CAR_Public/080617.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, June 17, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 119
  
                            Headlines

ACTAVIS: Faces Another Suit in W.Va. Over Heart Drug Digitek
AIG INC: Investors May Get Compensation; Claims Due on Aug. 12
ALBERTA CHIROPRACTORS: Patients File Suit Over Spine Adjustment
ALLIANCE DATA: Settles Texas Lawsuit Over Blackstone Merger Deal
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.

AMBAC FINANCIAL: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Alleging ERISA Violations
AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims in "Harris"
AMVAC CHEMICAL: Class Certification Sought in DBCP Damage Suit
AMVAC CHEMICAL: Parties Settle "McLendon" Pollution Suit in Ga.  
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Delaware Suit Blocks InBev's $46B Purchase Offer

AVIS RENT: California Suit Challenges Rental Car 'Airport Fee'
BASIN WATER: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
CHUBB CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions
CKX INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Del. Lawsuit Over 19X Merger
DANA CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Securities Suit

DEVRY INC: Plaintiffs in "Daghlian" Appeal Dismissal of Claims
DYNEX CAPITAL: Court Mulls Appeal on Securities Suit's Dismissal
E.I. DUPONT: July 2 Certification Hearing Set for C8 Lawsuit
GENERAL MILLS: Mislabeled "100% Natural" Bars Prompt Calif. Suit
GLS CAPITAL: Stay on Pa. Suit Over Delinquency Fees Continues

ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuit in Delaware Over Sale of NEGI
LIGGETT GROUP: Second Circuit Decertifies Class in "Schwab" Case
MANNATECH INC: Reaches Settlement in Texas Derivative Lawsuits
MBIA INC: Faces Three Securities Violations Lawsuits in New York
METLIFE INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Demutualization Case

METLIFE INC: Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Antitrust Suit Appealed
METLIFE INC: Faces Fla. Suit Over Wrongful Reduction of Claims
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Oklahoma Court Dismisses Claims in "Thomas"
METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Fiala" Class Certification Under Appeal
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Improper Sales Practices Lawsuits

METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Still Faces Suits Over Medical Providers
NATIONAL CITY: Court Approves FLSA Violations Suit Settlement
NATIONAL CITY: Plaintiffs Won't Drop Pre-2004 Claims in MDL-1720
NATIONAL CITY: Faces Seven ERISA Violations Lawsuits in Ohio
NATIONAL CITY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio

NATIONAL CITY: Faces Securities Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
ORBCOMM INC: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New Jersey
SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Mislabeled "All Natural" Beverages Suit Junked
TAMPA CITY: Lawyers Launch Suit Over Occupational License Fee
TIM HORTONS: Franchisees File CDN$1.95BB Suit Over Frozen Donuts


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Stull & Brody Files Securities Suit in Calif.
EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Dreier LLP Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Labaton Sucharow Files N.Y. Securities Suit
FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Massachusetts Suit
FRANKLIN BANCORP: Sarraf Gentile Files Texas Securities Suit

INDYMAC BANCORP: Schatz Nobel Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ACTAVIS: Faces Another Suit in W.Va. Over Heart Drug Digitek
------------------------------------------------------------
Three drug companies are facing lawsuits in West Virginia courts
over a heart drug recalled in April 2008 following reports of
injury and illness, the Associated Press reports.

According to the AP, the drug -- Digitek -- is manufactured by
New Jersey-based Actavis Totowa, but is distributed by
Pennsylvania-based Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Illinois-based UDL
Laboratories.  All three companies are named in lawsuits filed
in Kanawha and Putnam counties, the report notes.  Lawyers have
filed three lawsuits so far, but expect more.

The report says the lawsuits argue that the pills were
manufactured with undetected high doses of digitalis, an active
ingredient that led to serious illness and even death in some
cases.

Digitek is used to treat heart failure and abnormal heart
rhythms, but excessive doses can lead to digitalis toxicity,
which in extreme cases can lead to cardiac arrest, the AP notes,
citing a statement issued by Actavis when the drug was recalled.

"It was supposed to treat the symptoms of congestive heart
failure, and the tragic thing is that it turned around and
caused congestive heart failure in some cases," said Charleston
lawyer James Peterson, Esq., one of the attorneys involved in
the case.

A class action lawsuit against the three companies has also been
filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reported on May 13, 2008, two
weeks since Icelandic generic drug maker Actavis recalled
Digitek, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Actavis, Mylan and its UDL Laboratories unit.  The plaintiffs
are seeking damages over alleged injuries and to cover medical
monitoring in case of future health trouble.

According to the CAR report, the lead plaintiffs in the New
Jersey case are a Pennsylvania man who said the drug caused
kidney damage and an Illinois woman who said she suffered
nausea, dizziness and cardiac symptoms.

The AP says that a spokesman for Mylan, Michael Laffin, said the
company does not comment on pending litigation.  However, he
provided a statement Mylan issued at the time of the recall.

"Actavis, as the manufacturer, initiated the recall, and our
expectation is that Actavis is responsible for all costs
associated with it, including litigation costs," the statement
reads.  "Digitek represents a very small portion of Mylan's
global product portfolio."

The AP recounts that when Actavis issued the voluntary recall on
April 25, it said tablets which may have contained twice the
appropriate level of digitalis could have been distributed in
error.  The medication was distributed by Mylan under the Bertek
label and by UDL under the UDL label.  At the time of the
recall, Actavis said it knew of 11 people who had reported
becoming ill after taking the drug, but said it was not aware of
any deaths.

Tony O'Dell, a Charleston lawyer whose firm is involved in the
cases, points to a 2007 Food and Drug Administration letter to
Actavis as indication of persistent problems, the AP relates.  
That letter, based on inspections in the summer of 2006,
concludes in part that "significant deficiencies were found in
the operations of your firm's quality control unit."

"It's going to be difficult for this company to argue they were
unaware of quality control problems at their plant," Mr. O'Dell
said.


AIG INC: Investors May Get Compensation; Claims Due on Aug. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission commenced a
lawsuit on February 9, 2006, alleging that from at least 2000
until 2005, American International Group Inc. materially
falsified its its financial statements through a variety of sham
transactions and entities and that AIG reported materially false
and misleading information about its financial condition.

On February 17, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered a final judgment against AIG to
which AIG consented without admitting or denying the allegations
in the complaint.  Pursuant to the final judgment, on March 3,
2006, AIG paid a total of $800 million ($700 million in
disgorgement and a civil penalty of $100 million) to the Clerk
of Court for distribution for the benefit of eligible investors
in accordance with a Distribution Plan approved by the Court.  
The funds were deposited into an interest-bearing account with
the Court Registry Investment System on March 3, 2006, under the
case name designation "SEC v. American International Group,
Inc.," 06 Civ. 1000 (LAP).

On June 14, 2007, the Court appointed Kenneth R. Feinberg as the
Distribution Agent for the Fund and authorized the Commission to
establish a Fair Fund in accordance with Section 308(a) of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act. On April 14, 2008, the Court approved the
Distribution Plans submitted by the Distribution Agent.

Individuals who purchased common stock of AIG during the period
February 8, 2001, through and including March 31, 2005, and sold
at a loss on or after February 14, 2005, or still held after
March 31, 2005; or those who purchased certain AIG or AIG-
affiliated fixed-income securities during the period February 8,
2001, through and including March 31, 2005, and either sold on
or after March 24, 2005, or still held after March 31, 2005, may
be eligible for full or partial recovery of losses incurred.  
Those individuals are required to file a proof of claim for
potential recovery.

Those eligible must submit a completed Proof of Claim Form that
is received by the Distribution Agent postmarked on or before
August 12, 2008.  Proof of Claim Forms will be mailed to
potentially eligible claimants identified by the Distribution
Agent.  In addition, eligible claimants may download and print
the Proof of Claim Form from the Fair Fund Web site at
http://www.aigsettlementadministration.com/and may file the  
Proof of Claim Form electronically through this Web site.  
Eligible claimants may also request in writing that the
Distribution Agent mail the form, indicating the complete name
and mailing address of the claimant.  Completed Forms must be
submitted to:

          SEC/AIG Fair Fund
          c/o Kenneth R. Feinberg, Distribution Agent
          P.O. Box 19302
          Washington, D.C. 20036-9302
          Phone: 1-866-486-4809


ALBERTA CHIROPRACTORS: Patients File Suit Over Spine Adjustment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC), one of Canada's leading
business and litigation law firms, filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of Alberta's chiropractic patients and their estates
on June 12, 2008.

The class action lawsuit, filed in the Alberta Court of Queen's
Bench, alleges that Alberta chiropractors put the lives and
health of their patients at risk by subjecting them to
inappropriate and non-beneficial adjustments of their spines and
necks.

The lawsuit, "Sandra Nette, et al. vs. Gregory John Stiles, et
al.," was initiated by Sandra Nette and her husband David Nette
of Edmonton.

In September 2007, Sandra visited her chiropractor, Gregory
Stiles, at his Edmonton clinic for chiropractic adjustments he
had recommended to improve her health and wellness. The suit
alleges that Gregory Stiles' upper neck adjustments ruptured
Sandra's right and left vertebral arteries, disrupting the blood
flow to her brain and causing a cascade of strokes. Less than an
hour after Gregory Stiles' upper neck adjustment Sandra was, and
remains today, a tetraplegic.

"Albertans have a right to expect that the healthcare they pay
for and receive is safe and effective," said Philip Tinkler,
Esq., head of FMC's Edmonton Class Actions Group.  "This claim
alleges that people are not being properly informed of their
health conditions or of the benefits and risks of the
manipulations chiropractors propose to do."

The lawsuit's lead counsel is FMC partner and corporate
litigator P. Daryl Wilson, Q.C. who says, "Medical scientists
tell us that there is no scientific basis to the chiropractic
theory of subluxations affecting health and the need for routine
neck manipulation.  Two Canadian coroner's inquiries have found
as a fact that manipulating the upper neck has caused death.
Sandra Nette has been rendered a tetraplegic by unnecessary,
inappropriate and non-beneficial manipulation of the upper neck,
and does not want this to happen to anyone else.  We believe
this class action lawsuit is important and in the public
interest."

Named as defendants in the class action suit are:

     -- Gregory Stiles and The Spa at Life Stiles the Alberta
        College and Association of Chiropractors for allegedly
        failing to properly regulate the use of spinal
        manipulations, particularly to the upper neck; and,

     -- the Alberta Ministry of Health which has ultimate
        responsibility for the health services offered to the
        public.

