CAR_Public/080609.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 9, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 113
  
                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Norvir Case
AETNA INC: Settles N.J. Eating Disorders Coverage Denial Lawsuit
ASTRAZENECA INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CLEAR CHANNEL: Appeals Class Certification of Antitrust Lawsuits
CLEAR CHANNEL: Still Faces Lawsuits Over BT Triple Crown Merger

DELL INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
DELL INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Texas
E*TRADE BANK: Faces California Suit for Allegedly Kiting Checks
ENERGY TRANSFER: Seeks Dismissal of Texas Natural Gas Price Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Rio Grande" Natural Gas Lawsuit in Texas

GENERAL MOTORS: Aug. 29 Hearing Set for "Dex-Cool" Settlement
HOME EQUITY: Sued for Disregarding Underwriting Guidelines
HOOPER HOLMES: Completes $1.2M Calif. Examiners' Labor Suit Deal
INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Drivers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JOSEPH J. SAKER: July 16 Hearing for $6.9MM N.J. Suit Settlement

NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: July 8 Hearing Set for "Summerfield" Deal
PETSMART INC: Settles Two California Labor-Related Lawsuits
PETSMART INC: Reaches Settlement for Suits Over Pet Food Recalls
PETSMART INC: Fla. Court Denies Dismissal Bid in "Blaszkowski"
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Discovery Ongoing in Catterton Merger Suit

SHELL OIL: Reaches $1.10-Billion Settlement in "Cox" Litigation
SOLVAY AMERICA: July 23 Hearing Set for $46M Antitrust Agreement
SPRINT SPECTRUM: Sued Over Phones Incompatible with Network
USA MERCHANT: Faces Texas Suit Over Internet-Based Businesses
VERISIGN INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit

VERISIGN INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Gambling Violations Suit
WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Lawsuit in D.C. Over Alleged Bid Rigging
YAHOO!: Shareholder Suit Over Failed Microsoft Takeover Unsealed


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Mass. Securities Suit
HEALTHWAYS INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Tennessee Securities Suit
JP MORGAN CHASE: Curtis Trinko Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
NEXCEN BRANDS: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
TRM CORP: Stoll Berne Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Oregon

WALGREEN CO: Stull & Brody Files Illinois Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Norvir Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted a motion seeking class certification of the consolidated
litigation entitled, "In re Abbot Laboratories Norvir Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 4:04-cv-01511-CW."

The consolidated class action suit filed on behalf of individual
consumers John Doe 1 (filed in April 2004), and third party
payors Service Employees International Union Health & Welfare
Fund (filed in October 2004), generally alleges antitrust
violations in connection with the 2003 Norvir re-pricing.

Ritonavir is manufactured as Norvir by Abbott Laboratories.  It
is an anti-retroviral drug from the protease inhibitor class
used to treat HIV infection and AIDS.

Specifically, the suit claims that Abbott unlawfully raised the
wholesale price of Norvir by 400% in an attempt to restrict
competition in the market for protease inhibitors.  It asks the
Court to award money damages and injunctive relief.

The company argues that the current price of Norvir is
appropriate given its valuable use as a booster.  Abbot also
denies that the price increase had any negative impact on
competition.

For more details, contact:

          Norvir Litigation Administrator
          c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
          P.O. Box 24784
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 1-877-625-9425
          Web site: http://www.NorvirClassAction.com/

          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          425 California Street
          Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 800-516-9926
                 415-433-3200
          Fax: 415-433-6382
          e-mail: law@bermanesq.com
          Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/

          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 888-753-2796
                 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          e-mail: info@labaton.com
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com/


AETNA INC: Settles N.J. Eating Disorders Coverage Denial Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. has agreed to give parity treatment to eating
disorder claims for people already enrolled in Aetna insurance
plans, as well as pay $250,000 in reimbursements to New Jersey
policyholders after denying their claims for eating disorder-
related treatments, Kristin Gunderson Hunt writes for Business
Insurance.

According to the report, the Hartford, Conn.-based insurer
agreed to settle the class action lawsuit in late May.  The
settlement is awaiting preliminary approval by U.S. District
Judge Faith Hochberg on June 16.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 6, 2008, the
class-action lawsuit was allowed by Judge Hochberg to proceed
under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 when she denied Aetna's motion to dismiss the suit.  The
judge did not buy the company's argument that the coverage
dispute should be handled by the New Jersey Department
of Banking & Insurance or its own internal appeals procedures.

Business Insurance recounts that Nagel Rice L.L.P. brought the
lawsuit in November 2006 on behalf of two individuals attempting
to gain the same benefits for anorexia and bulimia that are
available to those with biologically based mental illnesses such
as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

Bruce Nagel, Esq., a senior partner with the firm, pointed out
that coverage for those illnesses is often unlimited, or at
least covers multiple hospitalization and outpatient therapy
treatments, among other treatments.  Eating disorders, however,
have not typically been classified as biologically based mental
illnesses by Aetna, and coverage has been limited to 20
outpatient visits per calendar year and 30 days for inpatient
benefits.

Mr. Nagel told Business Insurance that if the settlement deal is
approved, approximately 100 families who have had eating
disorder claims denied in the last seven years for exceeding the
plans' maximum benefit for non-biologically based mental
illnesses would receive reimbursements worth an estimated total
of $250,000.

Additionally, people enrolled in Aetna insurance would be given
parity treatment for their eating disorder claims.  Those
policyholders also would have the opportunity to have all claims
denied on the basis of medical necessity between August 2008 and
August 2012 reviewed by an eating disorder specialist.

Finally, under the agreement, Aetna would pay up to $350,000 in
legal fees to Nagel Rice, as well as the cost of eating disorder
arbitrators for future appeals.  The two leading plaintiffs --  
Francis DeVito and Jeff Meiskin -- would also each receive
$10,000, according to the settlement.

"It's a landmark settlement and I hope the other carriers in the
country will follow suit with this," Mr. Nagel shared with
Business Insurance.

In a statement, Aetna said the settlement is "consistent with
Aetna's goal of providing comprehensive, affordable coverage and
service for all of its members."


ASTRAZENECA INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a shareholders' class action lawsuit claiming that
AstraZeneca Inc. and four of its officers and board members
manipulated the price of its stock, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The suit was a securities class action brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
AstraZeneca between April 2, 2003, and Sept. 10, 2004. The
plaintiffs assert claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 USC Sections 78j(b) and 78t,
and Securities and Exchange Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR Section
240.10b-5.

The complaint, which was later amended, alleged that during the
class period, the defendants made material misstatements and
omissions concerning one of its drugs that was in late-stage
clinical trials.  The complaint alleged that these
misrepresentations artificially inflated the company's stock,
and in turn caused the plaintiffs to suffer losses when the Food
and Drug Administration failed to recommend the drug for
approval and the price of AstraZeneca stock declined.

The defendants then moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6 and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, as well as the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act (PSLRA), 15 USC Section 78u-4 et seq.  The defendants
contended that the U.S. securities laws do not confer subject
matter jurisdiction on the court to consider the claims of
foreign purchasers who acquired shares of AstraZeneca in foreign
stock markets.  The defendants further argued that the
plaintiffs do not and cannot plead facts giving rise to a viable
securities fraud claim -- particularly facts demonstrating
scienter.

In an update, the court held that the plaintiffs have not
sufficiently alleged that the court has subject matter
jurisdiction over foreigners who purchased AstraZeneca stock on
foreign exchanges, and dismissed the action against those
members of the putative class.

The suit is "In Re AstraZeneca Securities Litigation, Case No.
05 Civ. 2688(TPG)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Appeals Class Certification of Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., and Live Nation, Inc., are
asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
reconsider an earlier ruling by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California that certified several lawsuits
filed against the two companies.

In general, the suits allege that anti-competitive practices for
concert promotion services by the company caused artificially
high-ticket prices.

Initially, Clear Channel was named a co-defendant with Live
Nation (which was spun off as an independent company in December
2005) in 22 putative class action complaints filed by different
named plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the
country.  These actions generally assert that the defendants
monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for live rock
concerts in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.  

The plaintiffs are claiming that they paid higher ticket prices
for rock concerts as a result of the defendants' conduct.  They
are seeking damages in an undetermined amount.  

On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multi-district
Litigation centralized these class action proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On March 2, 2007, the plaintiffs filed motions for class
certification in five template cases involving five regional
markets: Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver.  
The district court subsequently issued its decision certifying
the class for each regional market.  

