CAR_Public/080611.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, June 11, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 115
  
                            Headlines

AT&T: Sup. Ct. Rejects Appeal of $31MM Verdict in Pension Suit
AXT INC: Calif. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
BIMINI CAPITAL: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Florida
BLUEGREEN CORP: N.J. Court Approves Consumer Fraud Suit Deal
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Reaches Settlement for "Off" Lawsuit in Del.

CHOICE HOTELS: Colo. Court Transfers Securities Lawsuits to Md.
CIRCUIT CITY: Faces Lawsuit in Illinois Over $50 Rebates
COMCAST INC: Sued Over Totalitarian Censorship of File Sharing
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Calif. Suit Over Refusal to Pay Interest
DIRECTV GROUP: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Illegal Solicitation

DOLLAR THRIFTY: Amended Complaint Filed in "Shames" Lawsuit
DOT HILL: Aug. 14 Hearing Set for Bid to Dismiss Brody Lawsuit
EL PASO: January 2009 Hearing Set for Royalties Suit in Oklahoma
FAT LAW SUITS: 2 New Suits Filed Against Restaurants Over Menu
FIRST AMERICAN: Sued Over Alleged Foreclosure Kickback Scheme

FONTERRA: Farmers' Lawsuit Over Drop in Fair Value Share Looms
GENERALI: Holocaust Claims Settlement Approved on Final Basis
GMH COMMUNITIES: Pa. Court Gives Final OK to $8.75M Settlement
HOLLAND AMERICA: Faces Seafarer's Demand for Additional Wages
ILLINOIS CENTRAL: Faces Illinois Suit Over Illegal Property Sale

INVENTIV HEALTH: Calif. Court Considers Motions in "Weisz" Case
MERRIFIELD TOWN: Condominium Purchasers Commence Lawsuit in Va.
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Minnesota
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Minnesota
MTC TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement for BAE Systems Merger Suit

PCB LITIGATION: Three Companies Sued Over Water Pollution
TNS INC: Parties Reach Settlement in Va. Securities Fraud Suit
UNITED ONLINE: No Trial Date Set for Calif. NetZero Litigation
ZIPREALTY INC: Calif. Court Okays Deal in Employee Agents' Suit
ZIPREALTY INC: Reaches $600T Settlement in Employee Agent's Suit

ZIPREALTY INC: Faces Sales Agents' Litigation in California


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GR0UP: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
FRANKLIN BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Texas Securities Fraud Suit
FRANKLIN CORP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Brualdi Law Firm Files N.Y. Securities Suit
HEALTHWAYS INC: Brower Piven Commences Securities Suit in Tenn.

HEALTHWAYS INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Tenn. Securities Lawsuit
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Wis.
WACHOVIA: Labaton Sucharow Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


AT&T: Sup. Ct. Rejects Appeal of $31MM Verdict in Pension Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected AT&T Inc.'s appeal of a
$31.2-million verdict in a class action lawsuit over lump-sum
retirement benefits paid to employees, Legal Newsline reports.

The lawsuit, brought by Linda Call, alleged that the mortality
tables the company's pension plan used to calculate retirement
benefits wrongly reduced payments to some workers.

Legal Newsline points out that the pension plan in the case is
the Ameritech Management Pension Plan, which was merged into the
AT&T plan in 2005 following a series of corporate mergers.

Ms. Call claimed that her $219,312 in promised pension benefits
were cut by about $36,000 due to a 1999 amendment to the
company's plan, which changed the mortality tables.

Ms. Call filed the class action lawsuit against the pension plan
in October 2001, seeking damages for her and 1,900 fellow
employees.

The report relates that under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, companies are generally barred from altering their
pension plans in ways that reduce employees' benefits.  In 2004,
a U.S. district court said that law was violated.

Legal Newsline recalls that the court awarded the employees
$31.2 million in damages, which included more than $6.4 million
in interest.  The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago
affirmed the ruling.

U.S. Justice Department Solicitor General Paul Clement, who
argues on behalf of the White House, recommended that the
justices reject the appeal.

The case is "AT&T Pension Benefit Plan v. Linda Call, 06-1398."


AXT INC: Calif. Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
approved a proposed settlement reached in the consolidated
securities fraud class action lawsuit against AXT, Inc.

On Oct. 15, 2004, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, styled, "City of Harper Woods Employees
Retirement System v. AXT, Inc., et al., No. C 04 4362 MJJ."  The
court consolidated the case with a subsequent related case and
appointed a lead plaintiff.

On April 5, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint, captioned "Morgan v. AXT, Inc. et al., No. C 04 4362
MJJ."  The complaint names the company and its chief technology
officer as defendants, and is brought on behalf of a class of
all purchasers of its securities from Feb. 6, 2001, through
April 27, 2004.

The suit alleges that the company announced financial results
during this period that were false and misleading.  No specific
amount of damages is claimed.

At the company's behest, the court, on Sept. 23, 2005, dismissed
the complaint, but with leave to amend.  The lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which the company again moved to
dismiss.

In April 2007, the company reached a deal to settle the case.  

On Feb. 27, 2008, the district court approved the settlement on
a final basis, and subsequently entered a judgment of dismissal
of the case, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Thomas O. Morgan, et al. v. AXT, Inc et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-04362-MJJ," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth P. Lin, Esq. (elin@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
          355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-617-1200
          Fax: 213-617-1975

Representing the company are:

          David Banie, Esq. (david.banie@dlapiper.com)
          David Priebe, Esq. (david.priebe@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S. LLP
          2000 University Avenue, East
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Phone: 650-833-2000
          Fax: 650-833-2001


BIMINI CAPITAL: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bimini Capital Management, Inc., is facing two purported
securities fraud class action lawsuits filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, according
to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

On Sept. 17, 2007, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida by William Kornfeld
against the company, certain of the company's current and former
officers and directors, Flagstone Securities LLC, and BB&T
Capital Markets, alleging various violations of the federal
securities laws and seeking class action certification.  

On Oct. 9, 2007, another complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Richard
and Linda Coy against the same defendants, also alleging various
violations of the federal securities laws and seeking class
action certification.  

Bimini Capital Management, Inc. -- http://www.biminicapital.com/
-- formerly Opteum Inc., is primarily in the business of
investing in mortgage-backed securities.  Bimini Capital is
operating as a real estate investment trust.  As of Dec. 31,
2007, 92.5% of the Company's portfolio was issued by Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), 6.7% was issued by
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac) and 0.8% was
issued by Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae).
As of June 30, 2007, the Company operated a mortgage banking
business through its subsidiary, Orchid Island TRS, LLC (OITRS).
OITRS, formerly known as Opteum Financial Services, LLC, ceased
originating mortgages on June 30, 2007.


BLUEGREEN CORP: N.J. Court Approves Consumer Fraud Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, gave final
approval to the proposed settlement in a purported class action
lawsuit filed by Michelle Alamo, Ernest Alamo, Toniann Quinn,
and Terrance Quinn against Bluegreen Corp.  

The suit (Docket No. L-6716-05) was filed before the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, as a purported class action
suit on Sept. 23, 2005.  It named as defendants Vacation Station
LLC, LeisurePath Vacation Club, and LeisurePath, Inc.

The complaint raised allegations concerning the marketing of the
LeisurePath Travel Services Network product to the public, and,
in particular, New Jersey residents by Vacation Station, LLC, an
independent distributor of travel products.   

Vacation Station purchased LeisurePath membership kits from
LeisurePath's master distributor, Mini Vacations, Inc., and then
sold the memberships to consumers.  

The initial plaintiffs -- none of whom actually bought the
Leisure Path product -- asserted claims for violations of the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, fraud, nuisance, negligence and
for equitable relief all stemming from the sale and marketing by
Vacation Station of the LeisurePath Travel Services Network.  

The plaintiffs were seeking the gifts and prizes they were
allegedly told by Vacation Station that they won as part of the
sales promotion, and that they be given the opportunity to
rescind their agreement with LeisurePath along with a full
refund.  They further sought punitive damages, compensatory
damages, attorney's fees and treble damages of unspecified
amounts.

In February 2007, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to add
two additional plaintiffs or proposed class representatives --
Bruce Doxey and Karen Smith-Doxey.

Unlike the initial plaintiffs who were first contacted by
Vacation Station some seven months after LeisurePath terminated
its relationship with Vacation Station and who did not purchase
LeisurePath products, the Doxeys purchased a participation in
the LeisurePath Travel Services Network.

Vacation Station and its owner have each filed for bankruptcy
protection and, accordingly, the case is being pursued against
LeisurePath and Bluegreen Corp.

In the Fall of 2007, the court denied the plaintiffs' request to
certify their claims as a class action.  

Subsequently, the parties negotiated a settlement in an effort
to extinguish the claims of persons who purchased the benefits
of the Leisure Path Travel.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to a
settlement pursuant to which persons who purchased a
participation in the Network from Vacation Station's sales
office in Hackensack, New Jersey, will be allowed to select
either:

       -- seven consecutive nights of accommodations in a
          Bluegreen resort located in either Orlando, Las Vegas,
          or Myrtle Beach to be used by Dec. 31, 2009; or

       -- continued memberships and a waiver of their Network
          membership fees until 2012.

