CAR_Public/080612.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, June 12, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 116
  
                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Faces Second Lawsuit Over Altered Gems
AMERICAN EQUITY: Settles "Panter" Annuuity Lawsuit in Kentucky
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Judge Tosses Out N.Y. Suit Over Blood Thinner
AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Mass., Del. Suits Over Sumitomo Deal

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settles N.Y. Shareholder Suits For $34.4MM
CBEYOND INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Georgia  
CONSECO INC: Cheats Old Folks, Lawsuit in Illinois Alleges
DIEBOLD INC: Loses Bid to Toss ERISA Lawsuit in Ohio
FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

HEALTHWAYS INC: Aug. 4 Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Set
HYPERCOM CORP: Arizona Court Dismisses "Wool" Lawsuit
IMAX CORP: Awaits Ruling on N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
IMAX CORP: Canadian Court Mulls Motions in Securities Litigation
LAKE COUNTY JAIL: Inmates Sue Over "Life-Threatening" Conditions

LEAP WIRELESS: Calif. Court Yet to Consolidate Securities Suits
LEVITT CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida
MERCURY INTERACTIVE: $117M Securities Suit Deal Given Initial OK
MICRUS ENDOVASCULAR: Securities Fraud Suit in Florida Dismissed
MIVA INC: Reaches $4-Million Settlement in Ark. Click Fraud Suit

MIVA INC: Discovery Underway in Fla. Securities Fraud Litigation
MIVA INC: N.Y. Court Considers Dismissing "Payday Advance" Case
MONTANA FISH: $6MM Deal Reached in Lewiston Creek Pollution Suit
PC MALL: Court Orders Arbitration and Stay in "Whitmill" Case
PC MALL: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration & Stay in "Hanzy" Suit

PHH MORTGAGE: Faces California Lawsuit Over Illegally Split Fees
PRIME INC: Steak House Hires Illegal Workers, Ala. Suit Says
SCHERING-PLOUGH: N.J. Judge Names Hagens Berman Co-Lead Counsel
SMOKE DETECTORS: Faces Ma. Suit Over Undetected Smoldering Fires


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Holzer & Fistel Commences Securities Suit
FRANKLIN BANK: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas
HEALTHWAYS INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Tenn. Securities Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Saxena White Files Wis. Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


21ST CENTURY: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Holding Co. is seeking the dismissal of the
consolidated amended securities fraud complaint that was filed
before 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.

From July 27, 2007, to August 7, 2007, several securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of
its executive officers before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased the company's securities during various
class periods as specified in the complaints.  

These complaints were subsequently consolidated.  A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on behalf of the class on Jan. 22,
2008.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to accurately project
the company's business and financial performance during the
putative class period.  

It seeks an unspecified amount of damages and claim violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5.  

The defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 25, 2008.  The plaintiff's response to
the dismissal motion was filed on April 22, 2008.

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

21st Century Holding Co. -- http://www.21stcenturyholding.com/
-- is an insurance holding company, which, through its
subsidiaries and its contractual relationships with its
independent agents and general agents, controls substantially
all aspects of the insurance underwriting, distribution and
claims process.  


AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Faces Second Lawsuit Over Altered Gems
--------------------------------------------------------------
America's Collectibles Network, Inc. -- doing business as
Jewelry Television -- is facing a second false advertising
lawsuit accusing it of cheating the public by selling gemstones
it falsely advertises as green or red andesine-labradorite, JCK-
Jewelers Circular Keystone reports.

The suit, filed on June 5, 2008, in Knox County Circuit Court on
behalf of Theresa and Gary Hurd of Kodak, Tennessee, alleges
that the shopping network "fraudulently advertised and
misrepresented" the gemstone andesine-labradorite as being
"highly coveted" and "extremely rare."

A similar class action, filed on May 23, 2008, before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of Marliese Weed claims that Jewelry TV sells the rocks as "a
highly coveted, extremely rare, all natural expensive gem that
looks like Oregon sunstone," but it is just "low-cost yellow or
colorless labradorite that has been given a chemical 'facelift'
to make it appear like the rare Oregon sunstone" (Class Action
Reporter, May 30, 2008).

Ms. Weed further claims that the defendants have made more than
$5 million from selling the allegedly bogus stones.  The
complaint states, "Demand for these gemstones was artificially
inflated because of the unlawful misconduct by JTV and consumers
of the gemstones are victims of JTV, who are running what is
reminiscent of a 'boiler room' operation as it relates to these
gemstones."

The Hurds' suit says, "Defendants, a very large and
sophisticated company with in excess of $400 million in revenues
last year, knew or should have known that the gemstones it was
selling were shams and nothing more than the mass-produced
results of chemical facelifts in gemological beauty parlors. . .
. Defendant . . . obtained its sham product for pennies per
carat and sold it for extraordinary profits.  Because the sham
gemstones came from plentiful low-value yellow feldspar,
defendant was able to sell them for great profits while still
undercutting the per-carat price of real Oregon sunstone."

Feldspar is the most common rock on the surface of the Earth.
Irradiation is being increasingly used to alter the colors and
appearance of precious and semi-precious gemstones, and can
produce rocks that are difficult to distinguish from naturally
colored stones, according to people in the industry.  

Jewelry Television acknowledged that it has discovered one of
its sources for the gemstone that treated the stone.  The
company reportedly said it shared that information with its
customers and feels it acted responsibly.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Settles "Panter" Annuuity Lawsuit in Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company and other
parties in the class action lawsuit captioned, "Pamela Panter v.
Victor E. Tackett, Jr., et al., Case No. 01-CI-02109," have
reached a settlement that provides benefits and non-economic
relief for eligible class members.

The class action lawsuit pertains to the marketing and sale of
annuities issued by American Equity and the marketing and sale
of living trusts and other estate planing documents.  The suit
was commenced on behalf of a class composed of individuals who,
at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 1997, through
Dec. 31, 2007, purchased, had an ownership interest in, or
obtained an annuity issued by American Equity and a Living Trust
from, through, in connection with, or involving Addison
Insurance Marketing, ALMS Holdings Inc., ALMS Ltd. LLP, advanced
Legal Systems, ALS, Michael McIntyre, Terry Ciotti, Joel Miller,
Douglas Van Meter (collectively the "McIntyre Defendants"), or
Victor Tackett, Jr.  

Specifically, the plaintiffs in this case claim that American
Equity, in connection with the other defendants, engaged in
wrongdoing during its marketing and sale of annuities, and its
alleged participation in the marketing and sale of living trusts
and other estate planning instruments.  

American Equity denies that it did anything wrong, and denies
any involvement in the marketing and sale of living trusts.

Both sides to the lawsuit subsequently agreed to settle and
resolve the dispute.

The settlement provides economic benefits in the form of General
Relief and Individual Relief.  General Relief will enable class
members to annuitize -- meaning they will receive monthly income
payments from their annuity -- at any time before they exhaust
their policies, without suffering surrender charges or penalties
that might apply if there were no settlement.  Class members who
elect General Relief will have 24% added to their policy values
when they annuitize.

Class members who believe General Relief if insufficient may
seek Individual Relief by submitting a claim form and having
their claims reviewed by American Equity.  Class members who
choose Individual Relief may not be eligible to receive General
Relief.  

The settlement also provides for changes in the way American
Equity does business.

The Jefferson Circuit Court, in Jefferson County, Kentucky, has
already authorized a notice informing class members of the
proposed settlement.  

Class members who do not want settlement benefits or do not want
to be legally bound by the settlement must must exclude
themselves by July 7, 2008, or they will not be able to sue, or
continue to sue, American Equity about the legal claims in this
case.

Class members who stay in the settlement may object to it by
July 7, 2008.

Excluded from the class and barred from taking part in the
settlement are defendants, members of a defendant's immediate
family, an entity in which a defendants has a controlling
interest, or a member of the settlement class in a separate
class action lawsuit entitled, "Strube v. American Equity Inv.
Life Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. No. 6:01-cv-1236-Orl-19DAB)."

The court will have a hearing on July 17, 2008, at 3:00 p.m., to
decide whether to approve the settlement and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs to the lawyers representing all class
members.

For more information, call toll free 1-877-325-8056.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Judge Tosses Out N.Y. Suit Over Blood Thinner
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas P. Griesa of the U.S. District Court of the
Southern District of New York dismissed a securities class
action lawsuit accusing AstraZeneca Plc of misleading its
investors about the safety and effectiveness of Exanta, its
blood thinner that failed to win the approval of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration, Shannon Henson of Securities Law 360
reports.

The class, which included everyone who bought or otherwise
acquired securities of AstraZeneca between April 2, 2003, and
Sept. 10, 2004, accused the company and four of its officers and
directors of artificially inflating the company's stock through
misrepresentations about the drug.

The alleged misrepresentations caused plaintiffs to suffer
losses when the FDA did not recommend the drug for approval, the
suit said.

In its motion to dismiss, U.K.-based AstraZeneca argued that
U.S. securities laws did not give the court the authority to
consider the claims of foreign purchasers who bought its shares
in foreign stock markets.

The company also argued that the plaintiffs did not and could
not plead facts giving rise to a viable securities fraud claims
-- particularly the facts demonstrating scienter.  The
individual defendants also filed an independent motion to
dismiss.

Exanta was the focus of four clinical trials that studied its
effectiveness at preventing strokes; secondary venus
thromboembolism; causes of mortality following total knee-
replacement surgery; and major cardiac events in patients who
had suffered heart attacks.

However, the company and the individual defendants did not
disclose or misstated the drug's risks of liver disease and
heart attack, the plaintiffs said.  In October 2004, the FDA
denied approval of Exanta amid concern about liver injuries,
heart attack and its efficacy when compared to another drug.

The drug was pivotal to the company's financial success because
U.S. patents on three of the company's drugs, which represented
more than half of AstraZeneca's sales, were set to expire, the
complaint said.

The judge, in his recent ruling said, that his court does not
have jurisdiction over foreigners who bought AstraZeneca stock
on foreign exchanges and that the plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege scienter.

More than 90% of the members of the putative class were
foreigners who purchased stock on foreign exchanges, the judge
said.  He ruled that the complaint failed to meet a requirement
of the test for jurisdiction over foreigners buying on foreign
exchanges -- that particular acts or culpable failures to act
within the U.S. directly caused losses to foreign investors
abroad.  "The facts in the complaint and in documents
incorporated into the complaint make clear that if fraudulent
conduct occurred, it took place both within the United States
and abroad," the judge said.

The judge also said that the plaintiffs did not have enough
evidence to prove that the defendants had a motive to mislead
investors.

The judge said the plaintiffs also failed to meet a test of
conscious misbehavior and recklessness on the part of the
defendants.  "In the long recital of information about Exanta
given to the public, there is nothing whatever to indicate that
the statements made did not reflect the honest belief of the
authors," the judge wrote.

London-based AstraZeneca PLC discovers, develops, manufactures
and markets prescription pharmaceuticals for important areas of
healthcare, such as cardiovascular, gastrointestinal,
neuroscience, oncology, respiratory and inflammation, and
infection.


AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Mass., Del. Suits Over Sumitomo Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axcelis Technologies, Inc., is facing two purported class action
lawsuits filed in Massachusetts and Delaware in connection with
proposals made by Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd., in 2008 to
acquire the outstanding common stock of 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.

                       Meltzer Litigation

On or about Feb. 11, 2008, Martin Meltzer filed a purported
shareholder class action complaint in the Massachusetts Superior
Court (Civil Action No. 08-0692-E), naming as defendants the
company, its current directors and a former director.

The complaint alleges that Axcelis and its board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by
failing to properly consider the Feb. 11, 2008 unsolicited offer
by Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. to purchase all of the
outstanding stock of the company for $5.20 per share.

The suit asks the Court to direct the company and its board to
"give due consideration to any proposed business combination" to
maximize shareholder value, while ensuring that no conflicts of
interest exist.

                        Simon Litigation

In or about Feb. 28, 2008, Shirley Simon filed a purported
shareholder class action complaint in the Delaware Chancery
Court (Case No. 3582), naming as defendants the company and its
current directors.

The complaint alleges that Axcelis and its board breached their
fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by failing to
properly consider the Feb. 11, 2008 unsolicited offer by
Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. to purchase all of the
outstanding stock of the company for $5.20 per share, and
subsequently rejecting that offer.

The suit wants the Court to direct the company and its board to
cooperate with any person or entity, including Sumitomo that
proposes a merger, acquisition or other transaction that would
maximize shareholder value, while ensuring that no conflicts of
interest exist.

The complaint also seeks to have the defendants, other than the
company, pay damages suffered to the class as a result of their
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  

A motion to dismiss the suit and an accompanying brief were
filed by Axcelis on March 26, 2008.  

On April 30, 2008, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
cover the proposal made by Sumitomo on March 10, 2008, and other
matters relating to the annual meeting of stockholders held on
May 1, 2008.

Axcelis Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.axcelis.com/--  
designs, manufactures and services ion implantation, dry strip
and other processing equipment used in the fabrication of
semiconductor chips.  In addition to equipment, Axcelis provides
aftermarket service and support, including spare parts,
equipment upgrades, maintenance services and customer training.  
The Company also owns 50% of the equity of SEN Corp., a producer
of ion implantation equipment in Japan.  SEN licenses technology
from the Company for certain ion implantation products and has
exclusive rights to market the licensed products in Japan.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settles N.Y. Shareholder Suits For $34.4MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several shareholder lawsuits over stock option grants and stock
appreciation rights filed in New York against Cablevision
Systems Corp. have been settled for $34.4 million in aggregate,
Ben James of Securities Law 360 reports.

The company announced on Aug. 8, 2006, that, based on a
voluntary review of its past practices in connection with grants
of stock options and SARs, it has determined that the grant date
and exercise price assigned to a number of its stock option and
SAR grants during the 1997-2002 period did not correspond to the
actual grant date and the fair market value of Cablevision's
common stock on the actual grant date.  

The review was conducted with a law firm that was not previously
involved with the company's stock option plans.  The company has
advised the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S.
Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of New York of these
matters and each has commenced an investigation.  

The company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S.
Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of New York seeking
documents related to the stock options issues.  The U.S.
received a document request from the SEC relating to its
informal investigation into these matters.  The company
continues to fully cooperate with such investigations.

In August, September and October 2006, purported derivative
lawsuits, including one purported combined derivative and class
action suit, relating to the company's past stock option and
SARs grants that were brought by parties identifying themselves
as shareholders of Cablevision purporting to act on behalf of
Cablevision.  

The suits were filed with:

       -- the New York State Supreme Court for Nassau County,

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

       -- the Delaware Chancery Court for New Castle County.

These lawsuits named as defendants certain present and former
members of Cablevision's Board of Directors and certain present
and former executive officers, alleging breaches of fiduciary
duty and unjust enrichment relating to practices with respect to
the dating of stock options, recordation and accounting for
stock options, financial statements and SEC filings, and alleged
violation of Internal Revenue Code 162(m).  

In addition, certain of these lawsuits asserted claims under
Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  

The lawsuits sought damages from all defendants, disgorgement
from the officer defendants, declaratory relief, and equitable
relief, including rescission of the 2006 Employee Stock Plan and
voiding of the election of the director defendants.  

On Oct. 27, 2006, the Board of Directors of Cablevision
appointed Grover C. Brown and Zachary W. Carter as directors
and, on the same date, appointed Messrs. Brown and Carter to a
newly formed special litigation committee of the Board.

The SLC was directed by the Board to review and analyze the
facts and circumstances surrounding these claims, which purport
to have been brought derivatively on behalf of the company, and
to consider and determine whether or not prosecution of such
claims is in the best interests of the company and its
shareholders, and what actions the company should take with
respect to the cases.  

The SLC, through its counsel, filed motions in all three courts
to intervene and to stay all proceedings until completion of the
SLC's independent investigation of the claims raised in these
actions.  

The Delaware action subsequently was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice by the plaintiff.  The actions pending in
Nassau County have been consolidated and a single amended
complaint has been filed in that jurisdiction.  

Similarly, the actions pending in the Eastern District of New
York have been consolidated and a single amended complaint has
been filed in that jurisdiction.  

Both the Nassau County action and the Eastern District of New
York action assert derivative claims on behalf of the U.S. as
well as direct claims on behalf of Cablevision shareholders
relating to the company's past stock option and SAR grants.  

On Nov. 14, 2006, the trial court in the Nassau County action
denied the SLC's motion for a stay of proceedings and ordered
expedited discovery.  

The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court
subsequently stayed all proceedings in the Nassau County action
(including all discovery) pending the SLCs appeal of the denial
of its stay motion.  

On Oct. 9, 2007, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial
court's denial of the SLC's motion to stay proceedings.  The
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted
the SLC's motion for a stay and stayed the cases pending in that
court.  That stay expired following the determination that the
transaction contemplated by the Dolan Family Group 2006 Proposal
would not close (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2008).

Recently, Cablevision and the plaintiffs in consolidated
litigation over alleged options backdating at the company have
agreed to a $34.4-million settlement aimed at resolving all
state and federal derivative claims against the defendants.
Nominal defendant Cablevision, its special litigation committee,
the plaintiffs and the rest of the defendants -- a group that
included the company's former outside compensation consultant as
well as current and former officers and directors -- entered
into a stipulation and agreement of settlement on June 4.

If it garners court approval, the settlement will resolve
consolidated litigation in New York State Supreme Court in
Nassau County as well as the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

Stuart Grant, Esq., an attorney for Teachers Retirement System
of Louisiana, co-lead plaintiff in the Nassau County litigation
said he expected court approval of the agreement in 60 to 90
days and added that federal litigation would likely be dismissed
and the settlement entered in state court.

The stipulation calls for 16 individual defendants to pay out
about $24.4 million, which will consist of cash, repricing the
exercise price of outstanding options, and a surrender of
potential contractual claims, among other things.  Cablevision's
director and officer liability insurer will also shell out $10
million, according to the agreement.

In addition, Cablevision will implement prophylactic measures to
ensure that the alleged misconduct couldn't occur in the future,
such as having its compensation plans audited for the next five
years, Grant noted.  "Both in terms of cleaning up the past and
looking toward the future, it's a good settlement," Mr. Grant
said.

Backdated options and stock appreciation rights were granted to
Cablevision officers, directors and employees on more than 11
million shares between 1997 and 2000, and the grants were priced
below the company closing share price on the day they were
issued, which violated the company's employee stock option plan,
the plaintiffs claimed.

The defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to the plaintiffs' allegations.

The state case is "In Re Cablevision Systems Corp. Options
Backdating Litigation, Index No. 06/12743," filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau.

The federal case is "In Re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholder
Derivative Litigation, Case Number 06-4130," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

    
CBEYOND INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Georgia  
------------------------------------------------------
Cbeyond, Inc., is facing a purported securities fraud class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, under the caption, "Weisberg v. Cbeyond,
Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-1666," 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 May 6, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and its chairman and chief executive
officer, James F. Geiger.

The action was brought by Steven Weisberg, individually and on
behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the company's common
stock between Nov. 1, 2007, and Feb. 21, 2008.  It asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and regulations thereunder, based upon
allegations that the company underreported its customer churn
rate.

The plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount for damages
on behalf of himself and all other members of the purported
class.

The suit is "Weisberg v. Cbeyond, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
08-CV-1666," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Suite 110
          440 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337


Representing the defendants are:

          Scott P. Hilsen, Esq. (shilsen@alston.com)
          Alston & Bird
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: 404-881-7000

               - and -

          David A. Becker, Esq.
          Latham & Watkins
          555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Phone: 202-637-2174


CONSECO INC: Cheats Old Folks, Lawsuit in Illinois Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Senior Health Insurance and Conseco Inc. are facing a
class-action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois alleging the companies preyed on its customers
by denying valid claims "under the fabricated pretense of not
receiving proper documentation," the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The complaint states Conseco has systematically declined to pay
the plaintiffs benefits for claims they have each submitted
totaling several thousands of dollars, despite the fact that
plaintiffs have repeatedly provided defendant with documentation
of claims in the form of Medicare verifications -- e.g., Medical
Summary Notices or explanations of benefits authored by Medicare
-- setting forth the date and place of service, amounts due,
procedures performed, and diagnosis codes.

The defendants, however, have per their routine studiously
failed to pay plaintiffs' claims on grounds that such
documentation -- albeit verified by Medicare -- is inadequate
proof of the plaintiffs' losses.  There is no valid reason for
such conduct, which is designed solely to limit the defendants'
claims payouts.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether or not Conseco did not pay claims, made by
         class members, purportedly due to failure to provide
         Conseco with adequate documentation of proof of their
         loss;

     (b) whether or not Conseco breached its insurance policies
         by failing to pay claims due to inadequate proof of
         loss, upon receipt of a Medicare verification of the
         claim;

     (c) whether or not defendants schemed to deny claims by
         requiring plaintiffs and the class to produce
         unreasonable documentation of proof of a loss; and

     (d) whether or not plaintiffs and the class' insurance
         policies permit them to submit a Medicare verifications
         as adequate documentation of proof of loss.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying each of the classes and appointing
        them as representatives of the classes and their
        counsel as class counsel;

     -- a finding that the defendants, by virtue of their
        aforementioned conduct, have breached their contracts
        with the plaintiffs and the class and are in violation
        of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and similar state
        statutes;

     -- judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the class and
        against the defendants on all causes of action;

     -- a declaration of the defendants' obligations and the
        plaintiffs' and class' rights pursuant to the Conseco
        policies at issue, specifically, e.g. that Medicare
        verifications constitute sufficient documentation of
        proof of loss, or that the defendants' policy or
        practice of failing to pay claims on grounds that
        Medicare verifications are insufficient documentation of
        proof of loss, is unlawful;

     -- an injunction preventing the defendants from refusing to
        pay claims made pursuant to the plaintiffs' and the
        class' insurance policies on grounds that a Medicare
        verification is insufficient documentation of proof of
        loss;

     -- an award of monetary damages to the plaintiffs and the
        class members, including interest and punitive damages
        as appropriate, together with reasonable attorney's fees
        and costs; and

     -- an order requiring the defendants to account for all the
        class members' claims, premiums, or portions thereof
        improperly collected or withheld, and imposing a
        constructive trust on said sums until further order of
        the court.

The suit is "Sheldon Langendorf, et al. v. Conseco Senior Health
Insurance, et al., Case No. 08Ch20571," filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
          205 W. Randolph Street, Suite 1430
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-346-7950


DIEBOLD INC: Loses Bid to Toss ERISA Lawsuit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
Automatic teller manufacturer Diebold Inc. has lost a battle to
throw out a consolidated class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Christine
Caulfield of the Securities Law 360 reports.

On March 13, 2006, the defendants moved to consolidate the
securities, derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security
Act violations cases against Diebold for purposes of discovery
and to consolidate separate securities, derivative and ERISA
cases for all other purposes.

Judge Peter C. Economus of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio granted the consolidation motion for
the securities, ERISA violations, and derivative suits against
the company as:

      -- In Re: Diebold Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:05 CV
         2873,
   
      -- In Re: Diebold ERISA Litigation, Case No. 5:06 CV
         0170, and

      -- In Re: Diebold Derivative Litigation, Case No. 5:06 CV
         0233.

The actions involve allegations against Diebold, Inc. and its
current and former directors and officers and related parties
relating to alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by
officers and directors at Diebold.  Each of the Actions falls
into one of three categories:

     -- five of the actions assert federal securities claims on
        behalf of shareholders of Diebold;

     -- four of the actions assert claims pursuant to the ERISA
        Act by purported participants in the Diebold 401(k)
        Savings Plan, on behalf of themselves and others
        similarly situated; and

     -- two of the actions assert derivative claims on behalf
        of Diebold against certain Individual Defendants.

The plaintiffs in the securities actions allege that
misrepresentations or omissions caused artificial inflation in
Diebolds stock price during the class period, and seek relief on
behalf of people who acquired Diebold stock in the open market.

The court also approved Diebold Lead Securities Plaintiffs
selection of Scott + Scott, LLC and Milberg Weiss Bershad and
Schulman LLP as lead counsel and Strauss & Troy as liaison
counsel.  

With respect to the designation of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, the court appoints Recht and Wietschner as the Diebold
Lead Derivative Plaintiff Group.  

The court also approves Diebold Lead Derivative Plaintiff Groups
selection of Federman & Sherwood and Bull & Lifshitz, LLP as
lead counsel and Weisman, Kennedy & Berris Co., LPA as liaison
counsel for the consolidated derivative actions.

Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
April 27, 2007.

On July 13, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the  
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  
In March, 2008, Judge Sara Lioi of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio dismissed the amended consolidated
suit, saying that because she was dismissing the only federal
claim in the suit, she was not comfortable allowing the state
claims to proceed (Class Action Reporter, March 11, 2008).

In a recent ruling, Judge Peter Economus, of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, said that the
plaintiffs, workers of the Ohio-based company, had put forth a
case of fiduciary duty breaches sufficient to survive dismissal.

Diebold and its directors had argued they were not fiduciaries
of the workers' savings plan and could not be held liable for
the alleged ERISA breaches, which included dissemination of
false financial statements to boost the company's stock
performance.

Judge Economus was not persuaded by the argument, however,
saying the defendants fell under the "liberal definition" of an
ERISA fiduciary operative at the motion-to-dismiss stage of the
proceedings.

The judge was equally unmoved by Diebold's argument that the
company's reports to the U.S Securities And Exchange Commission,
boasting about its performance and prospects, were not
actionable under ERISA.

"To the extent that the alleged misrepresentations included in
the company's public filings did not relate specifically to plan
benefits, they are not actionable under ERISA.  However, to the
extent that the allegedly inaccurate or misleading
communications relate to SEC filings that were incorporated by
reference into the plan documents and/or were disseminated to
plan participants, such misrepresentations are actionable under
ERISA," he said.


FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities fraud class
action lawsuit captioned, "In Re: FBR, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-04617," which named Friedman Billings
Ramsey Group, Inc., as a defendant.

Initially, the company and certain of its current and former
senior officers and directors were named in a series of putative
securities class action complaints filed in the second quarter
of 2005.

The complaints are brought under various sections of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and allege
misstatements and omissions concerning the investigation
conducted by the staff of the Division of Enforcement of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the staff of the
Department of Market Regulation of National Association of
Securities Dealers, concerning insider trading and other charges
related to the company's trading in a company account and the
offering of a private investment in public equity on behalf of
CompuDyne, Inc., in October 2001.  

The suits also allege misstatements and omissions with regard to
the company's expected earnings, including the potential adverse
impact on the company of changes in interest rates.

These cases have been consolidated under, "In re FBR Inc.
Securities Litigation."  A consolidated amended complaint has
been filed asserting claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint.

On May 8, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered its final judgment granting FBR
Group's motion to dismiss all counts of the consolidated amended
complaint in the putative class action securities lawsuit "In re
FBR Inc. Securities Litigation"

Pursuant to that final judgment, the complaint was dismissed as
to all defendants (which includes certain officers and directors
of FBR Group) with prejudice, according to the company's May  
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: FBR, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
05-CV-04617," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Richard J. Holwell, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

          Eric James Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
          Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-907-0790
          Fax: 212-883-7579

               - and -

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. (nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com)
          Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-889-3700
          Fax: 212-684-5191

Representing the defendants is:

          George Anthony, Esq. (gborden@wc.com)
          Borden Williams & Connolly, LLP
          725 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-434-5563
          Fax: 202-434-5029


HEALTHWAYS INC: Aug. 4 Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced an August 4, 2008
deadline for interested parties to move to be a lead plaintiff
in the securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Healthways, Inc. (Nasdaq: HWAY) between October 17, 2007, and
February 26, 2008, including shares acquired through the
Company's Retirement Savings Plan.

The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Healthways' financial performance and
prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Healthways stock.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847 or
          Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
          e-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


HYPERCOM CORP: Arizona Court Dismisses "Wool" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Maricopa County, Arizona, Superior Court granted a motion by
Hypercom Corp. that sought the dismissal of the purported class
action lawsuit, "Wool v. Hypercom, et al., Case No. CV 2008-
050575."

Mr. Wool commenced the class action complaint against the
company and the members of its board of directors on Feb. 15,
2008.  The complaint alleged that the company and its directors
breached fiduciary duties by not entering into negotiations with
Ingenico SA, a competitor of Hypercom, which had indicated an
interest in acquiring the company's outstanding common stock for
$6.25 per share.

At the company's behest, the court, on April 4, 2008, dismissed
the plaintiff's 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.

Hypercom Corp. -- http://www.hypercom.com/-- is a global  
provider of electronic payment solutions and value-added
services at the point of transaction.  The Company designs,
manufactures and sells electronic transaction terminals,
peripheral devices, transaction networking devices, transaction
management systems, application software and information
delivery services.  In addition, Hypercom provides directly, or
through qualified contractors, support and related services,
which include maintenance, around-the-clock management and
monitoring of customer networks, online reports, onsite
technology assessments, network training, and design and
implementation.  The Company operates through three business
segments: Americas; Europe, Middle East and Africa, and Asia-
Pacific.


IMAX CORP: Awaits Ruling on N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion that sought the dismissal of the
amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class
action lawsuit against IMAX Corp. and certain of its officers
and directors, 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.

Initially, the company was named as defendants in eight
purported class action complaints filed between Aug. 11, 2006,
and Sept. 18, 2006.  These suits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York and were brought on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock
between Feb. 17, 2006, and Aug. 9, 2006.

The suits allege primarily that the defendants engaged in
securities fraud by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements during the class period regarding their
revenue recognition of theater system installations, and failing
to disclose material information concerning the company's
revenue recognition practices.  

These lawsuits are in the very early stages and seek unspecified
compensatory damages, costs, and expenses.

On Jan. 18, 2007, the court consolidated all eight class action
lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital Management, Inc., as
the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead
plaintiff's counsel.

On Oct. 2, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.  The amended complaint was brought on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock
between Feb. 27, 2003, and July 20, 2007.  It asserts the same
allegations as the original suits.  The amended complaint also
added PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the company's auditors, as a
defendant.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on Dec. 10, 2007, which is still pending.  The plaintiffs filed
their opposition to this motion on Jan. 22, 2008.

The suit is "In re IMAX Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:06-cv-06128-NRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. (nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com)
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-889-3700
         Fax: 212-684-5191


IMAX CORP: Canadian Court Mulls Motions in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has yet to rule on the
combined leave to amend and certification motions in a class
action lawsuit filed against IMAX Corp. and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian
securities laws.

The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 20, 2006, was brought on behalf of
shareholders who acquired the company's securities between
Feb. 17, 2006, and Aug. 9, 2006.  It is in a very early stage
and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well
as costs and expenses.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has yet to rule on the
combined leave to amend and certification motions that was
discussed on a hearing in June 2, 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.

IMAX Corp. -- http://www.imax.com/-- is an entertainment  
technology company specializing in large-format and three-
dimensional film presentations.   The Company's principal
business is the design, manufacture, sale and lease of
projection systems based on technology for large-format, 15-
perforation film frame, 70-mm format (15/70-format) theaters,
including commercial theaters, museums and science centers, and
destination entertainment sites.


LAKE COUNTY JAIL: Inmates Sue Over "Life-Threatening" Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four men commenced a federal lawsuit alleging that conditions at
the Lake County Jail are so dangerous they are life-threatening,
including presence of the drug-resistant staph known as MRSA,
the Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit, which seeks to gain class-action status, seeks
unspecified damages from Lake County Jail Sheriff Roy Dominguez,
two people who served as warden of the jail since May 2006, and
other unidentified jail supervisors.  The suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court in Hammond.

The lawsuit contends that the plaintiffs were the moving force
behind the alleged violations, condoning the unconstitutional
conditions.  It further alleges that detainees are held for
weeks in crowded holding cells in which they are forced to sleep
on concrete floors and that those in the holding cell are not
provided showers, soap or change of clothes and that toilet
paper is often not available.  Up to 40 men share a toilet in a
cell designed to humanely hold a few people, the suit adds.

"As such, the cells are breeding ground for dangerous
infections," states the lawsuit, alleging that MRSA  
(methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) is rampant in the
jail.

The lawsuit also alleges that detainees are regularly denied
medical care, saying one of the men filing the lawsuit was
denied his diabetes medicine for a week and dropped from 200
pounds to 155 pounds during 45 days in a holding cell.

Public entities in Indiana are directed to pay judgments of
civil rights violations to which present or former public
employees are liable, the suit states.


LEAP WIRELESS: Calif. Court Yet to Consolidate Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the consolidation of several
purported securities fraud class action lawsuits filed against
Leap Wireless International, Inc., and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.

The suits were filed between November 2007 and February 2008
purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased Leap common
stock between May 16, 2004, and Nov. 9, 2007.

The company's independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, has been named in one of these
lawsuits.  

The suits allege that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and allege the individual
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making
false and misleading statements about the company's business and
financial results arising from Leap's Nov. 9, 2007 announcement
of its restatement of its financial statements.

Some of these lawsuits also allege false and misleading
statements revealed by Leap's Aug. 7, 2007 second quarter 2007
earnings release.   

The class action complaints seek, among other relief,
determinations that the suits are proper class actions,
unspecified damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the class action
lawsuits and for the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiffs' counsel to represent the consolidated action.  
Several of the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits.

On March 28, 2008, the District Court took the consolidation and
lead plaintiff appointment requests in the remaining lawsuits
under submission, and it has not yet issued a ruling, 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 first identified complaint is "HCL Partners Limited
Partnership, et al. v. Leap Wireless International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-CV-2245," filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

          Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com)
          Latham and Watkins
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101-3375
          Phone: 619-236-1234
          Fax: 619-696-7419


LEVITT CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
Levitt Corp. is facing a securities fraud class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, captioned, "Dance v. Levitt Corp. et al., No. 08-CV-
60111-DLG," 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.

Robert D. Dance filed the purported class action complaint
against Levitt Corp. and certain of its officers and directors
on Jan. 25, 2008, as a putative purchaser of the company's
securities, asserting claims under the federal securities law
and seeking damages.  

The securities litigation purports to be brought on behalf of
all purchasers of the company's securities beginning on Jan. 31,
2007, and ending on Aug. 14, 2007.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing a series of false and misleading
statements concerning the company's financial results, prospects
and condition.

The suit is "Dance v. Levitt Corp., et al., No. 08-CV-60111-
DLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, Judge Donald L. Graham, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jay W. Eng, Esq. (jeng@bermanesq.com)
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          222 Lakeview Avenue
          Suite 900
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-835-9400
          Fax: 561-835-0322

               - and -

          Paul Jeffrey Geller, Esq. (pgeller@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 E Palmetto Park Road
          Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants is:

          Richard Bryan Jackson, Esq. (rjackson@swmwas.com)
          Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson
          150 W Flagler Street
          Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-789-3200
          Fax: 305-789-3395


MERCURY INTERACTIVE: $117M Securities Suit Deal Given Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has given preliminary approval to a
$117.5-million settlement in the securities class action, "In
re: Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation," Erin Marie
Daly of the Securities Law 360 reports.

In November 2006, Hewlett-Packard Co. completed its acquisition
of Mercury Interactive Corp.  Upon completion of the acquisition  
Hewlett Packard assumed oversight for all litigation and
regulatory matters pending or subsequently commenced against
Mercury.

Prior to the announcement of the acquisition, and beginning on
or about Aug. 19, 2005, four securities class actions were filed
against Mercury Interactive and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of purchasers of Mercury's stock from
October 2003 to November 2005:

The original actions were:

      -- "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. C05-3395;"

      -- "Johnson v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         3864;"

      -- "Munao v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-
         4031;" and

      -- "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
         Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-5157."

These class action suits were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California as, "In re Mercury
Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation."

The consolidated complaint, filed on Sept. 8, 2006, alleged that
the defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding Mercury's business and operations in violation of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  

On July 30, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint with leave to amend.

On Oct. 15, 2007, HP and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated class action
lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 21, 2008).

Recently, Judge Fogel signed off an order preliminarily
approving the deal, which was brokered in October.  "This is a
very significant day," Judge Fogel said at a hearing in San
Jose, Calif.  "Everything seems to be in order.  My only
remaining question is whether the parties have agreed on an
appropriate date for final approval."

The agreement provides for HP to pay an aggregate of
$117.5 million to administer the settlement, to compensate the
class, and to pay attorneys' fees.

The suit is "In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C05-3395," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy
Fogel, with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          (ashingler@scott-scott.com)
          Scott + Scott, LLC, 600 B. Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Fax: 619-233-0508

Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer Tetefsky (jtetefsky@labaton.com)
          Marketing Director
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          Phone: 212-907-0659

          Nicole Acton Jones, Esq.
          (nicole.jones@hellerehrman.com)
          Heller Ehrman, LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-772-6032
          Fax: 415-772-6268

          Kirk Andrew Dublin, Esq. (kdublin@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1500
          Phone: 415-626-3939
          Fax: 415-875-5700

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Facter, Esq. (jfacter@shearman.com)
          Shearman & Sterling, LLP
          525 Market Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-616-1100
          Fax: 415-616-1199


MICRUS ENDOVASCULAR: Securities Fraud Suit in Florida Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul C. Huck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida dismissed a securities class action lawsuit
filed against Micrus Endovascular Corporation, the San Jose
Mercury News reports.

Filed on October 2, 2007, the complaint charges Micrus and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Exchange Act.

Micrus develops, manufactures, and markets implantable and
disposable medical devices used in the treatment of cerebral
vascular diseases.

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

     (i) that sales at Micrus Design, one of the Company's key
         subsidiaries, were slowing dramatically and not meeting
         internal expectations as the subsidiary was
         encountering increasing competition;

    (ii) that the Company was experiencing increased regulatory
         issues in China and Japan which would delay and impede
         its ability to get its full complement of products
         approved for sale in those countries; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
         statements about the Company, its earnings, products
         and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
         times and materially false and misleading.

The complaint further alleges that on or around September 17,
2007, Micrus issued a press release announcing that it was
revising its financial guidance and now expects fiscal 2008
revenues to be between $65 million and $75 million because of
expected product approval delays in China as well as Japan and
slower-than-anticipated sales in North America.

In response to the announcement the price of Micrus common
dropped from $23.57 per share to $17.37 per share on extremely
heavy trading volume.

On June 6, Micrus convinced the judge to dismiss the case.

The suit is "Spencer Abrams, et al. v. Micrus Endovascular
Corporation, et al., Docket Nymber: 07-CV-22601," filed in the
the U.S. District Court or the Southern District of Florida,  
Hon. Judge Paul C. Huck, presiding.

The plaintiff firms in the case are:

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Florida)
          197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 20
          Boca Raton, FL, 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

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

               - and -

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


MIVA INC: Reaches $4-Million Settlement in Ark. Click Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIVA, Inc., formerly known as Findwhat.com, Inc., reached a
$3,936,812 settlement in the purported class action lawsuit,
"Lane's Gifts LLC, et al. v. Yahoo! Inc., et al.," 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 Feb. 17, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in
Miller County Circuit Court, Arkansas, against that company and
others in its sector by:

     -- Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, LLC,

     -- U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc.,

     -- Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and

     -- Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations, on behalf
        of themselves and all others similarly situated.

Savings 4 Merchants and U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card
Terms, Inc., voluntarily dismissed themselves from the case,
without prejudice, on April 4, 2005.

The complaint names 11 search engines, web publishers, or
performance marketing companies as defendants, including the
company.  It alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
civil conspiracy.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are predicated on the allegation
that the plaintiffs have been charged for clicks on their
advertisements that were not made by bona fide customers.

The suit was brought on behalf of a putative class of
individuals who allegedly "were overcharged for [pay per click]
advertising," and seeks monetary damages, restitution,
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and other remedies.

The company believes that it has no contractual or other
relationship with either of the remaining plaintiffs.

In October 2005, the company asked the court to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state claims upon which relief may be granted, and pursuant to
Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.  

The court has not yet ruled on the company's dismissal request.  

Google, Yahoo, and certain other co-defendants in the case who
were customers of Google and Yahoo have reached settlement terms
with the plaintiffs.  These settlement deals have been approved
by the Court.

The court has stayed the case as to the remaining defendants,
including MIVA, to allow settlement discussions with the
plaintiffs.

The company entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to
settle the case in January 2008 and received court approval in
April 2008.  

Under the settlement agreement, all claims against the company,
including its indemnification obligations to a co-defendant,
were dismissed without presumption or admission of any liability
or wrongdoing.  

Pursuant to the agreement, the company is establishing a
settlement fund of $3,936,812, of which up to $1,312,270 would
be in cash for payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and class
representative incentive awards and the balance would be in
advertising credits relating to the class members' advertising
spending with us during the class period.

MIVA, Inc. -- http://www.miva.com/-- together with its wholly  
owned subsidiaries is an online media and advertising network
company.  The Company provides targeted and measurable online
advertising campaigns for its advertiser and agency clients,
generating qualified consumer leads and sales.  It's solutions
provide a range of products and services through three customer-
facing divisions: MIVA Media, MIVA Direct and MIVA Small
Business.  MIVA derives its revenue primarily from online
advertising by delivering relevant contextual and search ad
listings to its third-party ad network and its MIVA-owned
consumer audiences on a performance basis.  The Company offers a
range of products and services through three divisions: MIVA
Media, MIVA Direct and MIVA Small Business.


MIVA INC: Discovery Underway in Fla. Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit filed against Miva, Inc. -- formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.
-- and certain of its officers and directors filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class
action complaints were filed, alleging that the company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual
defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control
persons" of MIVA.   

The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a
class of the company's investors who purchased company stock
between Jan. 5, 2004, and May 4, 2005.  They allege generally
that, during the putative class period, the company made
misleading statements and omitted material information regarding
the goodwill associated with a recent acquisition and certain
material weaknesses in its internal controls.  

The plaintiffs assert that the company and the individual
defendants made these misstatements and omissions in order to
keep its stock price high to allow certain individual defendants
to sell stock at an artificially inflated price.  

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On June 13 and July 7, 2005, the company and the other
defendants moved to dismiss each of these complaints for failure
to comply with the mandatory pleading requirements of the Reform
Act and also served answers to the complaints.  

On July 27, 2005, the court consolidated all of the outstanding
lawsuits as, "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation," selected
lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated cases, and
granted plaintiffs leave to file a consolidated amended
complaint.   

The company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Sept. 8, 2005.  The dismissal motion
was granted by the court in December 2005.  The plaintiffs,
however, were granted leave to submit a further amended
complaint, which they filed on Jan. 17, 2006.   

The defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case.  On
March 15, 2007, the court granted in large part the defendants'
dismissal request.  However, the court denied their motion to
dismiss as to certain statements relating to:

       -- removal of traffic sources,

       -- spyware,

       -- implementation of screening policies and procedures,
          and

       -- amounts of traffic purchased from distribution
          partners.

On March 29, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for amendment
to the March 15, 2007 order to include certification for
interlocutory appeal or, in the alternative, for
reconsideration.

In July 2007, the court denied the motion for amendment to the
March 15, 2007 order to include certification for interlocutory
appeal, but granted the motion for reconsideration as to the
issue of whether the plaintiffs pled a strong inference of
scienter in light of intervening precedent.  

The court requested additional briefing on the scienter issue,  
and on Feb. 15, 2008, entered an order dismissing one of the
individual defendants from the lawsuit and limiting the claims
that could be brought against another individual defendant.  

The plaintiffs moved the court to certify a putative class of
investors, and the defendants had filed briefs in opposition
thereto.  On March 12, 2008, the court entered an order
certifying a class of those investors who purchased the
company's common stock from Feb. 23, 2005, to May 4, 2005.  The
court also dismissed two of the proposed class representatives
for lack of standing.  

The plaintiffs have served discovery requests on the defendants,
and the discovery phase of the lawsuit is presently underway,
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 "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Judge John E. Steele presiding.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Chris A. Barker, Esq.
          (cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com)
          Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
          300 W. Platt St., Suite 150
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: 813-489-1001
          Fax: 813-489-1008

               - and -
  
          Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
          (cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP
          5200 Town Center Circle, Ste. 600, Tower One
          Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018
          Phone: 561-361-5000
          Fax: 561-367-8400

Representing the defendant is:

          Joseph G. Foster, Esq. (jfoster@porterwright.com)
          Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, P.A.
          5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300
          Naples, FL 34108
          Phone: 239-593-2900
          Fax: 239-593-2990


MIVA INC: N.Y. Court Considers Dismissing "Payday Advance" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to dismiss with prejudice all claims asserted against
MIVA, Inc., in the class action lawsuit captioned, "Payday
Advance Plus, Inc. v. Findwhat.com, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-01923-JGK."

Payday Advance Plus Inc. filed the putative class action suit on
March 10, 2006, against the company and Advertising.com, Inc.  
The complaint alleges that Advertising.com, a MIVA Media Network
distribution partner, engaged in click fraud to increase
revenues to themselves with MIVA's alleged knowledge and
participation.  

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a putative class of
individuals who have allegedly been overcharged by the
defendants and seeks monetary damages, restitution, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and other
remedies.   

In May 2006, MIVA moved to dismiss the complaint.  In an order
dated March 12, 2007, the court denied MIVA's dismissal motion
as it pertains to the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, but
granted it as it relates to the remainder of the plaintiff's
claims.

On April 2, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
which it dropped its claims against Advertising.com.  The
amended complaint asserts only a claim for breach of contract
claim against MIVA.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on
Sept. 11, 2007.  

The company filed its response on Oct. 15, 2007, and the motion
is currently pending.  At the request of the plaintiff, the
court stayed the litigation in April 2008, pending resolution of
the class action settlement in a separate case, the "Lane's
Gifts LLC, et al. v. Yahoo! Inc., et al.," in Arkansas.  

The plaintiff in this case is a party to the settlement
agreement in the Lane's Gifts case, and, pursuant to the
agreement, the plaintiff has agreed to move to dismiss with
prejudice all claims it has asserted against the company in this
litigation such that this litigation would be settled and
resolved in its entirety.  

The dismissal of "Payday" is subject to approval of the court in
New York, 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 "Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. Findwhat.com, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01923-JGK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John G.
Koeltl presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Robin Bronzaft Howald, Esq.
          Robert M. Zabb, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP
          Phone: 917-510-0009
                 310-201-9150
          Fax: 646-366-0895
               310-201-9160
          E-mail: hobbit99@aol.com
                  info@glancylaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Karl Geercken, Esq. (kgeercken@alston.com)
          Alston & Bird, LLP
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-210-9400
          Fax: 212-210-9444


MONTANA FISH: $6MM Deal Reached in Lewiston Creek Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kurt Krueger of the 2nd Judicial District Court, Butte
(Montana) has approved a $6-million settlement in a class action
lawsuit filed by landowners against Montana Fish, Wildlife &
Parks and private companies Columbia Paint & Coating Co. and
Monsanto Chemical Co. over pollution in Big Spring Creek, the
Associated Press reports.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 21, 2007, the
suit was brought by at least 100 landowners asking the court
to require Montana FWP to clean up the creek that has been
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyl-laden paint that
washed out of the state-owned fish hatchery in Lewistown, the
source of pollution downstream in Big Spring Creek

The AP notes that Montana FWP owns Big Springs Hatchery, whose
raceways were painted in the 1960s and paint flakes containing
PCBs washed downstream for miles, contaminating fish.

The suit seeks punitive damages from the paint's manufacturer,
Monsanto Chemical.  It alleges that Monsanto "fraudulently
concealed" the environmental risks of PCBs, a suspected
carcinogen, since the '60s and failed to warn customers of the
harm they can cause to the environment.

According to the CAR report, Montana FWP requested that the
trial be delayed until a cleanup is done.  Actual cleanup work
won't start before 2009.  However, Judge Krueger agreed to delay
jury trial until the first quarter of 2008.

The parties have subsequently reached a deal to resolve the
matter.  According to the AP, the agreement includes
$3.3 million for 202 landowners living downstream from Big
Springs Hatchery.

Great Falls Tribune explains that the $3.3 million for the
landowners is the amount remaining after payment of attorneys'
fees, expenses and class representative payments, as shown in
court documents.  

Great Falls Tribune adds that of the landowners' fund,
$2 million will be awarded for emotional distress, and
landowners living along the most polluted portion of Big Spring
Creek will get more of that allocation.  The remaining
$1.3 million will be divided among the landowners as
compensation for reduced property values caused by the
pollution.

According to Great Falls Tribune, Montana FWP previously
announced that it had agreed to pay $700,000 as part of the
settlement, while Columbia Paint said it had contributed
$350,000, for a total of just more than $1 million.  Presumably,
the report says, the remaining $5 million or so is the
responsibility of Monsanto Chemical, although its contribution
is not specifically cited in the settlement documents nor has it
been announced earlier.

The AP says that the amount the defendants must pay for the
clean-up of the creek is yet to be settled.


PC MALL: Court Orders Arbitration and Stay in "Whitmill" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles has
ordered the lawsuit entitled, "Zekiya Whitmill and Lee Hanzy,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. PC Mall Gov, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
Does 1 through 200, inclusive, Defendants, Case No., BC373934,"
to arbitration and stayed all proceedings in the matter.

The suit was filed on July 6, 2007, by Zekiya Whitmill and Lee
Hanzy as a purported class action suit.  The potential class
consists of current and former account executives in California
who worked for PC Mall Gov, Inc., one of PC Mall, Inc.'s wholly
owned subsidiaries.  

The lawsuit alleges that PC Mall Gov. improperly classified
members of the putative class as "exempt" employees and failed
to provide putative class members with meal and rest breaks.

The complaint asserts three causes of action:

       -- failure to pay wages, including overtime, in violation
          of California Labor Code sections 201 through 203, and
          section 1194(a);

       -- failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation
          of California Labor Code section 226.7; and

       -- violation of section 17200 of the California Business
          and Professions Code.

The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime, statutory penalties,
interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, restitution and
injunctive relief.  

While the case was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior
Court, the Superior Court ordered the action to arbitration and
stayed all proceedings in superior court.

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

PC Mall, Inc. -- http://www.pcmall.com/-- is a direct marketer  
of computer hardware, software, peripherals, electronics, and
other consumer products and services.  It offers products and
services to businesses, government and educational institutions,
as well as individual consumers, through outbound and inbound
telemarketing account executives, the Internet, direct marketing
techniques, direct response catalogs, a direct sales force and
three retail showrooms.  


PC MALL: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration & Stay in "Hanzy" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, has
ordered the lawsuit, "Lee Hanzy, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PC Mall, Inc., a
Delaware corporation dba MACMALL, and Does 1 through 200,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No., BC373935," to arbitration and
stayed all proceedings in the matter.

The suit was filed on July 6, 2007, by Lee Hanzy as a purported
class action lawsuit.  The potential class consists of current
and former account executives in California who worked for PC
Mall, and in particular, the MacMall operating division of PC
Mall.

The lawsuit alleges that PC Mall improperly classified members
of the putative class as "exempt" employees and failed to
provide putative class members with meal and rest breaks.

The complaint asserts three causes of action:

       -- failure to pay wages, including overtime, in violation
          of California Labor Code sections 201 through 203, and
          section 1194(a);

       -- failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation
          of California Labor Code section 226.7; and

       -- violation of section 17200 of the California Business
          and Professions Code.

The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime, statutory penalties,
interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, restitution and
injunctive relief.

While the case was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior
Court, the Superior Court ordered the action to arbitration and
stayed all proceedings in superior court.

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

PC Mall, Inc. -- http://www.pcmall.com/-- is a direct marketer  
of computer hardware, software, peripherals, electronics, and
other consumer products and services.  It offers products and
services to businesses, government and educational institutions,
as well as individual consumers, through outbound and inbound
telemarketing account executives, the Internet, direct marketing
techniques, direct response catalogs, a direct sales force and
three retail showrooms.  


PHH MORTGAGE: Faces California Lawsuit Over Illegally Split Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHH Mortgage Corp. is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
accusing it of illegally splitting fees and forcing homebuyers
to buy title insurance from its wholly owned subsidiary, Atrium
Insurance, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a proposed national class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of a class of homeowners who obtained residential
mortgage loans through PHH or any of its subsidiaries and paid
for private mortgage insurance issued by insurers with whom PHH
had captive reinsurance arrangements.

In this action, the plaintiffs challenge a secretive conspiracy
to circumvent RESPA's prohibition against kickbacks and unearned
fees.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants' captive reinsurance
         arrangements involved sufficient transfer of risk;

     (b) whether payments to PHH's captive reinsurer were bona
         fide compensation and solely for services actually
         performed;

     (c) whether payments to PHH's captive reinsurer exceeded
         the value of any services actually performed;

     (d) whether PHH's captive reinsurance arrangements
         constituted unlawful kickbacks from private mortgage
         insurers;

     (e) whether PHH accepted a portion, split or percentage of
         borrowers' private mortgage insurance premiums other
         than for services actually performed; and

     (f) whether defendants are liable to plaintiffs and the
         class for statutory damages pursuant to RESPA Section
         2607(d)(2).

The plaintiffs ask the court that:

     -- this action be certified as a class action pursuant to
        Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
        declaring plaintiffs as representatives of the class and
        plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- the conduct alleged be declared, adjudged and decreed to
        be unlawful;

     -- plaintiffs and the class be awarded statutory damages
        pursuant to RESPA Section 8(d)(2), 12 USC Section
        2607(d)(2);

     -- an order granting plaintiffs and the class costs of
        suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses,
        be entered; and

     -- an order granting plaintiffs and the class such other,
        further and different relief as the nature of the case
        may require or as may be determined to be just,
        equitable and proper by the court be entered.

The suit is "Efrain Munoz, et al. v. PHH Corp., et al.," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert M. Bramson, Esq.
          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          21525 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0770
          Fax: 925-945-8792


PRIME INC: Steak House Hires Illegal Workers, Ala. Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Inc. -- d/b/a Ruth's Chris Steak House -- and Ruth's Chris
Steak House, Inc., are facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama alleging it systematically hired undocumented workers
and lets them use the Social Security numbers of previous
workers, and harassed and threatened a legal worker who
complained of it, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The lawsuit claims that after an INS sweep of Ruth's Chris Steak
House in Birmingham, many undocumented workers returned "wearing
different name tags."

The suit claims the restaurant hires undocumented workers on a
large scale, pays them in cash, knowingly accepts I-9
immigration forms containing false information, and otherwise
knowingly violates immigration and employment laws.

The plaintiffs also accuse Ruth's Chris of "stealing" 20% to 25%
of its workers' tips.

Plaintiffs demand judgment for damages in amounts to be
determined by the jury, plus costs.

The suit is "Kyle Edwards et al v. Prime Inc., et al, Case No.
Cv-08-AR-1016-S," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Barry V. Frederick, Esq. (Brandi@frederickfirm.net)
          The Frederick Firm
          5409 Trace Ridge Lane
          Birmingham, Alabama 35244
          Phone: 205-739-0043
          Fax: 205-739-0044


SCHERING-PLOUGH: N.J. Judge Names Hagens Berman Co-Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Last week the U.S. District Court in New Jersey appointed Hagens
Berman, along with four other firms, co-counsel in a case
against Schering-Plough (NYSE: SGP) and Merck (NYSE: MRK) which
claims the companies knowingly misled consumers on the use of
popular prescription drugs Zetia and Vytorin.

Judge Dennis Cavanaugh approved and ordered an organizational
structure consisting of five law firms to comprise a Plaintiffs
Steering Committee which is responsible for coordinating
plaintiffs during pretrial proceedings and more.

The order states that within one week, defendants and plaintiffs
are to submit a proposed schedule regarding the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint.

The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 17, 2008, claims Schering-Plough and
Merck violated state consumer protection laws arising from the
sale and marketing of Zetia and Vytorin.

Zetia is a brand-name prescription drug used to lower LDL levels
by decreasing cholesterol absorption in the intestinal tract.
Vytorin is a combination of Zetia and Zocor, a statin available
in generic form.

The suit claims that the combination of drugs was no more
effective than the generic version of Zocor in blocking the
fatty arterial plaques that can cause heart attack and stroke,
as the manufacturers led consumers to believe since 2006.

The companies promoted Zetia heavily, claiming that by adding it
to statin treatment, patients could more effectively lower LDL
cholesterol which would, in turn, reduce plaque in patients'
arteries, according to their advertisements.

But according to the complaint, the companies had prior
information that refuted that claim.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman, Esq. (Steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman
          Phone: 206-623-7292

               - or -

          Mark Firmani, Esq. (Mark@firmani.com)
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: 206-443-9357


SMOKE DETECTORS: Faces Ma. Suit Over Undetected Smoldering Fires
----------------------------------------------------------------
Major makers of "Ionization Only" smoke detectors are facing a
class-action complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts alleging that the smoke detectors do
not warn of smoldering fires and that three of the largest
makers of the devices fail to warn consumers that similarly
priced photoelectric detectors can do that, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The defendants named in the suit are:

      -- BRK Brands,

      -- First Alert,

      -- Invensys Controls, and

      -- United Technologies Corp. dba Kidde Residential and
         Commercial Division.

This proposed national class action is brought on behalf of
American homeowners and renters who have purchased stand-along
"ionization-only" smoke detectors -- detectors that use only
ionization technology to sense the presence of smoke.

The complaint states that the defendants, three of the largest
manufacturers of ionization smoke detectors sold in the United
States, failed to adequately warn consumers of this dangerous
limitation of 'ionization-only' devices even though almost 90%
of all stand-alone smoke detectors sold in the United States use
this detection technology.  When consumers purchase stand-alone
smoke detectors, the defendants failed to adequately advise
consumers that alternative 'photoelectric' devices provide
earlier warning -- typically by hours -- against the most
dangerous fires, that the devices are priced similarly to
'ionization-only' devices, and that 'ionization-only' devices
should not be used alone in any homes.

By reason of the defendants' wrongful conduct, millions of
American homeowners have purchased fire-alarm systems, not
knowing that their purchase inadequately protects their homes
and families against deadly fire.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether plaintiffs and members of the class are
         entitled to injunctive relief, requiring defendants to
         provide material facts relating to their ionization-
         only detectors, including any and all comparative
         information concerning the ability of ionization
         detectors to detect smoldering fires as compare to
         detectors utilizing photoelectric technology;

     (b) whether defendants had a duty to disclose the true
         nature of the products they manufacture and sell and,
         if so, whether defendants failed to adequately disclose
         such information;

     (c) whether defendants' conduct was unfair or deceptive
         under state consumer protection laws misrepresented the
         capabilities of its ionization-only detectors; and

     (d) whether defendants' conduct caused injury to plaintiffs
         and class members and, if so, the appropriate class-
         wide measure of damages.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- for an order certifying the class and any appropriate
        subclasses thereof under the appropriate provisions of
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23, and appointing
        plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the class;

     -- for injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules
        of Civil Procedure;

     -- for compensatory damages according to proof;

     -- for punitive or exemplary damages against defendants
        where appropriate, in an amount sufficient to punish
        defendants and deter others from similar wrongdoing;

     -- for all applicable statutory damages under the consumer
        protection legislation of all states identified
        including the District of Columbia;

     -- for declaratory judgment that defendants are liable to
        plaintiffs and class members for all device replacement
        expenses, costs and losses caused by defendants'
        wrongdoing;

     -- for notices to be disseminated to all class members of
        the defect who have purchased an ionization-only smoke
        detector as the sole source of protection against fire;

     -- for disgorgement of profits;

     -- for an award of attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- for prejudgment interest and the costs of suit; and

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

The suit is "Ricky Medeiros, et al. v. BRK Brands, Inc., et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Edward Notargiacomo, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          One Main Street, 4th Floor
          Cambridge, MA
          Phone: 617-482-3700
          Fax: 617-482-3003


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Holzer & Fistel Commences Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of purchasers of the Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond Fund
(NASDAQ: FUSFX) who purchased the Fund between June 6, 2005, and
June 5, 2008.

The complaint charges Fidelity Management & Research Company,
among others, with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that on or about August 23, 2002,
defendants began offering shares of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund
pursuant to an initial registration statement, filed with the
SEC as a Form 485BPOS (the Registration Statement).

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

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

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

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

    (iv) is geared toward the preservation of capital.

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

     -- failing to compete with the Lehman Brothers 6 Month
        Swap Index; and

     -- so heavily invested in high-risk mortgage-backed
        securities.

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


FRANKLIN BANK: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common or
preferred stock of Franklin Bank Corp. (Nasdaq: FBTX) between
April 26, 2007, and May 1, 2008.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Franklin Bank's business and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Franklin Bank stock.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 5,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847
          Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
          e-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


HEALTHWAYS INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Tenn. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 5, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against Healthways, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The class period is from October 17, 2007, through February 26,
2008.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120


MGIC INVESTMENT: Saxena White Files Wis. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on behalf of shareholders of
The MGIC Investment Corporation (NYSE: MTG) in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased MGIC securities
between October 12, 2006, through February 12, 2008, inclusive.
MGIC provides private mortgage insurance to the home mortgage
lending industry in the United States.  Throughout the Class
Period, Defendants reported quarter after quarter of seemingly
strong financial results and touted the Company's strong
financial position despite a difficult operating environment in
the mortgage industry.  As a result of Defendants' statements,
the stock traded as high as $70.10 per share during the Class
Period.

On July 30, 2007, after the market closed, MGIC issued a press
release announcing that the value of its investment in the
Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC (C-BASS), a
joint venture between MGIC and Radian Group Inc., was
"materially impaired."

In response to this announcement, on July 31, 2007, the price of
MGIC's common stock declined from $45.44 per share to $38.66, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

Then on February 13, 2008, MGIC issued a press release
announcing its fourth quarter 2007 results and reporting a net
loss for the quarter of $1.47 billion, including an after-tax
charge of $33 million related to equity losses incurred by C-
BASS.  As a result of this news, MGIC's stock fell $1.57 per
share to close at $12.61 per share on February 13, 2008, a one-
day decline of 11%.  This was the lowest price at which MGIC's
stock had traded in over thirteen years.

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

For more information, contact:

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Greg Stone, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-394-3399
          Fax: 561-394-3382
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com/





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *