rule of Professional Conduct 1-300 stating that a
         member shall not aid any person or entity in the
         unauthorized practice of law, which constitutes an
         unfair and wrongful Business Practice under Civil Code
         Sections 17200 and 17500;

     (e) whether the attorney defendants, were in violation of
         Rule of Professional Conduct 1-310 prohibiting the
         forming of a partnership with a person who is not a
         lawyer when the activities of the partnership consist
         of the practice of law, which constitutes an unfair and
         wrongful business practice under Civil Code Sections
         17200 and 17500;

     (f) whether the attorney defendants were in violation of
         Rule of Professional Conduct 1-320 stating that
         neither a member nor a law firm shall directly or
         indirectly share legal fees with a person who is not a
         lawyer, which constitutes an unfair and wrongful
         business practice under Civil Code sections 172500 and
         17500; and

     (g) whether the WTP defendants and the attorney deefndants
         were in a conspiracy to commit the illegal and wrongful
         acts alleged by creating a franchise system based on
         the unauthorized and illegal practice of law, and/or
         partnerships with attorneys.

The action is brought as a representative action under
California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et. seq.
and California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500, et
seq. and a class action pursuant to Section 382 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.

The lawsuit seeks to redress the defendants' unlawful and
deceptive business practices in the preparation of living trust
documents and provision of other services related to the
preparation of these documents.  Specifically, it seeks to
redress defendants' pattern and practice of practicing law
without a license and assisting the unauthorized practice of the
law.  It also seeks recovery of the remedies permitted by
California law under the causes of action alleged.

The plaintiff prays that:

     -- the court enter an order certifying the suit as a class
        action;

     -- the court enter an order requiring the defendants to
        immediately cease acts that constitute unlawful, unfair
        or fraudulent business practices as alleged, and
        enjoining them from continuing to engage in any such
        acts or practices in the future;

     -- the court direct the defendants to disgorge and
        restitute any and all money, including any profits
        obtained as a result of deceptive, unlawful and
        misleading acts and practices, including their
        misrepresentations, misleading statements and acts of
        concealment;

     -- the plaintiffs be compensated individually, as well as
        the general public, for any actual damages, with
        interest, incurred as a result of said unlawful,
        fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices;

     -- the plaintiffs be awarded general and punitive damages
        according to law and proof;

     -- the plaintiffs be awarded special damages according to
        law and proof;

     -- the plaintiffs be paid the costs of suit;

     -- the court allow attorneys' fees pursuant to California
        Welfare Institutions Code Section 15657.5, as well as
        pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
        1029.8;

     -- the defendants return to the plaintiffs all funds
        acquired by means of any act or practice declared by the
        court to be unlawful or fraudulent, or to constitute
        unfair business practices;

     -- the plaintiffs be awarded statutory damages and treble
        damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345;
        and

     -- the plaintiffs be awarded pre-judgment interest
        according to law.

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

The suit is "Jacqueline Fitzgibbons et al. v. Dollar Financial
Corp., et al., Case No. RG07347097," filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq. (rsa@arnslaw.com)
          Morgan C. Smith, Esq. (mcs@arnslaw.com)
          Jonathat E. Davis, Esq. (jed@arnslaw.com)
          The Arns Law Firm
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-495-7800
          Fax: 415-495-7888

               - and -

          Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
          Stebner and Associates
          870 market Street, Suite 1212
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: 415-362-9800
          Fax: 415-362-9801
          e-mail: info@stebnerassociates.com


DYNEGY INC: Still Faces Gas Index Pricing Litigation in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy, Inc., continues to face certain purported class action
suits in Nevada under the tentative caption, "Gas Index Pricing
Litigation."

The company, several of its affiliates, its former joint venture
affiliate West Coast Power, and other energy companies were
named defendants in several lawsuits in state and federal court
claiming damages resulting from alleged price manipulation and
false reporting of natural gas prices to various index
publications in the 2000-2002 timeframe.

Many of the cases have been resolved and those which remain are
pending in Nevada.  Recent developments include:
  
                 Transferred Colorado Litigation

In February 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a
Colorado class action which had been transferred to Nevada
through the multi-district litigation process thereby dismissing
the case and all of plaintiffs' claims.

The plaintiffs have moved for reconsideration of the dismissal.

                        Remaining Cases

There are six remaining cases -- three of which seek class
certification -- also pending with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada.

Five of the cases were transferred through multi-district
litigation from other states, including Kansas, Wisconsin,
Missouri and Illinois.

All of the cases contain similar claims -- that individually and
in conjunction with other energy companies, the company engaged
in an illegal scheme to inflate natural gas prices by providing
false information to natural gas index publications.

The complaints rely heavily on prior investigations into and
reports concerning index manipulation in the energy industry.

The lawsuits seek actual and punitive damages, restitution and
expenses, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Dynegy, Inc. -- http://www.dynegy.com/-- is a holding company  
focused on the power generation sector of the energy industry.  
The Company's primary business is the production and sale of
electric energy, capacity and ancillary services from its
11,739-megawatt fleet (20 plants) of owned or leased power
generation facilities.  Dynegy's power generation facilities
generate electricity by burning coal, natural gas or oil.  


FIRST FRANKLIN: Faces California Suit for Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Franklin Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that
alleges the company discriminates against minority homebuyers,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action suit brought under the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, 15 USC Section 1691, and the Fair Housing Act,
42 USC Section 3601 et seq.

According to the complaint, the defendant has established a
specific, identifiable and uniform credit pricing system, a
component of which, referred to as the Discretionary Pricing
Policy, authorizes unchecked, subjective surcharge of additional
points and fees to an otherwise objective risk-based financing
rate.  In other words, after a finance rate acceptable to the
defendant is determined by objective criteria (e.g. the
individual's credit history, credit score, debt-to-income ratio
and loan-to-value ratios), the defendant's credit pricing policy
authorizes additional discretionary finance charges.  These
subjective, additional finance charges have a widespread
discretionary impact on minority applicants for home mortgage
loans, in violation of ECOA and the FHA.

This class action is brought on behalf of all minority consumers
who obtained home mortgage loan from the defendant in the United
States between Jan. 1, 2001, and the date of judgment in this
action and who were subject to the defendant's Discretionary
Pricing Policy pursuant to which they paid discretionary points,
fees or interest mark-ups in connection with their loan.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) the nature and scope of the defendant's policies and
         procedures concerning the assessment of yield spread
         premiums and other discretionary fees on mortgage loans
         it funds;

     (b) whether First Franklin is a creditor under the ECOA
         because, for example, in the ordinary course of its
         business it participates in the decision of whether or
         not to extend credit to consumers;

     (c) whether the defendant's Discretionary Pricing Policy is
         a facially neutral credit pricing system that has
         affected racial discrimination in violation of ECOA;

     (d) whether there are statistically significant disparities
         between the amount of the discretionary charges imposed
         on minority persons and the amount of the discretionary
         charges imposed on white persons that are unrelated to
         creditworthiness;

     (e) whether any legitimate business reason for the
         Discretionary Pricing Policy can be achieved by a
         credit pricing system less discriminatory in its
         impact;

     (f) whether the court can enter declaratory and injunctive
         relief; and

     (g) the proper measure of disgorgement and actual and
         punitive damages and restitution.

The plaintiffs ask the court to:

     -- certify this case as a class action and certify the
        named plaintiffs to be adequate class representatives
        and their counsel to be class counsel;

     -- enter a judgment, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1691e(c)
        and 42 USC Section 3613, declaring the acts and
        practices of defendant complained of to be in violation
        of ECOA and the FHA;

     -- grant a permanent or final injunction, pursuant to 15
        USC 1691e(c) and 42 USC Section 3613(c), enjoining
        defendant, and the defendant's agents and employees,
        affiliates and subsidiaries, from continuing to
        discriminate against plaintiffs and the members of the
        class because of their race through further use of the
        Discretionary Pricing Policy or any other non-risk-
        related discretionary pricing policy employed by the
        defendant and enjoining the defendant from continuing
        to collect charges resulting from discrimination;

     -- order the defendant, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1691e(c)
        and 42 USC Section 3613(c), to monitor and audit the
        racial pattern of its financings to ensure the cessation
        of discriminatory effects in its home mortgage          
        transactions;

     -- order disgorgement, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1691e(c),
        of all disproportionate non-risk charges imposed on
        minorities by the defendant's Discretionary Pricing
        Policy, and order the equitable distribution of such
        charges to all appropriate class members, together with
        other relief for unjust enrichment;

     -- order actual and punitive damages and restitution to
        the plaintiffs and the class pursuant to 42 USC Section
        3613(c);

     -- award plaintiffs the costs of this action, including the
        fees and costs of experts, together with reasonable
        attorneys' fees, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1691e(d)
        and 42 USC Section 3613(c); and

     -- grant plaintiffs and the class such other and further
        relief as the court finds necessary and proper.

The suit is "Claudia P. Sierra et al. v. First Franklin
Financial Corp., Case No. C08-02735," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Allan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          Robert M. Bramson, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0770
          Fax: 925-945-8792


GULFPORT ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Robotti Lawsuit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gulfport Energy Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action suit filed in the Court of Chancery for the State
of Delaware in and for Kent County, Delaware, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit was filed on July 27, 2007, by Robotti & Company, LLC.  
It alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by Gulfport and its
directors in connection with the pricing of the 2004 rights
offering.  

By mutual agreement of the parties, Gulfport was not required to
respond until notified by the plaintiff, which was received on
Jan. 16, 2008.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Jan. 15, 2008, and,
in early February 2008, Gulfport filed a motion to dismiss the
case and filed a brief in support of its dismissal motion on
April 29, 2008.

Gulfport Energy Corp. -- http://www.gulfportenergy.com/-- is an  
independent oil and natural gas exploration and production
company with properties located along the Louisiana Gulf Coast.
The Company's operations are concentrated in two fields: West
Cote Blanche Bay (WCBB) and the Hackberry fields.  The Company
also holds ownership interests in entities that operate in
Southeast Asia, Canada and the Williston Basin area of western
North Dakota and eastern Montana.


HANNAFORD BROS: Judges May Consolidate Nine Breach Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
A panel of federal judges is expected to consolidate into one
federal class-action case about nine lawsuits against Hannaford
Bros. over a data breach that exposed some 4.2 million debit and
credit card numbers to potential fraudulent use, The Patriot
Ledger reports.

Two competing groups of law firms are vying to lead the case.
Berger & Montague is collaborating with the Chicago firm Barnow
& Associates and the Miami firm Harke & Clasby, while the
competing group consists of Murray, Plumb & Murray in Portland,
Lewis Saul & Associates in Portland, and Shapiro Haber & Urmy in
Boston.

According to the report, the massive breach that compromised up
to 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers used at 165
Hannaford supermarkets in the Northeast and 106 Sweetbay stores
in Florida sparked 14 lawsuits in Maine, seven in Florida, one
in New Hampshire and one in New York.

In April, a motion to consolidate the lawsuits was filed before
the U.S. District Court in Bangor, Maine, on behalf of Greg
Doherty and "all others similarly situated," asserting that
Hannaford was negligent in not providing adequate data security
and did not inform customers of the breach quickly enough (Class
Action Reporter, April 21, 2008).

The report recounts that the breach occurred between Dec. 7,
2007, and March 10, 2008.  Hannaford did not notify the public
of the breach until March 17, 2008.

The suit seeks credit monitoring or similar protection,
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

Hannaford spokeswoman Carol Eleazer said that the company does
not comment on pending litigation, but documents filed by its
lawyers in federal court indicate the Scarborough, Maine-based
chain agreed the separate lawsuits should be consolidated in
Maine.

Hannaford has half a dozen stores in the mid-Hudson region.  So
far, the only solution the company has offered its customers is
advice: that they notify their banks and credit card companies
and watch their statements for any authorized activity.


HERTZ CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Price-Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported class action suit
against The Hertz Corp. over alleged fixing of prices on rental
cars at California airports.

On Nov. 14, 2007, a purported class action suit was commenced in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.  
The suit is captioned, "Michael Shames, Gary Gramkow, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.,
Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
Enterprise Rent-A- Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast
Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and
Caroline Beteta."

The suit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all
individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from
a defendant at a California situs airport after Jan. 1, 2007.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants agreed to charge
consumers a 2.5% assessment and not to compete with respect to
this assessment, while misrepresenting that this assessment is
owed by consumers -- rather than the rental car defendants -- to
the California Travel and Tourism Commission.

It also alleges that the defendants agreed to pass through to
consumers a fee known as the Airport Concession Fee, which fee
had previously been required to be included in the rental car
defendants' individual base rates, without reducing their base
rates.

Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts violations of
15 U.S.C. Section 1, California's Unfair Competition Law and
California's False Advertising Law, and seeks treble damages,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

The complaint also asserts separately against the California
Travel and Tourism Commission and Caroline Beteta, the
Commission's Executive Director, alleged violations of The
California Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.

In January 2008, Hertz filed a motion to dismiss the case.  In
April 2008, the court granted -- with leave to amend -- the
separate dismissal motions of the rental car defendants, the
California Travel and Tourism Commission and Caroline Betata.

In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
according to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'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 "Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz Corp. Case No.
07CV 2174 H BLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq.
          Ed Howard, Esq.
          Center for Public Interest Law
          University of San Diego School of Law
          5998 Alcala Park
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: 619-260-4806
          Fax: 619-260-4753
          e-mail: cpil@sandiego.edu

          Donald G. Rez, Esq. (rez@shlaw.com)
          Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel
          550 West C Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, California 62101
          Phone: 619-233-4100
          Fax: 619-231-4372

               - and -

          Dennis Stewart, Esq. (dstewart@hulettharper.com)
          Hulett Harper Stewart LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-338-1133
          Fax: 619-338-1139


HERTZ CORP: Seeks Transfer of Calif. Tourism Assessment Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corp. is seeking for the transfer of the purported
class action captioned, "In re Tourism Assessment Fee
Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-08118-FMC-AJW," to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The suit, which is currently pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, is in connection
to California's Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism Assessment
Program.

                       Comiskey Litigation

On Dec. 13, 2007, a purported class action complaint was
commenced before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The suit is entitled, "Thomas J.
Comiskey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car,
Inc., Avalon Global Group, Hertz Corporation, Enterprise Rent-A-
Car, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car,
Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc., The California Travel and Tourism
Commission, and Dale E. Bonner."

The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
all persons and entities that have paid an assessment since the
inception of the Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism
Assessment Program in California on Jan. 1, 2007.

The complaint alleges that California's Passenger Car Rental
Industry Tourism Assessment Program, as included in the
California Tourism Marketing Act, violates the U.S.
Constitution's Commerce Clause and First Amendment, both
directly and in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Article I,
Sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution, and Article
XIX, Section 2 of the California Constitution.  

The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, that all
unspent assessments collected and to be collected be held in
trust, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.  

                       Cohen Litigation

On Dec. 14, 2007, Isabel S. Cohen filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California a complaint
virtually identical to that filed in Comiskey.

                         Consolidation

In February 2008, the court consolidated Comiskey and Cohen, and
captioned the consolidated action, "In re Tourism Assessment Fee
Litigation," and ordered the plaintiffs to serve a single
consolidated class-action complaint.

                         Transfer Sought

In April 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and the company also filed a motion to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California for potential consolidation with the
matter, "Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz Corp. Case No.
07CV 2174 H BLM," according to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'s
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation, Case No.
2:07-cv-08118-FMC-AJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joseph D. Cohen, Esq. (jcohen@weisslurie.com)
          Weiss and Lurie
          551 Fifth Avenue Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10176
          Phone: 212-682-3025

               - and -

          Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
          Stull Stull and Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael F. Tubach, Esq. (mtubach@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers
          275 Battery St, Ste 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
          Phone: 415-984-8700

               - and -

          Douglas B. Adler, Esq. (dadler@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
          300 S. Grand Ave Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
          Phone: 213-687-5000


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Class Certification Sought in LDW Charges Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action suit filed over the
Loss Damage Waiver charge of Hertz Equipment Rental Corp., the
heavy equipment rental division of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.,
are seeking for the certification of a class in their case.

On Aug. 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., filed the suit
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
against HERC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The suit purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of
all persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC
and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver charge.

The complaint alleges that the LDW is deceptive and
unconscionable as a matter of law under pertinent sections of
New Jersey law, including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and
the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of statutory damages
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages with the return of all LDW charges paid,
declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting HERC from
engaging in acts with respect to the LDW charge that violate the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  

The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.

In November 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff, Texas-resident Miguel V. Pro, as
well as new claims relating to HERC's charging of an
Environmental Recovery Fee.

Causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing were also added.  

After extensive discovery, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the class in May 2008, according to Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc.'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 "Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz Equipment Rental
Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-03830-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dennis M.
Cavanaugh, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Scott A. George, Esq. (sgeorge@sheller.com)
         Sheller, Ludwig & Sheller, P.C.
         One Greentree Ctr.
         Rte. 73 & Greentree Rd., Suite 201
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Phone: 856-988-5590

Representing the defendant is:

         Alan E. Kraus, Esq. (alan.kraus@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins, LLP
         One Newark Center, 16th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07101-3174
         Phone: 973-639-7293


HUMANA INC: Named in Suits Over ERISA Violations and Rate Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Humana Inc. has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit claiming that the health insurer provided certain
retirement plan participants with misleading information, among
other things, the Associated Press reports.

The complaint was filed last month in a U.S. District Court in
Kentucky by participants in and beneficiaries of the Humana
Retirement and Savings Plan and the Humana Puerto Rico
Retirement Plan, according to a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The complaint asserts that the Louisville, Kentucky-based
company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by
offering Humana common stock as an investment option for the
plans and investing the plans' assets in Humana stock, even
though they should have known this was not a suitable investment
option.  The suit also alleges the company provided participants
with misleading information and failed to avoid conflicts of
interest.

The complaint seeks the repayment of alleged losses, an
injunction against future violations of ERISA, actual damages,
and legal fees and costs.

Additionally, the AP says, Humana, along with certain other
health insurers, has been named as a defendant in a purported
class action suit filed on April 29 in a U.S. District Court in
Connecticut.  The suit alleges, among other things, that the
defendants conspired to fix the rates at which they reimbursed
their health plan members for costs of services received from
out-of-network health care providers.  As a result, the
defendants allegedly caused their members to pay a greater share
of the costs of those services than they otherwise would have
paid.

The Connecticut complaint seeks an award of monetary damages, an
injunction prohibiting alleged unlawful activities and legal
fees.

Humana said in the SEC filing that it believes the lawsuits are
without merit and plans to defend each "vigorously."


INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Faces Lawsuit in La. After Rape Conviction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Workers at the International House of Pancakes, Inc., filed a
class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana after a rape conviction,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, an IHOP manager was sentenced to 15
years in prison for raping an employee after the company ignored
several employees' complaints of his sexual harassment were
ignored.

Four named plaintiffs in the complaint say that IHOP and its
franchisees in Covington, La., responded to numerous complaints
of sexual, racial and age discrimination by firing the grieved
employees.

The plaintiffs claim that in 2005, they "telephoned defendant
International House of Pancakes, Inc. to advise them of the
ongoing persistent sexual harassment by manager Ahab Mohammed,"
including "groping, touching, and caressing female employees'
pubic area," and his denying "promotions and pay raises to
female employees who refused to engage in sex."

When IHOP did not act, and plaintiffs complained of
discrimination and they were fired, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs say this fit the pattern of IHOP's retaliating
"against those employees who complained of sexually
discriminatory treatment, including harassment," to discourage
other employees "from doing likewise."

They also accuse Mr. Mohammed of "habitually and methodically
destroying employment applications of African Americans for no
other reason than that the applicant was African American."

The complaint notes that in February this year, Mr. Mohammed was
convicted of raping an underage employee, and was sentenced to
15 years in prison for it.

The plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment in their
favor for restoration of employment, compensatory damages, back
pay, benefits, front pay and punitive damages, pre-judgment and
post judgment interest, reasonable attorney fees, court costs
and other costs of these proceedings, and any other remedy,
equitable or otherwise, to which the plaintiffs may be entitled
under the facts and law applicable.

The suit is "Bobby O. Matthews et al. v. International House of
Pancakes, Inc. et al., Case No. 08-3595," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Douglas D. Brown, Esq.
          Post Office Box 217
          311 S,. Holly St.
          Hammond, LA 70404
          Phone: 985-542-0444
          Fax: 985-542-0426


INVEST MANAGER: Calif. Suit Says Internet Ponzi Scheme Took $1MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Invest Manager is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura,
alleging it defrauded hundreds of customers of more than
$1 million by promising them weekly returns of 12% to 25% in an
Internet-based Ponzi scheme, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This lawsuit arises from a Ponzi scheme conducted over the
Internet from at least Oct. 31, 2007, through the present.

This action is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 382 on behalf of all investors who invested funds with
Invest Manager and suffered losses as a result of the
defendants' conduct complained of.

Named plaintiff Fred A. Davidson claims that the defendant ran
the scheme through precious metals accounts he kept with non-
party E-Bullion.

E-Bullion is a Panamanian company that "operates a worldwide
gold based electronic currency market over the Internet," the
complaint explains.

Mr. Davidson said he names E-Bullion "solely because the
defendants conducted their fraudulent activities in part through
the mechanism of the E-Bullion system and because the proceeds
of such fraud may be on deposit with E-Bullion."

He claims Invest Manager promised the investments would be
secure, but, "As ultimately happens with all Ponzi schemes,
however, Invest Manager ceased making payments to its investors,
failed to return investments, and continues to refuse to return
telephone calls from its investors."

With 25% weekly returns, an investment of $10,000 would earn
more than $200 million in one year, the report says.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- damages in a sum according to proof, including, but
        not limited to, lost profits and other consequential
        damages in an amount not less than $2 million;

     -- interest thereon from the time of each breach to the
        present;

     -- attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- exemplary and punitive damages based on defendants'
        fraudulent, malicious and oppressive communications
        and or conduct in an amount not less than $2 million;

     -- costs of suit incurred; and

     -- such other relief as the court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is "Fred A. Davidson et al v. Invest Manager et al.,
Case No. 56-2008-00319024-CU-FR-VTA," filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Ventura.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steven J. Renshaw, Esq. (srenshaw@renshawlegal.com)
          Christine A. Renshaw, Esq.
          Renshaw & Associates, A Professional Law Corporation
          107 Figueroa Street, Suite 600
          Ventura, California 93001
          Phone: 805-643-1529
          Fax: 805-643-1520


MAZDA MOTOR: Sued by Customers for Not Honoring Warranty
--------------------------------------------------------
Mazda is facing a class action lawsuit in Superior Court for
allegedly cheating customers by refusing to fix or replace
defective fuel pumps in its 2000-2002 Model 626s that are still
under warranty, Courthouse News Service reports.

The class claims that Mazda refuses to honor its seven-
year/70,000 mile warranty.

The company is represented by Daniel Chang, Esq., of the
Diversity Law Group.


NYMEX HOLDINGS: Capozza Expects Favorable Ruling in Del. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cataldo J. Capozza, an original member and shareholder of NYMEX
Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:NMX), who launched a class action suit on
March 17, 2008, in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of all
NYMEX shareholders, expects a favorable ruling on the pending
class action challenging the proposed sale to CME Group, Inc.

"When that happens, we will turn our attention to replacing
Richard Schaeffer and James Newsome as directors and senior
officers of the Company with business leaders who are dedicated
to protecting investors and growing shareholder equity," Mr.
Capozza said.

Mr. Capozza has objected to CME's bid to acquire NYMEX since the
proposed transaction was first announced in January.  At that
time, the bid for NYMEX was $119 per share in cash and CME
stock, or more than $11 billion for the company.  However,
because the deal had no price protection, the price offered by
CME has dropped by more than 20 percent as CME stock has
declined.

At present, the offer is worth less than $90 per share, a
decline in value of more than 24%.

Mr. Capozza noted that NYMEX completed a secondary stock
offering in March of 2007, at $136.50 per share, and has
announced several quarters of record results since then.  On
May 16, 2008, NYMEX reported average daily volume for April of
2008 that was 22% above the volume for April of 2007.  In
addition, trading on the GLOBEX electronic platform rose 30%
from April of 2007.  "NYMEX members and shareholders are under
no pressure to sell at an unfair and inadequate price.  However,
if the $136.50 price were offered now, I believe both the
members and the shareholders would seriously consider it,"
Mr. Capozza said.

Responding to reports that CME may not substantially raise its
bid for NYMEX, Mr. Capozza said, "We have a great brand and a
valuable franchise.  We are a market leader, and have been for
decades.  NYMEX pays a quarterly dividend, and paid a special
dividend of $100 million last year.  If the CME offer doesn't
fairly compensate NYMEX shareholders for their valuable
investment, it will be rejected and we'll remain an independent
company."  However, Mr. Capozza added, "The members and
shareholders have lost faith and confidence in Richie Schaeffer
and Jim Newsome.  They never should have promoted a deal that
was bad to begin with, and has dropped by $2 billion since
January.  Because of the way the deal is structured, NYMEX
shares have been dragged down as the CME shares continue to
fall."

Mr. Capozza added, "If CME walks away from the deal or if the
members and shareholders vote it down, I believe NYMEX shares
will once again trade above $120 per share.  With new management
in place and if the Dow increases as some investors expect,
NYMEX could approach $140 to $150 per share by mid-2009 and the
seats, which the members do not have to sell, could be valued at
$1 million each with electronic trading income."

According to Mr. Capozza, "In my opinion, Richie Schaeffer and
Jim Newsome proposed this sale so they and their cohorts could
receive a $60 million windfall payout upon a CME takeover.  I
don’t know of any other reason why they would have done this to
the members and the shareholders."

Even if the members and shareholders approve the merger,
Mr. Capozza emphasized that the vote and the merger remain
subject to review by the Delaware Chancery Court.

                      Case Background
                         
On March 17, 2008, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action suit in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware on behalf of shareholders of NYMEX Holdings, against
NYMEX, Richard Schaeffer, certain other directors and officers
of the company, and CME Group for breach of fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed sale of NYMEX to CME (Class Action
Reporter, March 19, 2008).

The complaint alleges that the director-defendants, aided and
abetted by NYMEX and CME, breached their fiduciary duties to
Mr. Capozza -- an original member and shareholder -- and the
other NYMEX shareholders by agreeing to sell NYMEX to CME for
grossly inadequate consideration.

The complaint also alleges that the proposed acquisition was
negotiated through a process that was fundamentally flawed.

The suit is "Capozza v. NYMEX Holdings, Inc., et al.," filed
before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. (rifkin@whafh.com)
          Rachel Poplock, Esq. (poplock@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600


OCWEN LOAN: Wrongfully Charged Homebuyers File Wisconsin Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin alleging it wrongfully charged fees without disclosing
them to customers or to bankruptcy judges or trustees,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This lawsuit seeks class wide relief for persons who have filed
for bankruptcy relief and have been wrongfully charged fees that
were never disclosed to them, their bankruptcy judge, and their
bankruptcy trustee.

Such practice, which amounts to a secret "profit center" enjoyed
by defendant, is a willful violation of the automatic stay
conferred by 11 USC Section 362 and entitles plaintiffs to
monetary damages and injunctive relief, as provided by the
Bankruptcy Code.

Ocwen, whose residential loan offices are in West Palm Beach and
in Bangalore and Mumbai, India, had 447,142 loans with an unpaid
principal balance of $53.12 billion as of June 30, 2007, the
complaint states.  Twenty-four percent of those properties are
in California.

The plaintiffs claim Ocwen illegally imposes charges after
debtors files for bankruptcy and without getting court
permission to do so.

The plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Rule 23(a),
(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who filed a petition
for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code in
circumstances in which Ocwen imposed charges that were incurred
during the pending of the bankruptcy (in other words, either
pre-confirmation or post-confirmation) without first getting
approval from the presiding bankruptcy judge to impose such
charges.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Ocwen is permitted to charge plaintiffs and the
         class without seeking approval from the presiding
         bankruptcy judges;

     (b) whether Ocwen's failure to get approval for its charges
         renders them per se unreasonable;

     (c) what the extent and measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and the class are;

     (d) whether there is a need for an accounting of funds
         collected pursuant to Ocwen's practices; and

     (e) whether the acts of Ocwen apply to the class as a
         whole, entitling the class to injunctive relief as well             
         as damages.

The plaintiffs ask the to court enter an order:

     -- certifying the class and designating the plaintiffs as
        its representatives;

     -- declaring that the practice by Ocwen of charging debtors
        for expenses without first disclosing and getting
        approval for imposing those charges from presiding
        bankruptcy judges violates the Bankruptcy Code;

     -- enjoining defendant from engaging in practices as
        described;

     -- requiring defendant to account for all charges
        improperly collected from plaintiffs and class members;
        and

     -- awarding to plaintiffs and class members prejudgment and
        post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys'
        fees, expert witness' fees, and other costs of
        litigation.

The suit is "Darrick Jordan et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00477-CNC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jordan M. Lewis, Esq.
          Siegel, Brill, Greupner Duffy & Foster
          1300 Washington Square
          100 Washington Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-339-1131


OPES PRIME: U.S. Firm to Fund Suit; Administrator Seeks Support
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on April 3, 2008, that
investors are bringing a class action suit against a company
called South Eastern Capital Limited, formally known as Opes
Prime Group Limited, before the Federal Court in Melbourne
(Australia).

According to the CAR report, the Melbourne-based company went
into receivership in March amid claims that it had falsely
transferred shares between margin loan scheme accounts to hide
its losses.  Around 1,200 retail clients risk losing their
investments, the report said.

The applicants, the report stated, have yet to set out the
grounds for their claim.

According to a recent report by ABC Online, U.S.-based
litigation firm Commonwealth Legal Funding has agreed to fund
the class action suit which Opes Prime shareholders are bringing
against the failed stockbroker and the ANZ Bank.

Opes Prime, the report recalled, is being investigated by the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission after
irregularities were found in some accounts.  ANZ Bank, on the
other hand, sold millions of Australian dollars worth of shares
immediately after the collapse.

Slater and Gordon lawyer James Higgins told ABC Radio's AM
program that the legal proceedings against Opes Prime would
begin within weeks.

"We've been contacted by in excess of 130 people with in excess
of AUD150 million worth of losses," Mr. Higgins said.  "At least
80 of those have expressed an interest in having their actions
funded by the litigation funder, and we've sent out funding
agreements to those people from Commonwealth Legal Funding in
order for them to consider their position."

In a June 2 update, The Age wrote that the administrator for
Opes Prime has asked the group's 1,200 clients to rally behind
his attempts to broker a deal with Opes financiers including
ANZ, and refrain from legal action that might be "unhelpful" to
the mediation process.

In a circular released on May 31 to creditors -- mostly Opes
clients who may not get any return on the AUD500 million they
are owed after the collapse -- the Opes administrators, led by
Ferrier Hodgson's John Lindholm, backed negotiations for a deal
that would avoid expensive legal action.

"Our discussions with various parties have progressed to the
point where we are confident that the key parties would
participate in a mediation process," Mr. Lindholm said in the
circular.

According to The Age, ANZ and Mr. Lindholm have previously
refuted suggestions that talks are anything more than
exploratory.  ANZ has denied reports suggesting it is offering
creditors 60¢ in the dollar.

Creditors were first told they could recoup up to 30¢ in the
dollar from the collapsed group, The Age says.  Opes clients
have resorted to legal action to try to recoup their funds --
albeit with lawyers and litigation funders receiving a cut if
the legal action is successful.

Mr. Lindholm said: "It is in the interests of all creditors that
protracted litigation be avoided.  As a general proposition the
administrators are of the view that it is likely to be unhelpful
to the mediation process if investor creditors were to subscribe
to any process whereby part of their litigation proceeds are
assigned to, or withheld by, an external party, such as a
litigation funder or a solicitor."

He said clients who had signed up for class-action lawsuits
should "seek urgent independent legal advice as to whether the
legal documentation you were asked to sign contains a
termination (for example a cooling off) entitlement and, if so,
whether you should now exercise that entitlement, in light of
the information set out in this circular".

The circular says ANZ has informed the administrators it is
committed to exploring a commercial outcome, so long as Merrill
Lynch and the other key parties also participate.

ANZ and Merrill account for most of the AUD1.3-billion worth of
loans and AUD1.6-billion worth of shares sold to pay down the
debt.

"Should the process result in a proposal which the
administrators wish to recommend to creditors, it is likely that
creditors will be asked to formally support the proposal at a
meeting of creditors to bring all existing and potential
litigation to an end," Mr. Lindholm said.

The administrators sought an extension of until July 31 to the
second creditors' meeting so they can determine whether the
mediation will work, or if Opes will need to be put into
liquidation, so they can use the additional powers to get a
better return.

In the circular, Mr. Lindholm offered the strongest hint yet
that there may be problems with title to the shares of Merrill
and ANZ, which could be potentially overturned in a liquidation.
"There were a number of changes to the lending arrangements with
the ANZ Bank and Merrill Lynch during March 2008 and prior to
the commencement of the administrations," he said without
elaborating.


RESOURCE LIFE: Faces Ga. Policyholders' Lawsuit Over Auto Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Life Insurance Co., a former subsidiary of Aon Corp.,
is facing a putative class action suit, entitled "Buckner v.
Resource Life," which is pending with a state court in Columbus,
Georgia.

The complaint alleges that Resource Life, which wrote policies
insuring repayment of auto loans, was obligated to identify and
return unearned premium to policyholders whose loans terminated
before the end of their scheduled terms.  

In connection with the sale of Resource Life in 2006, Aon agreed
to indemnify the company's buyer in certain respects relating to
this action, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.  No further development in the
matter was reported.

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com/-- through its various  
subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three
operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which
acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage
their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk
with insurance carriers through its global distribution network;
Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting,
communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource
consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting;
and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance
products.


REX ENERGY: August 2008 Jury Trial for Ill. H2S Emissions Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 18, 2008 jury trial has been set in a putative class
action suit filed against Rex Energy Operating Corp. and pending
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois over hydrogen sulfide emissions.

In general, the suit is asserting that the operation of oil
wells that are controlled, owned or operated by the company has
resulted in contamination of the areas surrounding Bridgeport
and Petrolia, Illinois, with hydrogen sulfide, or H2S.

The complaint asserts several causes of action, including
violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
negligence, private nuisance, trespass, and willful and wanton
misconduct.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint specifically
denying all of the allegations in the complaint and asserting
affirmative defenses.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification
requesting that the court certify the case as a class action.  

On Jan. 26, 2007, the court issued a scheduling and discovery
order stating that the court will schedule a hearing on the
plaintiffs' class certification request after Aug. 31, 2007.

On Jan. 31, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
seeking permission to file an amended complaint that would add a
claim against the defendants for alleged violation of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, making factual
allegations similar to those previously asserted in the
plaintiffs' prior pleadings.

The plaintiffs also filed an amended motion for class
certification with the court on Jan. 22, 2008.  PennTex Illinois
and Rex Operating filed a joint motion opposing class
certification in February 2008, and the plaintiffs filed a reply
brief soon after.

The current scheduling and discovery order issued by the court
provides that the court may fix a hearing date in connection
with class certification if it deems that one is necessary.
However, such a hearing has not been scheduled.

The final pretrial conference for the putative class action
lawsuit is scheduled for Aug. 7, 2008.  The case is scheduled
for jury trial on Aug. 18, 2008, with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois.

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

The suit is "Leib et al. v. Rex Energy Operating Corp., Case No.   
3:06-cv-00802-JPG-CJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge J. Phil Gilbert with
referral, Judge Clifford J. Proud, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Norman B. Berger, Esq. (nberger@vblhc.com)
          Varga, Berger et al.
          Cook County, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 350
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: 312-341-9870
          Fax: 312-341-2900

               - and -

          Shawn M. Collins, Esq. (smc@collinslaw.com)
          Collins Law Firm
          Du Page County, 1770 North Park Street, Suite 200
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Phone: 630-527-1595
          Fax: 630-527-1193

Representing the defendants are:

          Kenneth R. Heineman, Esq. (kenneth.heineman@husch.com)
          Husch & Eppenberger
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-480-1500

               - and -

          Edward Lewis, Esq. (elewis@fulbright.com)
          Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Phone: 713-651-3760
          Fax: 713-651-5246


ROCKWOOD SPECIALTIES: Customer Faces N.J. Suit Over Prosthesis
--------------------------------------------------------------
A customer of the Advanced Ceramics business of Rockwood
Specialties Group, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Rockwood Holdings, Inc., has been named in a class action
lawsuit in New Jersey relating to a prosthesis hip replacement
system using ceramic components.

The lawsuit alleges a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act,
design defect, breach of warranty and negligence based on the
customer’s design and manufacture of hip implant systems,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Rockwood Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.rockwoodspecialties.com/
-- is a global developer, manufacturer and marketer of value-
added specialty chemicals and advanced materials used for
industrial and commercial purposes.  The Company's products
consist primarily of inorganic chemicals and solutions, and
engineered materials.  Rockwood operates globally, manufacturing
its products in 91 facilities in 25 countries, and selling its
products and providing its services to more than 60,000
customers.  It operates its business through five business
segments: Specialty Chemicals, Performance Additives, Titanium
Dioxide Pigments, Advanced Ceramics and Specialty Compounds.


ROYAL GROUP: N.Y. Court Approves $9-Million Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved the proposed $9,182,764.18 (CDN$9,000,000) settlement
in the matter, "In re Royal Group Technologies Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 06 Civ. 0822."

Royal Group, which was acquired by Georgia Gulf Corp on Oct. 3,
2006, and certain of its former officers and former board
members were named as defendants in two shareholder class action
suits pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
concerning, among other things, alleged inadequate disclosure to
shareholders during the cumulative period of Feb. 26, 1998, and
Oct. 18, 2004, of related party transactions (Class Action
reporter, April 8, 2008).

In March 2007, Royal Group entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement with the respective plaintiffs in each
case, after a mediation process among Royal Group and the
plaintiffs, for the full settlement of all claims raised in
those actions against Royal Group and all of the defendants on
behalf of class members in return for the payment of Canadian
dollar $9.0 million towards a global settlement fund by Royal
Group and its insurer.

Following execution of the stipulation and agreement of
settlement, Royal Group paid the CDN$9.0-million settlement
amount in cash into escrow.  

The settlement is conditional upon, among other things, approval
by both the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York and the
corresponding orders approving the settlement becoming final.

By order dated Dec. 17, 2007, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice approved the settlement and subject to all conditions to
the stipulations and settlement agreement being satisfied
including final approval of the settlement by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissed the
Ontario action.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved the settlement at a hearing on March 6, 2008, according
to Georgia Gulf Corp.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Royal Group Securities Class Action
          c/o Crawford Class Action Services,
          Claims Administrator
          2813 Wehrle Drive
          Williamsville, New York 14221
          Phone: 1-866-640-9997
          Fax: 519-578-4016
          e-mail: rgtadmin@crawco.ca
          Web site: http://www.rgtsettlement.ca/

          Rick Nelson, Esq.,
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
          San Diego, California 92101
          Phone: 1-800–449-4900
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/

               - and -

          David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, New York 10005
          Phone: 1-800-321-0476
          Web site: http://www.Labaton.com


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces Calif. Suit Over Excluded "Last Horse"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games is facing a class-action complaint in the
Superior Court in Los Angeles alleging its machines excluded the
last horse from every race in its "QuickPick" program for more
than six months, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, "the QuickPick program excluded the
last horse in every race from the betting slips."

The complaint further states, "The glitch was finally admitted
when a Bay Meadows bettor played 1,300 quick picks and noticed
that not one included the number 20 horse."

The complaint, however, does not elucidate specifically whether
the last horse was excluded in races with fewer than 20 horses,
though Paragraph 11 indicates that was the case.

Named plaintiff Angel Romero claims that "Although Defendants
were aware of the problem as of Nov. 1, 2007, the Defendants
failed to notify the betting public.  Instead, the Defendants
kept the problem to itself [sic] and attempted to correct 'for'
the problem with 'new software.'"

Moreover, the suit states that "The public was not alerted to
the problem until after May 19, 2008 -- months after the
Defendants knew of the problem and weeks after the Bay Meadows
better complained to the State Board.  As a result of the
'glitch,' thousands of Class members paid for 'QuickPick' bets
without any chance of a 'QuickPick' payment."

Mr. Romero says he bought QuickPick tickets for races at
Fairplex Race Track, Santa Anita, Hollywood park and Pacific
Coast Quarter Horse, all in Southern California.

Representing Mr. Romero is:

          William Audet, Esq.
          Thomas Ferlauto, Esq.
          King & Ferlauto
          1880 Century Park East, Suite 820
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: 310-552-3366
          Fax: 310-552-3289


SPECIALTY LAMP: Recalls Fake Circuit Breakers Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Specialty Lamp International Inc., of Deerfield Beach, Fla., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 371,000 counterfeit circuit breakers labeled as
"Square D."

The company said the recalled circuit breakers labeled "Square
D" have been determined by Square D to be counterfeit and can
fail to trip when they are overloaded, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.  No injuries have been reported.

The counterfeit circuit breakers are black and are labeled as
Square D QO-series models 115, 120, 130, 215, 220, 230, 240,
250, 260 and 2020 and Square D QOB-series models 115, 120, 130,
220, 230, 250, 260 and 1515.  Actual Square D circuit breakers
have:

     (a) the amp rating written on the handle in white paint on
         the front of the breaker (authentic Square D circuit
         breakers manufactured prior to 2003 did not have white
         paint on the amperage numbers);

     (b) the Square D insignia molded onto the breaker side,
         and;

     (c) a yellow chromate mounting clip with half of the top of
         the clip visible.

If your breaker, labeled as Square D, does not match this
description, it could be counterfeit.

These recalled counterfeit circuit breakers were manufactured in
China and were being sold by electrical product distributors
nationwide from May 2005 through June 2006 for between $3 and
$23.

Pictures of the recalled counterfeit circuit breakers are found
at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08151a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08286.html

Consumers should contact Specialty to determine if the breaker
they have is counterfeit and to arrange for a free inspection
and replacement or refund if necessary.

For additional information, contact Specialty by calling 866-
650-3076 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, by e-mailing to
bart@specialty-lamp.com or by visiting the company's Web site at
http://www.ebulb.net/


USAGENCIES: Potential Class Members in "Marsh" to Get Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth Judicial District Court of Louisiana ordered the
issuance of an appropriate notice to potential class members of
a class action lawsuit against USAgencies Insurance Co., a
subsidiary of Affirmative Insurance Holdings Inc.

In October 2002, named plaintiff Nickey Marsh filed the suit
before the Fourth Judicial District Court of Louisiana against
USAgencies alleging that certain adjustments to the actual cash
value of his total loss automobile claim were improper.

An amended petition, filed in October 2003, made class action
allegations, and sought class-wide compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and punitive damages of $5,000 per claimant.

After a class certification discovery and a hearing in February
2006, an order was rendered in August 2006 certifying the class.

The defendants appealed the ruling and the Louisiana Second
Circuit Court of Appeal subsequently affirmed the trial court's
certification of the class in May 2007.

In October 2007, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied USAgencies'
writ for certiorari.

In April 2008, the trial court issued an order that appropriate
notice of the existence and certification of the class action be
provided as soon as practicable to the class members, according
to Affirmative Insurance's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Addison, Texas-based Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.affirmativeholdings.com/-- is a distributor and  
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
for individual consumers in targeted geographic markets.  The
Company's subsidiaries include five insurance companies licensed
to write insurance policies in 40 states, four underwriting
agencies, six retail agencies with 221 owned stores and 35
operating franchise retail store locations in Florida as of
Dec. 31, 2007.  Affirmative Insurance Holdings, formerly known
as Instant Insurance Holdings, Inc., offers insurance directly
to individual consumers through retail stores in 10 states
(Louisiana, Illinois, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina,
Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin and Alabama), including franchised
stores in Florida and distributing its own insurance policies
through 7,900 independent agents in nine states (Illinois,
California, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina, Florida,
Michigan and New Mexico).


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Reaches Settlement in Pa. OSB Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser Co. reached a settlement deal in a consolidated
antitrust class action suit in Pennsylvania with regard to
Oriented Strand Boards, according to the company's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 30, 2008.

In 2006, a series of suits that had been filed were consolidated
into one case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The cases were brought on behalf of
persons and entities who directly or indirectly purchased OSB
between June 2002 and February 2006 from the company or from
Louisiana-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific, Potlatch, Ainsworth Lumber,
Tolko Forest Products, Grant Forest Products, Norbord or J.M.
Huber Corp.

The consolidated lawsuit alleges that:

       -- the defendants conspired to fix and raise OSB prices
          in the U.S. during the class period, and

       -- the plaintiffs paid artificially inflated prices for
          OSB during that period.

No specific damages were alleged, but the direct and indirect
plaintiffs have estimated total damages from all defendants,
with trebling, of $4.9 billion.  

This is lower than previously reported because the plaintiffs'
experts have modified their opinions and because the class
period ending is now February 2006 rather than "to the present."

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has issued a number of rulings approving class action status for
various classes of direct and indirect purchasers for the period
from June 2002 through February 2006.

J.M. Huber, Georgia-Pacific and Ainsworth have reached
settlement with the direct and indirect purchasers.

A June 2008 trial has been scheduled and motions for summary
judgment have been filed on behalf of the remaining defendants,
including the company.

In March 2008, the company reached a settlement with the direct
purchasers for $18 million and recognizes a charge of
$18 million in the first quarter of 2008.

In April 2008, the company reached a settlement with the
indirect purchasers for approximately $1 million.

A notice to the class will be mailed to give direct and indirect
plaintiffs a chance to opt out of the settlements and contest
the fairness of the settlement at a hearing which will be set by
the court at a later date.

The suit is "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-
00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond, presiding.   

Representing the defendants are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue
         N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

              - and

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com)
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300

Representing the defendants are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com)
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com)
         James H. Schink, Esq. (kschink@kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144
                312-861-2350

              - and -   

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com)
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475


WILLIS GROUP: N.J. Court Dismisses RICO Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Jersey
dismissed with prejudice one of two consolidated lawsuits
pending against Willis Group Holdings Ltd. alleging violations
of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Since August 2004, various plaintiffs have filed purported class
action suits against the company in:

     -- the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
        York,

     -- the Northern District of Illinois,

     -- the Northern District of California,

     -- the New Jersey District Court, and

     -- the Circuit Court for the 18th Judicial Circuit in and
        for Seminole County, Florida Civil Division

The suits were filed under a variety of legal theories,
including state tort, contract, fiduciary duty and statutory
theories, and federal antitrust and RICO theories.

Other than a federal suit in Illinois that was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in May 2005, all of the federal cases
have been consolidated into two actions in federal court in New
Jersey.  

One of the consolidated actions addresses employee benefits,
while the other consolidated action addresses all other lines of
insurance.

In addition to the two federal actions, the company was also
named as a defendant in purported class actions in the 18th
Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida Civil
Division and Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court
Department of the Trial Court.  

In June 2006, the plaintiff in the Massachusetts state action
voluntarily dismissed its complaint with prejudice.

Both the consolidated federal actions and the Florida state
action name various insurance carriers and insurance brokerage
firms, including the company, as defendants.  

The complaints seek monetary damages and equitable relief and
make allegations regarding the practices and conduct that has
been the subject of the investigation of state attorneys general
and insurance commissioners, including allegations that the
brokers have breached their duties to their clients by entering
into contingent compensation agreements with either no
disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and entered into
other improper activities.

They also allege the existence of a conspiracy among the
insurance carriers and brokers and the federal court complaints
allege violations of the federal RICO statue.

In April 2007, the judge in the two consolidated federal actions
dismissed the antitrust and RICO claims based on a failure to
state viable claims.  

The plaintiffs have filed amended pleadings and defendants have
renewed their motion to dismiss.

In separate decisions issued in August and September 2007, the
judge in the two consolidated federal actions dismissed the
antitrust and RICO claims with prejudice and dismissed certain
of the state claims without prejudice.  

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal regarding these
dismissal rulings.

In January 2008, the court dismissed the ERISA claims with
prejudice in the employee benefits suit, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the  
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The Company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


WILLIS GROUP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Gender Bias Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in New York is considering giving final approval
to a settlement of a nationwide gender discrimination class
action filed against Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The case was filed in 2001 on behalf of an alleged nationwide
class of present and former female officer and officer
equivalent employees alleging that the company discriminated
against them on the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive
relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has denied the plaintiffs' motions to certify a
nationwide class or to grant nationwide discovery, but has
certified a class of female officers and officer equivalent
employees based in the company's Northeast (New York, New Jersey
and Massachusetts) offices.  The class consists of approximately
200 women.  

In June 2007 the parties reached a settlement in principle on
the class claims and with the two remaining named plaintiffs on
their individual claims for an amount that will not have a
material adverse effect on the company's results of operations
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 6, 2007).

The parties have agreed on the terms of the written settlement
agreement including the terms of the injunctive relief that the
company will agree to provide under the settlement which was
approved by the court in February 2008.

The judge is currently determining the amount of attorney fees
the plaintiffs are entitled to receive, which is not material to
the company.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the  
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The Company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Ex-Worker's Gender Bias Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action suit against
Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., filed by a former female employee,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit was brought on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of
present and former female employees alleging that the company
discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and
seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.  It proposes a class period of 1998 to the time of trial.

The company's motion to dismiss this suit was denied and the
court did not grant the company permission to immediately file
an appeal.

The parties are in the discovery phase of the litigation.

The company reported no further development in the matter.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the  
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The Company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


* Senator Calls for Tying Class Action Fees to Actual Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
California state senator Tom Harman advocates withholding a
percentage of class action plaintiffs’ lawyers' legal fees until
a sufficient search for all the "clients" is concluded, as a way
to minimize the moral hazard intrinsic to class actions.

The following is a copy of the Senator's position paper with the
Washington Legal Foundation:

"The class action lawsuit is one of the more strangely
compartmentalized processes in the American legal system.  In
addition to the standard hearings seen in the typical P sues D
civil action, there is an entirely separate procedure to
determine the plaintiffs' attorney's fee, in the event that the
plaintiff emerges victorious."

"Basically, the plaintiffs' attorneys submit a bill to the
court, and the court approves or alters it.  Most of the time,
the court approves the suggested fee.  After that, in many
cases, the plaintiffs' attorneys must seek out the class members
in order for the restitution won to be distributed.

"Of course, the plaintiffs' attorneys have no real incentive to
actually find the class members as they have already been paid
in full before any of the class members receive their payment.
Most of the time, after a search of varying degrees, the part of
the award set aside for class members who could not be found is
instead awarded to a charity by the judge as cy pres.

"Realistically, charities are tangentially related at best to a
class, such as giving money to an eating-disorder clinic when
the class was a bunch of models.  Adam Liptak, "Doling
Out Other People's Money," N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 26, 2007, Sidebar.
Even worse, some judges have been known to patronize charities
that they themselves work for.  Walter Olson, "The Trouble with
Cy Pres," Mar. 6, 2008

http://www.overlawyered.com/2006/03/judge-resigns-in-ky-fenphen-sc.html

"The point of the civil justice system is primarily to restore
injured parties to the state they were in before the injury, not
to punish the parties inflicting the injuries.  While exceptions
exist for intentional or particularly egregious conduct, the
focus is on helping those who are wronged.  When a class action
remedy goes to an unrelated charity instead of to the injured
class members, the system has failed in a substantial way.

"Admittedly, class action suits are supposed to provide a
societal benefit by providing a penalty for widespread,
though individually minor, wrongdoing.  There is no reason,
however, that providing that benefit is incongruous with serving
justice by making whole the injured class members.

"Recently, in Alameda County, in California, some judges have
been trying to rectify these problems by injecting an incentive
into the search process.  Instead of receiving the full amount
of their fees, the judge holds a portion (around 10% seems to be
the standard) of the total fee until the judge determines that
as many of the class members as possible have been found.  The
attorneys that have been the guinea pigs for this practice
report that they do indeed work harder to find the class members
when they know they have something still at stake.

"The amount of money is not significant enough to endanger their
business, but is large enough that it is not ignored.

"I tried to encourage this practice statewide in California, by
introducing Senate Bill 1202.  SB 1202 was written to provide a
statutory basis for the common law practice already being used
by the judges.  The bill was defeated in its first policy
hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"In the hopes that my bill might be a model for use in other
states, I would like to explain and address the nature of the
opposition the bill faced.  The concerns of the opposition to
the bill were of varying reasonableness.  Some were valid, as
the proposed language was perhaps less specific than it should
have been.  Others were less understandable, such as the concern
that the defendants would be keeping the withheld fees until the
class members received the money.

"Two issues the opponents of the bill raised were admittedly
valid and reasonable, and both were related to either poor
wording or lack of specificity.  The relevant statutory language
read: "[T]he judge may order a part of the attorney's fees
awarded pursuant to this section to be withheld until the class
members have received their portion of the settlement funds."
California Senate Bill 1202 for the 2007-2008 session, suggested
alteration to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

"A plain-text reading of the statute requires that the entirety
of the class members have been found and their award paid out.
This is a problem because expecting the plaintiffs' attorneys to
successfully locate 100% of the class in all, or even most,
cases is unreasonable.  In any class action suit, especially one
where the class numbers in the hundreds of thousands, some of
the class members will simply be unreachable.  One way this
issue might be fixed is by replacing "until the class members"
with the phrase "until, in the judge's discretion, the class
members that can be reasonably found."  This should clear up the
ambiguity and remove some of the apprehension the more pro-
plaintiff groups might have.

"The second problem with the language as it was introduced was
the lack of specificity on the size of the part to be withheld.
The goal of the practice is not to place the plaintiffs'
attorneys into financial difficulty.

"Instead, the goal is give them some incentive to pursue
locating the class members that they otherwise would not have.
In order to resolve this concern, specifying a maximum, or even
mandated, percentage of the fee to be withheld is recommended.
If this number is a maximum value, 20% is probably the highest
amount to try, and even that maybe too much.  If this number is
a specific mandated value, 10% is probably the best number to
use, as it is the percentage that has been used in practice in
the past.  The specific statutory language changes for these
suggestions would be replacing “a part” with “up to 20%” and
“10%” respectively.

"Not all of the concerns raised were as valid as those.  One
such concern is that the defendants had best access to the class
membership, and could withhold that information thereby
depriving the plaintiffs’ attorneys of a portion of their fees.
This concern is unfounded, as a simple pre-trial discovery
request should provide whatever relevant information the
defendants possess.  Should this be a concern, language could be
added to proposed statutes that require disclosure of contact
information of class members known to the defendant.

"The final issue raised was regarding the disposition of the
withheld attorney's fees.  Opponents of the bill were concerned
that the defendant would keep the money until the judge decided
to release it to the plaintiff's attorneys.  The intent of SB
1202 was that the money would be held by the court until such
time as the court released it.  Again, a simple amendment to the
language could make this clearer.  Fighting through the special
interests to a more just legal system is a difficult and often
frustrating task, but in the end, worth the effort.  Class
action suits are more easily subject to abuse because the
injured parties often are unaware of their injuries.  Their
injuries deserve to be made whole."

To contact the Washington Legal Foundation:

          Washington Legal Foundation
          Advocate for freedom and justice
          2009 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-588-0302


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Stull & Brody Files Illinois Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody has commenced a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc. between September 13, 2006, and July 30,
2007.

The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants failed to
fully disclose the nature and extent of the Company's exposure
to losses incurred from trading in subprime mortgage-backed
derivatives and that the Company failed to timely writedown its
positions in these securities.

On July 10, 2007 Lehman Brothers announced that it had
"unrealized" losses of $459 million in the quarter ended May 31,
2007, from mortgages and mortgage-backed assets in its
inventory.  On the same day, it was reported that Standard and
Poor's indicated that it may cut ratings on $12 billion of bonds
backed by subprime mortgages, a move that would significantly
cut into the Company's trading profits, since it is Wall
Street's largest underwriter of mortgage bonds.  As a result of
the news, Lehman Brothers' stock fell $3.76 per share on
July 10, 2007, on unusually high trading volume.  Throughout the
remainder of the Class Period, Lehman Brothers continued to
downplay the risks associated with owning these mortgage-backed
securities, and the nature and true extent of the Company's
exposure to subprime-related assets and financial positions.  On
July 26, 2007, it was reported by Bloomberg that the risk of
owning Lehman Brothers' bonds "soared" and its share price
plunged "as concerns escalated that investment banks will be
hurt by losses from subprime mortgages and corporate debt."

The report detailed the soaring cost of credit-default swaps
used to bet on Lehman Brothers' creditworthiness, signaling a
significant deterioration in investor confidence.  On this news,
Lehman Brothers' shares fell an additional $3.16 per share on
July 26, 2007, again on unusually heavy trading volume.  
Finally, on July 31, 2007, Bloomberg reported that ". . .Lehman
Brothers (is) as good as junk" because the prices of credit-
default swaps for the Company equated to a Ba 1 rating, implying
that the Company's credit ratings were below investment grade.
On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.80 on
heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased or otherwise acquired Lehman's publicly traded
securities during the Class Period, which is between
September 13, 2006, and July 30, 2007.  

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 30,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


NEXCEN BRANDS: Brower Piven Commences N.Y. Securities Frau Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of NexCen Brands, Inc. between May 10, 2007, and
May 19, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges the company, 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 a series of materially false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose:

     (i) certain details of an accelerated-redemption feature on  
         financing it obtained in connection with its
         acquisition of Great American Cookies which required
         the Company to pay half of its borrowing by a certain
         date;

    (ii) that the Company was unable to comply with the
         accelerated-redemption;

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

    (iv) consequently, 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:

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


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
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 Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of TomoTherapy, Inc., between
February 13, 2008, and April 17, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that TomoTherapy and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding TomoTherapy's revenues and net income.  Specifically,
defendants concealed the following:

     (i) a larger percentage of TomoTherapy's revenue backlog at
         Dec. 31, 2007, and TomoTherapy's new orders received
         through Feb. 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;

    (ii) 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;

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

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

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 29,
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/


WCI COMMUNITIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Beasley Hauser Kramer Leonard & Galardi, P.A.,
disclosed that on January 23, 2008, a securities class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against WCI Communities, Inc., and
The Resort at Singer Island Properties, Inc.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased one
or more of the 239 hotel condominium units in The Resort at
Singer Island during the period of January 25, 2005, through
January 23, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated section
12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section
77(l)(a)(1), by failing to register with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the public offering of the Hotel Units.

The complaint also alleges that defendant WCI violated section
15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77o, by controlling
the operations of its wholly owned subsidiary, defendant Singer
Island Resort, in offering the Hotel Units for sale without
registering them with the SEC.  The plaintiffs seek to rescind
their acquisition of the Hotel Units and rescissory or other
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

For more information, contact:

          Beasley Hauser Kramer Leonard & Galardi, P.A.
          505 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 1500
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-835-0900
          Fax: 561-835-0939





                            *********

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  * * *