Members of the class whose rights will be represented include
any person (or their estate if deceased) who received any
chiropractic adjustment of the spine other than an adjustment to
treat an existing diagnosis of acute or sub-acute uncomplicated
low back pain in the last decade and suffered personal injury as
a result, and any person (or their estate if deceased) who paid
for such chiropractic adjustments in Alberta in the last decade.

For more information, contact:

          Alison Janzen (alison.janzen@fmc-law.com)
          Jenn Muir (jenn.muir@fmc-law.com)
          Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP
          2900 Manulife Place, 10180 - 101 Street
          Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3V5
          Phone: 416-863-4455
                 780-423-7385 or
                 780-860-7541

               - and -

          Daorcey Le Bray (dlebray@national.ca)
          National Public Relations
          Phone: 403-444-1482


ALLIANCE DATA: Settles Texas Lawsuit Over Blackstone Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Data Systems Corporation, a leading provider of loyalty
and marketing solutions derived from transaction-rich data,
disclosed that on May 21, 2008, it had entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement to settle claims filed subsequent to
its May 17, 2007 announcement that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger to be acquired by Blackstone
Capital Partners V L.P., an affiliate of The Blackstone Group.

Those cases were consolidated and are now captioned as In re
Alliance Data Corp. Class Action & Derivative Litigation, Case
No. 07-4689, 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas.

On May 22, 2008, the Court overseeing those claims preliminarily
approved the class action settlement.  The Settlement Class
covered by the Stipulation of Settlement includes all persons or
entities who were record or beneficial holders of ADSC common
stock at any time during the period from (and including) May 17,
2007, through August 14, 2007, including the legal
representatives, heirs, successors in interest, transferees, and
assigns of all such foregoing holders and owners.

Pursuant to an Order of the 68th Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas a hearing will be held on July 28, 2008, at
9:00 a.m. to consider the proposed settlement before the
Honorable Martin Hoffman.

The purpose of the Settlement of the Class Action is to settle
the claims asserted on behalf of the Settlement Class against
Alliance Data Systems Corporation, J. Michael Parks, Bruce K.
Anderson, Roger H. Ballou, Lawrence M. Benveniste, D. Keith
Cobb, E. Linn Draper, Jr., Kenneth R. Jensen, and Robert A.
Minicucci (collectively, the Defendants) in exchange for
additional disclosures provided to ADSC stockholders in a
Supplemental Proxy Statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007 and the payment of
reasonable attorney's fees and expenses to Class Plaintiffs'
Counsel in the amount of $380,000.00.

The Court may adjourn or continue the hearing on the Settlement
of the Class Action without further notice to the Settlement
Class.

Deadline to file for exclusion is on July 14, 2008.

Dallas-based Alliance Data Systems Corp. performs private-label
credit card operations as credit and transaction services and
marketing, serving more than 600 clients, including retailers,
supermarkets, oil companies, utilities, and financial services
companies. Activities include loyalty programs, billing and
payment processing, point-of-sale services, risk management, and
database marketing.

    
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ambac Financial Group Inc. is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit filed 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.

Initially, a suit was filed on Jan. 16, 2008, entitled, "Reimer
v. Ambac Financial Group."  It was brought on behalf of buyers
of Ambac's shares from Oct. 19, 2005, to Nov. 26, 2007.  The
complaint charges Ambac, and certain of its officers, and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial
results related to its insurance coverage on collateralized debt
obligations contracts.

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

       -- that the company lacked requisite internal controls to
          ensure that the company's underwriting standards and
          its internal rating system for its CDO contracts were
          adequate, and, as a result, the company's projections
          and reported results issued during the Class Period
          were based upon defective assumptions and
          manipulated facts;

       -- that the company's financial statements were
          materially misstated due to its failure to properly
          account for its mark-to-market losses;

       -- that, given the deterioration and the increased
          volatility in the mortgage market, the company would
          be forced to tighten its underwriting standards
          related to its asset-backed securities, which would
          have a direct material negative impact on its premium
          production going forward;

       -- that the company had far greater exposure to
          anticipated losses and defaults related to its CDO
          contracts containing subprime loans, including even
          highly rated CDOs, than it had previously disclosed;

       -- that the company had far greater exposure to a
          potential ratings downgrade from one of the credit
          ratings agencies than it had previously disclosed; and

       -- that defendants' Class Period statements about the
          company's selective underwriting practices during the
          2005 through 2007 timeframe related to its CDOs backed
          by subprime assets were patently false, as the
          company's underwriting standards were at best
          aggressive and at a minimum were completely
          inadequate.

Three other suits were later filed, making substantially the
same allegations as the Reimer action.  These suits are:

       -- "Babic v. Ambac Financial Group Inc. et al." (filed on
          or about Feb. 7, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for
          the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08 CV  
          1273);

       -- "Parker v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al." (filed
          on or about Feb. 22, 2008, in the U.S. District Court
          for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08 CV
          1825); and

       -- "Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association v. Ambac
          Financial Group, Inc. et al." (filed on Feb. 26, 2008,
          in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
          of New York, Case No. 08 CV 1918).

In March 2008, certain plaintiffs filed motions for appointment
as lead plaintiff, approval of their selection of counsel as
lead counsel for the class, and consolidation of the four class
actions.

On May 9, 2008, the court appointed as lead plaintiff the "U.S.
Public Pension Funds," which consists of the Public Teachers'
Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago, the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System, and the Public Employees' Retirement System
of Mississippi.  The court also appointed Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman LLP and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead
co-counsel for the class.  The class action lawsuits were also
consolidated, 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 Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00411-NRB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Naomi Reice Buchwald, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@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

         Jill Sharyn Abrams, Esq. (jabrams@abbeyspanier.com)
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-889-3700
         Fax: 212-684-5191

              - and -

         Aviah Cohen-Pierson, Esq. (acohenpierson@kaplanfox.com)
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
         850 Third Avenue
         14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-687-1980
         Fax: 212-687-7714

Representing the defendants is:

         Peter C. Hein, Esq. (PCHein@wlrk.com)
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: 212-403-2000


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Alleging ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ambac Financial Group Inc. is facing a purported class action
suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The suit was filed on April 15, 2008, under the caption,
"Patterson v. The Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Pension Plan, et
al. Case No. 08 CV 3582."

The suit was commenced against Ambac, the Ambac Financial Group,
Inc. Pension Plan, the Plan Administrative Committee and its
members, and the Plan Investment Committee and its members.  

The suit purports to be brought on behalf of the Ambac Financial
Group Inc. Pension Plan.  It alleges, among other things, that
the Ambac Plan incorrectly calculated the plaintiffs' benefit,
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 "Patterson, et al. v. The Ambac Financial Group,
Inc. Pension Plan, et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-03582-DC," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Judge Denny Chin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David Steven Preminger, Esq. (dpreminger@rpblawny.com)
          Rosen Preminger & Bloom LLP
          708 Third Avenue
          Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-422-1001
          Fax: 212-363-4436


AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims in "Harris"
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit filed against
Amgen, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, are appealing a ruling by the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California that dismisses
certain claims in the case.

On Aug. 20, 2007, an ERISA class action suit, captioned "Harris
v. Amgen Inc., et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against Amgen and certain
members of its board of directors.

The plaintiffs claim that Amgen and various Board members
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to inform current and
former employees who participated in the Amgen Retirement and
Savings Manufacturing Plan and the Amgen Savings Plan of the
alleged off-label promotion of both Aranesp and EPOGEN while a
number of studies allegedly demonstrated safety concerns in
patients using ESAs -- Erythropoietin Stimulating Agents.

On Feb. 1, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the decision by the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
dismiss the claims by the plaintiffs in the matter to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, 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 "Steve Harris, et al. v. Amgen, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-05442-PSG-PLA," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. (gregorek@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
          Symphony Tower, 750 B St., Ste. 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-239-4599

Representing the defendants is:

          Mack Anderson, Esq.
          Mayer Brown
          350 S. Grand Ave., 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Phone: 213-229-9500
          Web site: http://www.mayerbrown.com/


AMVAC CHEMICAL: Class Certification Sought in DBCP Damage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit filed against
AMVAC Chemical Corp. have filed a preliminary motion for class
certification of the matter.

In October 1997, Amvac was served with two identical suits filed
in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, and
the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii.

The suits, which were later consolidated, were filed by banana
workers who were exposed to 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP)
in their native countries from 1959 through at least 1997.  They
allege damages sustained from injuries caused by their exposure
to DBCP while applying the product in their native countries.

The 10 named plaintiffs are citizens of four countries --
Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador.  Punitive damages
are sought against each defendant.

The case was also filed as class action on behalf of other
workers so exposed in these four countries.  The plaintiffs
allege sterility and other injuries.

On Sept. 12, 2006, the court transferred venue from Maui County
to Oahu.  On Feb. 16, 2007, the case was assigned to a judge in
Oahu.  

Preliminary issues are class certification and the possible
addition of class members as individual defendants.  Written
discovery to defendants was conducted on venue-related issues.

The court held a status conference on April 16, 2007, and
tentatively set the case for trial for February 16, 2009.

The plaintiffs have filed a preliminary motion for class
certification which is scheduled for consideration on June 4,
2008.  This request will be vigorously opposed by all
defendants, according to American Vanguard Corp.'s May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

American Vanguard Corp. -- http://www.american-vanguard.com/--  
operates as a holding company.  The Company conducts its
business through its subsidiaries, including AMVAC Chemical
Corp.  AMVAC is a specialty chemical manufacturer, which
develops and markets products for agricultural and commercial
uses.  


AMVAC CHEMICAL: Parties Settle "McLendon" Pollution Suit in Ga.  
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class action lawsuit, captioned
"McLendon, et al. v. Philip Services Corp., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-01770-CAP," have reached a tentative settlement for the
matter, which names as defendant a registered agent of AMVAC
Chemical Corp., according to American Vanguard Corp.'s May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

On July 19, 2006, AMVAC Chemical's registered agent was served
with a complaint entitled, "Latrice McLendon, et al. v. Philip
Service Corp. etc. et al."  The suit was filed in the Superior
State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia (No.
2006CN119863), but was subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:06-CV-
1770-CAP).

The purported class of plaintiffs seeks damages, including
punitive damages, in an unspecified amount for personal injuries
and diminution in property value allegedly arising from the
airborne release of propyl mercaptan and ethoprop from a waste
treatment facility operated by PSC Recovery Services in
Fairburn, Georgia.

The plaintiffs -- residents living in the vicinity of the PSC
plant -- allege trespass, nuisance and negligence on behalf of
defendants in handling, storing and treating waste, which was
generated by AMVAC's Axis, Alabama facility.

After having completed class certification discovery, and prior
to a court order certifying the proposed class, the parties, in
September 2007, engaged in mediation.  

Working in conjunction with their insurance carriers at the
mediation, defendants AMVAC and PSC have agreed in principle to
settle the matter with a settlement class of approximately 2,000
households for payment of cash consideration.  

The settlement process involves multiple steps to be taken over
several months and requires both preliminary and final court
approval.

As currently proposed, the settlement would not have an adverse
effect on the company's financial condition and operating
results.

However, the settlement is not yet final and members of the
settlement class remain free to opt out of the settlement and to
preserve their individual rights, and it is not anticipated that
the settlement will include mutual releases between co-
defendants.

In addition, each co-defendant's insurance carrier has reserved
all rights under applicable insurance policies, including rights
to subrogation and contribution.

The suit is "McLendon, et al. v. Philip Services Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01770-CAP," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Charles A. Pannell,
Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Charles M. Goetz, Jr., Esq. (cmgoetz@goetz-zahler.com)
         Goetz Allen & Zahler
         2859 Paces Ferry Road, Overlook III, Suite 1740
         Atlanta, GA 30339
         Phone: 770-431-1000

Representing the company is:

         Cari K. Dawson, Esq. (cari.dawson@alston.com)
         Alston & Bird LLP
         1201 West Peachtree Street, One Atlantic Center
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
         Phone: 404-881-7000


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Delaware Suit Blocks InBev's $46B Purchase Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware blocking its sale to Belgium-based InBev SA, Joe Harris
of the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Shareholders say Belgium-based InBev's $46.3-billion offer to
buy Anheuser-Busch, or $65-a-share officer, is too low and is
inadequate because "the intrinsic value of Anheuser-Busch's
common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered for
those securities in the proposed acquisition given to the
Company's assets and prospects for future growth and earnings."

Anheuser-Busch recently released a long-term growth objective of
7 to 10%, after reporting that sales increased by 6.8% in the
first quarter this year, the complaint states.  It says
Anheuser-Busch's growth has been consistent for five years, and
also claims there are also conflicts in this proposed merger.

The alleged conflicts include the two companies distributing
each other's products in different countries, and InBev's sale
of its Rolling Rock Brand to Anheuser-Busch for $82 million in
2006.

Also, Anheuser-Busch has hired Goldman Sachs and Citigroup as
financial advisers, while Mark Winkelman, a member of InBev's
board, was a management committee member of Goldman Sachs & Co.
from 1988 to 1994 and is now a senior director.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules  
of the Court of Chancery, on behalf of all holders of Anheuser-
Busch common stock who are being and will be harmed by
defendants' actions.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
         of undivided loyalty, independence or due care with
         respect to plaintiff and the other members of the class
         in connection with the proposed transaction;

     (b) whether the individual defendants are engaging in self-
         dealing in connection with the proposed transaction;

     (c) whether the individual defendants have breached their
         fiduciary duty to secure and obtain the best reasonable
         under the circumstances for the benefit of plaintiff
         and the other members of the class in connection with
         the proposed transaction;

     (d) whether the individual defendants are unjustly
         enriching themselves and other insiders or affiliates
         of Anheuser-Busch;

     (e) whether defendants have breached any of their other
         fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the other members of
         the class in connection with the proposed transaction,
         including the duties of good faith, diligence, honesty
         and fair dealing;

     (f) whether defendants, in bad faith and for improper
         motives, have impeded injury or erected barriers to
         discourage other offers for the company or its assets;
         and

     (g) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class
         would suffer irreparable injury were the transaction
         complained of consummated.

Plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

      -- declaring this action to be a proper class action and
         certifying plaintiff as class representative and
         plaintiff's counsel as class counsel;

      -- permanently enjoining defendants from disenfranchising
         the class and effectuating the proposed transaction;

      -- declaring the the individual defendants have breached
         their fiduciary duty to plaintiff and the class;

      -- awarding fees, expenses and costs to plaintiff and
         plaintiff's counsel; and

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

The suit is "Michael Golombuski, et al. v. Anheuser-Busch
Companies Inc., Transaction ID: 20212791," 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


AVIS RENT: California Suit Challenges Rental Car 'Airport Fee'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., and Avis Budget Group, Inc., are
facing a class-action complaint filed before the Superior Court
of the State of California, in the County of San Diego, alleging
that the companies charge and 11.1 % airport concession fee even
if customers do not rent their cars at airports, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class
action pursuant to provisions of the California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 382 on behalf of all persons who rented a
vehicle from defendants at the San Diego International Airport
at Lindbergh Field between Jan. 1, 2007, and the present and who
were charged an airport concessions recovery fee, but who were
not transported between the airport and the rental location by
shuttle, bus, tram, taxi or a courtesy vehicle service and
therefore not airport customers subject to airport concession
recovery fees at the airport.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants violated the Consumer Legal Remedies
         Act by misrepresenting the source, sponsorship,
         approval, or certification of goods or services
         (California Civil Code Section 1770(a)(2));

     (b) whether defendants violate the CLRA by misrepresenting
         the affiliation, connection, or association with, or
         certification by another (California Civil Code Section
         1770(a)(3));

     (c) whether defendants violate the CLRA by representing
         that the goods or services have characteristics,
         benefits or quantities which they do not have
         (California Civil Code Section 1770(a)(9));

     (d) whether defendants violated the CLRA by advertising
         goods or services with the intent not to sell them as
         advertised;

     (e) whether defendants violate the CLRA by representing
         that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies
         or obligations which it does not have or involve, or
         which are prohibited by law;

     (f) whether defendants violate the CLRA by representing
         that the subject of a transaction has been supplied in
         accordance with a previous representation when it has
         not;

     (g) whether defendants violate the unlawful prong of the
         California Unfair Competition law by charging
         consumer renters airport concession fees that do not
         represent consumer renters' proportionate share of the
         amount paid by defendants to the owner or operator of
         an airport for the right or privilege of conducting a
         vehicle rental business on the airport's premises;

     (h) whether defendants violate the unfair prong of the UCL
         by charging consumer renters airport concession fees
         that do not represent consumer renters' proportionate
         share of the amount paid by defendants to the owner or
         operator of an airport for the right or privilege of
         conducting a vehicle rental business on the airport's
         premises;

     (i) whether and to what extent plaintiff and members of the
         class sustained damages; and

     (j) the amount of revenues or profit defendants made as a
         result of their unlawful and unfair conduct.

The plaintiffs asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying the case as a class action;

     -- an order requiring defendants to identify each of
        the members of the class by name, home address and home
        telephone number;

     -- an order compelling defendants to restore and
        disgorge all airport concession recovery fees collected
        by defendants from non-airport customers;

     -- the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting
        defendants from continuing to violate the CLRA and UCL,
        including each and all of the acts and practices
        described;

     -- restitution and damages in an amount to be proven at
        trial;

     -- attorneys' fees pursuant to Civil Code Section
        1780(d), Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 and as
        otherwise permitted by statute;

     -- costs of suit; and

     -- such other equitable and legal relief as the court
        may deem proper and just.

The suit is "Marcos Goldberg, et al. v. Avis Rent A Car System,
LLC, et al., Case No. 37-2008-00065496-CU-BT-CTL," filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Derek J. Emge, Esq.
          Emge & Associates
          550 West C Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-595-1400
          Fax: 619-595-1480


BASIN WATER: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Water, Inc., is facing two purported securities fraud
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, according to its May 2008 Form
10-Q filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Dec. 27, 2007, and Jan. 2, 2008, two purported securities
class-action complaints were filed against Basin Water, Inc.,
Peter L. Jensen, Michael M. Stark and Thomas C. Tekulve for
violations of the Exchange Act.

These lawsuits, which contain similar allegations, are
captioned, "Poulos v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 07-8359
GW (FFMx)," and "Nofer v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 08-
0002 SGL (JCRx)."

The lawsuits, among other things, allege that the Basin
defendants "issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business and financial results" because
the company "had not adequately accounted for reserves in
connection with its legacy system contracts."

The plaintiffs allege a putative class period between May 14,
2007, and Nov. 13, 2007, and do not claim a specific amount of
damages.

Basin Water, Inc. -- http://www.basinwater.com/-- is a provider  
of process solutions for a range of customers, which include
designing, building, implementing and servicing systems for the
treatment of contaminated groundwater, the treatment of
wastewater, waste reduction and resource recovery.


CHUBB CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Chubb Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries continue to face
purported class action lawsuits arising out of investigations
into the payment of contingent commissions to brokers and agents
in the property and casualty insurance industry.

Purported class action complaints arising out of the
investigations into the payment of contingent commissions to
brokers and agents have been filed in a number of state and
federal courts.

                     August 2005 Litigation

On Aug. 1, 2005, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a putative class action suit entitled,
"In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation" in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

This action, brought against several brokers and insurers on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased insurance through the
broker defendants, asserts claims under the Sherman Act and
state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act arising from the alleged unlawful use of contingent
commission agreements.


               Florida, Massachusetts Litigation

Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries have also been named as
defendants in two putative class action suits relating to
allegations of unlawful use of contingent commission
arrangements that were originally filed in state court.  

The first was filed on Feb. 16, 2005, in Seminole County,
Florida.  The second was filed on May 17, 2005, in Essex County,
Massachusetts.

Both cases were removed to federal court and then transferred by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey for consolidation
with "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

Since being transferred to the District of New Jersey, the
plaintiff in the former action has been inactive, and that
action currently is stayed.  The latter action has been
voluntarily dismissed.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismissed the second amended complaint filed by the
plaintiffs in "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation"
in its entirety.  

In so doing, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims with
prejudice for failure to state a claim, and it dismissed the
plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice because it
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their second
amended complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, and that appeal is currently pending.

                    December 2005 Litigation

In December 2005, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a putative class action suit similar to
"In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and has been assigned to the judge who is
presiding over "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

The complaint has never been served in this matter.  

                     April 2006 Litigation

Separately, in April 2006, Chubb and one of its subsidiaries
were named as defendants in an action similar to "In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia and subsequently was transferred by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated
with "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."  This
action currently is stayed.

                        2007 Litigation

On May 21, 2007, Chubb and one of its subsidiaries were named as
defendants in another action similar to "In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and consolidated with "In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."  This action currently is
stayed.

On Oct. 12, 2007, certain of Chubb's subsidiaries were named as
defendants in an action similar to "In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation."  This suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

This action has been identified to the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation as a potential "tag-along action" to
"In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

Chubb currently anticipates that this action will be transferred
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated
with "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

In these actions, the plaintiffs generally allege that the
defendants unlawfully used contingent commission agreements and
conspired to reduce competition in the insurance markets.  

The actions seek treble damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief, and attorneys' fees.

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

The Chubb Corp. -- http://www.chubb.com/-- is a holding company  
for a family of property and casualty insurance companies known
as the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies.  The P&C Group is
divided into three business units: Chubb Commercial Insurance,
Chubb Commercial Insurance and Chubb Specialty Insurance.  Chubb
Commercial Insurance offers a range of commercial customer
insurance products, including coverage for multiple peril,
casualty, workers compensation, property and marine.  Chubb
Specialty Insurance offers a variety of specialized professional
liability products for privately and publicly owned companies,
financial institutions, professional firms and healthcare
organizations.  Chubb Specialty Insurance also includes the
Companys surety business.  Chubb Personal Insurance offers
products for individuals.  The P&C Group provides insurance
coverages principally in the United States, Canada, Europe,
Australia, and parts of Latin America and Asia.


CKX INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Del. Lawsuit Over 19X Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated lawsuit against CKX, Inc., over
a merger agreement with 19X Inc. and 19X Acquisition Corp. filed
an amended complaint in the matter.

Initially, a lawsuit was filed on Dec. 14, 2007, with the
Delaware Chancery Court against the company, its directors, 19X
Inc. and 19X Acquisition Corp.  It was filed by a purported
stockholder of the company, and it seeks class-action status to
represent all of the company's public stockholders.   

The complaint alleges that the sale price is too low and that
the company's directors have therefore breached their fiduciary
duties by approving the transaction.

It also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing
the defendants from consummating the merger.  Alternatively, if
the merger is consummated, the complaint seeks rescission or
recessionary damages in an unspecified amount.

In addition, the complaint seeks "Class compensatory damages" in
an unspecified amount, as well as the costs and disbursements of
the action, experts' fees and the fees of plaintiff's attorneys.

On Feb. 1, 2008, another summons and complaint was filed with
the Delaware Chancery Court against the defendants by another
purported shareholder of the company.  The complaint is
identical to the complaint filed on Dec. 14, 2007.  

The two cases have been consolidated and on April 18, 2008, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

CKX, Inc. -- http://ir.ckx.com/-- is a company founded on  
Feb. 7, 2005, that owns and develops entertainment content and
intellectual property.  CKX holds, among other assets, the
rights to the name, image and likeness of Elvis Presley; the
operations of Graceland; and an 80% interest in the name,
likeness, trademarks, and licensing agreements of Muhammad Ali
including Ali's "Greatest Of All Time" (or G.O.A.T.) slogan.


DANA CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Howard Frank v. Michael J. Burns
and Robert C. Richter," which was filed against certain officers
of Dana Corp., are appealing the dismissal of their case by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, according
to Dana'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 specifically naming Dana's chief executive officer,
Michael Burns, and its former chief financial officer, Robert
Richter, as defendants.

The plaintiffs in the action allege violations of the U.S.
securities laws and claim that the price at which Dana's shares
traded at various times between February 2004 and November 2005
was artificially inflated as a result of the defendants' alleged
wrongdoing.

In a consolidated complaint filed in August 2006, the lead
plaintiffs alleged violations of the U.S. securities laws and
claimed that the price at which our stock traded at various
times between April 2004 and October 2005 was artificially
inflated as a result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing.

In June 2007, the District Court denied the lead plaintiffs'
motion for an order partially lifting the statutory discovery
stay which would have enabled them to obtain copies of certain
documents produced to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

By order dated Aug. 21, 2007, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and
entered a judgment closing the case.  

In September 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
from the District Court's order and judgment.  The appeal has
been fully briefed but oral arguments have not been scheduled.

The suit is "Frank v. Dana Corporation et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
07393-JGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Judge James G. Carr presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq. (kwschneider@ms-lawfirm.com)
         Maguire & Schneider
         Ste. 500, 250 Civic Center Drive
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph P. Thacker, Esq. (thacker@cooperwalinski.com)
         Cooper & Walinski
         900 Adams Street
         Toledo, OH 43624
         Phone: 419-249-0264
         Fax: 419-720-3439


DEVRY INC: Plaintiffs in "Daghlian" Appeal Dismissal of Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry
University, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," are
appealing a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California that granted motions for summary judgment
filed by DeVry Inc. and DeVry Universtiy Inc. in the lawsuit.

Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University
campus, filed a lawsuit over the defendants' alleged violations
of state education laws.  Originally, Ms. Daghlian brought the
putative class action suit in the California state district
court for the County of Los Angeles.  The case was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  

Mr. Daghlian alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to
students did not comply with California state statutes including
a California Education Code requirement to provide a specified
statement to prospective students concerning the transferability
of credits.   

On June 11, 2007, the District Court issued an order certifying
a class under the California Unfair Competition Law, California
Business & Professions Code, section 17200 (UCL), comprised of
students who enrolled and paid tuition at a California DeVry
school in the four years prior to the date when the suit was
filed.  

In October 2007, at DeVry's request, the Court entered a Summary
Judgment and dismissed all of Mr. Daghlian's class claims under
the UCL, on the grounds that the statutory provisions of the
California Education Code underlying Mr. Daghlian's claims
unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state regionally
accredited universities, in violation of the Dormant Commerce
Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

The Court also entered judgment in DeVry's favor on
Mr. Daghlian's individual claim under the California Education
Code.  Mr. DeVry had contended that the California Education
Code compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.    

In additionally, the Court vacated the existing trial schedule
and granted DeVry leave to file a second motion for summary
judgment directed to Mr. Daghlian's remaining individual claims
under the UCL and False Advertising Law.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

The suit is "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Margaret M.
Morrow, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael D. Braun, Esq.
         Braun Law Group
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone:  310-442-7755
         e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

              - and -

         Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq. (jlspielberg@jlslp.com)
         Janet L. Spielberg Law Offices
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone: 310-392-8801

Representing the defendants is:

         Van T. Lam, Esq.
         Reed Smith
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
         Phone: 213-457-8000


DYNEX CAPITAL: Court Mulls Appeal on Securities Suit's Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal regarding a dismissal of certain defendants in a
securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against Dynex
Capital Inc. and its subsidiary, MERIT Securities Corp.

On Feb. 11, 2005, a putative class-action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and various state
common law claims was filed against:

     -- Dynex Capital, Inc.,

     -- subsidiary MERIT Securities Corp.,

     -- Stephen J. Benedetti, the company's executive vice    
        president, and

     -- Thomas H. Potts, the company's former president and a
        former director.

The Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund filed the
suit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The lawsuit purported to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds,
which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans.  

On May 31, 2005, the Teamsters filed an amended class action
complaint.  The amended complaint dropped all state common law
claims but added federal securities claims related to the MERIT
Series 12 securitization financing bonds.  On July 15, 2005, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  

On Feb. 10, 2006, the District Court dismissed the claims
against the company's former president and its current chief
operating officer, but did not dismiss the claims against the
Company or MERIT.  

The ompany and MERIT petitioned for an interlocutory appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The Second
Circuit granted the company's petition on Sept. 15, 2006, and
heard oral argument on the appeal on Jan. 30, 2008.  

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

The suit is "Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund,
et al. v. Dynex Capital, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01897-
HB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Judge Harold Baer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com)
          Christopher Lometti, Eqs. (chris@spornlaw.com)
          Samuel P. Sporn, Esq. (samuel@spornlaw.com)
          Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., Esq.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-964-0046
          Fax: 212-267-8137

Representing the company are:

          Monica Shelton Call, Esq. (mcall@hunton.com)
          Eric Harrison Feiler, Esq. (efeiler@hunton.com)
          Edward Joseph Fuhr, Esq. (efuhr@hunton.com)
          Terence James Rasmussen, Esq. (trasmussen@hunton.com)
          Joseph John Saltarelli, Esq. (jsaltarelli@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams, LLP
          951 East Byrd Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: 804-788-8632
          Fax: 804-788-8218


E.I. DUPONT: July 2 Certification Hearing Set for C8 Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia said he needs more
information before he decides if a lawsuit over C8 contamination
of Parkersburg's city water supply can proceed as a class
action, Ken Ward Jr. Writes for Sunday Gazette Mail.

Judge Goodwin set a hearing for July 2, 2008, to hear testimony
from expert witnesses about the possible risks of C8 exposure
from that water.

As mentioned in the Class Action Reporter on June 16, 2008, the
class action lawsuit was filed against E.I. DuPont De Nemours &
Co. by William R. Rhodes in 2006.  The suit arises from the
company's alleged release of perfluoroctanoic acid (PFOA), also
known as C8, from its Washington Works plant in Wood County,
West Virginia.  The plaintiffs allege that C8 from the company's
plant has contaminated the drinking water of the communities
near the plant, including the city of Parkersburg.

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

Sunday Gazette relates that thousands of people could become
plaintiffs in the case if Judge Goodwin eventually certifies it
as a class-action lawsuit.  However, the judge said he wants to
first "test the plaintiffs' key experts' methodology and
assumptions" previously submitted to try to gain class
certification.

Judge Goodwin, according to Sunday Gazette had earlier barred
DuPont from using as one its experts a toxicologist who
previously worked for the plaintiffs' lawyers in a previous C8
case.  

The CAR reported that the judge granted the plaintiffs'
motion and disqualified Dr. Elizabeth L. Anderson as expert
witness for DuPont in the case.  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 that previous case in 2005, Sunday Gazette recounts, DuPont  
agreed to a $107.6-million settlement with thousands of
residents who live and obtain drinking water from communities
around the city of Parkersburg.  At the time of that deal,
Parkersburg city water did not appear to have a C8 problem.  But
since then, C8 above the levels at which DuPont agreed to
provide replacement supplies has been discovered in the city's
water.  And in May 2006, three city residents filed a follow-up
lawsuit and the plaintiffs' lawyers asked Judge Goodwin to
certify it as a class action.

The report further says that lawyers for the residents want
Judge Goodwin to certify the class as all people who consumed
Parkersburg drinking water for at least a year since Nov. 1,
2005.  They want DuPont to pay for medical monitoring and
provide water treatment or alternative water supplies for the
residents.

Judge Goodwin noted that the class certification depends on C8
being defined as a "proven hazardous substance" that creates a
risk under the one-year exposure outlined in the class
definition.

"Because the class definition relies on experts' opinion and
methodology, I must therefore examine the experts' opinion in
determining whether to certify the class," the judge wrote.


GENERAL MILLS: Mislabeled "100% Natural" Bars Prompt Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Mills Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego
alleging that its "Nature Valley" bars are not natural,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action suit pursuant to California's Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et
seq., California's False Advertising Law Business and
Professions Code Section 17500, et seq., and The Consumers Legal
Remedies Act Civil Code Section 1750, et seq., for marketing,
advertising, promotion and sales of "Nature Valley" crunchy
granola bar products and "Nature Valley" chewy-trail-mix bar
products as "100% Natural" when the products contain one or more
non-natural or artificial ingredient, such as High Fructose Corn
Syrup.

Named plaintiff Erin Wright brings this action pursuant ot
California Civil Code Section 1780, et seq., on behalf of all
persons residing in the State of California who purchased
General Mills, Inc.'s Nature Valley crunchy granola bar products
or Nature Valley chewy-trail-mix bar products marketed,
advertised, promoted, labeled and sold as 100% Natural, but that
contained HFCS and other unnatural ingredients, during the class
period.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant misrepresents the ingredients,
         characteristics or other aspects of its Nature Valley  
         crunchy granola bar products or Nature Valley chewy-
         trail-mix bar products;

     (b) whether defendant mislabels its Nature Valley crunchy
         granola bar products or Nature Valley chewy-trail-mix
         bar products;

     (c) whether defendant's misrepresentations are unfair,
         deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising as defined
         under California Business and Professions Code Section
         17500 et seq.;

     (d) whether defendants mislabeling of its Nature Valley
         crunchy granola bar products or Nature Valley chewy-
         trail-mix bar products constitutes unfair, deceptive,
         untrue or misleading advertising as defined under
         California Business and Professions Code Section 17500
         et seq.;

     (e) whether defendant's mislabeling of its Nature Valley
         crunchy granola bar products or Nature Valley chewy-
         trail-mix bar products is unlawful, unfair or
         fraudulent under California Business and Professions
         Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (f) whether defendant's misrepresentations are unlawful,
         unfair or fraudulent under California Business and
         Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (g) whether defendant knew, or by the exercise of
         reasonable care should have known, that its
         misrepresentations and mislabeling of the Nature
         Valley crunchy granola bar products or Nature Valley
         chewy-trail-mix bar products was untrue or would be
         misleading to a reasonable consumer;

     (h) whether defendant knowingly and intentionally concealed
         from plaintiff and the members of the class that its
         Nature Valley crunchy granola bar products or Nature
         Valley chewy-trail-mix bar products were mislabeled and
         that the ingredients were misrepresented;

     (i) whether defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive
         conduct in a violation of California Civil Code Section
         1750, et seq.;

     (j) whether defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive
         conduct in a violation of California Civil Code Section
         1770(a)(5) which prohibits "Representing that goods or
         services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics,
         ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they
         do not have or that a person has a sponsorship,
         approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he
         or she does not have;"

     (k) whether defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive
         conduct in violation of California Civil Code Section
         1770(a)(7) which prohibits "Representing that goods or
         services are of a particular standard, quality, or
         grade, or that goods are of a particular style or
         model, if they are of another;"

     (l) whether plaintiff and the members of the proposed class
         have been injured or suffered losses and, if so, the
         extent of their injure or loss;

     (m) whether defendant should be enjoined from engaging in
         the conduct complained of; and

     (n) whether defendant has been unjustly enriched through
         the wrongful conduct set forth.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying that the action may be maintained as
        a class action;

     -- an order that the plaintiff may serve as representative
        of the class;

     -- for a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
        defendant from advertising, representing, or otherwise
        holding out for sale within the State of California, any
        products which contain HFCS as being 100% Natural;

     -- an order requiring defendant to provide a form of
        corrective advertising designed to correct the
        the marketing, advertising, packaging and other
        misrepresentations, misstatements and omissions made in
        promotional materials related to its 100% Natural
        Nature Valley crunchy granola bar products or Nature
        Valley chewy-trail-mix bar products;

     -- for a judgment of the court to restore, by way of
        restitution, refund or reimbursement, to any person in
        interest, any money acquired by means of defendant's
        untrue, deceptive or misleading advertising or unfair,
        unlawful or fraudulent business acts and practices
        described;

     -- disgorgement of the excessive and ill-gotten monies
        obtained by defendant as a result of the untrue and
        misleading advertising and unlawful, unfair or
        fraudulent business acts and practices described;

     -- for an award of attorney fees pursuant to, inter alia,
        Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1021.5 abd 1032;

     -- for costs of suit incurred pursuant to Code of Civil
        Procedure Section 1033.5;

     -- pre and post-judgment interest; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court deems
        appropriate or which is allowed for in law or equity.

The suit is "Erin Wright, et al. v. General Mills, Inc., Case
No. 37-2008-00054977-CU-BT-NC," filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Peter J. McNulty, Esq.
          Brett L. Rosenthal, Esq.
          McNulty Law Firm
          827 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Phone: 310-471-2707
          Fax: 310-472-7014


GLS CAPITAL: Stay on Pa. Suit Over Delinquency Fees Continues
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, against GLS Capital, Inc., a
subsidiary of Dynex Capital Inc., remains stayed.

The plaintiffs allege that GLS illegally charged the taxpayers
of Allegheny County certain attorney fees, costs and expenses
and interest, in the collection of delinquent property tax
receivables owned by GLS which were purchased from Allegheny
County.   

In 2007, the Court of Common Pleas stayed this action pending
the outcome of other litigation before the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court in which GLS is not directly involved but has filed an
Amicus brief in support of the defendants.  

Several of the allegations in that lawsuit are similar to those
being made against GLS in this litigation.  The plaintiffs have
not enumerated their damages in this matter.

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

Dynex Capital, Inc. -- http://www.dynexcapital.com/-- together  
with its subsidiaries, is a specialty finance company organized
as a real estate investment trust that invests in loans and
securities consisting principally of single-family residential
and commercial mortgage loans.


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuit in Delaware Over Sale of NEGI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises, L.P., is facing a purported stockholder
derivative and class action lawsuit styled, "Andrew T. Berger v.
Icahn Enterprises LP, et al., Case No. 3522-VCS," according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against
National Energy Group, Inc., as a nominal defendant, Icahn
Enterprises L.P. and various individuals, including one of Icahn
Enterprises' current directors, as additional defendants.  Icahn
Enterprises indirectly beneficially own 50.1% of NEGI's
outstanding common stock.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of
NEGI's current and former officers and directors breached their
fiduciary duties to NEGI and its stockholders in connection with
NEGI's previously announced Nov. 21, 2006 sale to NEG Oil & Gas,
LLC, or NEG Oil & Gas, of NEGI's former unconsolidated non-
controlling 50% limited liability company interest in NEG
Holding, LLC, or NEG Holding, as a result of the exercise by NEG
Oil & Gas of its contractual redemption option under the
operating agreement governing NEG Holding.

Icahn Enterprises L.P. -- http://www.icahnenterprises.com/--  
formerly American Real Estate Partners, L.P. is a holding
company owning subsidiaries engaged in the operating businesses,
which includes Investment Management, Metals, Real Estate and
Home Fashion.


LIGGETT GROUP: Second Circuit Decertifies Class in "Schwab" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decertified the
class in the matter, "[Schwab] McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," which was filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York and names Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector Group
Ltd., as a defendant.

The suit, pending in federal court in New York since 2004,
generally alleges that the use of the terms "light" and "ultra
light" in cigarettes constitutes unfair and deceptive trade
practices, among other things.  It seeks to create a nationwide
class of "light" cigarette smokers.  

The action asserts claims under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.  The proposed class is seeking as much as
$200,000,000 in damages, which could be trebled under RICO.

In November 2005, the district court ruled that the plaintiffs
would be permitted to calculate damages on an aggregate basis
and use "fluid recovery" theories to allocate them among class
members, if the class was certified.  

Fluid recovery would permit potential damages to be paid out in
ways other than merely giving cash directly to plaintiffs, such
as establishing a pool of money that could be used for public
purposes.

In September 2006, the district court granted the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  

In November 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit granted the defendants' motions to stay the district
court proceedings and for review of the class certification
ruling.  

Oral argument was held in July 2007 and in April 2008, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the defendants'
motions to decertify the class, 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.

Vector Group Ltd. -- http://www.vectorgroupltd.com/-- is a  
holding company for a number of businesses through its wholly
owned subsidiary, VGR Holding Inc.  Vector Group is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC; and the development
and marketing of the low-nicotine and nicotine-free QUEST
cigarette products and the development of reduced risk cigarette
products through its subsidiary, Vector Tobacco Inc., and the
real estate business through its subsidiary, New Valley LLC,
which owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC.  Douglas Elliman
Realty, LLC operates as a residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


MANNATECH INC: Reaches Settlement in Texas Derivative Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mannatech Incorporated and counsel for shareholders Duncan
Gardner, Norma Middleton, Frances Nystrom, and Kelly Schrimpf
have reached a settlement in the derivative lawsuits filed by
each shareholder.

The lawsuits included in these settlements are currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, the 162nd Judicial District Court for Dallas County,
Texas, and the 66th Judicial District Court for Dallas County,
Texas.

This settlement, which is subject to preliminary and final Court
approval, would resolve all the claims in the litigation.
Without admitting any liability or wrongdoing of any kind,
Mannatech has agreed to make, or has already made, certain
corporate governance changes and pay $850,000 in attorney's fees
to plaintiffs' counsel in the five cases. The settlement payment
will be funded by the company's insurer.

"This settlement is yet another positive step for Mannatech in
terms of addressing outstanding legal matters," said Keith
Clark, senior vice president and general counsel at Mannatech.
"This agreement, coupled with the company's successful outcomes
in the patent infringement and securities class action lawsuits,
furthers Mannatech's ability to focus on growth."

Stephen Fenstermacher, senior vice president and CFO of
Mannatech, added, "We are pleased by this outcome, and will
continue efforts to resolve any outstanding issues.  Mannatech
now has the team and processes in place to drive domestic sales
as well as continued international growth and expansion into
target markets."

The derivative lawsuits consist of two sets of lawsuits filed on
behalf of Mannatech against certain current and former officers
and directors of the Company.  The first set consists of three
lawsuits filed between October 2005 and January 2006, and the
second set consists of two additional lawsuits filed in April
and July 2007.

Because the derivative litigation consists of shareholder
derivative lawsuits, the settlement is subject to approval of
the Court.  Timing of the approval process is dependent upon the
Court's calendar.  Relevant shareholders of Mannatech stock have
a right to object to the terms of the settlement, and final
consummation of the settlement must await the entry of final
judgment approving the settlement.  However, such settlements
are not uncommonly approved without material modification and,
barring any unusual developments, the Company expects that this
approval process will be completed within a four to six month
period.

Mannatech Inc. develops and sells nutritional supplements,
weight management products, and personal care items in the U.S.
The Company is based in Coppell, Texas.


MBIA INC: Faces Three Securities Violations Lawsuits in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
MBIA, Inc., is facing three purported class action lawsuits
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

On Jan. 11, 2008, a putative shareholder class action suit,
captioned "Schmalz v. MBIA, Inc. et al., No. 08-C V-264," was
filed against the company and certain of its officers.  The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased MBIA stock between Jan. 30, 2007, and Jan. 9, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It
also alleges that the defendants issued false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's exposure to losses
stemming from the Company's insurance of CDOs and RMBS,
including its exposure to so-called "CDO-squared" securities,
which allegedly caused the company's stock to trade at inflated
prices.  

The defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint has been
extended pending the resolution of lead counsel status, motions
for consolidation, and the possible filing of an amended or
consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 25 and March 6, 2008, two more putative shareholder
class action suits were filed against MBIA and certain of its
current and former officers.  These suits are entitled,
"Teamsters Local 807 Labor Management Pension Fund v. MBIA Inc.
et al., No. 08-CV-1845," and "Kosseff v. MBIA, Inc. et al., No.
08-CV-2362."  Both were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.

The allegations of the Teamsters and the Kosseff complaints are
substantially similar to the allegations in the Schmalz
complaint, except that the class period in the Teamsters
complaint runs from Oct. 26, 2006, to Jan. 9, 2008.

The company has not yet responded to the Teamsters and the
Kosseff complaints, but anticipates that these complaints will
be consolidated with the Schmalz complaint, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

MBIA, Inc. -- http://www.mbia.com/-- is engaged in providing  
financial guarantee insurance and other forms of credit
protection, as well as investment management services to public
finance and structured finance issuers, investors and capital
market participants on a global basis.  


METLIFE INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Demutualization Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
certified a class in the matter "In re MetLife Demutualization
Litigation," which is one of several lawsuits challenging the
fairness of the company's plan of reorganization, as amended,
and the adequacy and accuracy of its disclosure statement
regarding the plan to policyholders.

The suit was filed on April 18, 2000, against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co. and MetLife, Inc.

In this class action suit, the plaintiffs served a second
consolidated amended complaint in 2004.  

In that complaint, the plaintiffs assert violations of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the plan, claiming that the Policyholder
Information Booklets failed to disclose certain material facts
and contained certain material misstatements.  The suit is
seeking rescission and compensatory damages.

On June 22, 2004, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the claim of violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The court had previously denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the claim for violation of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.  In 2004, the court reaffirmed its earlier decision
denying defendants' motion for summary judgment as
premature.

On July 19, 2005, this federal trial court certified this
lawsuit as a class action against Metropolitan Life and the
MetLife.

By orders dated July 19, 2005, and Aug. 29, 2006, the federal
trial court certified a litigation class of present and former
policyholders, according to MetLife, Inc.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the United States and the regions of Latin America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and
international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life
insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance,
retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as
well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings
products, and services to corporations and other institutions.
The Company is organized into five operating segments:
Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and
Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Antitrust Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "In Re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation," which names MetLife, Inc., as one of the
defendants, are appealing the dismissal of certain claims in the
case, which is pending before the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

In the multi-district proceeding, filed on Feb. 24, 2005, the
plaintiffs have filed an amended class action complaint
consolidating the claims from separate actions that had been
filed in or transferred to the District of New Jersey in 2004
and 2005.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the MetLife,
Metropolitan Life, several non-affiliated insurance companies
and several insurance brokers violated the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, and antitrust laws and committed other
misconduct in the context of providing insurance to employee
benefit plans and to persons who participate in such plans.

The plaintiffs seek to represent classes of employers that
established employee benefit plans and persons who participated
in such employee benefit plans.  

In August and September 2007, the court issued orders granting
defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice the federal
antitrust and the RICO claims.

In January 2008, the court issued an order granting defendants'
summary judgment motion on the ERISA claims, and in February
2008, the court dismissed the remaining state law claims on
jurisdictional grounds.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the court's
decisions, 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.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the United States and the regions of Latin America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and
international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life
insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance,
retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as
well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings
products, and services to corporations and other institutions.
The Company is organized into five operating segments:
Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and
Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Faces Fla. Suit Over Wrongful Reduction of Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., will be seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, according to the company's May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The American Dental Association and three individual providers
filed the purported class action suit against MetLife Inc. and
Cigna Corp. on May 19, 2003.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of in-
network providers who allege that their claims are being
wrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use
and programming of software.  The complaint alleges federal
racketeering and various state law theories of liability.   

The district court granted in part and denied in part the
company's motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs have filed an
amended complaint, and the company will file another motion to
dismiss it.

The suit is "American Dental Asso, et al. v. Cigna Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:03-cv-21266-FAM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Federico A.
Moreno, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan Louis Alpert, Esq. (jonalpert@aol.com)
          Alpert Law Firm
          401 E Jackson Street, Suite 1825
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-223-4131
          Fax: 813-228-9612

               - and -

          Robert J. Axelrod, Esq. (rjaxelrod@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block & Grossman
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-1373

Representing the defendant are:

          Hilarie Bass, Esq. (bassh@gtlaw.com)
          Greenberg Traurig
          1221 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-579-0745
          Fax: 305-579-0717

               - and -

          Samuel Alberto Danon, Esq. (sdanon@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-810-2500
          Fax: 305-810-2460


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Oklahoma Court Dismisses Claims in "Thomas"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
dismissed certain claims in a purported class action lawsuit
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., in relation to the sale of certain proprietary
products by its distributors.

The suit, "Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et
al.," was filed against Metropolitan Life, MetLife Securities,
Inc. and MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC.

The plaintiffs assert legal theories of violations of the
federal securities laws and violations of state laws with
respect to the sale of certain proprietary products (as opposed
to non-proprietary products) by the company's agency
distribution group.  They seek rescission, compensatory damages,
interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and expenses.

In January and May 2008, the court issued orders granting in
part the defendants' dismissal motion, dismissing all of the
plaintiffs' claims except for claims under the Investment
Advisers Act, according to MetLife's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00121-F," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Judge Stephen P.
Friot, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         Fax: 405-239-2112

Representing the defendants are:

         Emiline T. Ebrite, Esq. (tebrite@gablelaw.com)
         David L. Kearney, Esq. (dkearney@gablelaw.com)
         Gable & Gotwals
         211 N Robinson Ave., 15th Fl.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-5500
         Fax: 405-235-2875


METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Fiala" Class Certification Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
An order certifying a class in the suit captioned "Fiala, et al.
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al.," which is one of several
lawsuits challenging the fairness of the company's plan of
reorganization, is under appeal.

Generally, the action names as defendants Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co., MetLife Inc., certain individual directors, and
the superintendent and the underwriters for MetLife's initial
public offering, Goldman Sachs & Co. and Credit Suisse First
Boston.

Initially, the Superior Court, N.Y. County, certified a class in
"Fiala," which was filed in March 17, 2000.  Another putative
class action complaint filed in New York State Court in Kings
County was consolidated with "Fiala."

The plaintiffs in the consolidated state court class action seek
compensatory relief and punitive damages.  In 2003, the trial
court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the case.  

In 2004, the appellate court modified the trial court's order by
reinstating certain claims against Metropolitan Life, MetLife
and the individual defendants.  The plaintiffs in these actions
have filed a consolidated amended complaint.  

On Jan. 30, 2007, the trial court signed an order certifying a
litigation class for the plaintiffs' claim that defendants
violated section 7312 of the New York Insurance Law, but denying
the plaintiffs' motion to certify a litigation class with
respect to a common law fraud claim.  

The plaintiffs and defendants have filed notices of appeal from
this order.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn has ordered
notification of the class.

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

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the United States and the regions of Latin America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and
international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life
insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance,
retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as
well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings
products, and services to corporations and other institutions.
The Company is organized into five operating segments:
Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and
Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Improper Sales Practices Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.,
continues to face two purported class action lawsuits alleging
improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance
policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products, according
to MetLife, Inc.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The two putative class action suits involving sales practices
claims are pending against MLIC in Canada.  They are:

      1. "Jacynthe Evoy-Larouche v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
         (Que. Super. Ct., filed March 1998)," and

      2. "Ace Quan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Ont. Gen.
         Div., filed April 1997)."

In "Larouche," the plaintiff alleges misrepresentations
regarding dividends and future payments for life insurance
policies and seeks unspecified damages.

In "Quan," the plaintiff alleges breach of contract and
negligent misrepresentations relating to, among other things,
life insurance premium payments and seeks damages, including
punitive damages.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the United States and the regions of Latin America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and
international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life
insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance,
retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as
well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings
products, and services to corporations and other institutions.
The Company is organized into five operating segments:
Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and
Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.

    
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Still Faces Suits Over Medical Providers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co., a subsidiary
of MetLife, Inc., continues to face several class action
lawsuits relating to medical providers, according to MetLife,
Inc.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Two such putative nationwide class action complaints have been
separately filed before the Illinois Circuity Court, Madison
County, on Feb. 26 and July 2, 2003.  Both are similarly
entitled as "Shipley v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. and
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co."

One suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged
underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of a
purportedly biased provider fee pricing system.  

The second suit alleges breach of contract arising from the
alleged use of preferred provider organizations to reduce
medical provider fees covered by the medical claims portion of
the insurance policy.  

Motions for class certification has been filed and briefed in
both cases.

A third putative nationwide class action suit relating to the
payment of medical providers, "Innovative Physical Therapy, Inc.
v. MetLife Auto & Home, et ano (D. N.J., filed Nov. 12, 2007),"  
has been filed against Metropolitan Property and Casualty
Insurance Co. in federal court in New Jersey.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of  
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the United States and the regions of Latin America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and
international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life
insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance,
retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as
well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings
products, and services to corporations and other institutions.
The Company is organized into five operating segments:
Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and
Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.


NATIONAL CITY: Court Approves FLSA Violations Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
approved a settlement reached in a purported class action
lawsuit against National City Mortgage, Inc., which alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The class action suit was filed on Dec. 19, 2005, against
National City Mortgage before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.  The suit was filed by Derrick
Perry, a loan originator for National City Mortgage.  He alleged
that the company failed to pay him overtime, in violation of the
FLSA (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2008).

Mr. Perry claimed that during the past three years he regularly
worked far in excess of 40 hours per week, including regularly
scheduled hours on weekends, but was only paid by commission.  
He claimed that loan originators are eligible for repayable
draws of up to $2,000 per month in case their commissions did
not equal that amount in any given month, but were not
compensated for any substantial overtime hours worked.

In addition, Mr. Perry asserted that loan originators are
not required to record their time worked, and that National City
failed to maintain accurate time records as required by the
FLSA.  

In essence, the the suit alleged that the defendants willfully
violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime and that employees
are victims of a uniform and company-wide compensation policy
that is in violation of the FLSA.  It further alleged that
National City Mortgage loan originators were improperly
designated as exempt employees.  The suit sought monetary
damages.

On June 21, 2007, the court conditionally certified an opt-in
class of loan originators.  

On Nov. 6, 2007, a settlement in principle was reached to
resolve all wage and hour claims of loan originators employed
during the class period and who opted in to the settlement
class.  

On March 3, 2008, the court approved this settlement, 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 "Perry v. National City Mortgage, Inc., Case No.
3:05-cv-00891-DRH-PMF," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois, Judge David R. Herndon,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve, Siegel et al.
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7112
          Fax: 816-714-7101

               - and -

          Michael B. Marker, Esq. (mmarker@rexcarr.com)
          Rex Carr Law Firm
          412 Missouri Avenue
          East St. Louis, IL 62201-3016
          Phone: 618-274-0434
          Fax: 618-274-8369

Representing the defendants is:

          Matthew W. Lampe, Esq. (mwlampe@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          325 John H. McConnell Boulevard, Suite 600
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-469-3939


NATIONAL CITY: Plaintiffs Won't Drop Pre-2004 Claims in MDL-1720
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "In re Payment Card Interchange
Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case
No. 1:05- md-01720- JG-JO," are opposing a recommendation by the
Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York that dismisses pre-2004 claims in the case,
which names National City Corp., as a defendant.

Beginning June 22, 2005, a series of antitrust class action
lawsuits were filed against Visa, MasterCard, and several major
financial institutions, including eight cases naming the company
and its subsidiary, National City Bank of Kentucky -- since
merged into National City Bank.  The suits were in relation to
"interchange fees" (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2008).

The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses
throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the
interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable
and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under
the caption, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-
JG-JO."

On July 1, 2007, the company and National City Bank entered into
a Judgment Sharing Agreement with respect to this litigation.

On Sept. 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge recommended to the
District Court that all claims that predate Jan. 1, 2004, should
be dismissed.

Class plaintiffs have filed their objection to that
recommendation, 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 Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-
JG-JO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Judge John Gleeson, presiding.

Representing some of the plaintiffs are:

          Darla Jo Boggs, Esq. (djboggs@locklaw.com)
          Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-339-6900
          Fax: 612-339-0981

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq. (chrisb@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Jason S. Cowart, Esq. (jasoncowart@yahoo.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665

Representing the defendants is:

          John M. Majoras, Esq. (jmmajoras@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: 202-879-3939
          Fax: 202-626-1700


NATIONAL CITY: Faces Seven ERISA Violations Lawsuits in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
National City Corp. is facing several purported class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 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.

Starting Jan. 10, 2008, a series of seven substantially similar
putative class action complaints were filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
National City Corp., the Administrative Committee for the
National City Savings and Investment Plan and certain current
and former officers and directors of the Corporation.

The complaints allege breach of fiduciary duty relating to
National City stock being offered as an investment alternative
in the Savings and Investment Plan.  They seek unspecified money
damages and equitable relief.

One of the complaints also contains a second class, the
Allegiant Funds Class, and alleges that these fund choices were
not appropriate for plan participants.

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

National City Corp. -- https://www.nationalcity.com/ -- is a
financial holding company.  The Company's core businesses
include commercial and retail banking, mortgage financing and
servicing, consumer finance and asset management.  


NATIONAL CITY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
National City Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, 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 putative class action was filed on Jan. 24, 2008, against
National City and certain current and former officers and
directors of the corporation.  The complaint alleges breach of
federal securities laws regarding public statements and
disclosures.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and
equitable relief on behalf of purchasers of the corporation's
stock during the period April 30, 2007, to Jan. 2, 2008.

The suit is "Casey v. National City Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-00209-PAG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Judge Patricia A. Gaughan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Henry R. Rosen, Esq. (henryr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
          Ste. 1900, 655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the defendants is:

          Adrienne M. Ferraro, Esq. (amferraro@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day - Cleveland
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-586-7370
          Fax: 216-579-0212


NATIONAL CITY: Faces Securities Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
National City Corp. is facing a purported class action lawsuit
before the Common Pleas Court for Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws, according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The putative class action suit was filed on April 21, 2008,
against National City and certain current and former officers
and directors of the Corporation.

The complaint, which is brought on behalf of all current and
former National City employees who acquired stock pursuant to a
Dec. 1, 2006 registration statement and who were participants in
the Harbor Bank Employees Stock Ownership Plan and the Harbor
Bank Stock Incentive Plan, alleges that the registration
statement contained misleading statements and omissions in
violation of the federal securities laws.

National City Corp. -- https://www.nationalcity.com/ -- is a
financial holding company.  The Company's core businesses
include commercial and retail banking, mortgage financing and
servicing, consumer finance and asset management.  


ORBCOMM INC: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
ORBCOMM, Inc., continues to face a purported securities fraud
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

On Sept. 20 and 25, 2007, two separate plaintiffs filed
purported class action complaints before the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the company and certain
of its officers.  

The actions allege that the company's registration statement
related to its initial public offering in November 2006
contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.  

The actions cited a drop in the trading price of the company's
common stock following an Aug. 14, 2007 disclosure of reduced
guidance for the remainder of 2007, which was released together
with the company's second quarter financial results.  

The actions seek to recover compensatory, and in one complaint
rescissory damages, on behalf of a class of shareholders who
purchased common stock in or traceable to the company's initial
public offering on or about Nov. 3, 2006, through Aug. 14, 2007.    

The court has yet to certify the class or appoint a lead
plaintiff.  

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

ORBCOMM Inc. -- http://www.orbcomm.com/-- operates the global  
commercial wireless messaging system optimized for narrowband
communications.  The Company's system consists of a global
network of 30 low-Earth orbit, satellites and accompanying
ground infrastructure.  Its two-way communications system
enables its customers and end-users to track, monitor, control
and communicate with fixed and mobile assets located anywhere in
the world.  It enables its customers and end-users to achieve
these benefits using a single global technology standard for
machine-to-machine and telematic, data communications.


SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Mislabeled "All Natural" Beverages Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey has thrown out a lawsuit against Snapple that claimed
the use of the phrase "all natural" on the beverage's label was
deceptive because the drink contains high-fructose corn syrup,
Greg Saitz of The Star-Ledger reports.

In 2007, Morganville resident Stacy Holk filed the lawsuit in
State Superior Court, on behalf of herself and all other New
Jersey residents who drank certain types of Snapple in the past
six years.

The complaint targeted high-fructose corn syrup, which is made
from processed corn starch and which critics say is not all
natural because of the multiple steps it takes to create.

In a 20-page opinion filed in court, Judge Cooper ruled the
state claims being pursued in the purported class-action case
were preempted by federal law and the Food and Drug
Administration.

Judge Cooper said in her opinion it is up to the FDA to define
what is considered "natural," not the court.

"This court will not determine 'that which the FDA, with all of
its scientific expertise, has yet to determine,' namely how the
terms 'natural' or 'all natural' should be defined and whether
either may be used on the label of a beverage containing" high-
fructose corn syrup, Judge Cooper wrote.

"Instead, this court will allow the FDA, which already has set
forth specific requirements for what must be included on
beverage labels, to decide whether such a determination is
necessary and warranted," the judge continued in her opinion.

Daniel Lapinski, Esq., one of attorneys pursuing the case
against Snapple, said they are considering an appeal.

A similar federal lawsuit seeking nationwide class-action status
was subsequently filed in Manhattan alleging the company
mislabeled certain products, including its Snapple juice and tea
drinks, as all natural when they were not (Class Action
Reporter, July 17, 2007).

But Snapple attorneys indicated in court filings they would seek
to have it dismissed, too, the report said.


TAMPA CITY: Lawyers Launch Suit Over Occupational License Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa-based attorneys Michael Addison, Esq., and Richard Petitt,
Esq., filed a class action lawsuit against the city of Tampa, in
Florida, after they were charged an occupational license fee to
open law offices there, The Northwest Florida Daily News
reports.

According to NWF Daily, the case could have financial impacts on
Okaloosa and Santa Rosa counties and several cities.  The report
relates that rather than just suing Tampa, Mr. Addison and
Pettit filed the case as a class action lawsuit so that any
lawyer belonging to the Florida Bar who has been charged a
license fee to operate in a city or a county is automatically
entered in the lawsuit.  Likewise, all cities and counties that
charge a similar fee have been named as defendants.

The plaintiffs specifically include more than 50,000 members of
the Florida Bar, the report says.  The lawsuit was filed against
more than 200 municipalities and 35 counties in Florida that
have imposed an occupational license tax or fee on any attorney
who has maintained a permanent business location in the city's
or county's jurisdiction.

NWF Daily further writes that both Okaloosa and Santa Rosa
counties are named in the lawsuit.  So are Fort Walton Beach,
Crestview, Destin, Gulf Breeze, Mary Esther, Niceville and Cinco
Bayou.

The lawsuit, NWF Daily notes, seeks to have the license fees
rescinded and past fees reimbursed to the attorneys.  It also
seeks to have the defendants pay the plaintiffs' legal fees.

The Hillsborough County court is now determining if the case
will move forward as a class-action lawsuit, the report says.


TIM HORTONS: Franchisees File CDN$1.95BB Suit Over Frozen Donuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hortons is facing a $1.95-billion class-action suit filed in
an Ontario court by two Burlington, Ontario franchise owners
over its conversion from a "fresh-baked" goods restaurant to a
"microwaved products store," Jim Middlemiss of Canwest News
Service reports.

Franchisees claim that the move to an off-site supply chain
involving frozen doughnuts has not made them any more money.
Rather, they argue, it has driven up the fixed costs of a
doughnut from nine cents to 20 cents without increasing sales as
allegedly promised.

Moreover, the two franchisees claim that "a more extensive lunch
menu" featuring soups and sandwiches have allegedly earned them
only a "minimal profit, and in some cases no profit at all."

They say the lunches have become increasingly popular; however,
they have "unreasonably low margins" and drive up operating
costs because stores have to hire more staff to serve them.

They are claiming breach of contract, breach of duty of fair
dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Jerome Morse of Adair Morse in
Toronto, told Global News, "my client contends there has been a
breach of the franchise agreement and that there has been a
failure to conduct the franchise arrangement in a good faith
manner."

The statement of claim says that until 2002 all doughnuts and
most other baked goods were made on-site, and each store was
equipped with high-volume baking equipment.  Bakers would work
through the night preparing goods for the next day.

The claim alleges that around 2001 and 2002, Tim Hortons moved
to an "Always Fresh" system.  It built a manufacturing plant in
Brantford, Ont. with an Irish company to produce Timbits and
doughnuts.  They are baked and then frozen, known as par-baked,
and shipped to Tim Hortons stores in North America, where they
are then microwaved prior to sale.  Selected distributors
provide other goods, such as pastries.

The claim alleges that in 2002, franchisees were required to
ditch their baking equipment and purchase freezers and microwave
equipment to complete the Always Fresh conversion.

Franchisees say they were told the cost of doughnuts would jump
from nine cents to 12, but that sales would also increase.
However, they claim the true cost is closer to 20 cent because
of "the inflated price at which the Brantford plant sells the
frozen product to the franchisees."  They claim the cost of
other baked goods has also increased.

The claim alleges that franchisees were forced to invest $35,000
to $50,000 to complete the conversion, and while they have
"suffered a loss in profit," Tim Hortons has "experienced an
increase in profits as a result of the Always Fresh conversion."

They allege that as part owner of the Brantford plant, Tim
Hortons earns a "profit on all frozen product and supplies,
which are sold to the franchisees at a marked-up price."

The claim alleges there are between 500 and 800 potential class
members operating 2,400 Tim Hortons stores in Canada.

The claim, however, has yet to be certified as a class action or
heard by a judge.

A statement from Tim Hortons said the lawsuit is "frivolous and
completely without merit.  The company intends to vigorously
defend itself in this matter."

The statement added that the lawsuit "doesn't reflect the
opinion of the vast majority of franchisees.  Strong relations
with our store owners has been a hallmark of the company's
success during our 44-year history, reflected in the good
relations we enjoy with the vast majority of our more than 1,200
franchisees."


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Stull & Brody Files Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Downey
Financial Corporation between October 16, 2006, and March 14,
2008.

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

Downey is a savings and loan holding company.

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 and misleading statements, Downey's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $74.85 per share in June 2007.

On October 10, 2007, Downey announced that it expected to incur
an operating loss for the 2007 third quarter due to the
continued weakening in the housing market.  Then, before the
market opened on March 17, 2008, Downey released its monthly
selected financial results for the 13 months ended February 29,
2008, which showed a significant increase in non-performing
assets to almost 11% of total assets, up from 1.2% in May 2007.
Downey had to restructure debt for many borrowers to avoid
having their loans fail.  On this news, Downey's stock dropped
to close at $18.82 per share on March 17, 2008, a decline from
$19.14 per share on March 14, 2008, and a decline of 68% from
$59 per share on October 9, 2007.

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

     (a) defendants' portfolio of Option ARMs contained millions
         of dollars worth of impaired and risky securities, many
         of which were backed by subprime mortgage loans;

     (b) prior to the Class Period, Downey had seen
         Countrywide's growth and had started to get more
         aggressive in acquiring loans from brokers such that
         the loans were extremely risky;

     (c) defendants failed to properly account for highly
         leveraged loans such as mortgage securities;

     (d) Downey had very little real underwriting, which led to
         large numbers of bad loans that would cause huge
         numbers of defaults; and
   
     (e) Downey had not adequately reserved for Option ARM
         loans, the terms of which provided that during the
         initial term of the loan borrowers could pay only as
         much as they desired with any underpayment being added
         to the loan balance.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Downey's common stock during the
Class Period, which is between October 16, 2006, and March 14,
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


EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Dreier LLP Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of European
Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V. during the period
from May 9, 2005, through March 11, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company's officers and
Lagardere and Daimler AG violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

EADS is a European aerospace corporation that develops and
markets civil and military aircraft, as well as missiles, space
rockets, satellites and related systems.  Airbus, a subsidiary
of EADS, develops, produces and supports airliners seating from
100 to 525 passengers, including the A380 double-decker four-
engined jetliner (A380).

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors by making a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning EADS's true financial condition
and its ability to meet delivery targets for the Airbus A380.
According to the Complaint, Defendants touted the success of the
A380 and the positive impact it would have on EADS's financial
results.  The Complaint alleges, among other things, that
Defendants credited the production of the new A380 for its
positive financial performance, and repeatedly assured investors
throughout the Class Period that the A380 production was as
scheduled and on target.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that Airbus was plagued with serious production
         problems and development costs that would delay the
         roll-out of the A380 plane;

     (2) that the A380 delays would have a negative impact on
         the Company's financial condition;

     (3) that EADS's internal revenue forecasts and projections
         were much lower than market expectations;

     (4) that Defendants were engaging in rampant insider
         trading based on their knowledge of the problems
         surrounding the A380;

     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls and procedures, which allowed Defendants to
         trade EADS shares while in possession of material non-
         public information; and

     (6) that the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading.

On June 13, 2006, the Company issued a press release, after the
market closed, announcing that its Airbus subsidiary was having
production problems with the A380, which would cause a
significant delay in delivery to its customers.  As a result, on
June 14, 2006, EADS's stock dropped 26% to AEUR18.73 per share.

On March 11, 2008, the truth concerning Defendants' fraud was
further revealed, when the Company issued a press release
announcing a loss of AEUR446 million ($696 million) for 2007,
attributable to Airbus's production delays with the roll-out of
the A380.  As a direct and proximate result of this news, the
price of EADS stock again decreased significantly, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all U.S. and
non-U.S. purchasers of the publicly traded securities of EADS
during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 11,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Dreier LLP
          499 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-328-6100
          Fax: 212-328-6101
          Web site: http://www.dreierllp.com/


EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Labaton Sucharow Files N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on June 12,
2008, 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 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.

In response to 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.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 11,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Massachusetts Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers
of the Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond Fund who purchased the fund
between June 6, 2005, and June 5, 2008.

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

The complaint alleges that on or about August 23, 2002, the
Defendants began offering shares of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund
pursuant to an initial registration statement, filed with the
SEC as a Form 485BPOS.  The complaint alleges that the
Defendants solicited investors to purchase shares of the Ultra-
Short Bond Fund by making statements that described the Fund as
a fund that:

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

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

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

    (iv) is geared toward the preservation of capital.

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

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

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

As alleged in the complaint, by June 11, 2007, the Defendants
slowly began lowering the value of the share price for the Fund.
By November 15, 2007, the value of the per-share price was
reduced below $9. Since then the shares were trading as low as
$8.25.

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

For more information, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          60 East 42nd St., Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165-0006
          Phone: 212-697-6484


FRANKLIN BANCORP: Sarraf Gentile Files Texas Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the common or
preferred stock of Franklin Bank Corp., between April 26, 2007,
and May 1, 2008, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

According to the complaint, the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in a variety of
accounting improprieties, including their admitted failure to
charge off uncollectible loans and to mark Franklin's loans to
market.  As a result of the misconduct alleged, the complaint
alleges that defendants understated the Company's delinquent,
nonperforming, and uncollectible loans and thereby
misrepresented Franklin's financial condition and results,
including its overall and per-share profits and the fair market
value of its residential mortgage loan portfolio.

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

For more information, contact:

          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile LLP
          11 Hanover Square
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-868-3610
          Fax: 212-918-7967
          Web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com/


INDYMAC BANCORP: Schatz Nobel Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of all those who
purchased the common stock of IndyMac Bancorp, Inc., between
August 16, 2007, and May 12, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that IndyMac, a holding company for
IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., a hybrid thrift/mortgage bank, and certain
of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants concealed the following facts from the investing
public:

     (i) IndyMac was not adequately reserving for its losses on
         mortgage-related assets in violation of generally
         accepted accounting principles;

    (ii) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
         losses and defaults concerning its book of business
         related to its homebuilder and pay-option adjustable-
         rate mortgage (Option ARM) portfolios than it had
         previously disclosed;

   (iii) the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to
         withstand the significant deterioration in the credit
         and real estate markets and could jeopardize the
         Company's status as well capitalized;

    (iv) IndyMac had not adequately reserved for Option ARMs;
         and

     (v) given the Company's exposure to the increased
         volatility in the credit and real estate markets, the
         Company had no reasonable basis to make projections
         about its earnings.

On May 12, 2008, IndyMac announced its first quarter 2008
financial results, including a net loss of $184.2 million, or
($2.27) per share, compared with net earnings of $52.4 million,
or $0.70 per share, in the first quarter of 2007.  On this news,
IndyMac's stock dropped to close at $2.32 per share -- a two-day
decline of $1.11 per share, or 32%, and a decline of 91% from
$24.55 per share on October 2, 2007.

For more information, contact:

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





                            *********

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  * * *