On Nov. 4, 2007, the defendants filed a petition for permission
to appeal the class certification ruling before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The District Court then
stayed all proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on
the company's request to appeal.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied the company's
petition to appeal, and the company filed a motion for
reconsideration of the District Court's ruling on class
certification, which motion is still pending, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel Communications, Inc. --
http://www.clearchannel.com/-- is a diversified media company  
with four segments: radio broadcasting; Americas outdoor
advertising; international outdoor advertising, and other.  It
owns 1,176 radio stations and a national radio network operating
in the United States, and also owns or operates approximately
195,000 Americas outdoor advertising display faces and
approximately 717,000 international outdoor advertising display
faces.  In addition it had equity interests in various
international radio broadcasting companies.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Still Faces Lawsuits Over BT Triple Crown Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., continues to face several
purported class action lawsuits in relation to its merger
agreement with BT Triple Crown companies.

The company entered into an agreement and plan of merger with BT
Triple Crown Merger Co., Inc.; B Triple Crown Finco, LLC; and T
Triple Crown Finco, LLC.

Initially, eight putative class action complaints were filed
before the District Court of Bexar County, Texas, in 2006 in
connection with the merger.  Of the eight suits, three have been
voluntarily dismissed and five are still pending.

The pending suits are:

      1. "Teitelbaum v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et
         al., No. 2006CI17492" (filed Nov. 14, 2006);

      2. "City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement
         System v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,
         No. 2006CI17660" (filed Nov. 16, 2006);

      3. "Levy Investments, Ltd. v. Clear Channel
         Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI17669" (filed
         Nov. 16, 2006);

      4. "DD Equity Partners LLC v. Clear Channel
         Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI7914" (filed
         Nov. 22, 2006); and

      5. "Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH v.
         L. Lowry Mays, et al." (filed Dec. 7, 2006).

The five suits were consolidated into one proceeding and all
raise substantially similar allegations on behalf of a purported
class of the company's shareholders against the defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of
the merger.

Three other lawsuits filed in connection with the merger are
also still pending:

      1. "Rauch v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 2006-CI17436" (filed Nov. 14, 2006);

      2. "Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v.
         Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.," (filed
         Jan. 30, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the
         Western District of Texas); and

      3. "Alaska Laborers Employees Retirement Fund v. Clear
         Channel Communications, Inc., et. al., Case No. SA-07-
         CA-0042" (filed Jan. 11, 2007).

These lawsuits raise substantially similar allegations to those
found in the pleadings of the consolidated class action lawsuit.

On Sept. 25, 2007, approximately 10 months after the filing of
the first merger-related lawsuit, Clear Channel's shareholders
approved the merger, according to the company's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel Communications, Inc. --
http://www.clearchannel.com/-- is a diversified media company  
with four segments: radio broadcasting; Americas outdoor
advertising; international outdoor advertising, and other.  It
owns 1,176 radio stations and a national radio network operating
in the United States, and also owns or operates approximately
195,000 Americas outdoor advertising display faces and
approximately 717,000 international outdoor advertising display
faces.  In addition it had equity interests in various
international radio broadcasting companies.


DELL INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dell, Inc., and several of its current and former directors and
officers continue to face a consolidated securities fraud class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.

Initially, four putative securities class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas against Dell and certain of its current and former
officers.  These complaints have been consolidated as "In re
Dell Inc. Securities Litigation" and Judge Sam Sparks named
Union Asset Management Holding AG as lead plaintiff in the
matter.

The lead plaintiff has asserted claims under sections 10(b),
20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based
on alleged false and misleading disclosures or omissions
regarding our financial statements, governmental investigations,
known battery problems, business model, and insiders' sales of
our securities.

The action also includes the company's independent registered
public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a
defendant.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2008.

The suit is "In re Dell, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:06-cv-00726-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court of for the
Western District of Texas, Judge Sam Sparks presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James M. Hughes, Esq. (jhughes@motleyrice.com)
          Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. (lantonino@motleyrice.com)
          Motley Rice LLC
          P.O. Box 1792, 28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Phone: 843-216-9000
          Fax: 843-216-9290


DELL INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dell, Inc., is facing a consolidated class action suit entitled,
"In Re Dell, Inc. ERISA Litigation" which is pending with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, according
to the company's June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended May 2, 2008.

Initially, several putative class action suits were filed with
the U.S. District Court for the the Western District of Texas by
purported participants in the Dell 401(k) Plan.  These actions
were later consolidated and lead plaintiffs have been appointed
by the court.

The lead plaintiffs have asserted claims under ERISA based on
allegations that Dell and certain current and former directors
and officers imprudently invested and managed participants'
funds and failed to disclose information regarding its stock
held in the 401(k) Plan.

Dell, Inc. -- http://www.dell.com/-- is a technology company,  
which offers a range of product categories, including desktop
personal computers (PC), servers and networking products,
storage, mobility products, software and peripherals, and
services.  The Company designs, develops, manufactures, markets,
sells, and support a range of products that in many cases are
customized to individual customer requirements.


E*TRADE BANK: Faces California Suit for Allegedly Kiting Checks
---------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Bank is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California alleging
that the company kites checks, charges undisclosed fees on
electronic transfers, and cheats customers of interest,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Maria Guadagno brings this class action on
behalf of all those similarly situated consumers who, as
subscribers to an electronic bill payment service owned and
operated by defendant, lost the use of their money and were not
paid interest on that money as they should have been.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff believes that, for
each check she authorized E*Trade Bank to make on her behalf and
which E*Trade Bank actually made on her behalf, while the
designated funds were immediately debited from the plaintiff's
account, the funds were not immediately paid to the designated
transferees and the plaintiff was not credited with any interest
on the subject funds during the period between which the funds
were debited from the plaintiff's account and the time when such
funds were actually credited to the designated payees.

The plaintiff further believes that E*Trade Bank intentionally
employed policies and practices that were designed to enable
E*Trade Bank to kite or otherwise improperly earn interest on
the use of the plaintiff's funds, and to avoid paying interest
to the plaintiff, under the BPS [bill paying service], all
without disclosure.

The plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b) on behalf of
all persons who were charged fees or charges in violation of
EFTA, the form of lost interest on their funds on deposit with
defendant and who were deprived of interest on monies in their
accounts with the defendant to the extent alleged.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether E*Trade Bank developed and implemented a scheme
         to intentionally charge plaintiff and the class fees
         and other charged and entities for such accounts;

     (b) whether pursuant to the policies and practices
         described in the complaint, defendant made "electronic
         transfers" from the accounts of class members without
         first obtaining written authorization;

     (c) whether E*Trade Bank violated 15 USC Section 1693e with
         respect to the class members;

     (d) whether E*Trade Bank's conduct constituted unlawful,
         unfair, or fraudulent business practices in violation
         of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. as
         alleged;

     (e) whether E*Trade Bank has been unjustly enriched as a
         result of its conduct, as alleged;

     (f) whether plaintiff and members of the class have
         sustained damages as a result of E*Trade Bank's
         conduct, and, if so, what is the appropriate measure of
         damages; and

     (g) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to punitive damages, and, if so, in what amount.

The plaintiff asks the court:

     -- for an order certifying the class under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing
        plaintiff and her counsel of record to represent the
        class;

     -- for restitution, disgorgement, and other equitable
        relief as the court deems proper;

     -- that, pursuant to Section 17203 of the Business and
        Professions Code, defendant be permanently enjoined from
        performing or proposing to perform any of the
        aforementioned acts of unfair, unlawful and fraudulent
        business practices;

     -- for compensatory damages sustained by plaintiff and all
        others similarly situated as a result of defendant's
        unlawful acts and conduct;

     -- for statutory damages under 15 USC Section 1693m;

     -- for a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from
        engaging in the conduct and practices complained of;

     -- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
        including expert witness fees; and

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

The suit is "Maria Guadagno et al v. E*Trade Bank, Case No CV08-
03628 MRP(JCx)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. (jwesterman@milberg.com)
          Michiyo Michelle Furukawa, Esq.
          (mfurukawa@milberg.com)
          Milberg LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3900
          Phone: 213-617-1200
          Fax: 213-617-1975


ENERGY TRANSFER: Seeks Dismissal of Texas Natural Gas Price Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in a consolidated class action lawsuit
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas against the company over the alleged manipulation of
the price of natural gas futures and options contracts.

The lawsuit alleges that the company engaged in intentional and
unlawful manipulation of the price of natural gas futures and
options contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, in
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.  

The suit further alleges that during the class period from
Dec. 29, 2003, to Dec. 31, 2005, the company had the market
power to manipulate index prices, and that it used this market
power to artificially depress the index prices at major natural
gas trading hubs, including the Houston Ship Channel, in order
to benefit the company's natural gas physical and financial
trading positions and intentionally submitted price and volume
trade information to trade publications.

The action asserts that the unlawful depression of index prices
by the company manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural gas
futures and options contracts to artificial levels during the
class period, causing unspecified damages to the plaintiff and
all other members of the putative class who purchased or sold
natural gas futures and options contracts on NYMEX during the
class period.

Initially two class action suits were filed against the company.  
Following the consolidation order, the plaintiffs who had filed
the two earlier cases filed a consolidated complaint.  The
plaintiffs have requested certification of their consolidated
suit as a class action, unspecified damages, court costs and
other appropriate relief.

On Jan. 14, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated suit on the grounds of failure to allege facts
sufficient to state a claim.

On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
class action complaint.  In response to this new pleading, on
May 5, 2008, the company again requested that it be dismissed,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al.,
Case No. 4:07-cv-03349," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Judge Keith P. Ellison,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory Asciolla, Esq. (gasciolla@labaton.com)
          Labaton & Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-883-7527

          Craig Briskin, Esq. (cbriskin@findjustice.com)
          Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-822-5100
          Fax: 202-822-4997

               - and -

          Anthony G. Buzbee, Esq.
          Attorney at Law
          1910 Ice Cold Storage Building, 104 21st St Moody Ave.
          Galveston, TX 77550
          Phone: 409-762-5393
          Fax: 409-762-0538

Representing the defendants is:

          Charles W. Schwartz, Esq. (schwartz@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps
          1000 Louisiana, Ste. 6800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-655-5160
          Fax: 888-329-2286


ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Rio Grande" Natural Gas Lawsuit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., is facing a purported class
action lawsuit entitled, "Rio Grande Royalty Company Inc v.
Energy Transfer Partners LP et al, Case No. 4:2008-cv-00857,"
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2008.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on March 17, 2008, as a class-action
complaint.

This action alleges that the company engaged in unlawful
restraint of trade and intentional monopolization and attempted
monopolization of the market for fixed-price natural gas
baseload transactions at the Houston Ship Channel from December
2003 through December 2005 in violation of federal antitrust
law.

The complaint further alleges that during this period, the
company exerted monopoly power to suppress the price for these
transactions to non-competitive levels in order to benefit from
its own physical natural gas positions.

The plaintiff has, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated sellers of physical natural gas, requested
certification of the suit as a class action and seeks
unspecified treble damages, court costs and other appropriate
relief.

The suit is "Rio Grande Royalty Company Inc v Energy Transfer
Partners LP et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-00857," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Keith
P. Ellison presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory Asciolla, Esq. (gasciolla@labaton.com)
          Labaton & Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-883-7527

               - and -

          Robert A Chaffin, Esq. (robert@chaffinlawfirm.com)
          Chaffin & Stiles
          4265 San Felipe, Ste 1020
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: 713-528-1000
          Fax: 713-952-5972

Representing the defendants is:

          Charles W. Schwartz, Esq. (schwartz@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps et al
          1000 Louisiana, Ste 6800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-655-5160
          Fax: 888-329-2286


GENERAL MOTORS: Aug. 29 Hearing Set for "Dex-Cool" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Alameda County will hold a
fairness hearing on Aug. 29, 2008, at 11:00 a.m., to consider
the proposed settlement in several purported class action
lawsuits against General Motors Corp. in state and federal
courts across the United States involving "Dex-Cool" extended-
life engine coolant.

The hearing will be held before Judge Robert B. Freedman, in
Department 20 of the California Superior Court for Alameda
County, County Administration Building, 1221 Oak Street,
Oakland, California 94612.

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of owners of General Motors
vehicles, which were factory-filled with "Dex-Cool" coolant
(Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008).

In general the lawsuits alleges:

       -- that Dex-Cool in the vehicles listed below caused
          problems with the vehicles' engines or cooling
          systems, and

       -- that certain engine components, such as the
          nylon/silicone lower intake manifold gaskets equipped
          in certain vehicles, were defective.

Specifically, the lawsuits alleged that Dex-Cool coolant caused
damage to certain vehicles' engines, and that in certain other
vehicles, Dex-Cool formed a rusty sludge, which clogged the
vehicles' cooling systems, causing them to overheat.

According to the complaints, Dex-Cool failed to protect the
vehicle engines and cooling systems as was represented by the
manufacturer.

General Motors asserted that Dex-Cool protected engines for a
longer period than traditional coolants, caused less wear on
certain engine parts than traditional coolants, and provided
environmental benefits.  

It also argued that the alleged problems with the vehicles'
engines or cooling systems were caused by the owners' failure to
follow the manufacturer's maintenance instructions for their
vehicles and other outside factors.

General Motors recently agreed to a settlement of all the
lawsuits.  It will reimburse class members up to a specified
amount for certain repair costs they paid during the first seven
years or 150,000 miles of vehicle ownership or lease, whichever
is earlier.

Under the proposed settlement, current and former owners and
lessees of certain 1995-2004 model year GM vehicles with 3.1-
liter, 3.4-liter, 3.8-liter or 4.3-liter engines will be
eligible to receive reimbursement for Dex-Cool related engine
repairs that occurred within 7 years or 150,000 miles (whichever
is earlier) of original vehicle purchase; these repairs include
intake manifold gasket replacements, cooling system flushes, and
heater core repairs.

Vehicle owners or lessees who paid for a qualifying repair will
be entitled to cash reimbursement from GM of up to $400 per
repair made within the first five years of the vehicle's life,
up to $100 per repair made in the sixth year, and up to $50 per
repair made in the seventh year.  Those who paid for multiple
covered repairs may be eligible to receive multiple cash
reimbursements.  In addition, those vehicle owners or lessees
who had more expensive repairs as a result of internal coolant
leaks, will be entitled to cash reimbursement from GM of up to
$800.

For more details, contact:

          Dex Cool Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9239
          Dublin, OH 43017-4639
          Phone: 1-866-245-4291
          e-mail: info@dexcoolsettlement.com
          Web site: http://www.dexcoolsettlement.com/


HOME EQUITY: Sued for Disregarding Underwriting Guidelines
----------------------------------------------------------
Home Equity Mortgage Trust 2006-5 and Credit Suisse First Boston
Mortgage Securities are facing a class-action complaint before
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
for allegedly disregarding underwriting guidelines in issuing
$784 million in Series 2006-5 Pass-Through Certificates,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action brought by the New Jersey Carpenters
Health Fund alleging violations of Sections 1 1 , 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77a et seq., on
behalf of purchasers of Home Equity Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates who purchased the Certificates, backed by a pool of
primarily fixed-rate subprime second-lien residential mortgage
loans, pursuant to or traceable to the $784,000,100 Offering of
Series 2006-5 Pass-Through Certificates on or about October 30,
2006, issued by Home Equity Mortgage.

The plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to
Article 9 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased or
acquired the Certificates pursuant and traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the Offering from the effective date through the date of the
filing of this action.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     a) whether the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933
        were violated by the Defendants as alleged herein;

     b) whether the Registration Statement and Prospectus
        contained materially untrue statements or omitted
        statements of material fact; and

     c) to what extent the members of the Class have sustained
        damages pursuant to the statutory measure of damages.

The plaintiff asks the court for an order:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action
        under CPLR Article 9;

     -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of the paintiff
        and the other class members against all the defendants,
        jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a
        result of the defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be
        proven at trial, including interest thereon; and

     -- awarding the plaintiff and the class the reasonable
        costs and expenses they incurred in this action,
        including counsel fees and expert fees.

The suit is "New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, et al. v. Home
Equity Mortgage TRust 2006-5, et al., Case No 08601670," filed
in the Supreme court of the State of New York, County of New
York.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Samuel P. Sporn, Esq.
          Joel P. Laitman, Esq.
          Christopher Lometti, Esq.
          Jay P. Saltzman, Esq.
          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti PC
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-964-0046
          Fax: 212-267-8137


HOOPER HOLMES: Completes $1.2M Calif. Examiners' Labor Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc., completed the $1.2-million settlement
reached in a class action suit filed in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, that alleges violations of the
state's wage and hour laws.

On Jan. 25, 2005, Sylvia Gayed, one of the company's examiners
in California, filed the suit, alleging that the company failed
to pay overtime wages and to provide meal and rest periods and
reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing examinations.   

The company currently employs around 400 examiners in California
and have employed in excess of 1,400 examiners in California
over the past 60 months.

Following mediation on Dec. 6, 2006, the parties reached a
settlement, pursuant to which the company will pay $1.2 million
to the class members in full settlement of the matter.

The court granted final approval of the settlement on July 16,
2007.  Payment of $0.7 million was made on Oct. 3, 2007, and the
balance of the settlement was paid in March 2008, according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

Hooper Holmes, Inc. -- http://www.hooperholmes.com/-- provides  
outsourced risk-assessment services to the life and health
insurance industry and medical evaluation, and claims management
services to the automobile insurance industry and the workers’
compensation industry. The Company provides paramedical and
medical examinations, independent medical examinations, personal
health interviews and record collection, and laboratory testing,
which help life insurance companies evaluate the risks
associated with underwriting policies, and help property and
casualty claims handlers evaluate physical injuries for claims
management.  Hooper Holmes also conducts wellness screenings for
wellness companies, disease management organizations and health
plans.  The Company operates in two business segments: Health
Information Division and Claims Evaluation Division.


INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Drivers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tacoma-based long-haul trucking company Interstate Distributor
is sued by its drivers for failing to pay them legally required
overtime wages when they drove more than 40 hours a week, The
News Tribune reports.

According to News Tribune, the suit, filed in Pierce County
Superior Court by former driver Larry Westberry, claims that
Interstate Distributor should have paid its drivers 11/2 times
their normal per-mile rate when they drove more than 40 hours a
week.  The suit seeks to become a class action on behalf of all
Interstate drivers in similar situations.

The report relates that the suit was filed on Mr. Westberry's
behalf by the Seattle law firm of Bendich, Stobaugh & Strong.

The suit claims that Washington law, as interpreted in a 2007
state Supreme Court case, requires that drivers be paid overtime
for hours worked over the normal 40 even if that time is logged
out of state.  The trucking industry appealed this state court's
ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high court refused to
consider it.

Renee Trueblood, the company's senior vice president of human
resources and corporate counsel, told News Tribune that the
company had just been served with the suit.

"This is still very new to us.  We're still evaluating it," Ms.
Trueblood said.

The report points out that Interstate, which provides truckload
transportation services to the lower 48 states and Canada,
employs some 3,200 workers.  The company is owned by the McLean
family.


JOSEPH J. SAKER: July 16 Hearing for $6.9MM N.J. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division: Monmouth
County, will hold a fairness hearing on July 16, 2008, at
9:00 a.m., to consider the proposed $6.9-million settlement in
the matter, "Alan Kahn v. Joseph J. Saker, et al., Civil Action
No. C-214-06."

The hearing will be held at the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Monmouth County, Chancery Division, Hall of Records, in 1 East
Main Street, Freehold, New Jersey.

                        Case Background

The case was brought as a class action suit in which the
plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to, or aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties
to, the public shareholders of Foodarama Supermarkets, Inc.
common stock in connection with the Going-Private Transaction.

Named as defendants are Joseph J. Saker, Richard J. Saker,
Joseph J. Saker Jr., Thomas A. Saker, Gloria Saker, Nadine Saker
Mockler, Denise Saker Marder, Richard James Saker, Joseph Saker
Family Limited Partnership L.P., Charles Parton, Albert Zager,
Robert Hutchins, Saker ShopRites Inc., successor in interest to
Foodarama, Saker Holdings Corp., and FSM-Delaware Inc.

The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants violated the
provisions of the New Jersey Shareholders' Protection Act.  He
challenged the fairness of the price paid to the public
shareholders and the process employed to effect the Going-
Private Transaction, and alleged that the defendants' public
statements regarding the Going-Private Transaction omitted and
misrepresented information necessary for Foodarama's public
shareholders to decide whether to tender their shares

For more details, contact:

          Foodarama Shareholder Litigation
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          P.O. Box 58216
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-8216
          Phone: 1-800-335-2852
          Web site: http://www.hrsClaimsadministration.com/


NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: July 8 Hearing Set for "Summerfield" Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, will hold a fairness
hearing on July 8, 2008, at 11:15 a.m. for the proposed
settlement of the matter, "Robert Summerfield v. Nuveen
Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. 07CH 16315."

The hearing will be held at the Richard J. Daley Center, 50 West
Washington St., in Chicago, Illinois, in Judge Rita M. Novak's
Courtroom, Room 2402.  

Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before
June 24, 2008.

                        Case Background

The company entered into a merger agreement on June 19, 2007,
for the acquisition of Nuveen Investments, Inc. by a corporation
formed by a group of investors led by Madison Dearborn, which
merger will be presented to the shareholders of Nuveen
Investments, Inc. for the their approval at a shareholders'
meeting expected to be held in the third quarter of 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 22, 2007).

The plaintiffs, shareholders of Nuveen Investments, Inc., filed
the purported class action suit against the company's board of
directors.  

The action arose out of the acquisition of Nuveen by an investor
group, Windy City Investments, Inc., led by Madison Dearborn
Partners, LLC.

The suit alleged, inter alia, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Nuveen stockholders by improperly pursuing a
sale of the company.  

                           Settlement

On Sept. 4, 2007, Nuveen Investments, Inc., and other named
defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
plaintiffs in the putative class actions filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, consolidated
under the caption, "Robert Summerfield v. Nuveen Investments,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07CH 16315."

Under the terms of the MOU, Nuveen Investments, the other named
defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the
litigation.

Nuveen Investments and the other defendants deny the allegations
in the actions and deny having committed, or having aided and
abetted, any breach of fiduciary duty or other violation of
state or federal law in connection with the entry into the
merger agreement.

The settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to members of the
proposed settlement class.

If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve all claims
that were or could have been brought on behalf of the proposed
settlement class in the actions being settled, including all
claims relating to the merger, the merger agreement and any
disclosure made in connection therewith.

In addition, as part of the proposed settlement, the company has
agreed to pay $1,000,000 to the plaintiffs' counsel for their
fees and expenses, subject to final approval of the settlement
and such fees by the court.  The merger may be consummated prior
to final court approval of the settlement.

For more details, contact:

          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. (elleng@csgrr.com)
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 619-231-1058
                 800-449-4900
          Fax: 415-288-4534


PETSMART INC: Settles Two California Labor-Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart, Inc., settled two labor-related class action lawsuits
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, according to the company's June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2008.

In October 2006, two lawsuits were filed against the company in
California State Court, on behalf of putative classes of current
and former California employees.

The first suit, "Sorenson v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 3,
2006," wherein the plaintiff is a former dog groomer, alleges
claims on behalf of other non-exempt hourly workers as to
whether the employees received their required meal and rest
breaks.  

The second suit, "Enabnit v. PetSmart, was filed on Oct. 12,
2006," seeks principally to represent employees providing pet
grooming services, for alleged meal and rest period violations,
and to represent a class of employees whose paychecks were
allegedly not compliant with the California Labor Code.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, penalties under the
California Labor Code, restitution, attorney fees, costs, and
prejudgment interest.

In November 2006, the company removed both actions to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle
both of these matters for an amount which the company says will
not be material to its business and has been accrued for.  The
parties expect to seek approval of the settlements from the
court later this year.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty   
provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North
America.  The Company has identified a group of pet owners that
the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets
and consider their pets family members.  


PETSMART INC: Reaches Settlement for Suits Over Pet Food Recalls
----------------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart, Inc., has reached a settlement for several purported
class action lawsuits arising from the pet food recalls
announced by several manufacturers beginning in March 2007,
according to the company's June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended May 4, 2008.

The named plaintiffs have sued the major pet food manufacturers
and retailers claiming that their pets suffered injury and death
as a result of consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet
snack products.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of class actions in the
respective jurisdictions as well as unspecified damages and
injunctive relief.

The cases in which the company is currently a defendant are:

       -- "Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL,"
          (filed 3/23/07);

       -- "Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN," (filed
          4/9/07);

       -- "Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA," (filed
          4/23/07);

       -- "Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC,
          C.D. CA," (filed 4/10/07);

       -- "Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL," (filed
          4/23/07);

       -- "Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO," (filed
          4/11/07);

       -- "McBain v. Menu Foods, et al.," Judicial Centre of
          Regina, Canada (filed 7/11/07);

       -- "Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al.," Ontario
          Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07);

       -- "Esau v. Menu Foods, et al.," Supreme Court of
          Newfoundland and Labrador (filed 9/5/07);

       -- "Ewasew v. MenuFoods, et al.," Supreme Court of
          British Colombia (filed 3/23/07 );

       -- "Silva v. Menu foods, et al.," Canada Province of
          Manitoba (filed 3/30/07);

       -- "Powell v. Menu Foods, et al.," Ontario Superior Court
          of Justice (filed 3/28/07);

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl,
Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-
district litigation, under the caption, "In re Pet Food Product
Liability Litigation, Civil No. 07-2867."  The Canadian cases
have not been consolidated.

On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the
matter, "In re: Pet food Product Liability Litigation," and the
Canadian cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement
arrangement for court approval.

The settlement, if approved by the U.S. and Canadian courts,
will resolve all of these cases and would not have a material
adverse impact on the company's financial statements.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty   
provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North
America.  The Company has identified a group of pet owners that
the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets
and consider their pets family members.  


PETSMART INC: Fla. Court Denies Dismissal Bid in "Blaszkowski"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
denied a motion by PetSmart, Inc., that sought the dismissal of
the purported class action, "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21221-CMA."

The suit was filed against companies having a combined
approximate 70% of the market share in the $16-billion-a-year
pet food industry (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2007).

The defendants in the suit are:

          -- Mars Inc.
          -- Proctor and Gamble Co.
          -- Colgate Palmolive Company
          -- Del Monte Foods, Co.
          -- Nestle U.S.A. Inc.
          -- Nurto Procucts Inc.
          -- Menu Foods, Inc.
          -- Menu Foods Income Fund
          -- Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
          -- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
          -- Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.
          -- Pet Supermarket, Inc.
          -- Petsmart Inc.
          -- Target Corp.
          -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The plaintiffs -- Renee Blaszkowski, Amy Hollub and Patricia
Davis -- allege that the defendant-companies have spent
$300 million a year in making false and misleading marketing
statements regarding the contents of their pet food to the dog
and cat loving American public.

While these defendants tout their pet food products as choice
cuts of prime beef, chunks of chicken, fish, fresh wholesome
vegetables and whole grains to induce consumers to buy them,
plaintiffs contend the food is actually made from "inedible"
slaughterhouse waste products of the human food chain such as
spines, heads, tails, hooves, hair, and blood.

The lawsuit alleges rendering companies who process this waste
have also added other inedible "waste" such as euthanized cats
and dogs from veterinarian offices and animal shelters, road
kill, zoo animals, rancid restaurant grease, toxic chemicals and
additives.  Additionally, dead animals and those declared unfit
for human consumption due to disease and illness are also placed
in the mix, the plaintiffs contend.

The lawsuit further alleges that pet food companies market their
products as wholesome, choice cuts of meat, natural and complete
and balanced diets even though they are fully aware that this
food is largely carbohydrates and sugars combined with toxic
preservatives and additives with very little to no meat at all.

The class includes all persons in the U.S. who purchase, or have
purchased, pet food produced, manufactured, advertised,
marketed, distributed and sold by any of the defendants which
lead consumers to believe that they were purchasing, including,
but not limited to, "wholesome," "gourmet," premium," "natural,"
"balanced" and "complete," pet food that was marketed as having
certain ingredients when in fact the pet food contained
ingredients that were not represented in the defendants'
marketing of the pet food and which the defendants never
disclosed to the plaintiffs/class representatives or the class
prior to purchase.

Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:

     (a) whether defendants advertised, marketed and sold pet
         food as healthy, human-like and nutritionally balanced
         when it contained, including but not limited to, toxic
         and dangerous ingredients and chemicals, including but
         not limited to, animal bones, blood, pus, intestines,
         ligaments, tongues, esophagi, cancerous meat,
         euthanized dogs and cats, sodium barbital, and
         penthobarbital and failed to fully disclose such facts
         in advertising;

     (b) whether the defendants knowingly sold pet food that
         contained toxic, dangerous and adulterated ingredients
         and chemicals and failed to disclose such facts;

     (c) whether the defendants advertised, represented or held
         itself out as producing or manufacturing pet food
         products that were, including but not limited to, safe,
         healthy balanced and complete for pets of the
         plaintiffs and class members when in fact such pet food
         was not safe, healthy, balanced or complete;

     (d) whether defendants expressly warranted these pet food
         products;

     (e) whether defendants expressly purported to disclaim any
         express warranty on these pet food products;

     (f) whether defendants purported to disclaim any implied
         warranty on these pet food products;

     (g) whether any limitation on any warranty failed to meet
         its essential purpose;

     (h) whether defendants' intended that the products be
         purchased by the plaintiffs and the class members or
         others;

     (i) whether defendants' intended that the class would feed
         the products to their pets;

     (k) whether defendants' were negligent in manufacturing or
         processing the pet food products;

     (l) whether the purchase and use of pet food to feed
         cats and dogs resulted in loss, injury, or damages to
         the plaintiffs and the class;

     (m) whether the defendants' negligence proximately caused
         loss or injury or damage to the plaintiffs and the
         class;

     (n) whether the plaintiffs and the class suffered damages;

     (o) whether the defendants were unjustly enriched be
         selling consumers pet food that was adulterated, did
         not comport with their own marketing, contained toxic
         substances, and was not nutritionally complete as
         advertised;

     (p) whether the defendants marketing and advertising was
         false and deceptive under applicable state laws; and

     (q) whether the defendants violated applicable consumer
         statutes requiring that the defendants not to commit
         deceptive or unfair trade practices to the detriment of
         the consumer.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, ask the court:

     -- for an order awarding actual consequential damages;

     -- pursuant to Section 501.2075, $10,000 for each violation
        of willfully using a method, act, or practice declared
        unlawful under Section 501.204;

     -- for pre- and post-judgment interest to the class, as
        allowed by law;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- the return of wrongful, revenue, and benefits, to the
        extent, and in the amount deemed appropriate by the
        court and such other relief the court deems just and
        proper to remedy defendants' unjust enrichment;

     -- for an order awarding punitive damages; and

     -- for an order granting such other and further relief as
        allowed by law.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on Jan. 25, 2008.
The defense group then filed its consolidated motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' third amended class action complaint.  The court
denied this dismissal request on April 8, 2008, according to the
company's June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 4,
2008.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f36

The suit is "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21221-CMA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Catherine J. MacIvor, Esq. (cmacivor@mflegal.com)
          Maltzman Foreman PA
          2 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2300
          One Biscayne Tower
          Miami, FL 33131-1803
          Phone: 305-358-6555
          Fax: 374-9077


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Discovery Ongoing in Catterton Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action suit in
California over the merger between Restoration Hardware, Inc.
and certain affiliates of Catterton Partners, according to
Restoration's June 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended May 3, 2008.

On Nov. 28, 2007, a stockholder complaint was filed by Richard
Hattan as a purported class action suit on behalf of all of
Restoration's stockholders against:

     -- the company,
     -- each of the company's directors,
     -- Catterton Partners,
     -- Glenhill Capital LP,
     -- Vardon Capital Management LLC,
     -- Palo Alto Investors LLC, and
     -- Reservoir Capital Management LLC

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in the County of Marin, under Case No. CV 075563.

The plaintiff amended his complaint on March 7, 2008.  The
plaintiff alleges that he is an owner of the company's common
stock.  

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed Merger by pursuing a process for
the sale of the Company that was not reasonably likely to
maximize stockholder value.

In particular, the amended complaint alleges that the directors
did not deal appropriately with Sears.  The amended complaint
also alleges that the company's disclosures with respect to the
transaction were inadequate or incomplete, rendering the
disclosures materially misleading.

The amended complaint alleges that the remaining defendants
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  It
seeks, among other things, to enjoin the company, its directors
and the other defendants from proceeding with or consummating
the Merger and an injunction changing or supplementing the
disclosures made by the company.  

Discovery has been proceeding in the case.  On May 21, 2008, the
plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to
delay the vote and prohibit the closing of the merger.  The
motion is expected to be heard on June 11, 2008.  

Corte Madera, California-based Restoration Hardware, Inc. --
http://www.restorationhardware.com/-- is a specialty retailer  
of hardware, bathware, furniture, lighting, textiles,
accessories and gifts.


SHELL OIL: Reaches $1.10-Billion Settlement in "Cox" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Oil Co. has reached a $1.103-billion settlement in the
matter, "Cox, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et ano., Civil Action
No. 18,844," which was filed in the Chancery Court for Obion
County, at Union City, Tennessee.

                         Case Background

Named plaintiff Tina M. Cox and others brought the lawsuit as a
class action, alleging that, among other things, Shell Oil Co.
and Hoechst Celanese Corp. supplied raw materials used by other
entities in the manufacture of polybutylene plumbing.

The plaintiffs further alleged that polybutylene plumbing is
defective.  In the suit, they sought money damages for, among
other things, the cost of replacing plumbing systems and
repairing property damage associated with leaks.

                     Polybutylene Plumbing

Polybutylene plumbing inside a structure (PB In-House Plumbing)
is a potable water supply system containing polybutylene pipe
and either acetal (plastic) or metal insert fittings (such as
tees and elbows).  PB pipe is a non-rigid, sometimes curved,
usually gray (or possibly silver or black) plastic pipe.

When used in the underground service from the water company to a
structure (Yard Service Line), PB pipe is blue, gray, or black.
PB pipe is not used for drains, waste, or vent pipe.

"PB Plumbing" refers to both PB In-House Plumbing and Yard
Service Line.  It does not include yard sprinkler systems,
irrigation systems, fire sprinkler systems, sewer lines,
faucets, or fixtures.

Insert fittings are used to join pieces of PB pipe.  The insert
fitting is inserted into the pipe and clamped with a metal
(aluminum or copper) crimp ring over the outside of the pipe.
Metal insert fittings are either copper or brass.  

Acetal insert fittings are hard gray or white plastic.  They are
not black.  Insert fittings are not grabber, flare, or
compression fittings which are often threaded and use a plastic
or metal nut to secure the seal.

                        Settlement Class

The Settlement Class is composed of those who:

       -- own real property or structures in the U.S. in which
          there was installed between Jan. 1, 1978, and July 31,
          1995, PB Plumbing with acetal insert or metal insert
          fittings or PB Yard Service Line;

       -- own or previously owned such real property or
          structures and have already incurred any cost or
          expense, by reason of leakage from, or from failure,
          repair, or removal of, all or any portion of such PB
          Plumbing which was installed between Jan. 1, 1978, and
          July 31, 1995; or

       -- will own such real property or structures during term
          of entitlement to relief under the Settlement.

For more details, contact:

          Consumer Plumbing Recovery Center
          P.O. Box 869006
          Plano, TX 75086-9006
          Phone: 800-392-7591
          Web site: http://www.pbpipe.com/


SOLVAY AMERICA: July 23 Hearing Set for $46M Antitrust Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on July 23, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., to
consider a proposed $46,000,000 settlement by Solvay America,
Solvay Chemicals Inc., and Solvay S.A. in the matter, "In Re:
Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-666, MDL
Docket No. 1682."

The hearing will be held before Judge Stewart Dalzell in
Courtroom 1-B, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, at 601 Market St., in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

                        Case Background

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are those who purchased Hydrogen
Peroxide (including sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate) in
the U.S. or from a facility located in the U.S., directly from
any of these defendants:

       -- Akzo Nobel Chemicals International B.V.;

       -- Akzo Nobel Inc.;

       -- Arkema Inc. (f/k/a Atofina Chemicals, Inc. and Elf
          Atochem North America, Inc.);

       -- Arkema France (f/k/a Atofina S.A. and Elf Atochem
          S.A.);

       -- Degussa Gmbh (f/k/a Degussa A.G.);

       -- Degussa Corporation;

       -- EKA Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- FMC Corporation;

       -- Kemira Chemicals, Canada, Inc.;
     
       -- Kemira Oyj;
     
       -- Solvay America;

       -- Solvay Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- Solvay S.A.; and

       -- Total S.A. (f/k/a Totalfinalelf S.A. and Total, S.A.).

In general, the suit asserts that, as a result of the alleged
conduct of the defendants, the prices paid to the defendant
manufacturers for hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate and sodium
percarbonate were higher than they otherwise would have been
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 24, 2007).

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs from the defendants.

For more details, contact:

          Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation
          Settlement Administrator
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          P.O. Box 58309
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-8309
          Phone: 1-800-252-5745
          http://www.hydrogenperoxideantitrustlitigation.com/

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699
          e-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com
          Web site: http://www.cmht.com/

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. (rkaplan@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          805 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 800-290-1952
                 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714
          Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/


SPRINT SPECTRUM: Sued Over Phones Incompatible with Network
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Spectrum LP, doing business as Sprint PCS Group, and
SprintCom, Inc., are facing a class-action complaint filed on
June 4, 2008, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff David Welles asserts claims for common law fraud
and brings this action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., and
the consumer fraud acts of each state in which either defendant
does business.

The complaint claims that after selling cell phones that are
incompatible with its network, Sprint PCS failed to inform
customers that a software upgrade could reduce their dropped
calls and offered a monetary settlement and upgrade only if
customers discovered the problem and its solution themselves,
and demanded it.

The plaintiff seeks class-wide relief for Sprint's failure to
disclose to its customers the proper remedy for avoiding dropped
calls -- calls that are involuntarily disconnected by the Sprint
network.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801 on
behalf of all persons in Illinois, who entered into a service
agreement with Sprint for personal communications services,
selected a telephone that qualified for software upgrades, and
experienced dropped calls.

The plaintiff prays:

     -- that the court adjudge and decree that the present case
        may be properly maintained as a class action and appoint
        Bock & Hatch, LLC as class counsel;

     -- that the court award plaintiff and members of the class
        damages, injunctive relief plus pre-judgment and post-
        judgment interest;

     -- that the court award plaintiff and members of the class
        punitive damages, attorney fees and costs; and

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

The suit is "David Welles, et al. v. Sprint Spectrum, LP et al.,
Case No. 08CH20123," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          Bock & Hatch, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-658-5500
          Fax: 312-658-5555


USA MERCHANT: Faces Texas Suit Over Internet-Based Businesses
-------------------------------------------------------------
USA Merchant Systems, A-1 Leasing, and StartUp Essentials are
facing a class-action complaint filed in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the companies cheat
customers by claiming they can help them set up and run
Internet-based businesses, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on
behalf of all persons who were solicited by any of the Harris
Companies and entered into a Lease with A-1.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     a. whether all defendants violated Tex. Bus. Comm. Code
        Section 17.41, et seq., by engaging in false,  
        misleading, or deceptive acts or practices;

     b. whether Bond Corporation is the alter ego of A-1;

     c. whether James One LP is the alter ego of USA Card and
        StartUp LLC; and

     d. whether Harris is liable for fraudulent transfers.

The plaintiff prays that:

     -- the court certify the requested class, designate the
        plaintiff as representative of the class and Texas
        Subclass, and plaintiff's counsel as lead counsel for
        the class;

     -- the court award damages and treble damages in an
        amount to be determined by the trier of fact;

     -- the court award declaratory and injunctive relief
        as specified;

     -- the plaintiff recover costs and reasonable attorneys'
        fees;

     -- the court award pre- and post-judgment interest;
        and

     -- cuch other and further relief as the court may deem
        necessary or appropriate.

The suit is "Sharon Hubbard, et al. v. USA Merchant Systems,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08cv304," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Stephen L. Hubbard, Esq. (slhubbard@hblawfirm.com)
          Robert W. Biederman, Esq. (rwbiederman@hblawfirm.com)
          David M. Grossman, Esq. (dmgrossman@hblawfirm.com)
          Hubbard & Biederman, LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 4700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-857-6000
          Fax: 214-857-6001


VERISIGN INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc., settled a purported consumer fraud class action
lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California and accuses it
of false and misleading advertisement with regard to the
company's Internet-security software.

On Feb. 14, 2005, Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP, filed
a putative class action suit in the Superior Court of
California, alleging violations of the unfair competition laws,
breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment relating to the
company's Secure Site Pro SSL certificates.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased the Secure Site Pro certificate from February 2001 up
to the present.  On April 17, 2006, the class was certified and
class notice was issued on May 21, 2007.

In March 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve the matter, according to the company's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com/-- is a provider of  
intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect
billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks
worldwide.


VERISIGN INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Gambling Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported consumer
fraud class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California over alleged gambling laws
violation by the company in its promotion of the "Deal Or No
Deal" show.

Also named defendants in the complaint are:

     -- Endemol USA,
     -- Verisign, Inc.,
     -- M-Qube, Inc., and
     -- Don Jagoda Associates, Inc.

Named plaintiffs -- Karen Herbert, Judy Schenker, Jodi Eberhart
and Cheryl Bentley -- claim that the Internet promotion, known
as the "Lucky Case Game," which costs 99 cents per text message,
is a game of chance that offers a winner a shot at "Deal or no
Deal" Program, which offers a $1 million grand prize (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 22, 2007).

At a predetermined time during each broadcast, six gold
briefcases (different from the in-studio contestants' cases) are
displayed on-air and an announcer invites home viewers to
participate in the Promotion by submitting the number one
through six that they believe corresponds to the winning gold
briefcase.  The game ends when one briefcase is opened on-air to
reveal that night's "Lucy Case."

The game allegedly involves the three elements of illegal
gambling: consideration, chance and prize.  Viewers of the
program enter the promotion via text message for which they
incur a premium text message fee, or via the Internet.  
Potential winners among eligible entrants are chosen at random,
and have the opportunity to win cash and other prizes.

The alleged illegal gambling game is broadcast during the show,
plaintiffs say.

The plaintiffs further claim the show, broadcast nationwide from
California, violates California and Massachusetts laws against
gambling.

The defendants operate the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, as
follows:

     (a) Endemol produces the "Deal or No Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (b) Don Jagoda designe the "Lucky Case Game," including its
         rules and conditions;

     (c) NBC broadcasts the "Deal or NO Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (d) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" during the broadcasr of "Deal or No Deal";

     (e) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" in advertisements for "Deal or No Deal" and the              
         "Lucky Case Game";

     (f) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda solicit thext message
         entries to the "Lucky Case Game";

     (g) NBC levies charges for premium text messages sent by
         entrants in the promotion;

     (h) VeriSign and M-Qube act as the billing agent for the
         promotion;

     (i) VeriSign and M-Qube aggregate all entrie, and randomly
         select and contact the potential prize winner amongst
         the entries correctly identifying the "Lucky Case";
  
     (j) VeriSign and M-Qube award and distribute prizes to
         winning entrants; and

     (k) Endemol, NBC, VeriSign and M-Qube sponsor the "Lucky
         Case Game."

The plaintiffs brought the nationwide class action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
themselves and as a representative of a class consisting of all
persons in the U.S. who paid or incurred premium text message
charges in connection with entrance into the "Lucky Case Game,"
and who did not win a prize.

The plaintiffs brought the action in their individual
capacities, and for the First and Second Causes of Action, as a
class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities who have paid or
incurred premium text message charges in connection with
entering the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, and who have not won
any prize.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     1. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constitutes illegal
        gambling;

     2. the extent of each defendants' participation in
        conducting the promotion;

     3. whether defendants' conduct violated California
        Business and Professions Section 17200;

     4. whether defendants' violations directly and proximately
        caused injury to plaintiffs and the class;

     5. the extent to which the injuries suffered by plaintiffs
        and the class are entitled to damages, restitution,
        disgorgement, or other monetary remedies;

     6. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constituted a gaming or
        related activity covered by Massachusetts General Laws
        ch. 137, Section 1:

     7. whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
        recover the amount of premium text messages paid to
        enter the "Lucky Case Game" in contract; and

     8. whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
        the "Lucky Case Game."

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for restitution;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for damages;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs for treble damages;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against
        conducting the "Lucy Case Game" Promotion;

     -- a declaration that the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion
        constitutes an illegal lottery and illegal gambling;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the
        class as may be just and proper; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

On Aug. 15, 2007, VeriSign filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

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 quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Karen Herbert et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case
No. CV 07 3537FMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (kiesel@kbla.com)
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: 310-854-0812

          William A. Pannell, Esq. (billpannell@mindspring.com)
          William A. Pannell, P.C.
          3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: 404-353-2283

               - and -

          Kevin T. Moore, Esq. (kaw30328@aol.com)
          Kevin T. Moore, P.C.
          6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, N.E.
          Building C, Suite 201
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: 770-396-3622


WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Lawsuit in D.C. Over Alleged Bid Rigging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed on
June 4, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia alleging it conspired with 33 other banks to fix
prices, rig bids and allocate customers for municipal
derivatives, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The other defendants in the suit are:

     -- AIG Financial Products Corp.;
     -- Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.;
     -- Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd.;
     -- Financial Security Assurance, Inc.;
     -- Financial Guaranty Insurance Co.;
     -- Trinity Funding Co. LLC;
     -- GE Funding Capital Market Services, Inc.;
     -- Genworth Financial Inc.;
     -- Natixis SA;
     -- JP Morgan Chase & Co.;
     -- Piper Jaffrey & Co.;
     -- Societe Generale SA;
     -- AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Co.;
     -- UBS AG;
     -- Security Capital Assurance Inc.;
     -- XL Asset Funding Co. I, LLC;
     -- XL Life Insurance & Annuity Co.;
     -- Lehman Brothers Inc.;
     -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.;
     -- Morgan Stanley;
     -- National Westminster Bank PLC;
     -- Natixis Funding Corp.;
     -- Investment Management Advisory Group, Inc.;
     -- CDR Financial Products;
     -- Feld Winters Financial LLC;
     -- Winters & Co. Advisors, LLC;
     -- First Southwest Co.;
     -- George K. Baum & Co.;
     -- Kinsell Newcomb & De Dios Inc.;
     -- PackerKiss Securities, Inc.;
     -- Shockley Financial Corp.; and
     -- Sound Capital Management, Inc.

Lead plaintiff Central Bucks School District sued Bank of
America separately because it is cooperating with the federal
investigation.

"This lawsuit arises out of an illegal agreement, understanding
and conspiracy among providers and brokers of municipal
derivatives to not compete and to rig bids for municipal
derivatives sold to issuers of municipal bonds," the Wachovia
complaint states.  "The illegal agreement, understanding and
conspiracy is based on per se illegal horizontal communications
and conduct among providers of municipal derivatives.  These
providers have engaged in communications facilitating and
conduct restraining competition such as rigging of bids, secret
compensation of losing bidders, courtesy bids, deliberately
losing bids, and agreements not to bid.  Brokers have knowingly
participated in this per se illegal conspiracy to limit
competition by facilitating indirect communications among
providers and have shared the wrongful profits form the illegal
agreement to restrain competition."

The plaintiff brings this action under the provisions of Rule
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
behalf of all state, local and municipal government entities,
independent government agencies and private entities that
purchased by competitive biding or auction Municipal Derivatives
directly from the provider-defendant or Bank America, or through
the broker-defendant, at any time from Jan. 1, 1992, through the
present in the United States and its territories or for delivery
in the United States and its territories.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         maintain or stabilize prices, and rig bids and allocate
         customers and markets of Municipal Derivatives;

     (b) the identity of the participants of the alleged
         conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the alleged conspiracy and the acts
         carried out by defendants and their co-conspirators in
         furtherance of the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section 1 of
         the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 1;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused
         injury to the business or property of the plaintiff and
         the other members of the class;

     (f) the effect of the alleged conspiracy on the prices of
         Municipal Derivatives sold in the United States during
         the class period;

     (g) whether defendants and their co-conspirators
         fraudulently concealed the conspiracy's existence from
         the plaintiff and the other members of the class; and

     (h) the appropriate class-wide measure of damages.

The plaintiff pray that:

     -- the court determine that this action may be
        maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the
        acts done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their
        co-conspirators, be adjudged to have been per se
        violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC
        Section 1;

     -- judgment be entered for plaintiff and members of
        the class against defendants for treble damages
        sustained by plaintiff and the members of the class as
        allowed by law, together with the costs of this action,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- plaintiff and the class be awarded pre-judgment and
        post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate from
        and after the date of service of the complaint to the
        extent provided by law; and

     -- plaintiff and members of the class have such other,
        further or different relief as the case may require and
        the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The suit is "Central Bucks School District, et al. v. Wachovia
Bank NA, et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00956," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
          Megan E. Jones, Esq.
          Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699


YAHOO!: Shareholder Suit Over Failed Microsoft Takeover Unsealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Chancery Court Judge William Chandler unsealed a
shareholder class action lawsuit against Yahoo! Inc.
(NASDAQ:YOO) over its failed takeover talks with Microsoft
Corp., New Mexico Business Weekly reports.

Judge Chandler, in his ruling, said that the Sunnyvale, Calif.-
based Yahoo! did not show good cause for keeping the suit
sealed, the report relates.

The suit alleges that Yahoo mishandled a $47.5-billion buyout
attempt by Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT).  It was
commenced by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, which
represents investors in the case.

The Class Action Reporter reported on March 4, 2008, that since
Feb. 11, 2008, three separate shareholder lawsuits have been
filed against Yahoo! and the members of its board of directors.  
The three plaintiff groups are:

   1. The Wayne County Employees' Retirement System,

   2. Ronald Dicke, and

   3. The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
      Detroit along with The General Retirement System of the
      City of Detroit.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to assert class claims on
behalf of all Yahoo! stockholders, except the defendants and
their affiliates.  The plaintiffs generally allege that the
defendants -- most specifically Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang and co-
founder David Filo -- breached fiduciary duties by rejecting
Microsoft's Feb. 1, 2008 unsolicited offer to acquire Yahoo!
without fully informing them whether Microsoft would offer
additional consideration and that the defendants are not acting
in the best interests of shareholders and are seeking to
entrench themselves.

One of the Delaware Lawsuits alleges that the Board of Directors
have pursued various blocking transactions, adopted an employee
severance plan, and a shareholder rights plan in violation of
fiduciary duties.

The complaints in the Delaware Lawsuits seek unspecified
damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief, as well as an
award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 5, 2008, Chancellor Chandler entered an Order of
Consolidation appointing co-lead counsel, consolidating the
actions previously filed in the Court of Chancery, and
designating the complaint filed by the Police & Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit and the General Retirement System
of the City of Detroit as the operative complaint.

On March 12, 2008, Chancellor Chandler entered an Amended Order
of Consolidation providing that any future cases arising from
the same facts will be consolidated as part of the Detroit
Funds' consolidated class action.

Business Weekly relates that, according to Bernstein Litowitz,
Microsoft attempted to initiate merger discussions in late 2006
and early 2007, but was rebuffed, supposedly so Yahoo!'s
management could implement existing strategic plans. None of
those initiatives improved Yahoo!'s performance.  On Feb. 1,
2008, over a year after its initial approach, Microsoft
returned, offering to acquire Yahoo! for $31 per share,
representing a 62% premium above the $19.18 closing price of the
company's stock on Jan. 31, 2008.

The law firm added that rather than consider Microsoft's offer
in good faith, "Yahoo's board took various steps to defend
against Microsoft, destroying or threatening to destroy
shareholder value in the process . . . on May 3, 2008, Microsoft
withdrew its bid, causing Yahoo's stock to plummet when markets
reopened."


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Coughlin Stoia Files Mass. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action suit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
individuals who purchased the Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond Fund
within three years of the filing of this lawsuit, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint charges Fidelity Management & Research Company
(FMR Co.) and certain related entities, among others, with
violations of the Securities Act.  FMR Co. is the investment
advisor to the entire group of mutual funds under the Fidelity
name.

On or about August 23, 2002, defendants began offering shares of
the Ultra-Short Bond Fund pursuant to an initial registration
statement, filed with the SEC as a Form 485BPOS.

The complaint alleges that defendants solicited investors to
purchase shares of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund by making
statements that described the Fund as a fund that:

     (i) seeks a high level of current income consistent with
         the preservation of capital;

    (ii) allocates its assets across different market sectors
         and maturities;

   (iii) has a similar overall interest rate risk to the Lehman
         Brothers(R) 6 Month Swap Index; and

    (iv) is geared toward the preservation of capital.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because defendants did not adequately
disclose the risks associated with investing in the Fund,
including, for example, that the Fund was:

     (i) failing to compete with the Lehman Brothers(R) 6 Month
         Swap Index; and

    (ii) so heavily invested in high-risk mortgage-backed
         securities.

By June 11, 2007, defendants slowly began lowering the value of
the share price for the Ultra-Short Bond Fund.  Since then, the
value of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund's share price has been
precipitously lowered.  By November 15, 2007, the value of the
per-share price was reduced below $9.  The shares were trading
as low as $8.25 as of the filing of the complaint.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of the shares of the Fund within three years of the
filing of this lawsuit.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


HEALTHWAYS INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Tennessee Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Healthways,
Inc. common stock during the period between October 17, 2007,
and February 26, 2008.

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

Healthways provides disease management and wellness programs for
health plans, hospitals and small businesses, helping members
with diabetes, cancer and other diseases to coordinate care,
keep up with treatment and maintain healthy behaviors.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects.
According to the complaint, starting in 2005, Healthways, along
with four other companies, became involved in the Medicare
Health Support pilot program launched by the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services.  The MHS program was designed to
improve quality of care and life for people with multiple
chronic conditions, and to help the Medicare program and its
beneficiaries save money.  Under the plan's first three-year
phase, patients were tracked to evaluate care, satisfaction and
whether the plan achieved savings targets.  Based on those
results, CMS would decide whether to expand the program to a
second phase.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Healthways failed to
disclose that:

     (i) Healthways was not meeting the savings targets, among
         other requirements, set by CMS.  As a result of
         Healthways' failure, CMS would not expand the MHS
         program to a second phase and the Company would be
         required to reimburse CMS for the fees they had already
         received through the program;

    (ii) Healthways was in danger of losing at least two
         existing contracts and was experiencing slower
         enrollment in an existing contract due to a decline in
         the need for the Company's services; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company had no
         reasonable basis for its revenues and earnings guidance
         for fiscal 2008.

Then, on February 26, 2008, the Company announced that it was
lowering its financial guidance for fiscal 2008 "due to slower-
than-projected enrollment in a new Health Support program with
one large health plan customer and the recent indication that
two previously anticipated contracts will not materialize during
this fiscal year."  On this news, shares of the Company's stock
fell $13.42 per share, or approximately 30%, to close at $31.93
per share, on heavy trading volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


JP MORGAN CHASE: Curtis Trinko Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, has commenced a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York seeking to recover damages on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired Auction Rate Securities from
JP Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., between
May 16, 2003, and February 1, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceptively
offering for sale Action Rate Securities, and represented to
investors that these securities were the equivalent of cash or
money-market substitutes, and other short term investments that
were highly liquid and could be purchased with a minimum
investment of $25,000.

Defendants were deceptive in that they failed to disclose to
consumers that auction rate securities are long-term financial
instruments with maturities of 30 years to perpetuity, and that
such securities were only liquid due to Defendants and other
broker-dealers creating an artificial market for auction rate
securities by manipulating the auction process.  On or about
February 13, 2008, Defendants and other major broker-dealers
withdrew their support of these securities, causing holders of
auction rate securities offered by the defendants as being
highly-liquid investments to be left with no means of
liquidating their holdings.

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

For more information, contact:

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. (ctrinko@trinko.com)
          Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-490-9550
          Fax: 212-986-0158


NEXCEN BRANDS: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
purchasers of securities of NexCen Brands, Inc., from May 10,
2007, through May 19, 2008, inclusive.

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

NexCen acquires and manages global brands, generating revenue
through licensing and franchising.  They currently own and
license the Bill Blass and Waverly brands, as well as seven
franchised brands.  Two franchised brands -- The Athlete's Foot
and Shoebox New York -- sell retail footwear and accessories.
Five are quick-service restaurants -- Marble Slab Creamery,
MaggieMoo's, Pretzel Time, Pretzelmaker, and Great American
Cookies.

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

     (1) that in order to finance its Great American Cookies
         acquisition, the Company agreed to an accelerated-
         redemption feature, which forced the Company to pay
         back half of the amount borrowed by a particular date;

     (2) that the Company could not comply with the accelerated-
         redemption feature;

     (3) that as a result, the Company would suffer a reduction
         in the amount of cash at its disposal;

     (4) that the Company was experiencing a continuous
         weakening in its financial condition due to its debt;
   
     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well- being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On May 19, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it announced
that its recently filed 10-K did not take into account factors
that significantly changed the amount of cash available to the
Company for general use.  Such factors included the accelerated-
redemption feature of its bank credit facility, in connection
with the Company's acquisition of Great American Cookies.

Moreover, the Company stated that there was substantial doubt
about its ability to continue as a going concern.  The Company
stated that it would undergo an independent review in order to
make a determination.  Finally, the Company announced that its
prior financial guidance for 2008 was no longer applicable.  
Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell $1.95
per share, or 77.08 percent, to close on May 19, 2008, at $0.58
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

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

For more information, contact:

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


TRM CORP: Stoll Berne Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon on behalf of purchasers of TRM
Corporation common stock during the period between March 16,
2006, and May 22, 2007.

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

The Company provides convenience ATM services to consumers in
retail environments in the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
May 23, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Gary M. Berne, Esq. (gberne@stollberne.com)
          David Rees, Esq. (drees@stollberne.com)
          Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Sclachter
          209 SouthWest Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: 503-227-1600


WALGREEN CO: Stull & Brody Files Illinois Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Walgreen Co. between
June 25, 2007, and November 29, 2007.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Walgreen was
experiencing a steady decline in the growth of its core business
-- filling retail drug prescriptions.  Throughout the Class
Period, defendants failed to disclose declining growth rates for
the Company's generic prescription business and misled investors
concerning the sustainability of Walgreen's profits and sales.

According to the complaint, unbeknownst to Walgreen's public
shareholders, underlying the erosion of Walgreen's earnings was
a material contract dispute with one of the nation's largest
third-party providers of prescription drug benefits -- CVS
Caremark.  During 2007, Walgreen disputed Caremark's
reimbursement rates for a number of prescription drug plans
located primarily in the upper Midwestern U.S., which were
negatively impacting the Company's earnings.

On October 1, 2007, prior to the market opening, Walgreen issued
a press release announcing its financial results for its fourth
fiscal quarter and fiscal year 2006.  For the fourth quarter,
the Company reported net income $0.40 per share -- far below
analysts' earnings expectations of $0.47 per share.  In response
to the announcement, the price of Walgreen stock declined from
$47.00 per share to $39.96 per share, on extremely heavy trading
volume.

Then on November 29, 2007, Walgreen announced that "[a]fter many
months" of dispute with Caremark over the reimbursement rates
for four prescription plans, Walgreen withdrew as a pharmacy
from the plans.  Following this announcement, shares of Walgreen
common stock declined to a new three-year low of $36.59 per
share at the close of trading on November 30, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Walgreen's common stock during
the Class Period, which is between June 25, 2007, and
November 29, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 212/490-2022





                            *********

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  * * *