In an effort to resolve any claims of individuals who may allege
improper soliciting, but did not purchase a participation in the
Network, an agreed upon number of three-day and two-night
vacation certificates (for use at the same properties listed
above) will be made available.  The first non-purchasers who
submit a prepared affidavit swearing to the validity of their
claim will receive these certificates.

Furthermore, the defendants have agreed in principle to a "high-
low agreement" with regard to the plaintiffs' counsel's fees
pursuant to which he will receive a minimum of $150,000 and a
maximum of $300,000, depending upon the Court's fee award.

Incentive payments totaling $13,000 will be made to the six
named plaintiffs in the suit.

This settlement structure was approved by the court on a final
basis in April, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Bluegreen Corp. -- http://www.bluegreencorp.com/-- is a  
provider of vacation and residential lifestyle choices through
its resorts and residential community businesses.  The Company
is organized into two divisions: Bluegreen Resorts and Bluegreen
Communities.  Bluegreen Resorts acquires, develops and markets
vacation ownership interests in resorts generally located in
drive-to vacation destinations.  Bluegreen Corp. also generates
interest income through its financing of individual purchasers
of VOIs, and to a nominal extent, homesites sold by Bluegreen
Communities.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Reaches Settlement for "Off" Lawsuit in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centerline Holding Co. has reached a settlement in a putative
class and derivative action lawsuit, which deal could lead to
the possible resolution of several similar cases filed against
the company, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Jan. 15, 2008, the first of the state law cases, a putative
class and derivative action, entitled "Off v. Ross, CA No. 3468-
VCP," was filed against the company, its board of trustees and
The Related Companies, LP, in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  

The lawsuit concerns the company's sale of a new issue of
convertible preferred stock to an affiliate of TRCLP.  It
alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Trustees
and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages from
them as well as injunctive relief against all defendants.

Thereafter, seven other derivative lawsuits asserting the same
or similar claims were filed in state and federal courts in New
York and in the Delaware Chancery Court.  

Four of these later-filed actions also allege that the trustees
breached their fiduciary duties to us by allegedly violating the
federal securities laws (as alleged in the federal securities
lawsuits described above).  

The company is named solely as a nominal defendant in all eight
derivative actions and no monetary relief is sought against us
in any of those cases.  

The seven derivative actions filed subsequent to the Off case
are:

      1. On Jan. 18, 2008, "Kramer v. Ross, et al., Index. No.
         100861-08," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees, in New York County Supreme Court;

      2. On Jan. 25, 2008, "Carfagno v. Schnitzer, et al., No.
         08 CV 00912," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees with the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York;

      3. On Jan. 30, 2008, "Ciszerk v. Ross, et al., CA No.
         3511," was filed against the company, its board of
         trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. with the
         Delaware Court of Chancery;

      4. On Feb. 22, 2008, "Kanter v. Ross, et al., 08 Civ.
         01827," was filed against the company, its board of
         trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. with the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of New York;

      5. "On Feb. 27, 2008, "Broy v. Centerline Holding Company
         et al., No. 08 CV 01971," was filed against the
         company and certain of its officers and trustees with
         the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York;

      6. On April 10, 2008, "Kastner v. Schnitzer et al, Index
         No. 601043-08," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court; and

      7. On April 10, 2008, "Kostecka v. Schnitzer et al, Index
         No. 601044-08," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court.

On April 28, 2008, a consolidated amended verified complaint
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due
care, fair dealing, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment, was filed against the company and its board of
trustees in "Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08 CV 912 (SAS) and
Broy v. Blau, 08 CV 1971 (SAS)," pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  

The action is styled both as a derivative suit and as a class
action on behalf of all holders of Centerline securities who
qualified to purchase our 11.0% preferred shares pursuant to the
rights offering but who did not do so.

The company has negotiated a settlement with the plaintiff in
the Off case based on the rights offering and which is subject
to court approval.  

The company believes that the settlement in Off will also
resolve the similar claims that have been asserted in several of
the other derivative lawsuits.  

Centerline Holding Co. -- http://www.centerline.com/-- formerly  
CharterMac, is an alternative asset manager focused on real
estate funds and financing.  The Company had $11.9 billion of
assets under management as of Dec. 31, 2007.  Organized as a
statutory trust, the Company conducts substantially all of its
business through its subsidiaries generally under the
designation Centerline Capital Group.  The Company operates in
four groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products.  The Affordable
Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through
a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt
and equity investments.  The Portfolio Management group monitors
and services the investments within its funds and servicing
portfolio.  The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products investing
in syndicated corporate debt.


CHOICE HOTELS: Colo. Court Transfers Securities Lawsuits to Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted a
motion that sought for the transfer to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland of two purported securities fraud
class action lawsuits against Choice Hotels International, Inc.

In April 2007, two securities fraud class action complaints were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of persons who purchased the company's stock
between April 25, 2006, and July 26, 2006.

These substantially similar lawsuits assert claims pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
company, its current vice chairman and chief executive officer,
and its former executive vice president and chief financial
officer.

These claims are related to the company's July 25, 2006
announcement of the results of operations for the second quarter
of 2006.

Since the initial filings, the company filed a motion to
transfer the litigation from Colorado to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.  

On March 24, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado granted the company's motion to transfer the matter to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, according
to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. --
http://www.choicehotels.com/-- and subsidiaries is a hotel  
franchisor with 5,570 hotels open and 1,093 hotels under
development as of Dec. 31, 2007, representing 452,027 rooms open
and 87,982 rooms under development in 49 states, the District of
Columbia and 39 countries and territories outside the U.S.  
Choice franchises lodging properties under brand names, such as
Comfort Inn, Comfort Suites, Quality, Clarion, Sleep Inn, Econo
Lodge, Rodeway Inn, MainStay Suites, Suburban Extended Stay
Hotel, Cambria Suites and Flag Hotels (collectively, the Choice
brands).  The Company conducts its international franchise
operations through a combination of direct franchising and
master franchising relationships, which allow the use of its
brands by third parties in foreign countries.  It has made
equity investments in certain non-domestic lodging franchise
companies that conduct franchise operations for the Company's
brands under master franchising relationships.


CIRCUIT CITY: Faces Lawsuit in Illinois Over $50 Rebates
--------------------------------------------------------
Circuit City Stores, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleging it promised $50 rebates on every $89 "digital
picture frame" a customer bought, but delivered the rebate on
only one, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Clayton P. Voegtle claims class damages exceed
$5 million.  He says Circuit City employees specifically stated
that the rebates would be given on each picture frame.  He
bought three of them, and the company denied two rebates as
"duplicate" claims, he says.

The plaintiff files the suit on behalf of all persons who
purchased multiple Smartparts digital picture frames from
Circuit City pursuant a Circuit advertisement offering said
frames for sale at a resulting price of $89.99 after a $50 mail
in rebate, and who submitted rebates for multiple purchases but
only received on rebate.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant offered the same brand and model
         of digital frame to all customers at a resulting price
         of $89.99 after a $50 rebate;

     (b) whether defendant printed out multiple rebate forms for
         customers who purchased more than one such digital
         picture frame;

     (c) whether Circuit City had a duty to inform customers of
         a one only limit on rebates before selling multiple
         numbers of the advertised item to the customer;

     (d) whether defendant dishonored rebates for multiple
         claims that were sent in from one persons or from one
         address;

     (e) whether rejecting rebate applications based on multiple
         purchases was a breach of contract with customers
         making multiple purchases;

     (f) whether the advertisement constituted a contractual
         offer to sell capable of acceptance by purchase,
         resulting in a contract that permitted a rebate for
         each such digital frame purchased; and

     (g) whether rejecting the rebate applications based on
         multiple purchases by the same person or persons a the
         same address was a breach of contract.

The plaintiff requests for the following relief:

      -- that the court adjudge and decree that the present case
         may be properly maintained as a class action, appoint
         plaintiff as the representative of the class, and
         appoint plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the class;

      -- that the court award actual monetary damages in the
         amount of $50 for each rebate claim for a Smartparts
         digital picture frame that was denied because more than
         one rebate claim was made by the same person or from
         the same address;

      -- that the court order said damages to be placed in fund
         for the benefit of the class;

      -- that the court determine an appropriate attorney fee
         for class counsel and also an appropriate award for the
         class representative and allow the same to be paid from
         the amounts recovered;

      -- that the court approve a procedure for notifying class
         members and for processing payments from the fund to
         class members; and

      -- that the court order such other and furthr relief as
         the court deems just and equitable.

The suit is "Clayton P. Voegtle, et al. v. Circuit City Stores,
Inc., Case No. 08CV3270," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Robert A. Holstein, Esq.
          Holstein Law Offices, LLC
          19 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-906-8000


COMCAST INC: Sued Over Totalitarian Censorship of File Sharing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois accusing it of
totalitarian censorship of file sharing, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The complaint alleges that Comcast lied when it promised
customers "unfettered access to the Internet," because it
censors peer-to-peer file sharing without the customers'
knowledge, says a class action in Cook County, comparing
Comcast's clandestine "reset packets" to "those used by
totalitarian governments to censor the Internet."

It states that Comcast promised "unfettered access to all the
content, services, and applications that the Internet has to
offer," and that it "does not block access to any Web sites or
online applications, including peer-to-peer services," the
complaint states.

The complaint adds, "These and other similar statements by
Comcast are patently false.  Comcast intentionally blocks its
customers from using peer-to-peer ('P2P') file-sharing and other
Internet applications, or otherwise impedes those applications,
and it does so in a deceptive manner -- by impersonating the
computers of users attempting to share files.  Comcast forges
what are known as 'reset packets,' making it appear as if they
are coming from one of the computers attempting to file-share.
The forged reset packets tell the transmitting computer to stop
its transmission. . . .

"Comcast's clandestine techniques are similar to those used by
totalitarian governments to censor the use of the Internet.  No
doubt Comcast would characterize the behavior as illegal and
malicious hacking if perpetrated by others on Comcast and its
customers."

Named plaintiff Roger Lis brings this action pursuant to 735
ILCS 5/2-801, et seq. on behalf of all citizens of Illinois who
purchased or maintained high-speed Internet service from Comcast
at any time between June 5, 2005, and the date that the court
certifies the class.

Mr. Lis wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Comcast's false statements that it would
         provide fast, unfettered access to the Internet,
         specifically with respect to applications that involve
         large transfers of data, constitute deception, fraud
         false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation in
         connection with the sale of merchandise under the
         Illinois Consumer Fraud Act;

     (b) whether Comcast's failure to inform its subscribers
         that it would not actually provide fast, unfettered
         access to the Internet, specifically with respect to
         applications that involve large transfers of data,
         constitute a concealment of a material fact in
         connection with the sale of merchandise under the
         Illinois Consumer Fraud Act;

     (c) whether Comcast's failure to inform its subscribers
         that it would not actually provide fast, unfettered
         access to the Internet, specifically with respect to
         applications that involve large transfers of data,
         constitute an omission of a material fact in connection
         with the sale of merchandise under the Illinois
         Consumer Fraud Act; and

     (d) whether Comcast's false statements that it would
         provide fast, unfettered access to the Internet,
         specifically with respect to applications that involve
         large transfers of data, constitute a representation
         that the goods or services were of a particular
         standard, quality, or grade or a representation that
         the goods were a particular style or model, when they
         were not or whether the foregoing statements made and
         disseminated by Comcast also constitute an
         advertisement of goods and services with intent not to
         sell them as advertised under the Illinois Consumer
         Fraud Act.

The plaintiff requests that the court:

      -- certify the class as defined in the complaint;

      -- order Comcast to notify each and every member of the
         class of the pendency of the claims in the action in
         order to give such persons an opportunity to seek
         relief;

      -- enjoin Comcast from engaging in conduct that violates
         the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act as defined in the
         complaint;

      -- enter a judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class;

      -- award compensatory damages to plaintiff and the class;

      -- award plaintiff and the class punitive damages;

      -- create a common fund comprised of all damages to
         plaintiffs and the class;

      -- award class counsel attorney's fees pursuant to 815
         ILCS 505/10a(c), the Common Fund Doctrine or any other
         applicable law; and

      -- award plaintiff and the class such other relief as the
         court may deem to be just, proper and equitable.

The suit is "Roger Lis, et al. v. Comcast Inc., et al.," filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Kenneth J. Brennan, Esq. (kbrennan@simmonscooper.com)
          John A. Bruegger, Esq. (jbruegger@simmonscooper.com)
          SimmonsCooper LLC
          707 Berkshire Boulevard
          P.O. Box 521
          East Alton, IL 62024
          Phone: 618-259-2222
          Fax: 618-259-2251


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Calif. Suit Over Refusal to Pay Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Home Loans is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California alleging it
illegally refused to pay interest on insurance money placed in
escrow for replacement or repairs to homes damaged by Southern
California wildfires, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Hans Van Der Touw says he lost his home in the
October 2003 wildfires and deposited the insurance check for
$271,000 in escrow with Countrywide.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Walter Lack, Esq.
          Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-552-3800
          Fax: 310-552-9434
          Web site: http://www.elllaw.com/


DIRECTV GROUP: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Illegal Solicitation
-------------------------------------------------------------
DirecTV Group, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern
California alleging it illegally solicits business with an
automatic calling system, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Sara Khosroabadi brings this action for damages,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting
from the illegal actions of defendants, in negligently,
knowingly, and willfully contacting plaintiff on her cellular
phone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
USC Section 227 et seq., thereby invading plaintiff's privacy.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons within
the United States who received any telephone call from
defendants or their agents to said person's cellular telephone
made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system
or an artificial or prerecorded voice, within the four years
prior to the filing of this complaint.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether, within the four years prior to the filing of
         the complaint, defendants made any calls (other than
         calls made for emergency purposes or made with the
         prior express consent of the called party) to a class
         member using any automatic telephone dialing system or
         an artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone
         number assigned to a cellular telephone service, and
         whether such calls were not otherwise exempt from the
         TCPA's requirements;

     (b) whether plaintiff and the class were damaged thereby,
         and the extent of damages for such violation; and

     (c) whether defendants should be enjoined from engaging in
         such conduct in the future.

The suit seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery
of economic injury on behalf of the class and it expressly is
not intended to request any recovery for personal injury and
claims related thereto.

The suit is "Sara Khosroabadi, et al. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., et
al., Case No. 08 CV 1018 BEN JMA," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Robert L. Hyde, Esq. (bob@westcoastlitigation.com)
          Hyde & Swigart
          411 Camino Del Rio South, suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Phone: 619-233-7770
          Fax: 619-297-1022


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Amended Complaint Filed in "Shames" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported class action
lawsuit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District Court of California against Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., and alleging antitrust violations.

The suit, "Shames et al. v. Hertz Corporation et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM," was filed on Nov. 14, 2007, by Michael
Shames and Gary Gramkow, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

The lawsuit claims that the pass through of the California Trade
and Tourism Commission and Airport Concession Fees authorized by
legislation effective in January 2007 constitute antitrust
violations of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair
Competition Act.

The suit seeks injunctive and equitable relief to stop the pass
through, restitution, damages and fees.

On April 8, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend the putative class action, on the
ground that the plaintiffs failed to state claims for which
relief could be granted.

The plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Shames et al. v. Hertz Corporation et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court of California, Judge Marilyn L. Huff,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael L. Weiner, Esq. (mweiner@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6522
          Phone: 212-735-2666
          Fax: 917-777-2632

          Jeffrey Alan LeVee, Esq. (jlevee@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-243-2572
          Fax: 213-243-2539

               - and -

          Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-984-8947
          Fax: 415-984-8701


DOT HILL: Aug. 14 Hearing Set for Bid to Dismiss Brody Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 14, 2008 hearing was set for a motion that sought for
the dismissal of the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint in
the matter, "Matt Brody, et al. v. Dot Hill Systems Corp., et
al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00228-W-WMC," a purported class action
suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.

In late January and early February 2006, numerous complaints
purporting to be class actions were filed against the company.  

The complaints allege violations of federal securities laws
related to alleged inflation in its stock price in connection
with various statements and alleged omissions to the public and
to the securities markets and declines in the company's stock
price in connection with the restatement of certain of its
quarterly financial statements for fiscal year 2004, and seeking
damages therefore.   

The suits were later consolidated into a single action, and the
court appointed as lead plaintiff a group comprised of the
Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System and the General
Retirement System of the City of Detroit.     

The consolidated complaint was filed on Aug. 25, 2006, and the
company filed a motion to dismiss the case on Oct. 5, 2006.  The
court granted the company's dismissal request on March 15, 2007.

The plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Complaint on
April 20, 2007.  

The company filed motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint on May 1, 2008, and a hearing is set for
Aug. 14, 2008, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Matt Brody, et al. v. Dot Hill Systems Corp., et
al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00228-W-WMC," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Thomas J.
Whelan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
         Murray Frank and Sailer
         275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818

         Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy and Blinkow
         1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160

              - and -

         Ira M. Press, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney and Squire
         830 Third Avenue, Tenth Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-317-2300
         Fax: 212-371-6600

Representing the defendant is:

         Koji F. Fukumura, Esq. (kfukumura@cooley.com)
         Cooley Godward Kronish, 4401 Eastgate Mall
         San Diego, CA 92121-9109
         Phone: 858-550-6000
         Fax: 858-550-6420


EL PASO: January 2009 Hearing Set for Royalties Suit in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
A January 2009 class certification hearing is scheduled for the
purported class action, "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P.,"
which names El Paso Natural Gas Co. as a defendant.

Another defendant in the suit is Burlington Resources, Inc.,
which is now a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips.  

The suit was filed in October 2003 before the District Court of
Kiowa County, Oklahoma, asserting royalty underpayment claims
related to specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas, and New
Mexico.

The plaintiffs assert that royalties were underpaid starting in
the 1980s when the purchase price of gas was lowered below the
Natural Gas Policy Act maximum lawful prices.  

They also assert that royalties were further underpaid by
Burlington as a result of post-production cost deductions taken
starting in the late 1990s.  

The action was transferred to Washita County District Court in
2004.  

A tentative settlement reached in November 2005 by the parties
was rejected by the court in June 2007.  

A class certification hearing has been scheduled for January
2009, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

El Paso Natural Gas Co. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is engaged  
in the primary business of interstate transportation of natural
gas.  It conducts its business activities through two pipeline
systems: The EPNG system, which consists of approximately 11,000
miles of pipeline with a winter sustainable west-flow capacity
of 4,850 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) and approximately
800 MMcf/d of east-end deliverability, and The Mojave system,
which consists of approximately 400 miles of pipeline with a
design capacity of approximately 400 MMcf/d.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2004, the average throughput on the EPNG system
and the Mojave system was 4,074 billion barrels tons per day
(BBtu/d) and 161 BBtu/d, respectively.


FAT LAW SUITS: 2 New Suits Filed Against Restaurants Over Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two new class action fat lawsuits have been filed.

Since ten fat lawsuits -- including two upon which the new law
suits are modeled -- have already been successful, it seems
likely that these new ones will also be effective, says the man
who has been called "The Man Big Tobacco and Now Fast Food Love
to Hate," a "Major Crusader Against Big Tobacco and Now Among
Those Targeting the Food Industry," "The Man Who Is Taking Fat
to Court," and the lawyer who said "Fat is the Next Tobacco."

The first new class action fat lawsuit alleges that Applebee's
engages in unfair and deceptive business practices by
misrepresenting the nutritional information on its Weight
Watchers menu.

Applebee's customers are encouraged to order menu items based
upon an advertised calorie, fat and fiber content for each item.

The actual nutritional information advertised by Applebee's is
unreliable and inaccurate, the suit claims.

For example, the Tortilla Chicken Appetizer, advertised as
containing 13 grams of fat, was found to contain 21.4 grams of
fat.  The Garlic Herb Chicken was advertised to contain 6 grams
of fat, and was found to contain 18.

The second new class action fat lawsuit was filed against
Brinker which operates Chili's, On the Border, and Romano's
Macaroni Grill.

"Since two of the ten earlier already successful law suits
involved similar claims of grossly underreporting the fat and
calorie content of foods in order to trick customers concerned
about their weight and about good nutrition into purchasing
them, these two new lawsuits likewise have a good chance of
success," says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who
inspired some of the earlier suits as well as the movie "Super
Size Me," in which he appeared.

An earlier class action fat law suit against Big Daddy's diet
ice cream charged the company with grossly underrepresenting the
amount of fat and calories in its ice cream.  The company agreed
to settle for several million dollars and coupons to all of the
many purchasers of the product.

Another class action fat lawsuit was brought against Pirate's
Booty diet food.  The suit, like the other new ones, alleged
that the company reported only about a third of the actual fat
and calories in its popular diet food.  It likewise was forced
to settle the class action for several million dollars.

Mr. Banzhaf argues that consumers purchasing foods at fast food
outlets should be entitled to get reliable and accurate
nutritional information, just as they do when they purchase
foods from a food store.

For more information, contact:

          Professor John F. Banzhaf III
          Professor of Public Interest Law
          George Washington University Law School

               - and -

          FAMRI Dr. William Cahan
          Distinguished Professor
          FELLOW, World Technology Network
          2013 H Street, NW,
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-659-4312
                 703-527-8418


FIRST AMERICAN: Sued Over Alleged Foreclosure Kickback Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
First American Title is facing a class-action complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California alleging that it pays
co-defendant Quality Loan Service an illegal $150 kickback each
time it uses its overpriced "Trustee Sale Guarantee" insurance
for homebuyers trying to reinstate their loans after
foreclosure, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is brought on behalf of California homeowners who,
when they fell behind their mortgage payments, had their homes
placed into foreclosure and, as a condition of reinstating their
loan, were required to pay an inflated charge for a title
insurance product as a result of a massive kickback scheme
concocted by a major title insurance entity and one of the
state's most prominent foreclosure trustee companies.

Named plaintiff Elizabeth Jensen says Quality Loan Service pays
First American Title up to $750 for each Trustee Sale Guarantee
it buys from it.

The complaint claims the defendants' scheme results in
homebuyers paying "as much as $400 more than they should be
required to pay in order to save their homes from foreclosure."

Ms. Jensen brings this action on behalf of all persons in
California who, between June 6, 2004, and the present, had
residential loans secured by real property situated in
California and whose properties were subjected to non-judicial
foreclosure proceedings processed by Quality Loan Service which
purchased Trustee Sale Guarantees from First American Title
Insurance Company.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants participated in and pursued the acts
         complained of;

     (b) whether defendants breached duties of care owed to
         plaintiff and members of the class;

     (c) whether defendants engaged in a common course of
         conduct over a period of years which violated Civil
         Code Section 2924c(c);

     (d) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages
         or restitution for economic injury and, if so, what is
         the appropriate means of calculating such monetary
         damages; and

     (e) whether defendants engaged in a pattern of payment for
         the referral of foreclosure business.

The plaintiff asks the court:

      -- that defendants be permanently enjoined from paying or
         accepting rebates or kickbacks in the form of Selective
         Provider Fees or other form of consideration for the
         sale and purchase of Trustee Sale Guarantees;

      -- that defendants be ordered to pay plaintiff and members
         of the class three times the amount of the kickbacks
         or rebates involved;

      -- that defendants be ordered to disgorge all profits
         unjustly obtained by their practices;

      -- that plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees
         and costs of suit; and

      -- that plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief
         as the court may deem appropriate, just and proper.

The suit is "Elizabeth Jensen, et al. v. The First American
Corporation, et al., Case No. RG08391330," filed with the
Superior Court of the State of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Thomas A. Jenkins, Esq.
          Daniel J. Mulligan, Esq.
          Larry W. Gabriel, Esq.
          Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel, LLP
          225 Bush Street, Sixteenth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-982-8500
          Fax: 415-982-8515


FONTERRA: Farmers' Lawsuit Over Drop in Fair Value Share Looms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dunedin law firm Rodgers Law is investigating the possibility of
a class action against Fonterra Co-Operative Group after a drop
in the dairy giant's fair value share, The Age reports.

The Age says that Pieter Brits, a solicitor at Rodgers Law,
earlier told The New Zealand Herald that the firm was
investigating the possibility of a class action and whether
advice given by Fonterra was actionable.  Mr. Brits said he
could know within the next few days whether an action might
proceed.

According to The Age, the action could cover any farmer who had
decided to sell shares and believes they may have received
misleading information from Fonterra.

The report explains that fair value shares are purchased by
farmers based on the amount of milksolids they supply.  They
represent the farmer's stake in the Fonterra co-operative.

The Age relates that at the end of May, Fonterra set the fair
value share for the coming season at NZD5.57, down on both the
NZD6.79 price the previous season and an interim valuation for
the coming season of NZD7.01 made in December 2007.

However, at the same time, Fonterra exceeded expectations when
it hiked the dairy co-operative's milk payout by 60 NZ cents per
kilogram of milksolids to a record NZD7.90 for the 2007-08
season.  The company also beat most predictions when it
announced an initial forecast for 2008-09 of NZD7.00/kg.

Commenting on the fair value share price drop, Fonterra Chairman
Henry van der Heyden said that their share price was hit by the
credit crunch in global financial markets, ongoing high
commodity prices cutting into ingredients margins and a higher
milk price.

The Herald cited Southland dairy farmer Greg Roberts as having
said that he decided to sell his 400-cow farm and spoke to a
Fonterra representative about cashing in his shares.  Mr.
Roberts said he asked whether they should take the default price
or the June price and he was advised to "take the June price
because the shares are going up."

According to Mr. Roberts, if the fair value share had been
NZD7.01, he would be NZD200,000 better off than he is now.  "We
had no idea the fair value share was going down and were led to
believe it was at $NZ7 and rising," he said.  He had sold his
farm for a change of direction but said he would not have had he
known he "was going to get screwed for 200 grand."

The Age notes that Fonterra said it was not appropriate to
discuss individual shareholder matters through the media.


GENERALI: Holocaust Claims Settlement Approved on Final Basis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of a settlement has been granted to thousands of
Holocaust victims and their heirs against Italian insurer
Generali over unpaid insurance policies during the Holocaust
era, Reuters reports.

According to Reuters, the U.S. appeals court upheld the
settlement that was reaffirmed by a lower court judge in January
2008, awarding what lawyers have estimated to total $50 million
in payouts to more than 50,000 potential class members.

"We conclude that it was not error for the District Court to
approve the settlement," the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled.

The report points out that Generali (GASI.MI) was among the
biggest insurers in eastern Europe before World War Two and its
policies were popular with the Jews.  It faced a class-action
lawsuit over claims that it failed to honor policies held by
victims of the Nazis.

An earlier report by the New York Sun said that the Holocaust,
in addition to a genocidal rampage, also was a colossal
financial crime.  The number crunching of mass murder resulted
in a paradoxical windfall for wartime profiteers.  

NY Sun said that European insurance companies were no exception.
Since Jews were being targeted by the Nazis for death, they were
customers for whom, when it came to the purchase of life
insurance, a sales pitch was unnecessary.  Given the
uncertainties of Nazi-occupied Europe, insurers commonly sold
policies to Jews with the explicit contractual promise that they
would be payable anywhere in the world.

Reuters recounts that an initial settlement between Generali and
the victims of the Nazis and their relatives was reached last
year.

U.S. District Judge George Daniels ruled earlier this year that
appropriate notice had been given to potential class members,
after the appeals court annulled the initial settlement.  At
that time, the court questioned whether adequate notice had been
given to people with potential interest in the suit.

However, the appeals court recently agreed with Judge Daniels,
saying "the record indicates that the notice provided to
potential class members satisfied the requirements of due
process."

Reuters notes that Generali said it already paid claims for a
total of $35 million and, in January, one of the victim's
lawyers said a further 35,000 claims had been submitted that
could result in a payout of over $15 million.

Potential class members have until Dec. 26 to file a claim, but
Generali has said the filing date can be extended until 2009 if
new documents proving the existence of insurance policies
emerged from the archive in the small German town of Bad
Arolsen.

In April, Germany opened Bad Arolsen's archive, the world's
largest collection of documents on Nazi crimes and their
victims.  It contains about 50 million records on some 17
million victims of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime.


GMH COMMUNITIES: Pa. Court Gives Final OK to $8.75M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
gave final approval to the $8,750,000 settlement in the class
action against GMH Communities Trust that was brought on behalf
of purchasers of the company's common shares between May 5,
2005, and March 10, 2006.

                        Case Background

On April 5, 2006, the company; Gary M. Holloway Sr., company
chairman, president and chief executive officer; and Bradley W.
Harris, the company's former chief financial officer, were named
as defendants in a class action complaint (Class Action
Reporter, March 6, 2008).

The complaint states that the plaintiff has filed a federal
class action suit on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of the company between Oct. 28, 2004, and March 10,
2006.  The plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants issued a series of
false and misleading financial results regarding the company to
the market during the class period, and more specifically,
failed to disclose:

      -- that the company's earnings, net income and revenues
         were materially inflated and expenses were materially
         understated;

      -- that the company's funds from operations were
         materially inflated;

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls;

      -- that the company's reported financial results were in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles,
         or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and

      -- that as a result of the foregoing, the company's
         financial results were materially inflated at all
         relevant times.

The plaintiff alleges claims under Section 11 of the U.S.
Securities Act with respect to all of the defendants; Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act with respect to the company;
Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act with respect to Mr.
Holloway and Mr. Harris; Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act with respect to all of the defendants; and Section
20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act with respect to Mr. Holloway and
Mr. Harris.

In April and May 2006, four additional class action complaints
were filed in the court against the defendants by separate law
firms, and additional complaints may be filed in the near future
until the court has certified a class and a lead plaintiff has
been named.

Each of these additional filed complaints alleges the same
claims against the defendants with respect to the complaint
filed on April 5, 2006, except that one of the additional
complaints -- filed on April 20, 2006 -- restricts the class
period to purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the
company to the time period between May 5, 2005, and March 10,
2006.

All cases were subsequently consolidated.

On Jan. 22, 2007, the court entered an order appointing two lead
plaintiffs, as well as lead counsel and a liaison counsel (Class
Action Reporter, April 9, 2007).

In addition, on that date, the court indicated that the lead
plaintiffs must file a consolidated complaint within a 60-day
period afterward and that the defendants must respond to the
consolidated complaint within another 60 days from the service
of the consolidated complaint.  The court also stated that the
parties should not file any dispositive motions before attending
a settlement conference with an assigned magistrate judge.

In November 2007, GMH Communities Trust reached a final
settlement agreement with the lead plaintiffs in the class
action lawsuit, under which, all claims against the company and
the related defendants will be dismissed without admission or
presumption of liability or wrongdoing (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 7, 2007).

The court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement by
order dated Feb. 13, 2008, and an order granting final approval
was entered in April 2008, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. (elleng@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

Representing defendants are:

          Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esq. (msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com)
          Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq.
          (kpohlmann@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-292

               - and -

          Gregory P. Miller, Esq. (Gregory.Miller@dbr.com)
          Stephen G. Stroup, Esq. (Stephen.Stroup@dbr.com)
          Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
          One London Square
          18th and Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103


HOLLAND AMERICA: Faces Seafarer's Demand for Additional Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Holland America Line NV is facing a seafaarer's class-action
complaint for additional wages filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1916, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Romano E. Marcella seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief along with additional wages and penalties
that due under the Seafarers' Wage Act, 46 U.S.C. Sections 10101
et seq., as plaintiff and defendants' crew did not receive all
wages due them under their contract and applicable law at the
end of each voyage, including but not limited to, deductions
that were made for so-called deployment expenses during the 2004
to 2006 period, allotments of wages to foreign banks prohibited
under 46 U.S.C. Section 10315, and failure to make proper
shipping articles, as well as other violations as may be proven.

Mr. Marcella brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a)(1-4) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
all former and current seafarer-employees participating in the
2004 to 2006 Gratuity Plan aboard various Holland America ships
and who have not been paid in full upon the conclusion of the
voyages and upon their discharge from their respective vessels
upon which they are employed at the termination of voyages in
U.S. ports or harbors, all their wages, due to deductions for
deployment expenses, illegal allotments, and improper shipping
articles.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants failed to pay the class of seafarers
         all wages as required by 46 USC Section 10313, each
         time the vessel ended a voyage and when each crew
         member disembarked a Holland America vessel;

     (b) whether defendant deducted from such crewmembers' wages
         expenses for deployment expenses, including but not
         limited to travel expenses in violation of applicable
         law;

     (c) whether defendant's failure to comply with 46 USC
         Section 10313 in any respect was made with sufficient
         cause given that crewmembers' Contract of Employment
         does not provide for any such deductions;

     (d) whether the seamen are entitled to additional wages
         under 46 USC Section 10313(g);

     (e) whether Holland America should be required to pay other
         penalties for failure to pay wages or comply with
         various federal laws and regulations, including but not
         limited to that to the U.S. Government, pursuant to 46
         USC Section 10321, which prescribes a civil penalty of
         not more than $5,000 per violation; and

     (f) whether defendant should be enjoined and prohibited
         from continuing with such illegal and/or unfair
         conduct.

The plaintiff asks the court:

     -- to certify this action as a class action under Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23;

     -- to declare that defendants have engaged in a pattern or
        practice of failing to timely pay the plaintiff and the
        class all wages to which they are entitled under
        applicable law on a timely basis due to making
        deductions during the 2004 to 2006 period for deployment
        expenses, and enjoin defendants from further engaging in
        such a pattern or practice of failing to pay wages with
        24 hours of concluding voyages at U.S. Ports, including
        the Port of Los Angeles;

     -- to award plaintiff and the class damages or restitution
        for wages not paid properly and for supplemental wages
        as provided by Section 10313(g), including pre-judgment
        interest on these amounts;

     -- for equitable relief against defendants for unfair
        competition pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200
        et seq., including restitution for unearned wages,
        disgorgement of profits, in amount to be proven, along
        with injunctive relief prohibiting such unlawful and
        unfair conduct;

     -- to enter an order against defendants for a civil penalty
        to the U.S. Government under 46 USC Section 10321 of not
        more than $5,000 per violation for each crewmember;

     -- for an award of punitive damages based on defendant's
        failure to pay wages as required by law and for
        misleading various crewmembers concerning their rights
        to such compensation;

     -- for the costs, including attorney fees pursuant to
        applicable statute, to maintain this suit or on a common
        fund theory; and

     -- to award plaintiff and the class such further relief as
        is appropriate in the interest of justice.

The suit is "Romano E. Marcella, et al. v. Holland America Line,
NV, Case NO. CV08-03732," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Joseph S. Farzam, Esq. (farzam@lawyer.com)
          Joseph Farzam Law Firm
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1345
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-226-6890
          Fax: 310-226-6891


ILLINOIS CENTRAL: Faces Illinois Suit Over Illegal Property Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Central Railroad, Co., is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
alleging that it has illegally sold abandoned properties it did
not own to hundreds of Illinois residents, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This action is brought pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-800 et seq. of
the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
individuals, entities, municipalities, state agencies or other
government entities that did not own property adjacent to the
subject charter line and paid money to IC for abandoned right-
or-way property within the six specific railroad line property
abandonments.

The class claims the railroad knew it owned the properties only
so long as it operated a railroad on them. Plaintiffs claim the
railroad, which began operations in 1851, knew its rights lapsed
once it abandoned the properties, but it sold them anyway.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether IC's marketing and solicitation efforts were
         made with the intent to defraud consumers that IC had a
         conveyable interest in real property;

     (b) whether IC acted deceptively or unfairly and engaged in
         deceptive trade practices;

     (c) whether IC engaged in violations of the Illinois
         Consumer Fraud Act;

     (d) whether IC knew it lacked any conveyable interest in
         real property or reckless disregarded such facts;

     (e) whether there was a failure of consideration with
         respect to each of the transactions; and

     (f) whether IC was unjustly enriched at the expense of the
         plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs request that the court enter an order:

      -- finding that this case may be maintained as a class
         action pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil
         Procedure;

      -- requiring that IC account for and pay over for the
         benefit of all members of the class all monies or any
         other consideration it, its subsidiaries or parent
         corporations received, with interest, from the date of
         the transactions;

      -- entering judgment against the defendant, Illinois
         Central Railroad Company in an amount that will fairly
         and adequately compensate the plaintiffs for damages;

      -- awarding the plaintiffs punitive damages;

      -- awarding the plaintiffs statutory attorneys' fees under
         the Consumer Fraud Act;

      -- awarding the plaintiffs costs;

      -- determining and directing the manner and form in which
         such monies shall be distributed to the parties
         entitled thereto;

      -- awarding, fixing and directing the payment of
         attorneys' fees and expenses of plaintiffs' attorneys;

      -- directing the notice to be given for the purpose of
         notifying class members of the pendency of this action;
         and

      -- granting the plaintiffs any such additional relief the
         court deems just.

The suit is "Russelol Zenor, et al. v. Illinois Central Railroad
Company, Case No. 08CH20261," filed before the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Terence Buehler, Esq.
          Touhy, Touhy Buehler & Williams
          161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2230
          Chicago, IL
          Phone: 312-372-2209


INVENTIV HEALTH: Calif. Court Considers Motions in "Weisz" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Superior Court is considering certain motions
filed in the matter, "Weisz v. Albertsons, Inc., Case No. GIC
830069," which names as defendant Adheris, Inc., a business
segment of inVentiv Health, Inc.

The suit was filed on May 17, 2004, in the San Diego Superior
Court, California, by Utility Consumer Action Network against
Albertsons, Inc., and its affiliated drug store chains and 17
pharmaceutical companies.  

The suit alleged, among other claims, violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act arising from the
operation of manufacturer-sponsored, pharmacy-based compliance
programs similar to Adheris' refill reminder programs.  

An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 4, 2004, adding Adheris
as a defendant to the lawsuit.  A subsequent amendment to the
complaint substituted plaintiff Kimberly Weisz, as the class
representative to this purported class action.

After several rounds of pleading challenges to the plaintiff's
various renditions of the complaint, all but one pharmaceutical
manufacturing company defendants, AstraZeneca, LP, were
dismissed from the case, leaving only Albertsons, Inc., Adheris,
and AstraZeneca, as the remaining defendants.  

In the latest pleading challenge to the plaintiff's Fifth
Amended Complaint, the remaining defendants were successful in
eliminating a number of claims, including fraud-based and breach
of privacy claims.  

The plaintiff's class allegations were stricken as improper with
leave to amend.  

The operative Sixth Amended Complaint, which was filed on
Jan. 6, 2008, alleges five causes of action against the
defendants.  

Three of these claims - violation of the CMIA, breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment - are alleged against
Adheris.  

The defendants intend to pursue another round of pleading
challenges to strike plaintiff's claims, including another
attempt to strike plaintiff's class allegations as improper.  

These motions were heard on May 16, 2008.  No further
development in the matter was reported in inVentiv Health's May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

inVentiv Health, Inc. -- http://www.inventivhealth.com/-- is a  
provider of value-added services to the pharmaceutical, life
sciences and healthcare industries.  The Company supports a
range of clinical development, communications and
commercialization activities that are critical to its customers'
ability to complete the development of drug products and medical
devices and commercialize them.  inVentiv provides services to
over 325 client organizations, including all top 20 global
pharmaceutical companies, specialty biotechnology companies and
payors.  The Company's service offerings reflect the changing
needs of its clients as their products move through the late-
stage development and regulatory approval processes and into
product launch, and then throughout the product lifecycle.


MERRIFIELD TOWN: Condominium Purchasers Commence Lawsuit in Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merrifield Town Center, LP, is facing a class-action complaint
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia claiming that it cheated the 81 named plaintiffs and
others in attempted purchases in the 279-unit Vantage at
Merrifield condos, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all contract
purchasers of condominium units in the Virginia condominium
regime, which was developed and sold by defendant.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs contracted to
purchase the units in the Vantage at Merrifield condominium and
have placed significant deposits pursuant to their purchase
contracts.

The plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- take jurisdiction of the case and make defendants and
        any other necessary persons parties defendants;

     -- enter its declaratory judgment declaring that the
        contracts entered into by the named plaintiffs and the
        other members of the class were obtained in violation of
        the Act and by reason of violations of the act are void;

     -- enter its order requiring defendant to pay each named
        plaintiff and to each member of the class the amoung to
        money that was deposited with defendant by or for each
        purchaser, without deduction, together with all interest
        earned on each such deposit;

     -- enjoining defendant Merrifield Town Center from
        initiating or prosecuting any suit against a named
        plaintiff or any other member of the class, except by
        way of a counterclaim in the case;

     -- require the defendant to file with the court for review
        copies of all current and past contracts for the
        purchase of units in the Vantage at Merrifield
        Condominium;

     -- require the plaintiffs to send to each person named as a
        purchaser in those contracts a copy of the Amended
        complaint, a copy of any order issued by the court, a
        copy of Notice as approved by the Court advising those
        persons of the pendency of the suit and of their rights
        with respect to the suit, including the right to join or
        remain out of this suit, and any other matter the court
        deems advisable to include;

     -- certify this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23,
        F.R. Civ.P., cause all proper process and noticed to
        issue and appoint class counsel;

     -- award to plaintiffs and the class its judgment against
        defendants for punitive damages in an appropriate amount
        as to each, considering all relevant factors, including
        the actions and culpability of each, the need to deter
        others from similar conduct and the financial net worth
        of each;

     -- award to plaintiffs and the class its judgment against
        defendants jointly and severally, in the amount of the
        compensatory and consequential damages proven at trial
        to have been proximately caused to plaintiffs and the     
        class by the violations complained of, not less than
        $5,580,000, together with the costs and attorney fees
        incurred in bringing this suit; and

     -- award to plaintiffs and the class its judgment against
        defendants jointly and severally, in the amount of the
        compensatory and consequential damages proven at trial        
        to have been proximately caused to plaintiffs and the
        class by the violations complained of, not less than
        $5,580,000, together with the costs and attorney fees
        incurred in bringing this suit.

The suit is "Han Ho Kim, et al. v. Merrifield Town Center, LP,
et al., Case No. 1:08 CV 566," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Henry St. J. FitzGerald, Esq. (hstjfl@aol.com)
          Law Offices of Henry St. J. FitzGerald
          2200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 800
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Phone: 703-525-8753
          Fax: 703-525-2489


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors are parties to four purported securities fraud class
action lawsuits before the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On March 28, 2008, the City of Ann Arbor Employees Retirement
System filed a complaint in the District of Minnesota against
the company and three of its officers.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 under
the Exchange Act and alleges against company officers violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The suit alleges failure to adequately disclose, in a timely
manner, the nature and risks of the company's investments, as
well as unrealized losses and other-than-temporary impairments
related to certain of the company's investments.  The suit also
seeks recovery of losses incurred by stockholder class members
in connection with their purchases of the company's securities.

In April 2008, three other plaintiffs, Willie R. Pittman, Edward
J. Goodman Life Income Trust, and Manzoor Hussain filed
complaints in the same court, making substantially the same
claims.

The Goodman matter names the company and four of its officers
and certain members of its board of directors.  The company
expects the four cases to be consolidated into a single action.

MoneyGram International, Inc. -- http://www.moneygram.com/-- is  
a global payment services company that offers its products and
services to consumers and businesses primarily through its
network of agents and financial institution customers.  The
products and services it offers enable consumers to make
payments and to transfer money around the world.  The Company's
business is conducted through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Travelers Express Company, Inc. It conducts its business through
two segments: Global Funds Transfer and Payment Systems. In
October 2007, MoneyGram completed the acquisition of
PropertyBridge, Inc., a provider of electronic payment
processing services for the real estate management industry.  As
of Dec. 31, 2007, MoneyGram operated 16 Company-owned retail
stores or kiosks in France and 30 in Germany.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc., is facing a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, according to the company's May  
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On April 22, 2008, Delilah Morrison, on behalf of herself and
all other MoneyGram 401(k) Plan participants, brought the action
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The complaint alleges claims under ERISA, including claims that
the defendants breached fiduciary duties by failing to manage
the plan's investment in company stock, and by continuing to
offer company stock as an investment option when the stock was
no longer a prudent investment.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to provide
complete and accurate information regarding company stock
sufficient to advise plan participants of the risks involved
with investing in company stock and breached fiduciary duties by
failing to avoid conflicts of interests and to properly monitor
the performance of plan fiduciaries and fiduciary appointees.

Finally, the complaint alleges that to the extent that the
company is not a fiduciary, it is liable for knowingly
participating in the fiduciary breaches as alleged.

For relief, the complainant seeks damages based on what the most
profitable alternatives to company stock would have yielded,
unspecified equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Morrison v. MoneyGram International, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 0:08-cv-01121-PJS-JJG," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
          Gainey & McKenna
          295 Madison Ave 4th Fl
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-1300

               - and -

          Shawn M. Perry, Esq. (shawn.perry@pppllp.com)
          Perry & Perry, PLLP
          5401 Gamble Dr. Ste. 270
          Mpls, MN 55416
          Phone: 952-546-3555

Representing the defendants is:

          Stephen P. Lucke, Esq. (lucke.steve@dorsey.com)
          Dorsey & Whitney LLP
          50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
          Mpls, MN 55402-1498
          Phone: 612-343-7947
          Fax: 612-340-8800


MTC TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement for BAE Systems Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MTC Technologies, Inc., entered into a settlement deal in a
lawsuit filed over the proposed merger of the company with a
wholly owned subsidiary of BAE Systems, Inc., according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Jan. 25, 2008, Superior Partners, an alleged MTC stockholder,
filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of all MTC
stockholders in the Court of Common Pleas for Montgomery County,
Ohio (General Division) against MTC, all of the members of the
Board of Directors of MTC, and BAE Systems.

The Shareholder Action generally alleges that, in connection
with approving the merger, the MTC directors breached their
fiduciary duties of care, good faith, loyalty and disclosure
owed to the MTC stockholders, and that BAE Systems aided and
abetted the MTC directors in the breach of their fiduciary
duties.

In addition to nominal, compensatory and rescissory damages, the
plaintiff seeks a certification of the lawsuit as a class
action, a declaration that the plaintiff is a proper class
representative, a declaration that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and the other stockholders of
MTC and aided and abetted such breaches, an award of the costs
and disbursements of the lawsuit, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees and other costs, and such other and
further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On Feb. 22, 2008, counsel for the plaintiff in the Shareholder
Action and counsel for the defendants entered into a memorandum
of understanding with regard to the settlement of the
Shareholder Action.  

The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to the
execution by the parties of a definitive settlement agreement,
and the approval of that agreement by the Court after notice to
stockholders.  The settlement contemplated by the MOU is
conditioned upon the consummation of the merger.

MTC Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.mtctechnologies.com/--
delivers Warfighter solutions involving systems engineering,
information technology, intelligence, and program management
services primarily to the Department of Defense.


PCB LITIGATION: Three Companies Sued Over Water Pollution
---------------------------------------------------------
Fifty Escambia Bay residents are suing three companies allegedly
responsible for polluting the water and fish near their property
with cancer-causing industrial chemicals, Pensacola News Journal
reports.

According to Pensacola Journal, the lawsuit, filed in Circuit
Court, names companies Monsanto Co., Pharmacia Corp., Solutia
Inc., well as Solutia's plant manager as defendants.

The suit was brought over past and "continuing release" of
polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, from a plant now operated by
Solutia on Old Chemstrand Road.

Pensacola Journal points out that the former Monsanto plant has
been operated since 1997 by Solutia, a subsidiary of Monsanto
Co.  Monsanto, founded in 1901, was acquired in 2000 by
Pharmacia, which two years later completed a spin-off of its
biotechnology and agricultural businesses to form the current
Monsanto Co.

The report says that the plaintiffs, who all live downstream
from the plant, are seeking unspecified damages.  They also want
a clean-up of the water and sediments in the bay and river,
claiming that their property values have been or will continue
to be hurt by PCB contamination.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs include Pensacola-based Sam
Bearman, Esq., and Anniston, Alabama-based Donald Stewart, Esq.
Pensacola Journal recalls that Mr. Stewart filed a successful
multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit against Monsanto also
related to PCB contamination in Anniston.

Mr. Bearman told Pensacola Journal that the clean-up of Escambia
Bay and connected waterways is the top goal for the plaintiffs.

Glynn Young, spokesman for Monsanto, told Pensacola Journal that
PCBs were never manufactured at the Escambia plant.  "The plant,
like most of American industry, used PCBs in transformers, as
hydraulic fluids and in other applications until the late
1970s," he explained.

In 1969, a government laboratory found that the former Monsanto
plant was discharging 1 to 32 gallons of hydraulic fuel
containing PCBs into the Escambia River a day, the report
recounts.  The toxic releases reportedly did not stop until the
early 1970s.

"Any alleged PCB contamination related to the plant stems from a
leak that occurred in 1969, nearly 30 years before Solutia
existed," said Solutia spokesman Dan Jenkins.  He said a legal
agreement between Monsanto and Solutia places the responsibility
for that leak on Monsanto.

However, Mr. Young said there was no health threat by PCBs in
local waterways.  "The tiny amounts of PCBs reportedly found in
the Escambia River and bay pose no threat to human health,
wildlife or the environment," he said.  "The lawsuit is without
merit, and Monsanto will vigorously defend itself against it."

Pensacola Journal notes that recent fish samples taken from the
middle of Escambia Bay by researchers at the University of West
Florida found PCBs in mullet and other fish that were several
times higher than state and federal thresholds.  In addition,
previous samples from the lower Escambia River prompted a health
advisory for some fish caught there.


TNS INC: Parties Reach Settlement in Va. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported securities fraud class action lawsuit
against TNS, Inc., reached a tentative settlement for the
matter, which is currently pending with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, according to TNS's May  
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The company; John J. McDonnell, Jr., chief executive officer;
and Henry H. Graham, Jr., chief financial officer are defendants
in a putative class action suit filed in connection with the
company's secondary public offering of common stock in September
2005.  

The Cement Masons and Plasterers Joint Pension Trust,
purportedly on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
filed the putative class action as, "Cement Masons & Plasterers
Joint Pension Trust v. TNS, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06 CV 363,
CMH/BRP," on April 4, 2006.

The plaintiff claims that the Registration Statement filed in
connection with the secondary offering negligently failed to
disclose that:

      -- TNS' agreement with the Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
         to provide cashless vending to Pepsi had been
         delayed beyond Aug. 7, 2005;

      -- TNS was generating less revenues and income than it had
         anticipated from its contract with the Royal Bank of
         Scotland, because Royal Bank purportedly had overstated
         the number of transactions that TNS would be
         responsible for processing for Royal Bank; and

      -- TNS' International Services Division was experiencing
         declining revenues during that time period because of
         unfavorable foreign exchange rates.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on July 14,
2006.  The court denied this dismissal motion on Sept. 12, 2006,
and has since ordered the parties to conduct discovery in the
case.  

In March 2007, the parties agreed to stay further discovery in
the case with the court's approval pending a mediation designed
to reach a settlement resolving the lawsuit.

The parties conducted a mediation in April 2007, and
subsequently entered into a settlement agreement in February
2008.

The settlement agreement provides for a cash settlement payment
of $3.6 million to be paid by the company's insurer and payment
of expenses of plaintiff's lead counsel not to exceed $50,000.

In exchange for the cash settlement payment and expense payment,
the company and all defendants would be released from all claims
of class members relating to the action.  

The court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement of the
parties by an order entered on April 1, 2008.  The settlement
agreement of the parties is subject to final approval by the
court and a fairness hearing has been scheduled to be held in
June 2008.

The first identified complaint is "Cement Masons and Plasters
Joint Pension Trust, et al. v. TNS Inc., et al.," filed before
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brodsky & Smith, LLC
         11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-668-7987
         Fax: 610-660-0450
         e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

         Federman & Sherwood
         120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         e-mail: wfederman@aol.com

         Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
         650 Poydras St. Suite 2150
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Phone: 504-455-1400
         e-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com

              - and -

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173


UNITED ONLINE: No Trial Date Set for Calif. NetZero Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has not yet been set for a consolidated consumer
fraud class action lawsuit filed against NetZero, a brand name
of United Online, Inc.

On March 6, 2006, plaintiff Anthony Piercy filed a purported
consumer class action lawsuit before the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero,
claiming that NetZero continues to charge consumers fees after
they cancel their Internet access account.

On July 27, 2006, plaintiff Donald E. Ewart filed another
purported consumer class action suit with the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero
containing substantially similar allegations to the Piercy case.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought injunctive and declaratory
relief and damages.  NetZero filed a response to both lawsuits
denying the material allegations of the complaints.

Both Mr. Piercy and Mr. Ewart subsequently withdrew from the
actions as class representatives.  Then, on March 16, 2007,
Barbara Rasnake, Robert Du Verger, and Peter Chrisler were
substituted as purported class representatives.  

On May 25, 2007, the court consolidated the two cases under the
caption, "Rasnake v. NetZero, Inc., Case No. BC348461."

On July 13, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.  Also, on that same date, Peter Chrisler
was substituted as a purported class representative.  

A trial date has not yet been set in connection with the
consolidated suit, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.net/-- is a  
provider of consumer Internet and media services through a
number of brands, including NetZero, Juno, Classmates and
MyPoints.


ZIPREALTY INC: Calif. Court Okays Deal in Employee Agents' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has approved a settlement deal reached in a purported class
action lawsuit filed by four former employee agents of
ZipRealty, Inc.

The suit, "Lubocki, et al. v. ZipRealty, Case No. CV 07 2959,"
was filed on May 4, 2007.  It alleges, among other things, that
the company's policies for expense allowances, expense
reimbursements and commission payments to agents for
transactions that do not close during the period of employment
violate federal and California state laws.

The complaint seeks monetary damages and declaratory and
equitable relief but does not specify the amount of damages
sought.

The company reached an agreement resolving the suit that called
for a payment of $3,550,000.  The settlement agreement received
court approval on March 10, 2008, according to the company's
May 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Lubocki, et al. v. ZipRealty, Case No. CV 07 2959,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Judge S. James Otero, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Sandeep Baweja, Esq. (sbaweja@walialaw.com)
         Sandeep Baweja Law Offices
         445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-426-2112

              - and -

         Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., Esq.
         Ernest J. Franceschi Jr. Law Offices
         445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-612-7723

Representing the defendant is:

         Holly A. Hogan, Esq. (hogan@kerrwagstaffe.com)
         Kerr and Wagstaffe
         100 Spear Street, Suite 1800
         San Francisco, CA 94105-1528
         Phone: 415-371-8500


ZIPREALTY INC: Reaches $600T Settlement in Employee Agent's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZipRealty, Inc., reached a $600,000 settlement in the purported
class action suit, "Crystal Alexander, et al. v. ZipRealty,"
which was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda.

The suit was filed on May 18, 2007, by a former employee agent
of the company.  It sought monetary relief and alleged, among
other things, that the company's practices for compensating
agents and reimbursing expenses violate applicable law regarding
the payment of minimum wages and overtime.

The company reached a settlement agreement which called for a
payment of $600,000, plus applicable payroll taxes.  The deal is
pending court approval, according to the company's May 12, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

ZipRealty, Inc. -- http://www.ziprealty.com/-- is a full-
service residential real estate brokerage firm.  The Company's
Web site provides users with access to local multiple listing
services home listings data, as well as other relevant market
and neighborhood information.  Through its Website, registered
users can access a range of information and tools to research
and commence the process of buying or selling a home, including
direct access to local multiple listing service home listings
data, such as asking prices, home layouts and other features.  
Each MLS is a database of available homes listed for sale by
participating member agents to facilitate broker cooperation.  
The Company also provides information in addition to MLS data,
including neighborhood attributes, new home listings, school
district information, comparable home sales data, maps and
driving directions.


ZIPREALTY INC: Faces Sales Agents' Litigation in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
ZipRealty, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit,
entitled "Simon et al. v. ZipRealty, Inc.," which was filed
before the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The suit, which was filed on March 12, 2008, as a putative class
action, represents a class of all California sales agents and a
nationwide class of sales agents under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit claims that those sales agents are not exempt from
minimum wage and overtime laws, and brings claims for failure to
pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to maintain and provide
accurate payroll records, failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, and failure to reimburse expenses, as well as a claim
under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200,
all related to the same conduct.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest,
penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

ZipRealty, Inc. -- http://www.ziprealty.com/-- is a full-
service residential real estate brokerage firm.  The Company's
Web site provides users with access to local multiple listing
services home listings data, as well as other relevant market
and neighborhood information.  Through its Website, registered
users can access a range of information and tools to research
and commence the process of buying or selling a home, including
direct access to local multiple listing service home listings
data, such as asking prices, home layouts and other features.  
Each MLS is a database of available homes listed for sale by
participating member agents to facilitate broker cooperation.  
The Company also provides information in addition to MLS data,
including neighborhood attributes, new home listings, school
district information, comparable home sales data, maps and
driving directions.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GR0UP: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common units of The Blackstone Group L.P. pursuant to the
Company's initial public offering on or about June 25, 2007,
through on or about March 12, 2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 16,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


FRANKLIN BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Texas Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Franklin Bank Corp.  
common stock during the period between April 26, 2007, and May
1, 2008.

The complaint charges Franklin and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Franklin operates as the bank holding company for
Franklin Bank, S.S.B., a savings bank that provides community
banking products and services, and commercial banking services
to corporations and other business clients, and originates
single family residential mortgage loans primarily in Texas.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Franklin's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $16.89 per share in May 2007.  While Franklin's stock
was inflated due to defendants' improper accounting and false
assurances about its business, defendants completed a
$25 million secondary offering of the Company's stock.

On March 14, 2008, Franklin filed with the SEC a Form NT 10-K to
reflect the anticipated delay in filing its Form 10-K due to
possible accounting, disclosure and other issues related to
single-family residential mortgages and residential real estate
owned that could affect Franklin's 2007 financial statements.

Then, on May 1, 2008, after the market closed, Franklin issued a
press release stating that the Bank had submitted to the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation its call report for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.  In addition, the Bank also submitted to
the FDIC amended call reports for the periods ended
September 30, 2007 and December 31, 2007.  Based on Franklin's
ongoing review and evaluation of its 2007 financial statements,
certain changes to the Bank's previously submitted call reports
were necessary. On this news, Franklin's stock dropped from
$1.72 per share on May 1, 2008, to $1.29 per share on May 2,
2008, and to $1.03 per share by May 5, 2008.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) defendants' assets contained tens of millions of
         dollars worth of impaired and risky securities, many of
         which were backed by mortgage loans;

     (b) defendants failed to properly account for Franklin's
         mortgage-related assets, failing to adequately reflect
         impairment in the loans;

     (c) defendants had not properly accounted for single family
         loans serviced by third parties that became delinquent;
         and

     (d) Franklin's call reports filed with the FDIC beginning
         with the September 2007 quarter, at the latest, and its
         Form 10-Q for the September 2007 quarter were in error
         due to the Company's failure to properly account for
         losses on mortgage loans and REO properties.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
June 6, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
                 619-231-1058


FRANKLIN CORP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, has filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of all those who purchased the
common or preferred stock of Franklin Bank Corp. between
October 29, 2007, and May 1, 2008.

The Complaint charges that Franklin and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, the defendants engaged in a variety of accounting
improprieties, including their admitted failure to charge off
uncollectible loans and to mark Franklin's loans to market.

As a result of the misconduct alleged, defendants understated
the Company's delinquent, nonperforming, and uncollectible loans
and thereby misrepresented Franklin's financial condition and
results, including its overall and per-share profits and the
fair market value of its residential mortgage loan portfolio.

For more information, contact:

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


GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Brualdi Law Firm Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. commenced a lawsuit on behalf of an
institutional investor in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York as well as on behalf of
purchasers of Gildan Activewear Inc. common stock during the
period between August 2, 2007, and April 29, 2008.

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

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

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

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 2,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


HEALTHWAYS INC: Brower Piven Commences Securities Suit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Healthways, Inc., between
October 17, 2007, and February 26, 2008, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 4,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


HEALTHWAYS INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Tenn. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit 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, inclusive.

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

The class action complaint alleges that the defendants issued
false and misleading statements concerning the Healthway's
financial performance and prospects.  In 2005, Healthways became
involved in the Medicare Health Support pilot program launched
by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.  As alleged in
the complaint, defendants thereafter improperly 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 fees 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 financial guidance for fiscal
         2008.

On February 26, 2008, the Company announced that it was lowering
its 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."

In response, the price of Healthway's common stock plummeted
approximately 30%, closing below $32.00 per share.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq.
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Wis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on
behalf of purchasers of TomoTherapy Inc. common stock during the
period between February 13, 2008, and April 17, 2008.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
Company, and certain of its officers and directors, violated
federal securities laws by withholding material facts from the
investing public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
July 29, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


WACHOVIA: Labaton Sucharow Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on June 6,
2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of persons who purchased the
securities of Wachovia Corp. between May 8, 2006, and April 11,
2008, inclusive.

The complaint names Wachovia, G. Kennedy Thomson (former CEO),
Thomas J. Wurtz (CFO) and Donald K. Truslow (Chief Risk Officer)
as defendants.  The complaint alleges that during the Class
Period Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing various materially
false and misleading statements about Wachovia's financial
results and business operations, which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

In summary, the complaint alleges that Defendants misled
investors by falsely representing that Wachovia had strict and
selective underwriting and loan origination practices and a
conservative lending approach that set it apart from other
lenders.  Such reassurances were repeated by defendants
throughout the Class Period in order to artificially support
Wachovia's stock price in the midst of a weakening mortgage
market.  In response to increased market concern with the
mortgage lending industry, and Wachovia's option ARMs in
particular, Wachovia falsely represented that its loan
underwriting practices were much better than at other banks and
that this would allow it to prosper while lenders with less
exacting standards and procedures would fare much worse.

In reality, Wachovia's actual lending practices differed
materially from the description of those practices in statements
made to investors.  The Company's ability to weather the
deterioration in the real estate and credit markets was grossly
exaggerated by Defendants, at precisely the worst time, when
analysts began to ask tough questions.  The Company, moreover,
had inadequate loan loss reserves and falsely represented that
its capital position was sufficient to fund its dividend.

Shortly after last assuring the market of its liquidity, the
strength of its underwriting practices, and the adequacy of its
reserves, Wachovia reported a surprise quarterly loss, undertook
emergency measures to increase capital, and cut its dividend.  
On April 14, 2008, before the open of ordinary trading, Wachovia
reported a loss of $350 million, or $0.20 per share, for the
first quarter of 2008.  The Company attributed the results to:

     (1) a $2.8 billion increase credit loss reserves, including
         $1.1 billion specifically for "Pick-A-Pay" reserve
         build, the lending program highly touted by the Company
         during the Class Period.  The need to increase Pick-A-
         Pay reserves was attributed to Wachovia's adoption of a          
         "refined reserve modeling" that resulted in "higher
         than expected loss factors on Pick-a-Pay;" and

     (2) $2 billion in mark-to-market losses for mortgage backed
         securities, including a "$729 million loss on unfunded
         leveraged finance commitments."

In order to shore-up its capital, Wachovia announced the
following steps:

     (a) reduce the dividend 41% to $0.375; and

     (b) plan to raise capital by $7-8 billion through public
         offerings.

In reaction to the news, shares fell from $27.81 to $25.55
(8.13%) on abnormally high volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 8,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 800-321-0476


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *