CAR_Public/080616.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 16, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 118
  
                            Headlines

ALBANY: New Group Pushes for Suit Against Waterfront Development
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over "Restricted" Gift Cards
ANALOG DEVICES: Waits for Mass. Court to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
AUSTRALIAN QUARANTINE: Attwood Marshall to Sue Over Horse Flu
AVX CORP: Faces Property Damage Lawsuit in South Carolina

BRISTOL-MYERS: Sales Rep Loses Round in N.Y. Labor-Related Suit
BRONCO DRILLING: Allis-Chalmers Merger Suits Undergo Discovery
CINTAS CORP: To Pay California Workers $1.18MM in Unpaid Wages
DELL INC: Appeals Court Rejects Arbitration Clause in Ill. Suit
E.I. DUPONT: Court Disqualifies Expert Witness for Defendant

EQUITY MEDIA: Discovery Ongoing in Arkansas Shareholder Lawsuit
GRILL CONCEPTS: Wants 2 Ex-Hourly Employees' Suits Consolidated
HERITAGE WORLDWIDE: "Schnebel" Plaintiffs Drop Certification Bid
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Class Certification Sought in LDW Charges Suit
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: TCPA Violations Suit Transferred to Kans. Court

INDIANAPOLIS: Suit Accuses City Cops of Targeting Homeless
INTERMUNE INC: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Actimmune Drug
LOJACK: Plaintiffs Want "Rutti" Remanded to Calif. State Court
LORAL SPACE: N.Y. Court Stays Proceedings in Shareholder Lawsuit
LORAL SPACE: Expert Testimony Completed in Del. Shareholder Suit

LORAL SPACE: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in "Beleson" Lawsuit
LORAL SPACE: Discovery in "Christ" Securities Litigation Stayed
LORAL SPACE: Reaches Settlement Deal in New York ERISA Lawsuit
NEUROMETRIX INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Massachusetts
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Claims in "Boyd" Lawsuit

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Discovery Ensues in MO Securities Fraud Suit
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in "Kubiak" Case
OPTIONABLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits in N.Y.
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Settles Catterton Merger Lawsuit in Calif.
TD AMERITRADE: Judge Delays Approval of "Elvey" Hack Suit Deal

TEXAS: ACLU Challenges Unwarranted Strip Searches in Youth Jail
THOMAS WEISEL: Ninth Circuit Grants Appeal in Leadis Litigation
THOMAS WEISEL: Settlement Reached in Friedman Consolidated Suit
THOMAS WEISEL: 9th Circuit Grants Appeal of Merix Suit Dismissal
TRIZETTO GROUP: Faces Delaware Suit Over Sale to Apax Partners

TURFMASTER LAWN: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Breach of Contract
VELOCITY EXPRESS: Faces Independent Contractors' Suits in Calif.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Misallocated Mortgage Payments Prompt Lawsuit
XM SATELLITE: Faces $5-Mln Suit Over $11.83 Subscription Bill


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Suit
FRANKLIN BANK: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas
INDYMAC BANCORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
MGIC INVESTMENT: Stull & Brody Files Wisconsin Securities Suit



                           *********


ALBANY: New Group Pushes for Suit Against Waterfront Development
----------------------------------------------------------------
A new community group has been formed to protest against the
Albany Waterfront development, Albany Great Southern Weekender
reports.

According to Southern Weekender, members of Friends of Albany
have created an action group called SOS (Save our Shore) Albany.
They have called for financial support to mount a class action
suit to stop the Albany Waterfront Project from going ahead in
its current form.

The report says SOS Albany asked for 1,000 people to join the
class action against the State Government "to show the feeling
of the community."

Spokesperson Shanti Bezard told Southern Weekender the name
change was made because other titles appeared too broad for the
protest action required.  "We are an action group," she said.  
"There was confusion in Friends of Albany.  We are following SOS
groups formed in other towns against coastal development."

The group is the fourth established by protesters, the report
relates.  Albany Waterfront Action Group became Friends of
Albany, which conducted a citizen's referendum through
Melbourne-based protest group, Voice of Australia.

Ms. Bezard also said that money was needed to cover court costs
against the State Government.

Southern Weekender says that Friends of Albany has formed its
own Web site strongly attacking Mayor Milton Evans over his
support for the project.  They reject his claim that the
waterfront was backed by results of the local government
elections in November 2007.  This was after he had once been
against the development.

Mr. Evans said previously that he had the right to change his
mind.  He said he strongly believed the development would be in
the best interests of Albany's progress, which he stressed
during the mayoral election campaign.

The report further notes LandCorp as saying that the waterfront
hotel site and short-stay facilities were scheduled for release
to developers by the end of 2008, with completion by 2010/11.  
LandCorp added that the most comprehensive study to date on the
economic benefits of the Waterfront by Ray Bird and Associates
revealed the development would generate more than one million
extra visitors to Albany between 2009 and 2020.  The influx
would be worth an estimated $543 million to the economy.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over "Restricted" Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., is
facing a class-action complaint filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York over its gift cards,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff J.L. Goodman brings this action for a refund of
money improperly taken from plaintiff and other members of the
putative class by defendant in connection with its sale of
American Express Gift Cards.

The gift cards are pre-paid credit card-like plastic cards
issued by AmEx in various values.  Such gift cards are typically
sold to the public through point-of-sale displays at
supermarkets and other retail outlets.

The suit alleges that AmEx sells gift cards with "secret"
restrictions in tiny type, with more restrictions listed inside
sealed envelopes that cannot be opened until purchased, and so
fails to properly inform purchasers of fees that reduce the
cards' value.

According to the complaint, on the back of the gift card, in
small type, AmEx has written "A $4.95 Card fee will be applied
at the checkstand."

The complaint states that at the bottom of the sealed envelopes
(in which the cards are sold), AmEx warns customers in very fine
-- less than 7 point -- white italic print: "Monthly service fee
of $2.00 is waived for initial 12 months after purchase (subject
to applicable law. * See back for important usage restrictions."

On the back of the sealed envelopes, in even finer 6-point type,
AmEx warns customers, "For use only at U.S. merchants that
accept American Express Cards.  Not for use at car rentals,
cruise lines, casinos or ATMs.  The enclosed Cardholder
Agreement includes additional terms, conditions and usage
guidelines. . .."

Additional terms say that the gift package is invalid if it is
opened before purchase.  "Thus, 'The enclosed Cardholder
Agreement (which) includes additional terms, conditions and
usage guidelines' is kept completely secret from purchasers
inside the sealed envelope, until after the purchaser has paid
for the Gift Card and is allowed to open the sealed envelope,"
the complaint states.

This is a class action brought on behalf of persons who either
purchased gift cards or received gift cards from others and who
were denied part of the value of their gift cards.

The plaintiff brings this action under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for:

     (i) money damages equal to the amount of all unused value
         on pre-paid gift cards, together with interest thereon;

    (ii) injunctive relief providing for an accounting of the
         unjust enrichment of AmEx and the profits earned
         thereupon and disgorgment of such sum to plaintiff and
         the members of the class;

   (iii) injunctive relief preventing AmEx from enriching itself
         through the continuation of the conduct described;

    (iv) injunctive relief preventing AmEx from binding members
         of the class by its undisclosed terms and conditions,
         absent proper notice to members of the class; and

     (v) relief incident and subordinate thereto, including the
         expenses and fees of this action and an award of
         attorneys' fees.

The suit is "J.L. Goodman, et al. v. American Express Travel
Related SErvices Company, Inc., Case No. 08 2299," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Richard D. Greenfield Greenfield & Goodman LLC
          780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 410-320-5931

               - and -

          Daniel Cobrinik, Esq.
          475 Park Avenue South, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-725-6888


ANALOG DEVICES: Waits for Mass. Court to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action lawsuit filed against Analog Devices, Inc., which
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The purported class action complaint was filed on Oct. 13, 2006,
before the Court on behalf of participants in the company's
Investment Partnership Plan from Oct. 5, 2000, to the present.  

The complaint named as defendants the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and its Investment Partnership Plan
Administration Committee.

Specifically, the complaint alleges purported violations of
federal law in connection with the company's option granting
practices during the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, including
breaches of fiduciary duties owed to participants and
beneficiaries of the company's Investment Partnership Plan under
ERISA.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages, as well as
equitable and injunctive relief.  

On Nov. 22, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the complaint.  

On Jan. 8, 2007, the plaintiff filed memoranda in opposition to
the dismissal requests.  The company and the individual
defendants then filed further memoranda in support of their
dismissal motions.

The court heard the company's motion to dismiss on Jan. 30,
2008, but has not yet issued a ruling, according to the
company's May 20, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2008.

The suit is "Bendaoud v. Hodgson, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
11873-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Nancy Gertner, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
         Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134


AUSTRALIAN QUARANTINE: Attwood Marshall to Sue Over Horse Flu
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Gold Coast law firm in Queensland will fight a class action
lawsuit on behalf of hundreds of people affected by the equine
influenza outbreak, according to ABC Online.

ABC Online says a scathing report is blaming the Australian
Quarantine Inspection Service for a failure to prevent the horse
flu outbreak, which cost the industry hundreds of millions of
dollars.

The managing partner of Attwood Marshall, Jeff Garrett, told ABC
Online there is an Australia-wide interest in the class action.
"We've now got over 350 people registered with us who have
indicated that they're keen to join the class action, mainly
confined to the eastern states and Queensland-New South Wales as
you can imagine," he said.

Mr. Garrett is calling on the Federal Government to establish a
compensation fund for the horse industry.  He added that he is
disappointed that Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has
not already flagged a compensation fund.

Queensland Racing spokesman Malcolm Tuttle says horse flu cost
the national thoroughbred racing industry about $1 billion.

Queensland Thoroughbred Breeders Association president Bob
Frappell says industry leaders will meet in Sydney later this
month to consider legal action over last year's equine influenza
outbreak.

"We've lost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars from
the thoroughbred industry in Queensland and I'm only speaking
for them, but we need compensation," Mr. Frappell said.  "Some
of these people will take five or six years to get back to where
they were before the negligence that caused this EI [equine
influenza] to be released."


AVX CORP: Faces Property Damage Lawsuit in South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corp. is facing a purported class action lawsuit over the
alleged migration of certain pollutants from the company's South
Carolina factory to neighboring properties, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

The suit was filed in the South Carolina State Court on Nov. 27,
2007, by certain individuals seeking certification as a class
action which has not yet been determined.

In essence, the suit claims that property value had been
negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants
from the company's property.

AVX Corp. -- http://www.avx.com/-- is a worldwide manufacturer  
and supplier of a line of passive electronic components and
related products.  Virtually all types of electronic devices use
the Company's passive component products to store, filter or
regulate electric energy.  AVX's passive electronic component
products include ceramic and tantalum capacitors, film
capacitors, varistors and non-linear resistors manufactured in
its facilities throughout the world and passive components
manufactured by Kyocera Corp. of Japan (Kyocera), its majority
stockholder, which owns approximately 71% of AVX's outstanding
common stock.  The Company also manufactures and sells
electronic connectors and inter-connect systems, and distributes
and sells certain electronic connectors manufactured by Kyocera.
The Company has three segments: Passive Components, Kyocera
Electronic Devices Resale and Connectors.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Sales Rep Loses Round in N.Y. Labor-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied a request from a Bristol-Myers
Squibb saleswoman who sought discovery of the names and
addresses of other sales representatives whom she wants to
notify, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit, "Beth Amendola v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et
al., Case No. 07-CV-6088," is alleging that the Company violated
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by, among other things, not
paying overtime compensation to Ms. Amendola and a putative
class of similarly situated sales employee (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 8, 2007).

Ms. Amendola claimed the pharmaceutical company improperly
classified her and other sales reps as exempt from overtime.  
She moved for discovery of the names and addresses of all of
Bristol-Myers Squibb's sales reps, authorization for notice of
her class action to be sent to them, and equitable tolling of
any claims they may file.

However, recently, Judge Cote denied the requests, finding "that
the defendant's PRs are not exempt from the FLSA's overtime
compensation provision under the exemption which applies to
outside salespersons, but that they are likely subject to the
exemption for administrative employees, [therefore] the
plaintiff is not authorized to send notice to the defendant's
PRs.  The request for equitable tolling is denied."

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged in  
the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing,
distribution and sale of pharmaceuticals and other healthcare-
related products.  The Company has three segments:
Pharmaceuticals, Nutritionals, and Other Health Care.


BRONCO DRILLING: Allis-Chalmers Merger Suits Undergo Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in two purported class action lawsuits
against Bronco Drilling Company, Inc., relating to the merger
involving the company, Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. and Elway
Merger Sub Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allis-Chalmers.
The merger was publicly announced on Jan. 24, 2008.  

Initially, three purported stockholders of the company have
separately filed complaints seeking class action status.  Two
actions were filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County in
the State of Oklahoma on Jan. 29, 2008, and Feb. 28, 2008,
respectively.  

The two suits were consolidated into a single action in the
District Court of Oklahoma County in the State of Oklahoma on
April 9, 2008.  

A third action was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State
of Delaware on Jan. 29, 2008.  

The defendants named in the consolidated Oklahoma action are
Bronco, the Bronco board of directors, and Allis-Chalmers.  The
defendants named in the Delaware action are Bronco, the Bronco
board of directors, Allis-Chalmers, and Merger Sub.  

The complaints generally allege that the merger consideration is
inadequate, that the Bronco board of directors has breached its
fiduciary duties, that Allis-Chalmers has aided and abetted the
Bronco board of directors' breaches of fiduciary duties, and
that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus included
as part of Allis-Chalmers' registration statement on Form S-4,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20,
2008, contains materially incomplete and misleading information.  

The actions generally seek to enjoin the merger and cause the
Bronco board of directors to undertake an auction for Bronco or
otherwise take action to maximize stockholder value.  

The Delaware action also seeks monetary damages for Bronco's
stockholders, and the consolidated Oklahoma action requests that
the proposed merger be rescinded if it is consummated.  

On April 17, 2008, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Oklahoma
action filed an amended complaint.  

On April 23, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action also
filed an amended complaint.  

Discovery in both actions is ongoing at this time, 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.

Bronco Drilling Co., Inc. -- http://www.broncodrill.com/--  
provides contract land drilling and workover services to oil and
natural gas exploration and production companies.  As of
Feb. 29, 2008, the Company owned a fleet of 56 land drilling
rigs, of which 45 were marketed and 11 were held in inventory.  
Bronco also owned a fleet of 59 workover rigs, of which 49 were
operating and 10 were in the process of being manufactured.  The
Company also owned a fleet of 70 trucks used to transport its
rigs.  Bronco has a 41,000 square foot machine shop in Oklahoma
City, which allows it to refurbish and repair its rigs and
equipment in-house.


CINTAS CORP: To Pay California Workers $1.18MM in Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal ordered Cintas Corporation to pay
more than $1.18 million in back wages and interest to hundreds
of Northern California workers for violating the city of
Hayward's Living Wage Ordinance.

This historic judgment, affirming a September 2005 Alameda
Superior Court ruling, is believed to be the largest living wage
award in U.S. History.

"I'm so happy about this victory," said Francisca Amaral, a
former Cintas worker and one of the suit's plaintiffs.  "Cintas
told us that we would get nothing.  This decision shows that
workers can get justice and get what we've earned."  Ms. Amaral
left the company because of disabling work-related injuries.

After 13 years of service, she was paid $8.40 an hour.
When workers filed the suit in 2003, it was one of the first
attempts to enforce a living wage law through the courts.

Hayward's living wage law required employers to pay higher wages
to workers who worked on city contracts.  Employees without
health insurance like Ms. Amaral should have received $10.71 per
hour.  Rather than agreeing to pay the living wage, Cintas
canceled the Hayward contract.  The company fought against
paying workers the required wage, unsuccessfully raising many
constitutional and procedural challenges to the workers'
lawsuit.

The 2005 judgment awarded the 219 workers, including current and
former employees from Cintas's San Leandro and Union City
laundries, $805,243 in back wages plus $375,000 in interest.  
The final award will be significantly higher than this judgment
because interest has continued to accrue over the last three
years.  Additionally, Cintas must pay $258,900 in civil
penalties to be divided between the workers and the state of
California.  The Court also ordered Cintas to pay the workers'
legal fees and other costs associated with the litigation.

"The judgment against Cintas in Hayward represents the largest
scale employer violation I've seen of a living wage law in the
United States," said Paul Sonn, legal co-director of the
National Employment Law Project and one of the country's leading
experts on living wage litigation.

In Los Angeles, Cintas workers have a similar pending class
action case for violations of the city's living wage.  Over the
past few years, questions have also been raised about Cintas's
history of compliance with living wage laws in Marin County and
Santa Monica, California, as well as in Dayton, Ohio, and
Madison, Wisconsin.

"Cintas had a moral and legal obligation to pay workers a living
wage, but they ignored it," says UNITE HERE General President
Bruce Raynor.  "The company would rather fight workers tooth and
nail than pay them what they deserve."

Cintas has a history of violating worker protection laws,
including anti-discrimination, wage and hour, and safety laws.
The company settled an overtime case brought by delivery drivers
in California for more than $10 million in 2002.  Since then,
thousands of drivers across the country have joined a national
overtime class action suit against Cintas.

The launderer has received the largest proposed OSHA fine ever
assessed in the service sector for safety violations surrounding
the death of Eleazar Torres Gomez in Oklahoma.  This spring
Cintas was the subject of hearings in both the United States
Senate and House of Representatives regarding recurring health
and safety citations.  The company faces more than $3 million in
penalties from federal and state safety agencies -- including a
Cal/OSHA citation in its Stockton laundry.

Workers at Cintas Corporation began organizing with UNITE HERE
and the Teamsters in 2003.

UNITE HERE --  http://www.uniformjustice.org/-- represents more  
nearly half a million workers in the United States and Canada,
including more than 40,000 in the laundry industry.


DELL INC: Appeals Court Rejects Arbitration Clause in Ill. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois for the Fifth District struck
down Dell Inc.'s arbitration clause as unenforceable, allowing
consumers to pursue a class action suit accusing the computer
company of refusing to honor $500 rebates, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Stephen R. Wigginton filed a class action
complaint on July 22, 2003, alleging that Dell refused to honor
rebates that it offered its customers to induce them to purchase
computer equipment from Dell.

On September 22, the defendant filed its first motion to dismiss
or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration and stay
litigation pending arbitration.  The defendant pointed to its
terms and conditions of sale, which contain a provision that all
disputes or claims against Dell are subject to binding
arbitration, to be administered by the National Arbitration
Forum.

The arbitration clause further provides that "arbitration will
be limited solely to the dispute or controversy between Customer
and Dell."  The terms and conditions also include a choice-of
law provision making disputes subject to Texas law.

On March 31, 2004, with the defendant's motion still pending,
the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, adding his law
firm as a plaintiff.  On May 7, 2004, the defendant filed
a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the
alternative, to compel arbitration and stay litigation pending
arbitration.

On December 19, 2006, the court held a hearing in the matter.
Prior to that time, both parties had submitted briefs in support
of their positions.  Although the plaintiff initially
argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable in its
entirety, before the hearing he conceded that the dispute was
subject to arbitration, but he argued that the prohibition on
class arbitration was unconscionable.

On January 11, 2007, the trial court entered an order striking
the class arbitration prohibition and compelling arbitration.
The court found that the class prohibition was unconscionable.

On February 9, 2007, the defendant filed this interlocutory
appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 307(a) (188 Ill. 2d R.
307(a)).

The court found that a prohibition on class arbitration
contained in the defendant's arbitration clause was
unenforceable, and it entered an order striking that prohibition
and compelling arbitration.  The defendant appeals, arguing that
the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement is not
severable and is enforceable in its entirety, and the Appellate
Court of Illinois had affirmed this.

The suit is "Stephen R. Wigginton, et al. v. Dell Inc., Case No.
03-L-455," on Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County.


E.I. DUPONT: Court Disqualifies Expert Witness for Defendant
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia granted the plaintiffs'
motion and disqualified Dr. Elizabeth L. Anderson as expert
witness for defendant E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. in a class
action lawsuit commenced by William R. Rhodes in 2006.

The class action lawsuit arises from the company's alleged
release of  perfluoroctanoic acid (PFOA) from its Washington
Works plant in Wood County, West Virginia.  The plaintiffs
allege that PFOA from the company's plant has contaminated the
drinking water of the communities near the plant, including the
city of Parkersburg.

PFOA is a synthetic chemical that does not occur naturally in
the environment.  PFOA is sometimes called "C8."  Companies use
PFOA to make fluoropolymers, substances with special properties
that have thousands of important manufacturing and industrial
applications.

The plaintiffs had argued that Dr. Anderson, a class
certification expert for the defendant, should be disqualified
because of a conflict of interest arising from her consulting
relationship with the plaintiffs' counsel in a prior related
state action brought in the Circuit Court of Wood County, West
Virginia.  In the current litigation, Dr. Anderson will opine on
behalf of the company that the plaintiffs have improperly used
regulatory risk assessment principles in order to draw
inferences of class-wide risk for serious latent diseases.  The
plaintiffs argue that Dr. Anderson should be disqualified
because her testimony in this case will address the same topics
and issues for which the plaintiffs' counsel had retained her in
the prior related case.

E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com/--   
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.  


EQUITY MEDIA: Discovery Ongoing in Arkansas Shareholder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit filed against Equity Media Holdings Corp. -- formerly
known as Equity Broadcasting Corp. -- in the circuit court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, in relation to a certain merger
agreement.

Equity Media was incorporated in Delaware on April 29, 2005, as
Coconut Palm Acquisition Corp. to serve as a vehicle for the
acquisition of an operating business through a merger, capital
stock exchange, asset acquisition and other similar transaction.  

On March 30, 2007, Coconut Palm merged with Equity Broadcasting
Corp., with Coconut Palm remaining as the legal surviving
corporation.  Immediately following the merger, Coconut Palm
changed its name to Equity Media Holdings Corp.

In connection with the merger between EBC and Coconut Palm, EBC
and each member of EBC's board of directors were named
defendants in a lawsuit filed by an EBC shareholder on June 14,
2006.  

The lawsuit contains both a class action component and
derivative claims.  The class action claims allege various
deficiencies in EBC's proxy used to inform its shareholders of
the special meeting to consider the merger.

These allegations include:

      -- failure to provide sufficient information regarding
         the fair value of EBC's assets and the resulting fair
         value of EBC's Class A common stock;

      -- that the interests of holders of EBC's Class A common
         stock are improperly diluted as a result of the merger
         to the benefit of the holders of EBC's Class B common
         stock;

      -- failure to sufficiently describe the further dilution
         that would occur post-merger upon exercise of Coconut
         Palm's outstanding warrants;

      -- failure to provide pro-forma financial information;

      -- failure to disclose alleged related party transactions;

      -- failure to provide access to audited consolidated
         financial statements during previous years;

      -- failure to provide shareholders with adequate time to
         review a fairness option obtained by EBC's board of
         directors in connection with the merger; and

      -- alleged sale of EBC below appraised market value of its
         assets.

The derivative components of the lawsuit allege instances of
improper self-dealing, including through a management agreement
between EBC and Arkansas Media, LLC.

In addition to requesting unspecified compensatory damages, the
plaintiff also requested injunctive relief to enjoin EBC's
annual shareholder meeting and the vote on the merger.

An injunction hearing was not held before EBC's annual meeting
regarding the merger so the meeting and shareholder vote
proceeded as planned and EBC's shareholders approved the merger.

On Aug. 9, 2006, EBC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied.

On Feb. 21, 2007, the plaintiff filed a "Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement" with the court, saying the parties reached
an oral agreement to settle the lawsuit.

However, the plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to withdraw
the motion to settle and filed a "Third Amended Complaint" on
April 10, 2007.  This motion added two additional plaintiffs and
expanded on the issues recited in the previous complaints.

On July 31, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Class
Certification."  Although the motion has been fully briefed by
the parties, the plaintiffs have not yet sought a hearing date
on the class certification issue.

Currently, the parties continue to engage in discovery,
according to the company's May 19, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Equity Media Holdings Corp., -- http://www.emdaholdings.com/--  
formerly known as Equity Broadcasting Corp., it owns and
operates television stations across the U.S. and the Retro
Television Network.


GRILL CONCEPTS: Wants 2 Ex-Hourly Employees' Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grill Concepts, Inc., is seeking the consolidation of two
purported class action lawsuits filed in California by former
hourly restaurant employees, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008.

One of the company's former hourly restaurant employees filed a
class action complaint in June 2004 against the company with the
Superior Court of California of Orange County.  The company
requested, and was granted, a motion to move the suit from
Orange County to Los Angeles County.

The lawsuit was then filed with the Superior Court of California
for the County of Los Angeles in December 2004.  The plaintiff
alleged violations of California labor laws with respect to
providing meal and rest breaks.  

The suit sought unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiffs and other
purported class members.

In April 2007, the California Supreme Court unanimously held
that payments for missed meal or rest breaks are considered
wages or premium pay, not penalties.  As a result, claims for
missed meal and rest breaks under the California Labor Code will
be governed by a three or four-year statute of limitations for
the payments required under the Labor Code, rather than a one-
year statute.  

The case has been placed in a stay status pending mediation in
the summer of 2008.

A second class action complaint of the same nature was filed on
April 4, 2008, in the Supreme Court for the County of Los
Angeles.  The company has requested that the case be combined
with the original class action..

Grill Concepts, Inc. -- http://www.dailygrill.com/-- develops,    
owns, operates, manages and licenses full-service upscale casual
dining restaurants under the name Daily Grill and fine dining
restaurants under the name The Grill on the Alley.  


HERITAGE WORLDWIDE: "Schnebel" Plaintiffs Drop Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against Poly
Implants Protheses, S.A., an acquisition of Heritage Worldwide,
Inc., are no longer seeking class-action status for their case.

In November 2003, Jessica Fischer Schnebel and 15 other women
filed a complaint against PIP, PIP/USA Inc. and III Acquisition
Corp. -- d/b/a PIP.America -- in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.  

A second amended consolidated class action complaint in the
matter contains counts alleging product liability, breach of the
implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
particular purpose, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
and a contract claim alleging third-party beneficiary status.

Unspecified monetary damages, exemplary damages and attorneys
fees and costs are sought.

On July 31, 2007, a fourth amended complaint was filed by 12
women with Mary Rondoni as the lead plaintiff.  

The plaintiffs are no longer seeking class-action status,
according to the company's May 20, 2008 Form 10QSB filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

La Seyne-sur-Mer, France-based Heritage Worldwide, Inc., engages
in the development, manufacture, and marketing of a line of
breast implants primarily in southern France.  Its breast
implants consist of a silicone shell filled with silicone gel
for use in breast augmentation for cosmetic reasons and for
reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy.  Heritage sells
its products directly and indirectly through independent
distributors and sales representatives to surgeons and clinics
in approximately 45 countries worldwide.  The company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in.


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Class Certification Sought in LDW Charges Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz
Equipment Rental Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-03830-DMC-MF," are
seeking the certification of a class in the case, which was
filed against Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. -- the heavy
equipment rental division of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.

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

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

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

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

The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.

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

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

In January 2007, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  Discovery subsequently commenced among the parties.

After extensive discovery, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the class in May 2008, according to The Hertz Corp.'s
May 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz Equipment Rental
Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-03830-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dennis M.
Cavanaugh, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendant is:

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


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: TCPA Violations Suit Transferred to Kans. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, transferred to
the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, a purported class
action lawsuit against Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. -- the heavy
equipment rental division of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.

On May 3, 2007, "Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation," was commenced with the
District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.  The suit alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Fun Services purports to be a class action suit on behalf of all
persons in Kansas and throughout the U.S. who on or after four
years prior to the filing of the action were sent facsimile
messages of material advertising the availability of property,
goods or services by HERC and who did not provide express
permission for sending the faxes.

The plaintiff asserts violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and common law
conversion.  The plaintiff is seeking damages and costs of suit.

In June 2007, the company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

In February 2008, the case was remanded to the District Court of
Wyandotte County, Kansas.

In April 2008, the court granted the company's motion to
transfer venue, so the case will now be transferred to the
District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, according to The Hertz
Corp.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter  ended March 31, 2008.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an
equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car
rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other.  In its car
rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries.  The Company has
a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S.
and in all major European markets.  In its equipment rental
business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through
approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and
Spain, as well as through its international licensees.


INDIANAPOLIS: Suit Accuses City Cops of Targeting Homeless
----------------------------------------------------------
The City of Indianapolis is facing a class-action complaint
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana alleging that its police are enforcing an
unconstitutional policy that prohibits people "from asking
others for contributions," and using it to harass and threaten
homeless people, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the City of
Indianapolis has begun a policy and practice that results in
persons in portions of the Indianapolis downtown area being
forbidden by police officers from asking others for
contributions, even though such activity does not violate
Indiana law and is protected by the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution.  At the same time, police officers
employed by the city have adopted a policy and practice of
seizing some persons who are perceived as homeless, without
cause or reasonable suspicion, and holding the persons until
they produce their identification and until the identification
is reviewed and checked by the police.  The polices and
practices violate the First and Fourth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.

The suit is brought on behalf of all persons, past, present and
future who seek money from other persons on the sidewalks of the
downtown area of Indianapolis by soliciting donations of money
or other items of value including both verbal solicitations and
non-verbal and silent acts designed to solicit donations and who
do not engage in the forms of panhandling prohibited by Indiana
Code Section 35-45-17-1, et seq.

The plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- accept jurisdiction of this cause and set it for
        hearing;

     -- certify this case as a class action suit with the
        classes defined;

     -- declare that the defendant has violated the plaintiffs'
        constitutional rights as specified;

     -- enter a preliminary injunction, later to be made
        permanent:

          * enjoining defendant and its agents and employees
            from in any way interfering with the efforts of the
            class to solicit funds from persons as long as no
            law is violated;

          * enjoining defendant and its agents and employees
            from seizing the members of the class and demanding
            their identification or proof of identiy absent
            probable cause or reasonable suspicion;

     -- award plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys'
        fees pursuant to 42 USC Section 1988; and

     -- award all other proper relief.

The suit is "Richard Dellantonio, et al. v. The City of
Indianapolis, Case No. 1:08-cv-0780-DFH-JMS," filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kenneth J. Falk, Esq. (kfalk@aclu-in.org)
          Jacquelyn Bowie Suess, Esq. (jsuess@aclu-in.org)
          Gavin M. Rose, Esq. (grose@aclu-in.org)
          ACLU of Indiana
          1031 E. Washington St.
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Phone: 317-635-4059
          Fax: 317-635-4105


INTERMUNE INC: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Actimmune Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intermune, Inc., and Genentech, Inc., are facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging them of fraudulently
misrepresenting that Actimmune (interferon gamma) can treat
idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and concealed that it does not,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a proposed nationwide class on behalf of consumers and
other end-payors of Actimmune, a bio-engineered form of
interferon-gamma, alleging fraud and deception in the marketing
and sale of Actimmunue for scientifically unproven purposes,
primarily the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all individuals
and entities in the United States and its territories who, for
purposes other than resale, purchased, reimbursed, or paid for
Actimmune for the treatment of IPF during the period from May 5,
1998, through the present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants promoted the use of Actimmune for
         unproven and ineffective uses;

     (b) whether defendants marketed Actimmune to physicians for
         the treatment of IPF;

     (c) whether the prescriptions of Actimmune for IPF were
         supported by medical necessity or conferred any medical
         benefit;

     (d) whether defendants engaged in a pattern or deceptive,
         fraudulent, or unfair activity intended to deceive or
         defraud plaintiff and the class members;

     (e) whether defendants trained, authorized and encouraged
         sales representatives to misrepresent the results of
         clinical trials to induce physicians to prescribe
         Actimmune;

     (f) whether defendants trained, authorized, and encouraged
         sales representatives to actively market Actimmune as a
         treatment for IPF, a disease for which Actimmune was
         medically unproven or ineffective, in order to induce  
         physicians to prescribe Actimmune;

     (g) whether defendants' fraudulent and unlawful promotion
         of Actimmune, an unapproved and unproven treatment for
         IPF, caused consumers and third-party payors to pay for
         Actimmune which the patients did not need and which
         provided them no medical benefit;

     (h) whether defendants' publication and dissemination of
         various press releases, faxes to physicians, and direct
         mailings to patients caused consumers and third-party
         payors to pay for Actimmune in circumstances in which
         there was no medical benefit conferred on the patients
         taking Actimmune; and

     (i) whether defendants are liable to plaintiff and class
         members for damages for conduct actionable under
         various state law provisions for unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- three times the damages the class have sustained as a
        result of defendants' conduct, such amount to be
        determined at trial, plus plaintiff's costs in the suit,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- monetary relief in the form of actual damages,
        compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of
        ill-gotten gains, punitive or treble damages, and such
        other relief as provided by law, such amount to be
        determined at trial, plus plaintiff's costs in the suit,
        including reasonable attorney's fees;

     -- compensatory damages, three times the damages plaintiff
        and the class have sustained as a result of defendants'
        conduct, and such other relief as provided by the
        statutes cited, such amount to be determined at trial,
        plus plaintiffs' costs in the suit, including attorneys'
        fees;

     -- recovery in the amount of the class' payment for
        Actimmune based on prescriptions that were not supported
        by medical necessity or benefit, such amount to be
        determined at trial, plus plaintiff's costs in the suit,
        including all reasonable attorney's fees;

     -- award of pre-jdugment and post-judgment interest on such
        monetary relief;

     -- award of other appropriate equitable relief; and

     -- award of costs and expenses in this litigation,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees.

The suit is "Linda K. Rybkoski, et al. v. Intermune Inc., et
al., Case No. 08 2916," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP
          1610 Arden Way, Suite 290
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Phone: 916-568-1100
          Fax: 916-568-7890


LOJACK: Plaintiffs Want "Rutti" Remanded to Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit captioned,
"Mike Rutti, et al. v. Lojack Corporation, Inc. et al.," filed a
motion asking the court to remand the matter to a California
State Court.

On April 5, 2006, a suit was filed against LoJack Corp.  It was  
brought before the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California by an employee alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the
California Business & Professions Code, and seeks class action
status.

The plaintiffs contends that the company improperly credited
break time and overtime pay and seeks unspecified monetary and
injunctive relief.

In September 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed the plaintiff's federal law
claims which represented the largest part of the company's
potential exposure.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs filed state law claims in
California State Court.

In January 2008, the company removed the state law claims to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  

The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to
California State Court, according to the company's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing in ith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Mike Rutti et al v. Lojack Corporation, Inc. et
al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00350-DOC-JC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge David O.
Carter, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

        John Glugoski, Esq. (jglugoski@righettilaw.com)
        Righetti Law Firm P C
        456 Montgomery Street Suite 1400
        San Francisco, CA 94104
        Phone: 415-983-0900

Representing the defendant is:

        Dan Chammas, Esq. (dchammas@mwe.com)
        McDermott Will & Emery LLP
        2049 Century Park East 34th Floor
        Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
        Phone: 310-277-4110


LORAL SPACE: N.Y. Court Stays Proceedings in Shareholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
issued an order that stayed a shareholder suit filed against
Loral Space & Communications, Inc., according to the company's
May 19, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On or about Nov. 3, 2006, plaintiff Maxine Babus, derivatively
on behalf of Loral Space, filed a shareholder derivative
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York, against all the members of the Loral board of
directors and against Loral as a nominal defendant.

On or about April 4, 2007, as contemplated by a memorandum of
understanding, the plaintiff filed an amended shareholder class
and derivative complaint against all members of the Loral board
of directors, MHR Fund Management LLC and certain funds and
other entities affiliated with MHR, and Loral as a nominal
defendant.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that, in
connection with the company's Securities Purchase Agreement
dated Oct. 17, 2006, as amended and restated on Feb. 27, 2007,
pursuant to which the company sold to the MHR Funds $300 million
in new convertible preferred stock, the directors and the MHR
Entities breached their fiduciary duties to the company,
including the fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, and that the
MHR Entities and Dr. Mark H. Rachesky have aided and abetted the
directors' breach of fiduciary duty.

It seeks, among other things, both as to the derivative claims
and the class action claims, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount
to be determined, rescission of the Securities Purchase
Agreement and plaintiff's costs and disbursements, including
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Babus, died in November 2006, and, in August
2007, her son was substituted as plaintiff in place of his
deceased mother.

After discussions between them, the parties decided not to
proceed with the MoU entered into in March 2007.  Instead, the
parties have agreed, and the court in an order dated Dec. 5,
2007, ordered, that the Babus Lawsuit be stayed pending final
resolution of a similar shareholder litigation in Delaware.

Loral Space & Communications, Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/--  
together with its subsidiaries is a satellite communications
company with activities in satellite manufacturing and
satellite-based communications services.


LORAL SPACE: Expert Testimony Completed in Del. Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expert testimony has been completed in the matter, "In re: Loral
Space and Communications Inc. Consolidated Litigation," which
was filed before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in and for New Castle County.

On or about May 14, 2007, the Delaware court entered an order
consolidating two civil actions previously commenced by certain
stockholders of Loral Space against the company, the MHR
Entities (MHR Fund Management LLC and certain funds and other
entities affiliated with MHR), and certain individual members of
the company's board of directors under the caption, "In re:
Loral Space and Communications Inc. Consolidated Litigation."

The plaintiffs in this action are certain stockholders of the
company who allege that they hold over 18% of the outstanding
common stock of the company (Blackrock Plaintiffs) and Highland
Crusader Offshore Partners, L.P. (Highland, and, together with
the Blackrock Plaintiffs, the Delaware Plaintiffs), the
purported owner of approximately 5% of Loral's outstanding
common stock.

The Blackrock Plaintiffs have brought the case derivatively on
behalf of the Company and directly on behalf of the Blackrock
Plaintiffs individually.

The case has also been brought by Highland as a class action on
behalf of a class of Loral stockholders consisting of all
security holders of the Company (except the defendants and
persons or entities related to or affiliated with the
defendants) who, as alleged in the amended and consolidated
complaint, "are or will be threatened with injury arising from
Defendants' actions" as described in the amended and
consolidated complaint.

In the amended and consolidated complaint, the Blackrock
Plaintiffs have brought derivative claims alleging, among other
things, that, in connection with the Securities Purchase
Agreement, the directors and the MHR Entities breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company, including the fiduciary duties
of care and loyalty, the MHR Entities have aided and abetted the
directors' breach of fiduciary duty, and the directors have
engaged in conduct, or intentionally or recklessly approved
conduct, that has caused the Company to waste valuable corporate
assets.

In addition, the Blackrock Plaintiffs have brought a direct
claim against the MHR Entities and Dr. Mark H. Rachesky alleging
breach of their fiduciary duties to the Blackrock Plaintiffs,
and a claim alleging that, by approving, engaging in and closing
the transactions contemplated by the Securities Purchase
Agreement, defendants violated the restriction on transactions
between companies and their interested stockholders contained in
Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

The Blackrock Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
rescission of the Securities Purchase Agreement, a judgment
declaring that the Securities Purchase Agreement, and the
process by which it was negotiated, approved and completed,
violated Delaware law and constituted a breach of defendants'
fiduciary duties and awarding plaintiffs their expenses and
costs, including reasonable legal fees.

In the amended and consolidated complaint, Highland has brought
class claims alleging, among other things, that:

     -- in connection with the Securities Purchase Agreement
        pursuant to which the Company sold $300 million of
        preferred stock to the MHR Funds, MHR and the individual
        defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
        negotiating and approving the Securities Purchase
        Agreement;

     -- MHR and the individual defendants breached their
        fiduciary duties by failing to terminate and re-
        negotiate the Securities Purchase Agreement after it was
        announced;

     -- the individual defendants committed an ultra vires
        abdication of their statutory authority;

     -- MHR and the individual defendants breached their
        fiduciary duty of disclosure by stating publicly that
        they would seek to renegotiate the Securities Purchase
        Agreement after it was announced or to obtain an
        alternative and instead proceeding with the Securities
        Purchase Agreement; and

     -- MHR aided and abetted the individual defendants in their
        breach of fiduciary duty.

In May 2007, the defendants filed a reply denying any
allegations of wrongdoing and asserting various defenses.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the court entered an order:

     * certifying a class action as to the class claims for a
       class of all record and beneficial owners of common
       stock of Loral as of Oct. 17, 2006, and their successors,
       representatives, trustees, executors, administrators,
       heirs, assigns or transferees;

     * appointing Highland as class representative; and

     * designating counsel to the class.

In a pre-trial stipulation and order entered into in February
2008, the Delaware Plaintiffs stated that the relief they were
seeking was, among other things:

     -- an order directing that MHR offer the preferred stock
        purchased pursuant to the Securities Purchase Agreement,
        together with all accrued and PIK dividends thereon, to
        all other holders of Loral common stock on a pro rata
        basis, and that in connection with such offer, the terms
        of the preferred stock be modified to reflect market
        terms and otherwise be fair to Loral's non-controlling
        stockholders; or

     -- in the alternative,

          (i) an order, pending conversion of the preferred
              stock into nonvoting common stock, imposing a
              constructive trust on the preferred stock for the
              benefit of Loral and the class pursuant to which
              MHR cannot receive any benefits from the preferred
              stock or exercise any of the rights associated
              with the preferred stock;

         (ii) an order determining and resetting the conversion
              price of the preferred stock at the fair market
              value of Loral as of Oct. 17, 2006 (new conversion
              price); and

        (iii) an order re-characterizing the preferred stock as
              that number of shares of non-voting common stock
              into which the preferred stock would convert at
              the new conversion price (new resulting shares)
              (or, alternatively, an order enjoining MHR from
              converting the preferred stock into any more
              shares than the new resulting shares; enjoining
              Loral from issuing to MHR in place of the
              preferred stock any more shares than the new
              resulting shares and continuing the constructive
              trust with respect to any remaining shares of
              preferred stock);

     -- an order directing MHR to disgorge the $6.75 million
        placement fee paid by Loral to MHR in connection with
        the preferred stock issuance and, to the extent not
        disgorged, an order holding MHR and the director
        defendants jointly and severally liable for that amount;

     -- an order directing MHR to repay Loral for the fees
        incurred by MHR's financial and legal advisors in
        connection with Securities Purchase Agreement and, to
        the extent not repaid, an order holding MHR and the
        directors defendants jointly and severally liable for
        that amount;

     -- an order holding MHR and the director defendants jointly
        and severally liable for all other costs and expenses
        incurred by Loral in connection with the Securities
        Purchase Agreement and the litigation;

     -- an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
        including expert fees, to the Delaware Plaintiffs'
        counsel; and

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

A trial in this action commenced in early March 2008.  Fact
testimony was completed in March 2008, and expert testimony was
completed on May 12, 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.

Loral Space & Communications, Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/--  
together with its subsidiaries is a satellite communications
company with activities in satellite manufacturing and
satellite-based communications services.


LORAL SPACE: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in "Beleson" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted a motion that sought certification of a class in the
lawsuit, "Beleson, et al. v. Schwartz, Case No. 1:03-cv-06051-
JES," which was filed against Bernard L. Schwartz, former
chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Loral Space
& Communications Inc. (New Loral).

In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky
filed a purported class action complaint against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses.  

The suit alleges:

      -- that Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
         promulgated thereunder, by making material
         misstatements or failing to state material facts about
         the company's financial condition relating to the sale
         of assets to Intelsat and its Chapter 11 filing; and

      -- that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
         alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
         of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person"
         of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (Old Loral).

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding
the defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with
him.

In November 2003, three other complaints against Mr. Schwartz
with substantially similar allegations were consolidated into
the Beleson case.

In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court.  The defendant filed an answer
in March 2004.

In January 2006, the case was stayed, and after a status
conference in March 2007, the stay was lifted and discovery is
proceeding.

Discovery in this case has been completed.  The plaintiffs'
motion for class certification was granted on May 14, 2008,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Since this case was not brought against Old Loral, but only
against one of its officers, the company believes, although no
assurance can be given, that, to the extent that any award is
ultimately granted to the plaintiffs in this action, the
liability of New Loral, if any, with respect thereto is limited
solely to claims for indemnification against Old Loral by the
defendant.

The suit is "Beleson, et al. v. Schwartz, Case No. 1:03-cv-
06051-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge John E. Sprizzo, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jules Brody, Esq.
          Stull Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-687-7230
          Fax: 212-490-2022

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Weiss & Yourman
          The French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue 1600
          New York, NY 10176
          Phone: 212-682-3025  

Representing Mr. Schwartz are:

          Jeanne Marie Luboja, Esq.
          Francis James Menton, Jr., Esq.
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY)
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-728-8000
          Fax: 212-728-8111
          e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com


LORAL SPACE: Discovery in "Christ" Securities Litigation Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a securities class action lawsuit filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against certain officers of Loral Space & Communications Inc.
(New Loral) has been stayed, according to the company's May 19,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as
custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas
Orndorff and Marvin Rich, filed a purported class action
complaint against Bernard L. Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend   
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses.  

The suit alleges:

      -- that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
         Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
         material misstatements or failing to state material
         facts about Loral Space & Communications Ltd.'s (Old
         Loral) financial condition relating to the restatement
         in 2003 of the financial statements for the second and
         third quarters of 2002 to correct accounting for
         certain general and administrative expenses and the
         alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction
         with APT Satellite Co. Ltd.; and

      -- that each of the defendants is secondarily liable for
         these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section
         20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling
         person" of Old Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from July 31, 2002, through June 29, 2003, excluding
the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.

In October 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court.  

In January 2006, the case was stayed, and after a status
conference in March 2007, the stay was lifted and discovery
began.

The discovery in the case has been stayed, and the stay will
remain in effect until 30 days after a decision on the pending
class certification motion in the matter, "Beleson, et al. v.
Schwartz, Case No. 1:03-cv-06051-JES," or upon 20 days notice by
either party.

Since this case was not brought against Old Loral, but only
against certain of its officers, the company believe, although
no assurance can be given, that to the extent that any award is
ultimately granted to the plaintiffs in this action, the
liability of New Loral, if any, with respect thereto is limited
solely to claims for indemnification against Old Loral by the
defendants.

Loral Space & Communications, Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/--  
together with its subsidiaries is a satellite communications
company with activities in satellite manufacturing and
satellite-based communications services.


LORAL SPACE: Reaches Settlement Deal in New York ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications, Inc., reached a settlement deal in
the purported class action entitled, "In re: Loral Space ERISA
Litigation," and its related Insurance Coverage Litigation,
according to the company's May 19, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

                  Loral Space ERISA Litigation

In April 2004, two separate purported class action lawsuits
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by former employees of Loral Space & Communications
Ltd. (Old Loral) and participants in the Old Loral Savings Plan
were consolidated into one action titled, "In re: Loral Space
ERISA Litigation."

In July 2004, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an
amended consolidated complaint against the members of the Loral
Space & Communications Ltd. Savings Plan Administrative
Committee and certain existing and former members of the
company's board of directors, including Bernard L. Schwartz.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages in the
amount of any losses suffered by the Savings Plan to be
allocated among the participants' individual accounts in
proportion to the accounts' losses, an order compelling
defendants to make good to the Savings Plan all losses to the
Savings Plan resulting from defendants' alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties and reimbursement of costs and attorneys'
fees.

The amended complaint alleges that:

      -- defendants violated Section 404 of the Employee     
         Retirement Income Security Act, by breaching their
         fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage the
         assets of the Savings Plan by including Old Loral
         common stock as an investment alternative and by
         providing matching contributions under the Savings Plan
         in Old Loral stock,

      -- the director defendants violated Section 404 of ERISA
         by breaching their fiduciary duties to monitor the
         committee defendants and to provide them with accurate
         information,

      -- defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA by
         failing to provide complete and accurate information to
         Savings Plan participants and beneficiaries, and

      -- defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA by
         breaching their fiduciary duties to avoid conflicts of
         interest.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the
Savings Plan at any time between Nov. 4, 1999, and the present
and whose accounts included investments in Old Loral stock.

The plaintiffs have also filed a proof of claim against Old
Loral with respect to this case and have agreed that in no event
will their claim against Old Loral with respect to this case
exceed $22 million.

If plaintiffs' claim ultimately becomes an allowed claim under
the Plan of Reorganization, plaintiffs would be entitled to a
distribution under the Plan of Reorganization of Loral Space &
Communications Inc. (New Loral) common stock based upon the
amount of the allowed claim.

Any such distribution of stock would be in addition to the 20
million shares of New Loral common stock being distributed under
the Plan of Reorganization to other creditors.

Instead of issuing such additional shares, New Loral may elect
to satisfy any allowed claim in cash in an amount equal to the
number of shares to which plaintiffs would have been entitled
multiplied by $27.75 or in a combination of additional shares
and cash.

                  Insurance Coverage Litigation

In addition, two insurers under Old Loral's directors and
officers liability insurance policies have denied coverage with
respect to the case titled, "In re: Loral Space ERISA
Litigation," each claiming that coverage should be provided
under the other's policy.

In December 2004, one of the defendants in that case filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York seeking a declaratory judgment as to his
right to receive coverage under the policies.

In March 2005, the insurers filed answers to the complaint and
one of the insurers filed a cross claim against the other
insurer which such insurer answered in April 2005.

In August and October 2005, each of the two potentially
responsible insurers moved separately for judgment on the
pleadings, seeking a court ruling absolving it of liability to
provide coverage of the ERISA action.

In March 2006, the court granted the motion of one of the
insurers and denied the motion of the other insurer.  

Discovery with regard to defenses to coverage asserted by the
potentially responsible insurer has ended, and the defendant
insurer moved for summary judgment with respect to one of its
coverage defenses.  This motion was denied by the court in
September 2007.

In April 2008, the defendant insurer, the plaintiffs and the
Company agreed in principle to a settlement of both the
insurance coverage litigation, and "In re: Loral Space ERISA
Litigation."

Pursuant to this settlement, the settlement will be funded
entirely by the defendant insurer, and New Loral will not be
required to make any contribution toward the settlement.

In addition, the bankruptcy claim filed by plaintiffs against
Old Loral with respect to the "In re: Loral Space ERISA
Litigation" will be disallowed and expunged.

The settlement is subject to execution of a definitive
settlement agreement and approval by the court.

Loral Space & Communications, Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/--  
together with its subsidiaries is a satellite communications
company with activities in satellite manufacturing and
satellite-based communications services.


NEUROMETRIX INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
NeuroMetrix, Inc., is facing two purported securities fraud
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

One suit was filed on March 17, 2008, against the company and
certain of its officers.  On March 27, 2008, a related putative
securities class action complaint was filed in the same court,
against the same defendants.

The allegations in these complaints are substantially similar.
Both allege, among other things, that between Oct. 27, 2005, and
March 6, 2007, the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and
failing to disclose material information to the investing
public.  

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, 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.

NeuroMetrix, Inc. -- http://www.neurometrix.com/-- designs,  
develops and markets medical devices used to help physicians
diagnose and treat diseases of the nervous system, such as
neuropathies, which are disorders of the peripheral nerves and
parts of the spine, and neurovascular disorders such as diabetic
retinopathy.  The Company is also developing medical devices
designed to be used to provide regional anesthesia and pain
control.  The Company's focus has been on products that help
physicians with the diagnosis or detection of neuropathies and
neurovascular disorders.  It has two product lines cleared by
the United States Food and Drug Administration that are being
marketed primarily to physicians and clinics: the NC-stat System
for the assessment of neuropathies and the DigiScope for the
detection of eye disorders such as diabetic retinopathy.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Claims in "Boyd" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novastar Financial, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of all claims
asserted against it in a consolidated securities fraud class
action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

Since February 2007, a number of substantially similar putative
class action suits have been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri.  The complaints name the
Novastar and three of its executive officers as defendants and
generally allege, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results.

The plaintiffs purport to have brought the actions on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock during the period May 4, 2006, through Feb. 20,
2007.

Following consolidation of the actions, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on Oct. 19, 2007.

On Dec. 29, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss all of
plaintiffs' claims, and that motion is still pending with the
court, 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 "Robert W. Boyd, III, et al. v. NovaStar Financial,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00139," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, Judge Howard F.
Sachs, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates
         519 Alleghany Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219
         Phone: 412-391-5164

         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

              -- and --

         Saxena White PA
         2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 307
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Phone: 800-361-5096
         Fax: 888-782-3081
         Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com/


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Discovery Ensues in MO Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated securities fraud class
action lawsuit against NovaStar Financial, Inc., entitled, "In
Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:04-cv-
00330-ODS."

Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar securities
class action complaint were filed against the company and three
of its executive officers.  

On Aug. 23, 2004, Judge Ortrie D. Smith issued an order
consolidating all related cases into one class action as, "In re
NovaStar Financial Securities Litigation," and appointed lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  The lead plaintiffs filed their
consolidated class action complaint on Nov. 12, 2004.

The consolidated complaint generally alleged that the defendants
made public statements that were misleading or failed to
disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters.  

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- the company;

     -- Lance W. Anderson, president, and chief operating
        officer;

     -- Michael L. Bamburg, senior vice president and chief
        investment officer;

     -- Scott Hartman, chairman of the board and chief executive
        officer; and

     -- Rodney E. Schwatken, vice president, secretary,
        treasurer, and controller.

The plaintiffs purported to bring the consolidated action on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
and sellers of put options on the company's common stock during
the period Oct. 29, 2003, through April 8, 2004.  

According to the complaint, NovaStar fostered an aggressive-
growth culture throughout the class period.  NovaStar touted its
rapid growth in earnings, production, and its securities
portfolio and highlighted the increasing number of NovaStar-
affiliated branch offices.  

the suit notes that in 2003, the company had reported that it
had doubled the number of branch offices in operation and that
its earnings had more than doubled in 2003 to $112 million.

On Jan 14, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the suit,
which request was later denied by the court.

On Feb. 8, 2007, the court certified the case as a class action.  
The case is now in the discovery stage, according to the
company's May 19, 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: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation,   
Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri, Judge Ortrie D. Smith,
presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          (jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
          1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-607-6871
          Fax: 404-876-4476

               -- and --

          William W. Wickersham, Esq.
          Entwitle & Cappucci, LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10171
          Phone: 212-894-7200

Representing the defendants are:

          Erin Bansal, Esq. (ebansal@orrick.com)
          William F. Alderman, Esq. (walderman@orrick.com)
          Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5700
          Fax: 415-773-5759


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in "Kubiak" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint has been filed in a purported class action
lawsuit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California which accuses NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. --
a subsidiary of Novastar Financial, Inc. -- of engaging in
unfair competition and false advertising by failing to disclose
the "premium payments" it makes to mortgage brokers

On June 29, 2007, two borrowers, Christophe Kubiak and Sebastian
Sanges, filed the putative class action complaint, entitled
"Kubiak v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.," against the company and two
of its subsidiaries.

The suit alleges that payments of premiums to brokers by one of
the subsidiaries were not properly disclosed to borrowers in the
manner allegedly required by federal or state law, thus
constituting unfair competition and false advertising under
California law and violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages, restitution,
injunctive relief and attorney's fees on behalf of California
borrowers who allegedly failed to receive adequate disclosure of
such premiums.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the action.  On
Dec. 19, 2007, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint, including the claims against NovaStar Financial,
but the Court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.  

On Jan. 9, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
does not make any claim against NovaStar Financial but does
assert claims against its subsidiaries, NovaStar Mortgage and
NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. (NHMI), according to Novastar
Financial's May 19, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Kubiak et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-03438-EDL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Elizabeth D.
Laporte, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Carter M. Zinn, Esq. (czinn@lrolaw.com)
          Law Offices of Carter M. Zinn
          3450 Broderick Street, Suite 302
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Phone: 415-292-4100
          Fax: 415-292-4106


OPTIONABLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Optionable, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
shareholder lawsuit entitled, "In re Optionable Securities
Litigation, Case 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of 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.

On May 11, 2007, two lawsuits were initially filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  They
are:

       -- "Alexander Fleiss v. Optionable Inc., Mark Nordlicht,
          Kevin Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig and
          Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," and

       -- "Robert Rastocky v. Optionable, Inc., Kevin Cassidy
          and Edward O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3755 (CLB),"

Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York:

     1. "Jagdish Patel v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, and
        Edward J. O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3845 (LAK)," filed
        on May 16, 2007;

     2. "Peters v. Optionable, Inc., Mark Nordlicht, Kevin P.
        Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc-
        Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3877 (LAK)," filed on
        May 17, 2007;

     3. "Manowitz v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Edward J.
        O'Conner, and Mark Nordlicht, Case No. 07 CV 3884
        (UA)," filed on May 17, 2007;

     4. "Glaubach v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 4085 (LAK)," filed
        on May 24, 2007; and

     5. "Bock v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 5948 (LAK)," filed
        on June 22, 2007.

Each of the lawsuits names the company as a defendant and some
of the lawsuits name as defendants all or certain of the
directors and officers of the company.

The directors and officers of the company that were named as
defendants include:

   * Mark Nordlicht, former Chairman of the Board of Directors
     of the Company;

   * Kevin Cassidy, former Chief Executive Officer and Vice-
     Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company;

   * Edward J. O'Connor, President of the Company and member of
     the Board of Directors;

   * Albert Helmig, a member of the Board of Directors during
     the relevant time period; and

   * Marc-Andre Boisseau, the Chief Financial Officer of the
     Company.

By order dated May 24, 2007, the Rastocky matter was voluntarily
dismissed.

By Orders dated June 20 and July 3, 2007, the Fleiss, Patel,
Peters, Manowitz, and Glaubach cases were consolidated under the
caption, "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV
3753 (LAK)."

By Order Nov. 20, 2007, Judge Kaplan granted the motion of KLD
Investment Management, LLC to serve as lead plaintiff and
approved its choice of counsel, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages arising from alleged violations of the federal
securities laws, including the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. ss. 78a et seq., and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act, 17 C.F.R. ss. 240.10b -5.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class
period of Jan. 22, 2007, to May 14, 2007, defendants failed to
disclose certain information in public filings and statements,
made materially false and misleading statements and
misrepresentations in public filings and statements, sold
artificially inflated stock and engaged in improper deals, had
an improper relationship with and "schemed" with its customer
Bank of Montreal, and understated the company's reliance on its
relationship with BMO.

The complaint alleges that while the company's stock was trading
at artificially inflated prices, certain defendants sold shares
of common stock of the company.

On Feb. 15, 19, and 20, 2008, the company and the individual
defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which motions
were opposed by the plaintiffs.  

On April 3, 2008, Judge Kaplan ordered the individual defendants
to file only a single joint reply memorandum in response to the
plaintiffs' oppositions.

On April 22, 2008, the company filed its reply memorandum of law
in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint, and the
individual defendants filed their joint reply memorandum of the
same.  

All parties also advised the court of their availability for
oral argument on the motions, and await a response.

The suit is "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV
3753 (LAK)," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue
          14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-1980

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P.
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 212-230-8800
          Fax: 212-230-8888

               - and -

          Paul Edouard Dans, Esq. (pdans@eapdlaw.com)
          Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, LLP
          750 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-912-2736
          Fax: 212-308-4844


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Settles Catterton Merger Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Hardware, Inc., reached a preliminary agreement
settling a shareholder complaint filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California as a purported class action on behalf of
the public shareholders of Restoration Hardware.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking a
preliminary injunction to delay the vote and prohibit the
closing of the merger (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2008).

The parties, however reached a deal to resolve the matter.

Under the terms of the recent settlement, the action will be
dismissed with prejudice.  As part of the settlement, the
defendants in the litigation will establish a common fund of
$3.7 million, less the plaintiff's attorneys' fees, to be paid
to Restoration Hardware shareholders as of the closing of the
merger transaction other than those shareholders participating
with Catterton Partners in the transaction or those shareholders
who are also executive officers or directors of Restoration
Hardware.

The settlement is contingent on the closing of the merger,
preliminary approval by the court, and final approval by the
court after notice to the class.  Depending on the amount of the
attorneys' fees approved by the court and certain other
contingencies, the common fund will likely result in a payment
of approximately $0.10 to $0.13 per share to the members of the
class.

"Despite our view that the allegations in the lawsuit are
without merit, Restoration Hardware felt it was in the best
interests of its shareholders to settle the case to expedite the
closing of the merger," said Raymond Hemmig, the Chairman of the
Independent Committee of Restoration Hardware's Board of
Directors.  "In so doing, we have allowed our shareholders to
obtain the substantial premium above the share price of
Restoration Hardware's stock immediately preceding the
announcement of the original merger agreement."

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


TD AMERITRADE: Judge Delays Approval of "Elvey" Hack Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on May 29, 2008, that the
parties in a purported class action lawsuit alleging that TD
Ameritrade, Inc., illegally sold e-mail addresses to spammers
are engaging in settlement discussions in an effort to resolve
the case, which is currently pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

In an update, David Kravets of Wired News relates that U.S.
District Judge Vaughn Walker put off approving a proposed
settlement reached in the matter, which represents as many as
6.3 million TD Ameritrade customers whose data was breached when
hackers stole personal identifying customer information.

According to Wired News, among the reasons for the delayed
approval is that the lead plaintiff, Matthew Elvey, who signed
the deal, had  opposed it in open court during the settlement
hearing last week and said his lawyers coerced him into
accepting the agreement.

Wired News cites Judge Walker as describing the hearing as "very
interesting" and saying he would rule on the deal soon.

The suit, captioned "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No.
3:07-cv-02852-BZ," alleges that TD Ameritrade provides spammers
with its accountholders' private e-mail addresses, which sent
and continue to send unsolicited commercial e-mail (particularly
e-mail promoting certain penny stocks or stock spam) to these
private e-mail addresses (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2008).

Wired News recounts that the data theft, disclosed in September,
also gave hackers access to customer names, phone numbers, and
home addresses.  Social Security or account information was not
compromised, according to the settlement.  Customers fell
victim, however, to SPAM attacks.

Wires News notes that under the settlement agreement, class
members would be entitled to a one-year subscription of "Trend
Micro Internet Security Pro," about a $70 retail value.  The
biggest payout goes to class lawyers, who are set to get more
than $1.8 million.

Ameritrade lawyer Lee Rubin, Esq., said that Ameritrade was
paying "significantly less" than retail value for the Security
Pro software.  

Mr. Elvey said the software is "available for free after rebate"
at some electronics stores.

If approved, the agreement allows class members to opt out or
challenge it.  The accord covers all customers who provided an
e-mail or physical address as of Sept. 14, 2007.  The company
continues to deny liability.

In a statement last year, the company announced that it
"discovered and eliminated unauthorized code from its systems
that allowed access to an internal database.  The discovery was
made as the result of an internal investigation of stock-related
SPAM.  The company further said that there have been no
instances of identity theft, but agreed to assist identity theft
victims under terms of the settlement agreement.

Among other things, the agreement requires the company to post
information on its Web site regarding "important information on
protecting your assets from online threats such as identity
theft, phishing, spyware, viruses, e-mail fraud and stock
touting SPAM."

Ameritrade also agreed to retain independent experts to conduct
bi-annual penetration tests at least through 2009.  It has also
retained ID Analytics, a company specializing in identifying
organized identity theft.  "Two such analyses already have been
performed and have identified no evidence of identity theft,"
the deal states.

Also, the deal requires a $20,000 donation to the Honeynet
Project and $35,000 to the National Cyber Forensics and Training
Alliance.

Wired News quotes Mr. Elvey's lawyer, Scott Kamber, Esq., as
saying outside of court that "this is a great settlement" and
that he would have sought Judge Walker's approval even without
Mr. Elvey's signature.  "We have a fiduciary responsibility to
the class," he said.


TEXAS: ACLU Challenges Unwarranted Strip Searches in Youth Jail
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of five girls -- all of whom have
histories of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse -- held in the
Brownwood State School.

Brownwood is a high security youth prison located in central
Texas and operated by the Texas Youth Commission, the state's
juvenile corrections agency.  The ACLU charges that TYC subjects
the girls to unwarranted solitary confinement, routine strip
searches and brutal physical force.

"Throwing children into cold, bare solitary confinement cells is
profoundly damaging, especially to children who previously have
been abused, said Mie Lewis, staff attorney with the ACLU
Women's Rights Project.  "The ACLU has closely monitored
developments in the Texas Youth Commission over the last year,
and although we see some improvements, TYC's reliance on
solitary confinement has to stop."

The ACLU charges that the treatment the girls have suffered
violates their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments as well as international
standards protecting children from abuse and prohibiting torture
and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.  The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas.

"We are optimistic that we can meet with the defendants soon and
come to an amicable solution," said Lenora Lapidus, Director of
the ACLU Women's Rights Project.  "It's in the interests of both
the children and TYC to stop these practices."

Brownwood State School serves as the reception site for all
girls committed to TYC custody and nearly all girls in custody
in Texas are held there.  Brownwood holds approximately 150
girls who have been sent there for offenses ranging from school-
related disciplinary infractions to minor property offenses and
more serious offenses.

Girls at Brownwood are regularly placed in punitive solitary
confinement in oppressively cold, concrete cells, empty except
for a metal slab intended to be used as a bed.  Solitary
confinement is imposed for minor misbehavior, for self-harm or
for expressing a desire to commit self-harm.  Terms of solitary
confinement can be brief or can last for days, weeks and even
months.

Upon entering or exiting solitary confinement and on other
occasions when they have not left the facility -- for example,
when they finish a work assignment within the prison girls are
subject to invasive strip searches.  When girls resist, guards
regularly use physical force, pepper spray, handcuffs and
leather straps to force them to comply.  These tactics are also
used on girls already in solitary confinement in response to
self-harm, shouting, and banging on the wall.  Girls subjected
to this treatment report suffering flashbacks to childhood rapes
and feeling degraded, humiliated and afraid.

"The link between psychological trauma and delinquent behavior
is well established," said Lisa Graybill, Legal Director of the
ACLU of Texas.  "Instead of helping girls learn to cope with
their experiences, TYC is re-traumatizing them through the use
of solitary confinement and strip searches. TYC must do better,
for the sake of our clients and all children in the state's
custody."

The suit is captioned, "K.C., et al. v. Nedelkoff, et al."
Lawyers in the case include those from ACLU Women's Rights
Project; attorneys from ACLU of Texas; Steven M. Watt, Esq.,
from the ACLU Human Rights Program; and Elizabeth Alexander,
Esq., from the ACLU National Prison Project.

ACLU online: http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/crimjustice/


THOMAS WEISEL: Ninth Circuit Grants Appeal in Leadis Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted an
appeal of a lower court's earlier dismissal of the consolidated
class action lawsuit entitled "In re Leadis Technology, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00882-CRB," which names
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., as one of the defendants,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit was brought in connection with Leadis Technology,
Inc.'s initial public offering in June 2004.  It was filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The consolidated complaint, filed in on Aug. 8, 2005, alleged
violations of federal securities laws against Leadis and certain
of its directors and officers as well as its underwriters,
including the company, based on alleged misstatements and
omissions in the registration statement.  

On March 1, 2006, the complaint against the company in this
matter was dismissed by the court with prejudice.  

Subsequently, on March 28, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
on Feb. 21, 2008, the Appeals Court granted the appeal.

The suit is "In re Leadis Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00882-CRB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Charles R. Breyer, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@mwbhl.com)
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

Representing the defendants are:

          Grant P. Fondo, Esq. (gfondo@cooley.com)
          Laura R. Smith, Esq. (smithlr@cooley.com)
          Cooley Godward LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Phone: 650-843-5458
          Fax: 650-857-0663


THOMAS WEISEL: Settlement Reached in Friedman Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a consolidated class action lawsuit
captioned, "In re Friedman's Inc. Securities Litigation," filed
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
names Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., as a defendant.

In September 2003, the company acted as lead manager on a
follow-on offering of common stock of Friedman's Inc. (Class
Action Reporter, April 20 , 2007).  

The plaintiffs filed a purported class action suit against
Friedman's and its directors, senior officers and outside
accountant as well as the its underwriters, including the
company, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia.  

The suit is alleging that the registration statement for the
offering and a previous registration statement dated Feb. 2,
2002, were fraudulent and materially misleading because they
overstated revenue and inventory, understated allowances for
uncollectible accounts, and failed to properly account for
impairment of a particular investment.

Friedman's is currently operating its business in bankruptcy.  
The company denied liability in connection with this matter.  

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in this matter.  On
Sept. 7, 2005, the court denied the underwriters' motion to
dismiss.

During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the plaintiffs'
claims were settled, 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 Friedman's Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-cv-03475-WSD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper, 845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

              - and -

         David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dab@classlaw.com)
         Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
         1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900

Representing the company are:

         Jason DeBretteville, Esq. (debrettevillej@sullcrom.com)
         Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
         1870 Embarcadero Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94303
         Phone: 650-461-5600

              - and -

         Stephen Earl Hudson, Esq.
         (shudson@kilpatrickstockton.com)
         Kilpatrick Stockton
         1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
         Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
         Phone: 404-815-6356
         Fax: 404-541-3248


THOMAS WEISEL: 9th Circuit Grants Appeal of Merix Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted an
appeal of a lower court's earlier dismissal of the consolidated
class action lawsuit captioned, "In re: Merix Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," which names Thomas
Weisel Partners Group, Inc., as one of the defendants, 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, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, is in connection with a share offering of Merix Corp. in
which Thomas Weisel served as co-lead manager.

The plaintiffs filed the suit against Merix and certain of its
directors and senior officers as well as Merix's underwriters,
alleging false and misleading statements in the registration
statement.  

On Sept. 15, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon entered an order dismissing all claims against the
underwriter defendants, including the firm, and the Merix
defendants.  

A portion of the claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was dismissed with prejudice,
and the remainder of that claim and the Section 11 claim were
dismissed with leave to re-file.  

The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint and on
Sept. 28, 2006, the court dismissed the remaining claims with
prejudice.  

Following the Sept. 28, 2006 dismissal, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and on Feb. 21, 2008, the Appeals Court granted the
appeal.

The suit is "In re: Merix Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Judge Michael W. Mosman presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (sberman@sbclasslaw.com)
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056,

Representing the company are:

         Bruce L. Campbell, Esq. (bruce.campbell@millernash.com)
         Ky Fullerton, Esq. (ky.fullerton@millernash.com)
         Miller Nash, LLP
         111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400
         Portland, OR 97204
         Phone: 503 205-2419
         Fax: 503-224-0155

              - and -

         Darryl S. Lew, Esq. (dlew@whitecase.com)
         White & Case, LLP
         701 Thirteenth Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-626-3600
         Fax: 202-639-9355


TRIZETTO GROUP: Faces Delaware Suit Over Sale to Apax Partners
--------------------------------------------------------------
The TriZetto Group is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for selling
itself "too cheaply" -- for $1.4 billion or $22 per share -- to
Apax Partners, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a stockholders' action on behalf of the public
stockholders of TriZetto to enjoin the proposed going-private
buyout of the publicly-owned shares of TriZetto's common stock
by entities affiliated with the private equity investor, Apax,
pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of
April 11, 2008.

On April 11, defendants announced that the company's board had
approved the proposed merger for $22/share.  The total
consideration offered in the proposed merger is $1.4 billion,
including consideration for stock options and shares related to
certain of TriZetto's outstanding convertible notes.

The suit says that the price offered in the proposed merger is
unfair because the intrinsic value of TriZetto common stock is
materially in excess of the amount offered given the company's
solid financial position and its opportunities for future
growth.  Instead of obtaining the best reasonably available
price in this change of control transaction, the defendants
agreed to a transaction that left the company's stockholders in
a worse financial position than if the defendants had engaged in
an adequate sale process or otherwise determined to continue to
operate TriZetto as a public corporation.  Moreover, in
violation of their fiduciary duty of disclosure, defendants are
soliciting shareholder votes in favor of the proposed merger on
the basis of a proxy containing omissions of material facts.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the proposed merger or rescinding the
proposed merger in the event of its consummation.

The suit is "City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters'
Retirement System, et al. v. Jeffrey H. Margolis, et al.," filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Rigrodsky & Long, PA
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-295-5310


TURFMASTER LAWN: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Turfmaster Lawn & Ornamental Care is facing a class-action
complaint in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, for firing a
whistle-blowing worker for refusing its illegal order to spray
the toxic chemical asulox on lawns, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Alfred Farese brings this action against
defendant for wrongful termination pursuant to Florida's private
Whistleblower Statute, Section 448.101 et. al., Florida
Statutes, and breach of agreement.

The plaintiff requests that the court award him all such legal
damages as he has sustained resulting from defendant's
retaliatory personnel action and as shall appear proper pursuant
to Florida law, including, but not limited to, compensation for
lost wages, benefits and other remuneration, and other
compensatory damages allowable by law, attorneys' fees and court
costs, and expenses pursuant to Section 448.104, Florida
Statutes, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and other such
other and further legal relief as the court deems just,
necessary and proper.

The suit is "Alfred Farese, et al. v. Turfmaster Lawn &
Ornamental Care, Inc., Case No.08 12318," file in the Circuit
Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough
County, Florida.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Richard Celler, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: 407-420-1414
          Fax: 407-420-5956


VELOCITY EXPRESS: Faces Independent Contractors' Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity Express Corp. and its subsidiary, CD&L Inc., are facing
several purported class action lawsuits filed by independent
contractors, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 29, 2008.

                        First Litigation

One of the class action complaints was filed in December 2003
before the Los Angeles Superior Court.  It seeks to certify a
class of California based independent contractors from December
1999 to the present.  

The plaintiffs seeks unspecified damages for various employment
related claims, including, but not limited to overtime, minimum
wage claims, and claims for unreimbursed business expenses.

CD&L filed a reply to the complaint in January 2004 denying all
allegations.  

The plaintiff's request for class certification was granted in
part and denied in part on Jan. 28, 2007.  Discovery on this
matter is ongoing.

                       Similar Litigation

Six purported class action suits were filed against the company
between December 2007 and January 2008.  

These suits, each of which were filed by two or three
independent contractor drivers in four different states, seek
unspecified damages for various unsubstantiated employment
related claims.

The company reported no further developments in these matters in
its regulatory filing.

Velocity Express Corp. -- http://www.velocityexp.com/--  
together with its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of
providing time definite ground package delivery services.  


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Misallocated Mortgage Payments Prompt Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual Bank FA is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, alleging it misallocated mortgage payments,
charged anticipated and speculative fees equal to 18 times the
monthly payment, and made other errors in foreclosures,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Mary E. Glover brings this action on behalf of
herself and a class of homeowners similarly situated, seeking,
inter alia, damages that resulted from Defendantsí unlawful
conduct, including charging, collecting, servicing, and wrongly
allocating payments under their residential mortgage loan
agreements.

The Plaintiff-Homeowners respectfully request an accounting and
contractual damages against Defendants Washington Mutual and
Wells Fargo for violations of their mortgages for the time
period preceding four years from the date this Complaint was
filed.

The suit is "Mary E. Glover, et al. v. Washington Mutual Bank,
F.A.," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael P. Malakoff, Esq.
          Malakoff & Brady, P.C.
          Suite 200, The Frick Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-281-4217


XM SATELLITE: Faces $5-Mln Suit Over $11.83 Subscription Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------
XM Satellite Radio is facing a $5-million class action complaint
over a $11.83 subscription bill accusing it of illegally
renewing subscribers' contracts without proper notice,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit claims XM violates New York General Obligations Law
Section 50903 by failing to notify subscribers 15 to 30 days
before automatically renewing their subscriptions.

Named plaintiff Richard Vacariello files the suit on behalf of
all XM subscribers in New York.  He claims he took a 3-year
subscription and used it in a leased automobile, then turned in
the car and let the XM subscription expire, he thought.  After
he turned in the car, he says, XM sent him a bill for $359.64.

Mr. Vacariello says he objected and canceled the contract
immediately, but XM told him it had "automatically renewed the
contract" and sent him another bill -- for $11.83 -- for the
period after the three-year contract expired, and before he
canceled the automatic renewal.

CourtHouse News says it is not clear from the complaint whether
this was a bill for another year or for another three years.

Mr. Vacariello says XM refused to cancel the $11.83 bill, so he
paid it under protest, for fear of harming his credit.  Then he
filed the class action suit.  He estimates class damages at more
than $5 million.  He demands compensatory damages and an
injunction.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Lester L. Levy, Esq.
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-6601


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of U.S. citizens who purchased
the publicly traded stock of European Aeronautic Defence & Space
Co. on the Frankfurt, Madrid and Paris stock exchanges between
January 17, 2005, and June 13, 2006, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges EADS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Exchange Act.

The Company manufactures airplanes and military equipment.  The
Company produces commercial aircrafts, including the various
Airbus models, military fighter aircrafts, military and
commercial helicopters, missiles, satellites, and
telecommunications and defense systems.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, EADS
falsely assured the investing public that it would overcome the
technical problems in the production of the Company's Airbus
A380 commercial jets (A380) and it would be able to meet its
year-end delivery deadlines.  Moreover, the Company issued
numerous positive statements which described the Company's
increasing financial performance.  According to the complaint,
these statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (i) that the Company was experiencing insurmountable delays
         in the manufacture of the A380 commercial jet;

    (ii) that the Company would be required to compensate its
         customers for these delays through discounts and
         certain customers would likely be canceling their
         entire orders; and

   (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         ability to receive new contract awards from commercial
         airliners and its ability to reap future revenues at
         the levels that it was projecting would be in serious
         doubt.

On June 13, 2006, the Company announced that its Airbus
subsidiary was having production problems with the A380
commercial jet, which would cause a significant delay in
delivery to its customers.  The Company also issued a profit
warning beyond 2006 which was attributable to these delays and
announced that it anticipated annual shortfalls of EUR 500
million, without taking into account possible contract
terminations from existing customers.

Upon this announcement, shares of EADS fell EUR 6.69 per share,
or 26%, to close at EUR 18.73 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all U.S.
citizens who purchased the publicly traded stock of EADS on the
Frankfurt, Madrid and Paris stock exchanges during the Class
Period.

For more information, contact:

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


FRANKLIN BANK: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Franklin Bank Corp. between October 29, 2007, and
May 1, 2008, inclusive.

Franklin and certain of the Company's officers are charged with
making a series of materially false and misleading statements
related to the Company's business and operations in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

For more information, contact:

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


INDYMAC BANCORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 11, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against IndyMac Bancorp, 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 August 16, 2007, through May 12, 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
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


MGIC INVESTMENT: Stull & Brody Files Wisconsin Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of MGIC
Investment Corporation between October 12, 2006, and
February 12, 2008.

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

MGIC, through its subsidiary, provides private mortgage
insurance to the home mortgage lending industry in the United
States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, MGIC stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching its Class
Period high of $70.09 per share in February 2007.

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 Credit-Based
Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC (C-BASS), a joint venture
between MGIC and Radian Group Inc.  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.

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

     (a) the Company's investment in C-BASS was materially
         impaired as C-BASS was experiencing increasing margin
         calls and C-Bass investments were declining in value at
         a significant rate;

     (b) the Company was materially overstating its financial
         results by failing to properly value its investment in
         C-BASS and by failing to write down that investment in  
         a timely fashion in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles; and

     (c) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
         losses and defaults related to its book of business
         related to insurance written in 2005 through most of
         2007 than it had previously disclosed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired MGIC's common stock during the
Class Period, which is between October 12, 2006, and February
12, 2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
May 16, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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




                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *