CAR_Public/080618.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, June 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 120
  
                            Headlines

ACTAVIS: Faces Another Suit in Calif. Over Heart Drug Digitek
AMERICAN EQUITY: Faces California Lawsuits Over Annuities Issued
AMERICAN FIDELITY: Sued in Miss. Over Underpaid Insurance Claims
APPLIED ENERGETICS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Ariz.
BEAZER HOMES: Georgia Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits

BEAZER HOMES: Georgia Court Consolidates ERISA Violations Suits
BEAZER HOMES: S.C. Court Dismisses Suit Alleging RICO Violations
BEAZER HOMES: N.C. Court Dismisses Unfair Trade Practices Suit
BEAZER HOMES: Faces Lawsuit in N.C. Alleging RESPA Violations
CALPINE CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Approve ERISA Suit Settlement

CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Appeal of $404MM "Tawney" Verdict Pending
COVENTRY HEALTH: Fla. Court Sets Briefing for "Tag-Along" Cases
DOMINION HOMES: Sixth Circuit Allows Appeal in "Stuart" Lawsuit
DOMINION HOMES: Rulings in Consumer Suit Appealed to High Court
DOMINION HOMES: Ohio Court Yet to Certify Class in "Rudawsky"

EMIGRANT BANK: Faces New York Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach
GASOLINE RETAILERS: $10-Mln. Price-Fixing Suit Filed in Quebec
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Metzler Initiates CDN$500-Mln. Investor Suit
HANNAFORD BROS: Judges, Lawyers to Meet in Maine on Data Breach
ILLINOIS DCFS: Sup. Ct. Declines to Hear "Safety Plans" Lawsuit

LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Employment Lawsuit in California
LANDRYS RESTAURANTS: Suits Over CEO's Purchase Bid Consolidated
NEW JERSEY: Maple Shade Law on Public Intoxication Challenged
PET FOOD: Class Notified of Settlement; Claims Due on Nov. 24  
RADIAN GROUP: Amended Complaint Filed in Pa. Securities Lawsuit

RADIAN GROUP: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
RAYTHEON CORP: Transfers Contamination Lawsuits to Federal Court
SOLUTIA INC: Parties Expect 2008 Trial Date for Ill. ERISA Suit
SOLUTIA INC: Court Yet to Approve Settlement of SIP Plan Suits
SPRINT PCS: NERA Testimony Supports Termination Fee Court Win

STANDARD PACIFIC: Officers Seek Nixing of Calif. Securities Suit
STATION CASINOS: Responds to Allegations in Nevade Labor Lawsuit
TIME WARNER: Free Cable Proposed Under Data Breach Suit Deal
TRANS UNION: Illinois Court Begins Settlement Notification
TRIPLE PLAY: Sued for Telephone Consumer Protection Act Breach

VERTEX PHARMA: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Massachusetts
WALT DISNEY: Sued for Alleged Religious Discrimination
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Still Faces Ala. Racial Discrimination Suit
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Settlement Leads to Fla. ERISA Case Dismissal
WINN-DIXIE: Fla. Court Still to Rule on Motions in Workers' Suit  

YAMHILL COUNTY: Patton Butt Slappers Sue Over Strip Searches


* Milberg Admits Kickback Scheme, Pays $75 Million Settlement

* Government Dismisses Money Laundering Charges vs. Milberg LLP


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
INDYMAC BANCORP: Stull & Brody Files Securities Suit in Calif.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ACTAVIS: Faces Another Suit in Calif. Over Heart Drug Digitek
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of a California man
and other individuals suffering from heart disease who
unknowingly took a double dose of Digitek, a strong heart
medication that elevated their heart rate to a dangerous, and
possibly deadly, level.

The suit was filed on behalf of Richard Spangle, a resident of
Santa Ana, California, by the Newport Beach law firm of Capretz
& Associates against the following companies, all of which are
involved in the manufacture, distribution and marketing of
Digitek:

    -- Actavis Totowa, LLC, in Totowa, New Jersey
    -- Actavis Group PTC, in Dalshraun, Iceland
    -- Mylan Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in Sugar Land, Texas.

According to the lawsuit, the Federal Drug Administration
initiated on April 25, 2008, a Class I nationwide recall of all
Digitek tablets regardless of strength.  The recall was in
response to Actavis Totowa's discovery that a certain number of
the tablets that it had manufactured, and that Mylan
Pharmaceuticals distributed in the U.S., were twice the standard
dosage, endangering the patients taking the more powerful pills.

According to the lawsuit, neither Mr. Spangle nor his physician
knew the Digitek medication that Mr. Spangle was taking was
twice the standard dosage.

The class action lawsuit alleges that "Digitek is defective and
unreasonably dangerous to consumers."  It also alleges that the
defendants "sold, released, produced, and distributed of Digitek
without making proper and sufficient tests to determine the
drug's strength/dose," and that they were "negligently
representing that the recalled Digitek was safe for use for its
intended purpose, when, in fact, it was not."

Used by millions of heart patients worldwide, Digitek is one of
the brand name preparations of the generic drug digoxin (also
known as Digitalis).  Digoxin is a purified cardiac glycoside
extracted from the foxglove plant, Digitalis lanata.
However, digoxin toxicity can cause potentially life-threatening
heart rhythm disturbances, as well as nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea, dizziness, confusion, loss of appetite, visual
disturbances, low blood pressure, cardiac instability, irregular
pulse, heart palpitations and bradycardia.  At its most severe,
death can result from excessive digoxin intake.

For more information, contact:

          Capretz & Associates
          5000 Birch Street, West Tower Suite 2500
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-2139
          Phone: 800-351-8588
          Web site: http://www.capretz.com/


AMERICAN EQUITY: Faces California Lawsuits Over Annuities Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. is facing several
purported class action lawsuits in connection with annuities
that the company issued, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

The company was named as a defendant in two such cases seeking
class-action status.  They are:

     -- "Stephens v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance
        Company, et. al.," filed with the San Luis Obispo
        Superior Court, San Francisco, California (complaint
        filed on Nov. 29, 2004) (SLO Case); and

     -- "In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales
        Litigation," filed with the U.S. District Court for
        the Central District of California (complaint filed on
        Sept. 7, 2005) (Los Angeles Case).  

                            SLO Case

The plaintiff in the SLO Case seeks to represent a national
class of individuals who either purchased their annuity from the
company through a co-defendant marketing organization or who
purchased one of a defined set of particular annuities issued by
the company.   

American Equity has filed its opposition to a motion to certify
the class, and the hearing on the motion began on March 18,
2008, but was not completed.  

The company is vigorously defending both the issue of class
action status of the lawsuit as well as the underlying
allegations, which include misrepresentation, breach of
contract, breach of a state law regarding unfair competition and
other claims.

                        Los Angeles Case

The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by individuals and is seeking class-action status
for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by the
company.  

The allegations generally attach the suitability of sales of
deferred annuity products to persons over the age of 65.   

The company is vigorously defending against both class action
status as well as the underlying claims which include
misrepresentation and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, among others.

Des Moines, Iowa-based American Equity Investment Life Holding
Co. -- http://www.american-equity.com/-- develops, markets,  
issues and administers annuities and life insurance.


AMERICAN FIDELITY: Sued in Miss. Over Underpaid Insurance Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Fidelity Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi alleging it underpays claims for cancer chemotherapy
and radiation, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Julia R. Farrell brings this action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
persons in the State of Mississippi who were insured with
defendant under a Form C-440 policy or a similar policy and who
underwent radiation or chemotherapy as a result of treatments
for cancer and who submitted claims under such policy and had
their claims underpaid by defendant.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's obligation under its policy
         language calling for payment of benefits at the rate of
         110% of the actual charges can be legally and properly
         satisfied by actually paying benefits using a formula
         whereby 75% of such actual charges are calculated and
         then payment is made based on additional 10% of the
         result of such calculation;

     (b) whether defendant's obligations under similar policies
         can be legally and properly satisfied by first reducing
         the actual charges submitted by a health care provider
         of radiation therapy or chemotherapy by 25% of such
         actual charges made prior to applying the multiplier
         called for in the specific contract;

     (c) whether defendant's unilateral decision beginning on
         Feb. 1, 2001, to modify its contractual obligations by
         calculating benefits by allowing 75% of the actual
         charges made prior to applying the multiplier called
         for in the specific policy form constitutes a breach of
         defendant's duty of good faith and fair dealing and
         entitles all class members to an award of the unpaid
         benefits and litigation expenses, 1-1/2% per month
         interest on the unpaid balance until paid, reasonable
         attorney fees and punitive damages;

     (d) whether defendant has or had a reasonable arguable
         reason for denying full payment of claims for radiation
         and chemotherapy payments;

     (e) whether all class members as a matter of law are
         entitled to partial summary judgment for the amount of
         the contract claims in light of the ambiguous policy
         language at issue in this action under applicable law;

     (f) whether defendants' civil conspiracy has caused all
         members of the the class to sustain the same injury,
         i.e. underpayment of chemotherapy or radiational
         benefits; and

     (g) whether or not all class members have sustained the
         same injury by defendants' racketeering activities
         which were designed to cause all class members to
         sustain injuries by way of underpayment of claims and
         thus generate additional income to defendants and
         further perpetration of the scheme originally concocted
         by defendant.

The plaintiff ask the court to:

     -- declare, adjudge and decree this action to be a proper
        class action pursuant to rules 23(a), 23(b) and 23(b)(3)
        of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the
        class;

     -- award all the members of the class compensatory damages
        according to the proof, including interests on the
        amounts underpaid at the contract rate of 1 1/2% per
        month until judgment is rendered and thereafter post-
        judgment interest rate of 1 1/2% per month until such
        judgment is paid;

     -- award the members of the class punitive damages for
        defendant's intentional bad faith breach of contract
        without an arguable reason and breach of the duty of
        good faith and fair dealing;

     -- award the members of the class actual damages, treble
        damages and attorney fees under 18 USC Section 1964(c);

     -- award the members of the class a permanent injunction
        preventing defendants from underpaying claims in the
        future in the manner it has underpaid in the past; and

     -- award the members of the class reasonable attorneys
        fees, expert fees if incurred, and all other costs
        associated with the maintenance of this action.

The suit is "Julia R. Farrell, et al. v. American Fidelity
Corp., Civil Action No. 3:08CV353WHB-LRA," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Marc A. Biggers, Esq.
          Lonnie D. Bailey, Esq.
          Upshaw, Williams, Biggers, Beckham & Riddick, LLP
          Post Office Drawer 8230
          Greenwood, MS 38935-8230
          Phone: 662-455-1613


APPLIED ENERGETICS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Ariz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Energetics, Inc. -- formerly Ionatron, Inc. -- is facing
a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, 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.

In July 2006, two class action complaints were filed by George
Wood and Raymond Deedon against Applied Energetics and its
founders.

Each of the class action suits was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona and allege, among other
things, violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, claiming that the company
issued false and misleading statements concerning the
development of its counter-IED product.

The court consolidated these cases, and a consolidated amended
complaint was served.  The action has been dismissed against
individual defendants Joseph C. Hayden and Stephen W. McCahon
with prejudice, and is proceeding against the company and the
remaining defendants.

The suit is "George Wood, et al. v. Ionatron, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-00354," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alison K. Clark, Esq. (aclark@sbclasslaw.com)
          Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

               - and -

          Richard Glenn Himelrick, Esq. (rgh@tblaw.com)
          Tiffany & Bosco PA
          Camelback Esplanade II
          2525 E. Camelback Rd., 3rd Floor
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: 602-255-6021
          Fax: 602-255-0103

Representing the defendants are:

          Joel Philip Hoxie, Esq. (jhoxie@swlaw.com)
          Snell & Wilmer LLP
          1 Arizona Ctr., 400 E. Van Buren
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-0001
          Phone: 602-382-6000
          Fax: 602-382-6070

               - and -

          Harris N. Cogan, Esq. (hncogan@blankrome.com)
          Blank Rome LLP
          405 Lexington Ave., The Chrysler Bldg
          New York, NY 10174
          Phone: 212-885-5566
          Fax: 212-885-5001


BEAZER HOMES: Georgia Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
consolidated several purported securities fraud class action
lawsuits filed against Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and certain of
its current and former executive officers.

Beazer Homes and certain of its current and former executive
officers are named as defendants in a putative securities class
action suit filed on March 29, 2007, before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of Beazer Homes' common stock between July 27,
2006, and March 27, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects because the company did not disclose facts related to
alleged improper lending practices in our mortgage origination
business.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages.  

Two additional lawsuits were filed subsequently on May 18 and
21, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia asserting similar factual allegations and proposing
class periods of July 28, 2005, through March 27, 2007, and
March 30, 2005, through March 27, 2007, respectively.

The court recently has consolidated these three lawsuits and the
plaintiffs are expected to file a consolidated amended
complaint.

The suit is "Eugene Kratz, et al. v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@milberg.com)
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-594-5300

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

               - and -

          Francis P. Karam, Esq. (karam@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard W. Clary, Esq. (rclary@cravath.com)
          Cravath Swaine & Moore
          825 Eighth Avenue, Worldwide Plaza
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Phone: 212-474-1227


BEAZER HOMES: Georgia Court Consolidates ERISA Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
consolidated several purported class action lawsuits filed
against Beazer Homes USA, Inc., alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On April 30, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed
on behalf of a purported class consisting of present and former
participants and beneficiaries of the Beazer Homes 401(k) Plan,
naming Beazer Homes, certain of its current and former officers
and directors and the Benefits Administration Committee as
defendants.

The complaint was filed before the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.  It alleges breach of
fiduciary duties, including those set forth in ERISA as a result
of the investment of retirement monies held by the 401(k) Plan
in common stock of Beazer Homes at a time when participants were
allegedly not provided timely, accurate and complete information
concerning Beazer Homes.

Four additional lawsuits were filed subsequently in May, June
and July 2007 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia making similar allegations.

The court has recently consolidated these five lawsuits, and the
plaintiffs are expected to file a consolidated amended
complaint, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- designs,  
sells and builds primarily single-family homes in over 45
markets located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and
West Virginia.  Through Beazer Mortgage Corp., the Company
offered mortgage origination services to its homebuyers.  On
Feb. 1, 2008, Beazer effectively exited the mortgage origination
business.  In addition, it offers title insurance services to
its homebuyers in many of the Company's markets.  Beazer is a
diversified homebuilder with operations in 21 states.

    
BEAZER HOMES: S.C. Court Dismisses Suit Alleging RICO Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
dismissed a putative homeowner class action lawsuit filed
against Beazer Homes USA, Inc.'s subsidiaries -- Beazer Homes
Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corp. -- according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The complaint, filed on April 23, 2007, alleges that Beazer
Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corp. illegally financed the
purchase of homes sold to low-income purchasers, who allegedly
would not have otherwise qualified for the loans.  

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including
damages for alleged violations of federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations statutes.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the case and the court
dismissed all causes of action with prejudice on Sept. 10, 2007.  

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration,
which the District Court denied.  The plaintiffs did not file a
notice of appeal and this case is now concluded.

The suit is "Green v. Beazer Homes Corp. et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-01098-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Steven Randall Hood, Esq. (rhood@mcgowanhood.com)
         Robert V. Phillips, Esq. (rphillips@mcgowanhood.com)
         McGowan Hood Felder and Johnson
         1539 Healthcare Drive
         Rock Hill, SC 29732
         Phone: 803-327-7800
         Fax: 803-328-5656


BEAZER HOMES: N.C. Court Dismisses Unfair Trade Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of North Carolina
dismissed a putative homeowner class action lawsuit that was
filed against Beazer Homes USA, Inc.'s subsidiaries -- Beazer
Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corp.

The company's subsidiaries were named as defendants in a
putative class action filed on March 23, 2007, before the
General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, County of
Mecklenburg, North Carolina.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.  It was filed as a putative class
action.  

The purported class is defined as North Carolina residents who
purchased homes in subdivisions in North Carolina containing
homes constructed by the defendants where the foreclosure rate
is allegedly significantly higher than the state-wide average.

The complaint alleged that the defendants utilized unfair trade
practices to allow low-income purchasers to qualify for loans
they allegedly could not afford, resulting in foreclosures that
allegedly diminished plaintiffs' property values.

The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and also requested that any damage award be trebled.

On April 25, 2008, the District Court dismissed all causes of
action with prejudice, according to the company's May 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- designs,  
sells and builds primarily single-family homes in over 45
markets located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and
West Virginia.  Through Beazer Mortgage Corp., the Company
offered mortgage origination services to its homebuyers.  On
Feb. 1, 2008, Beazer effectively exited the mortgage origination
business.  In addition, it offers title insurance services to
its homebuyers in many of the Company's markets.  Beazer is a
diversified homebuilder with operations in 21 states.


BEAZER HOMES: Faces Lawsuit in N.C. Alleging RESPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and subsidiaries Beazer Homes Corp. and
Beazer Mortgage Corp. are facing a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of Real Estate Settlement Practices
Act and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1, according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30,
2007.

The  putative class action was filed on April 8, 2008, before
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.

The Complaint alleges that Beazer violated the Real Estate
Settlement Practices Act and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Section
75-1.1 by:

       -- improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned
          mortgage and settlement services as part of a down
          payment assistance program, and

       -- illegally increasing the cost of homes and settlement
          services sold by Beazer Homes Corp.

The plaintiff also asserts that Beazer was unjustly enriched by
these alleged actions.  The purported class consists of all
residents of North Carolina who purchased a home from Beazer,
using mortgage financing provided by and through Beazer that
included seller-funded down payment assistance, between Jan. 1,
2000, and Oct. 11, 2007.  

The vomplaint demands an unspecified amount of damages, various
forms of equitable relief, treble damages, attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses.  

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. -- http://www.beazer.com/-- designs,  
sells and builds primarily single-family homes in over 45
markets located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and
West Virginia.  Through Beazer Mortgage Corp., the Company
offered mortgage origination services to its homebuyers.  On
Feb. 1, 2008, Beazer effectively exited the mortgage origination
business.  In addition, it offers title insurance services to
its homebuyers in many of the Company's markets.  Beazer is a
diversified homebuilder with operations in 21 states.


CALPINE CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Approve ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to approve the proposed settlement in a purported class
action lawsuit captioned, "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation,
Master File No. C 03-1685 SBA."

Two nearly identical class action complaints against Calpine
alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act were filed:

       1. "Phelps v. Calpine Corporation, et al.;" and

       2. "Lenette Poor-Herena v. Calpine Corporation et al."

These suits were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the caption, "In
re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. C 03-1685
SBA."

The consolidated complaint, which names as defendants Calpine,
the members of Calpine's board of directors, the company's
401(k) Plan's Advisory Committee and its members, signatories of
the 401(k) Plan's Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan
Forms 5500 for 2001 and 2002, an employee of a consulting firm
hired by the 401(k) Plan, and unidentified fiduciary defendants,
alleged claims under ERISA on behalf of the participants in the
401(k) Plan from Jan. 5, 2001, to the present who invested in
the Calpine unitized stock fund.

The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by permitting participants to
buy and hold interests in the Calpine unitized stock fund.

All claims were dismissed with prejudice by the Northern
District Court.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  However, as a
result of Calpine's Chapter 11 filings, the appeal was
automatically stayed with respect to the company.

In addition, Calpine filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court to extend the automatic stay to the individual defendants.  
The plaintiffs opposed the motion and a hearing was scheduled
for June 5, 2006; however, prior to the hearing, the parties
stipulated to allow the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals to proceed.

If the Northern District Court ruling is reversed, the
plaintiffs may then seek leave from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to
proceed with the action.

The plaintiffs' opening brief was filed with the Ninth Circuit
on Nov. 6, 2006.  Further briefing on the appeal was then stayed
pending completion of the parties' participation in the Ninth
Circuit's alternative dispute resolution program.

On March 21, 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the plaintiff' claims and the purported class in
return for a payment of approximately $4 million by Calpine's
fiduciary insurance carrier, the net proceeds of which will
ultimately be deposited into individual plan members' accounts.

The parties finalized the settlement agreement on March 7, 2008.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal
without prejudice and remanded the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California by order dated
April 8, 2008.  

The settlement remains subject to approval by the Northern
District Court, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File
No. C 03-1685 SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. (eciolko@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

          Robert S. Green, Esq. (RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM)
          Green Welling LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-477-6700
          Fax: 415-477-6710

               - and -

          Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq. (jigarjianlaw@gmail.com)
          Jigarjian Law Office
          128 Tunstead Avenue
          San Anselmo, CA 94960
          Phone: 415-341-6660

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert Leonard McKague, Esq.
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          755 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-813-5600
          Fax: 650-494-0792

  
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Appeal of $404MM "Tawney" Verdict Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia
Natural Resources, Inc.," which named Chesapeake Appalachia,
L.L.C. -- a unit of Chesapeake Energy Corp. -- as a defendant,
have responded to the company's appeal to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals in connection with the $404.3-million
judgment handed down by a West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane
County jury in the matter.

The class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of
Roane County, West Virginia, in 2003 by royalty owners who
allege that Chesapeake Appalachia, formerly known as Columbia
Natural Resources LLC, underpaid royalties by improperly
deducting post-production costs, failing to pay royalty on total
volumes of natural gas produced and not paying a fair value for
the natural gas produced from their leases.

The plaintiff class consists of West Virginia royalty owners
receiving royalties after July 31, 1990, from Columbia Natural.   
Chesapeake Energy acquired Columbia Natural in November 2005,
and the seller acquired Columbia Natural in 2003 from NiSource,
Inc.  

NiSource, a co-defendant in the case, has managed the litigation
and indemnified Chesapeake against underpayment claims based on
the use of fixed prices for natural gas production sold under
certain forward sale contracts and other claims with respect to
Columbia Natural's operations prior to September 2003.

On Jan. 27, 2007, the Circuit Court jury returned a verdict of
$404 million, consisting of $134 million in compensatory damages
and $270 million in punitive damages, against the defendants.

Most of the damages awarded by the jury relate to issues not yet
addressed by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,
although in June 2006 that Court ruled against the defendants on
two certified questions regarding the deductibility of post-
production expenses.

The jury found fraudulent conduct by the defendants with respect
to the sales prices used to calculate royalty payments and with
respect to the failure of CNR to disclose post-production
deductions.

On June 28, 2007, the Circuit Court sustained the jury verdict
for punitive damages, and in September 2007, it denied all post-
trial motions, including the defendants' motion for judgment as
a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial.

On Dec. 5, 2007, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to stay the judgment pending appeal
conditioned upon filing an irrevocable letter of credit in the
amount of $50 million.  

The irrevocable letter of credit was filed on Jan. 4, 2008.  On
Jan. 24, the defendants filed their initial Petition for Appeal
in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, and on April 14,
the plaintiffs filed a response, a cross petition and other
motions, 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 "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed in the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane
County, Judge Thomas Evans III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:
       
         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St.
         P.O. Box 1791         
         Charleston, WV 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


COVENTRY HEALTH: Fla. Court Sets Briefing for "Tag-Along" Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
entered a briefing schedule for all new motions to be filed in
"tag-along" lawsuits included with the Multi-District Litigation  
"In Re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334," which names
Coventry Health Care, Inc., as defendant.

The company was a defendant in the provider track of the "In Re:
Managed Care Litigation," which was filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under MDL
No. 1334.  The action is otherwise captioned as "Charles B.
Shane., et al., v. Humana, Inc., et al."

The lawsuit was filed by a group of physicians as a class action
suit against Coventry and nine other companies in the managed
care industry.  The plaintiffs alleged violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, conspiracy
to violate RICO and aiding and abetting a scheme to violate
RICO.

In addition to these federal law claims, the complaint included
state law claims for breach of contract, violations of various
state prompt payment laws and equitable claims for unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit.

The trial court dismissed several of the state law claims and
ordered all physicians who had an arbitration provision in their
provider contracts to submit their direct RICO claims and their
remaining state law claims to arbitration.

As a consequence of this ruling, the plaintiffs who had
arbitration provisions voluntarily dismissed their claims that
were subject to arbitration.

In its order, the trial court also held that the plaintiffs'
claims of conspiracy to violate RICO and of aiding and abetting
violations of RICO were not subject to arbitration.  

The trial court then certified various subclasses of plaintiffs
with respect to these two federal law claims.

Seven defendants entered into settlement agreements with the
plaintiffs, which deals received final approval from the trial
court.

On June 16, 2006, the trial court filed an order in the Shane
lawsuit which granted summary judgment on all claims in favor of
the company.

The trial court also granted summary judgment on all claims in
favor of two other defendants.  The plaintiffs appealed the
trial court's summary judgment order to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

By an order dated June 13, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed
the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of
the company.

The Shane lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class
action complaints by other health care providers such as
chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed
health care professionals.   

Each of these actions has been transferred to the MDL and have
been designated as "tag-along" actions.  The trial court has
entered an order which has stayed all proceedings in the tag-
long actions.

However, the trial court has recently requested the parties in
the "tag-along" actions to refile all motions pending at the
time of the stay and to file any new motions.  The trial court
also entered a briefing schedule for those motions, according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.cvty.com/-- is a  
national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland,
operating health plans, insurance companies, network
rental/managed care services companies and workers' compensation
services companies.  


DOMINION HOMES: Sixth Circuit Allows Appeal in "Stuart" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an order
granting National City Mortgage Co. leave to file an
interlocutory appeal in the matter, "Stuart, et al. v. Dominion
Homes Financial Services, Inc., et al."

The suit was filed in he U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on Feb. 21, 2006.  It includes claims for
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent
representations and material omissions in connection with the
financing of plaintiffs' condominium homes located in the
Village at Polaris Park (VPP), where the company has been unable
to obtain final Department of Housing and Urban Development
approval for Federal Housing Administration insured mortgages to
be sold to its customers.  

The plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of
homeowners in VPP who purchased FHA mortgages through and from
the defendants.   

The complaint seeks damages, including actual damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, for, among other things,
the alleged loss of certain FHA-insured mortgage features,
including loan assumability, and for the defendants' failure to
notify plaintiffs of the status of their mortgages.  

On Sept. 26, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class which the court defined as all persons who on or
after Sept. 14, 2002:

     -- applied to defendant DHFS for an FHA mortgage to
        purchase a home in VPP;

     -- received notice from defendant National City Mortgage
        approving the application for an FHA loan;

     -- subsequently closed and signed documents with defendant
        DHFS which referenced an FHA loan and an FHA
        identifying case number, only later to discover their
        mortgage was not FHA eligible.

The company believes that the maximum number of qualifying
plaintiffs under the class definition would not exceed 41.

On Oct. 11, 2007, defendant National City Mortgage filed a
motion appealing the class certification decision.

On Dec. 13, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit issued an order granting National City leave to file an
interlocutory appeal, 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 "Stuart, et al. v. Dominion Homes Financial
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00137-MHW-MRA," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Judge Michael H. Watson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Gary Michael Smith, Esq. (gmsmith@grahamlpa.com)
         Graham & Graham Co. L.P.A.
         Graham Law Building
         17 N. 4th Street, P.O. Box 340
         Zanesville, OH 43702-0340
         Phone: 740-454-8585
         Fax: 740-454-0111

Representing the defendants are:  

         James Edward Arnold, Esq. (jarnold@cpaslaw.com)
         Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
         Columbus, OH 43215,  
         Phone: 614-469-1400

         James Eugene Burke, Esq. (jburke@kmklaw.com)
         Keating Muething & Klekamp
         One E. Fourth Street, Suite 1400
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-579-6400
         Fax: 513-579-6429

              - and -

         Joseph William Ryan, Jr., Esq. (jryan@porterwright.com)
         Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
         41 S. High Street, Suite 2800
         Columbus, OH 43215-6194
         Phone: 614-227-2000
         Fax: 614-227-2244


DOMINION HOMES: Rulings in Consumer Suit Appealed to High Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against
Dominion Homes Financial Services, Ltd., pending with the Court
of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, have appealed summary
judgment rulings in the matter to the Ohio Supreme Court,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit, "Rece, et al. v. Dominion Homes, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06CVH202335," was filed on Feb. 21, 2006, against DHFS,
Dominion Homes, Inc., named and unnamed appraisers who have
worked with DHI, and unnamed charitable organizations that have
provided the DHI's customers with down payment assistance funds
in the last several years.

The plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of
purchasers of the company's homes from 1999 to the present who
received such funds and allege, among other things, that the
defendants misrepresented the value of the plaintiffs' homes and
obtained an improper benefit by artificially inflating the sales
price of homes to purchasers receiving down payment assistance
funds.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants engaged in
predatory lending practices against the plaintiffs and other
consumers by extending them credit without regard to the actual
value of their homes, knowing that the result would be higher
default and foreclosure rates in its communities.

It seeks injunctive or declaratory relief, compensatory damages,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 2, 2006, the company and DHFS filed a motion for judgment
on the pleadings with respect to plaintiffs' claim for breach of
the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act on the grounds that this
claim was barred by the two-year applicable statute of
limitations.

On June 12, 2006, the Court granted this motion with respect to
plaintiffs' claims for money damages under the OCSPA, but denied
the motion with respect to plaintiffs' claim for rescission
under the OCSPA.

On July 28, 2006, the company and DHFS filed a motion for
summary judgment as to plaintiffs' predatory lending claims
under statutory and common law.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the Court granted the defendants' motion.  On
Dec. 1, 2006, defendant Valuation Resources, Inc., the valuation
company that provided appraisals of the plaintiffs' homes for
the company, filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to
plaintiffs' claims for fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and
OCSPA.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the Court again granted this motion in its
entirety.  The plaintiffs appealed this decision on April 10,
2007, and the appeal is pending.

In addition, on Dec. 28, 2006, the Court granted the company's
and DHFS's motions for summary judgment regarding the
plaintiffs' individual claims and class allegations relating to
the OCSPA.

On March 28, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal with respect to all remaining claims against the
defendants with the right to refile.

The complaint was subsequently re-filed in the Court of Common
Please, Franklin County, Ohio on March 24, 2008.  

The summary judgment rulings related to Valuation Resources that
were the subject of the April 10, 2007 appeal to Franklin County
Court of Appeals were all upheld on Jan. 15, 2008, and on
Feb. 25, 2008, the plaintiff's appealed that judgment to the
Ohio Supreme Court.

Dominion Homes, Inc. -- http://www.dominionhomes.com/-- is   
primarily engaged in the construction and sale of homes and
condominiums in Central Ohio (primarily the Columbus
Metropolitan Statistical Area), and Louisville and Lexington,
Kentucky.  It designs, sells and builds single-family homes on
finished lots.  It also purchases undeveloped land to develop
into finished lots as needed for home construction.  It offers
five series of homes: Independence Collection, Metropolitan
Series, Celebration and Celebration Classic Series, Tradition
Series and Grand Reserve Series.  Price, size, standard features
and available options differentiate these series of homes.  It
provides title insurance services through affiliated title
insurance agencies and mortgage financing services through a
joint venture arrangement.


DOMINION HOMES: Ohio Court Yet to Certify Class in "Rudawsky"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
yet to address the issue of class certification in a purported
class action lawsuit against Dominion Homes Financial Services,
Ltd., its chairman and chief executive officer, certain
affiliates and current and former officers, and The Nehemiah
Corp. of America, which suit was filed by plaintiffs who
purchased homes from the company using Nehemiah down payment
assistance funds.  

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on Feb. 23, 2006.  It alleges, among other
things, that plaintiffs suffered financial injuries as a result
of the defendants' participation in fraudulent conduct by the
company related to the Nehemiah down payment assistance program
in violation of Federal statutes and Ohio law.  

The complaint further alleges that defendants fraudulently
misrepresented and concealed the cost and operation of the
Nehemiah program from plaintiffs.   

The plaintiffs purport to bring the claim on behalf of customers
of the company who purchased a home from 1999 to present using
down payment assistance from Nehemiah.  They seek monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The issue of class certification in the Rudawsky matter has been
fully briefed and remains pending before the District Court,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Rudawsky, et al. v. Borrer, et al., Case No. 2:06
cv-00144-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Judge Michael H. Watson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Amy Gullifer, Esq. (aegullifer@grahamlpa.com)
         Gary Michael Smith, Esq. (gmsmith@grahamlpa.com)
         Graham & Graham Co., L.P.A.
         17 North Fourth Street, P.O. Box 340
         Zanesville, OH 43702-0340
         Phone: 740-454-8585
         Fax: 740-454-0111
  
Representing the defendants are:  

         James Edward Arnold, Esq. (jarnold@cpaslaw.com)
         Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
         471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-469-1400
         Fax: 614-469-0900

              - and -

         Joseph William Ryan, Jr., Esq. (jryan@porterwright.com)
         Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
         41 S. High Street, Suite 2800
         Columbus, OH 43215-6194
         Phone: 614-227-2000
         Fax: 614-227-2244


EMIGRANT BANK: Faces New York Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emigrant Bank is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S.
District Court in Manhattan alleging it disclosed the private
e-mail addresses of account holders to spammers who sent illicit
commercial email that could indicate a "systematic security
breach" by the bank, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs say the bank disclosed e-mail addresses of
customers of EmigrantDirect, an online money-market deposit and
management system.

Emigrant's disclosure of these e-mail addresses is tortious and
may indicate a systematic security breach by the company, the
complaint states.

The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, accounting, damages and an
injunction.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jennifer Feldscher, Esq.
          KamberEdelson
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 1-212-920-3072
          Fax: 1-212-202-6364


GASOLINE RETAILERS: $10-Mln. Price-Fixing Suit Filed in Quebec
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Quebec motorist has launched a $10-million class-action
lawsuit in the Quebec Superior Court against gasoline retailers
accusing the companies of fixing fuel prices, The Gazette
reports.

According to media reports, documents requesting permission to
sue were filed after 11 fuel companies and 13 individuals were
charged with fixing prices at gas stations in Victoriaville,
Thetford Mines, Magog and Sherbrooke.

Three companies and one individual pleaded guilty to the
charges.

That guilty admission will make it easier for the lawsuit to
proceed, said David Bourgouin, a Quebec City lawyer leading the
legal action, which was initiated by an unidentified Quebec
motorist.


GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Metzler Initiates CDN$500-Mln. Investor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
T-shirt maker Gildan Activewear Inc. is facing the possibility
of a $500-million class-action lawsuit over allegations that its
executives pocketed millions by selling shares before news of
problems at the company's Dominican Republic plant sent the
stock plummeting, The Canadian Press reports.

According to Canadian Press, German institutional investor
Metzler Investment GMBH is the lead plaintiff in the proposed
suit.  It claims to have lost around CDN$900,000 after
information about the problems at the plant was released.

In a statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court late
last week, but made public on June 16, 2008, Metzler alleged
that Gildan Chief Executive Officer Glenn Chamandy and a holding
company in his name made US$95.2 million selling shares between
Aug. 9 and Dec. 5, 2007.

The report recounts that in May 2007, Mr. Chamandy disclosed of
plans to sell 1.8 million of his 5.5 million Gildan shares over
the coming year to seek asset diversification, attain personal
liquidity and finance charitable projects in the community.

The company's chief financial and administrative officer,
Laurence Sellyn, also allegedly earned CDN$802,827 selling
shares on Dec. 20 and 21, the report notes.

The plaintiff further argues that Gildan knew or ought to have
known the severity of the problems at the Dominican facility,
and had a duty to promptly pass that information on to
investors.

"The defendants were reckless or, at a minimum, negligent in
failing to realize that fact and in failing to prevent the
misrepresentations alleged herein," the claim states.  
"Accordingly, the defendants have violated their duties to the
plaintiffs and to persons or entities similarly situated."

Canadian Press clarifies that none of the allegations has been
proven in court.  

The claim on behalf of all class members is seeking
CDN$500 million in general damages and $5 million in punitive
damages.

The class action was commenced by law firm Siskinds LLP and is
brought on behalf of all persons who bought Gildan securities
between Aug. 2, 2007, and April 29, 2008, and who held those
shares on April 29.

The claim was filed under an untested section of the Ontario
Securities Act changed in late 2005.  It is not likely to be
adjudicated until next year, Siskinds lawyer Dimitri Lascaris
told Canadian Press.  

Though Gildan is a Montreal-based company, the case was filed in
Ontario, in part because Quebec class action law is not open to
institutional investors with more than 50 employees, Mr.
Lascaris explained.

The Ontario class action follows other efforts in the United
States, including one announced in early June, against Gildan,
Canadian Press notes.  The suit in the district court in New
York, not yet certified, covers the same period up to April 29,
2008, when Gildan announced it was reducing its earnings per
share guidance.

The action claims Gildan issued materially false and misleading
statements concerning its financial performance and prospects.

Canadian press points out that winning can be tougher in the
U.S. because plaintiffs must demonstrate fraudulent intent, a
threshold that prompts some 30 to 40 per cent of cases to be
dismissed.

"In Canada, you don't have to prove that the defendants had an
intention to defraud," Ms. Lascaris said.  "It's sufficient if
you demonstrate the defendants were negligent.  They may have
been acting in good faith but they were careless or not
sufficiently prudent in disclosing material information to
investors."

Canadian Press says that Gildan, which has not yet been served
with the lawsuit, did not return calls seeking comment.


HANNAFORD BROS: Judges, Lawyers to Meet in Maine on Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Maine has scheduled a July 10 meeting with
class-action lawyers before deciding which of two groups will
lead a lawsuit against Hannaford Bros. over a data breach that
exposed some 4.2 million debit and credit card numbers to
potential fraudulent use, the Boston Globe reports.

Two competing groups of law firms are vying to lead the case,
the report points out.  Berger & Montague is collaborating with
the Chicago firm Barnow & Associates and the Miami firm Harke &
Clasby, while the competing group consists of Murray, Plumb &
Murray in Portland, Lewis Saul & Associates in Portland, and
Shapiro Haber & Urmy in Boston.

According to Boston Globe, the case against the Scarborough-
based supermarket giant began as more than 20 individual
complaints were filed in four states.  The suits have since been
consolidated in the U.S. District Court in Portland before Judge
D. Brock Hornby.

The report specifically notes that the massive breach that
compromised up to 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers used
at 165 Hannaford supermarkets in the Northeast and 106 Sweetbay
stores in Florida sparked 14 lawsuits in Maine, seven in
Florida, one in New Hampshire and one in New York.

In April, a motion to consolidate the lawsuits was filed before
the U.S. District Court in Bangor, Maine, on behalf of Greg
Doherty and "all others similarly situated," asserting that
Hannaford was negligent in not providing adequate data security
and did not inform customers of the breach quickly enough (Class
Action Reporter, April 21, 2008).

The report recounts that the breach occurred between Dec. 7,
2007, and March 10, 2008.  Hannaford did not notify the public
of the breach until March 17, 2008.

The suit seeks credit monitoring or similar protection,
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

Hannaford has half a dozen stores in the mid-Hudson region.  So
far, the only solution the company has offered its customers is
advice: that they notify their banks and credit card companies
and watch their statements for any authorized activity.


ILLINOIS DCFS: Sup. Ct. Declines to Hear "Safety Plans" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a class action lawsuit
filed by Chicago-based legal advocacy group Family Defense
Center that hopes to challenge a precautionary measure by the
Illinois Department of Child and Family Services, Erica L. Green
writes for the Chicago Sun-Times.

The report notes that this precautionary measure is used to
remove parents unfairly from their homes during child abuse
investigations.

The case -- Dupuy vs. McEwen -- sought to find DCFS "safety
plans" coercive, and their hasty implementation a violation of
parents' Fourth Amendment rights.  The suit claimed that when a
report of child abuse is made -- no matter how unfounded -- DCFS
forces parents to agree to a safety plan or have their children
placed in foster care.

Diane Redleaf, executive director of the Family Defense Center,
told Sun-Times that too many families suffer from the DFCS'
coercive safety plans.

"We are very disappointed that the Supreme Court denied review,"
Ms. Redleaf express.  "The case raised a very fundamental
question affecting the most basic liberty: the right of parents
to live with their children."

DCFS spokesman Kendall Marlowe suggested the court's decision as
a reinforcement of DCFS' purpose.  "The department cannot just
walk away when children are at risk of harm and these plans are
an important tool to give families a choice in how to keep their
kids safe," he said.

Ms. Redleaf further shared with Sun-Times that the Family
Defense Center will challenge safety plans in the legislature
next fall.


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Employment Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants, Inc., settled a consolidated labor lawsuit
filed before the State Superior Court in San Bernardino,
California.

Landry's operates primarily under the names Landry's Seafood
House, Rainforest Cafe, The Crab House, Charley's Crab, The
Chart House and Saltgrass Steak House.

On Feb. 18, 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Rainforest Cafe, Inc., in the Superior Court of
California in San Bernardino by Michael D. Harrison, et al.  

Subsequently, on Sept. 20, 2005, another purported class action
suit against Rainforest Cafe was filed in the Superior Court of
California in Los Angeles by Dustin Steele, et al.

On Jan. 26, 2006, both lawsuits were consolidated into one
action by the state Superior Court in San Bernardino.  The
lawsuits allege that Rainforest Cafe violated wage and hour
laws, including not providing meal and rest breaks, uniform
violations and failure to pay overtime.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages, including unpaid wages,
reimbursement for uniform expenses and penalties imposed by
state law.  

The company has reached a settlement agreement, which has been
approved by the Court and fully accrued the amount, 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.

Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com
-- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment
company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of
full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the
names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's
Seafood House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart
House.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company owned and operated over
179 full-service and certain limited-service restaurants in 28
states.  It offers concepts ranging from upscale steak and
seafood restaurants to casual theme-based restaurants.  The
Company is also engaged in the ownership and operation of select
hospitality businesses, including hotel and casino resorts that
provide dining, leisure and entertainment experiences, including
the Golden Nugget Hotels and Casinos in downtown Las Vegas and
Laughlin, Nevada.  The Company operates its restaurants through
three divisions: Landry's Division, Rainforest Cafe, and
Saltgrass Steak House.


LANDRYS RESTAURANTS: Suits Over CEO's Purchase Bid Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants, Inc., is facing a consolidated class
action lawsuit in connection with a proposal to acquire all of
the company's outstanding common stock.

On Jan. 27, 2008, the company's board of directors received a
letter from Tilman J. Fertitta, chairman, president and CEO of
the company, proposing to acquire all of the company's
outstanding common stock for $23.50 per share in cash,
representing a 41% premium over the closing price of the
company's common stock on Jan. 25, 2008.  

On April 4, 2008, Mr. Fertitta revised his offer to acquire all
of the outstanding common stock to a cash purchase price of
$21.00 per share, representing a 37% premium over the closing
price of the company's common stock on April 3, 2008.  

Immediately following the announcement of Mr. Fertitta's offer
to acquire the company's outstanding common stock, the following
lawsuits were filed:

       -- "Dennis Rice, on Behalf of Himself and all Others
          Similarly Situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et         
          al, Cause No. 2008-05211," filed in the 157th
          Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on
          Jan. 28, 2008;

       -- "Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, Individually and
          on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Landry's
          Restaurants, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2008-07100,"
          filed in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris
          County, Texas, on Feb. 1, 2008;

       -- "Robert Reynolds v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et
          al., Cause No. 2008-07484," filed in the 113th
          Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on
          Feb. 5, 2008;

       -- "Robert Caryer, on Behalf of Himself and all Others
          Similarly Situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et
          al., Cause No. 2008-007677," filed in the 113th
          Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on
          Feb. 6, 2008.

       -- "Matthew and Wendy Maschler, on Behalf of Themselves
          and all Others Similarly Situated v. Tilman J.
          Fertitta, et al., Cause No. 2008-09042," filed in
          the 164th Judicial District Court of Harris County,
          Texas, on Feb. 13, 2008.

The suits each seek to be classified as a putative class action
in which the company and the members of its Board are named as
defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that the company and the individual
defendants have breached or will breach fiduciary duties to its
shareholders with regard to the presentation or consideration of
Mr. Fertitta's proposal to acquire all of its outstanding common
stock.

The Caryer suit purports to assert an additional claim of
alleged aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the
company.  The Maschler case purports to assert an additional
claim for indemnification.  

The plaintiffs seek to enjoin in some form the consideration or
acceptance of Mr. Fertitta's proposal.  The amount of damages
initially sought is not indicated by any plaintiff.  

On March 26, 2008, all of these cases were consolidated into one
action, 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.

Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/
-- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment
company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of
full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the
names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's
Seafood House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart
House.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company owned and operated over
179 full-service and certain limited-service restaurants in 28
states.  It offers concepts ranging from upscale steak and
seafood restaurants to casual theme-based restaurants.  The
Company is also engaged in the ownership and operation of select
hospitality businesses, including hotel and casino resorts that
provide dining, leisure and entertainment experiences, including
the Golden Nugget Hotels and Casinos in downtown Las Vegas and
Laughlin, Nevada.  The Company operates its restaurants through
three divisions: Landry's Division, Rainforest Cafe, and
Saltgrass Steak House.


NEW JERSEY: Maple Shade Law on Public Intoxication Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------------
A man has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Maple Shade
ordinance that bans public intoxication, Danielle Camilli writes
for Burlington County Times.

According to the report, attorneys for Joseph W. McMullen, of
Moorestown, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Camden.
They are seeking class-action status to include other plaintiffs
and other municipalities in the state that have similar
ordinances.

The suit claims that ordinances allowing municipalities to
continue to cite and criminally prosecute individuals for public
drunkenness -- when no other offense is being committed -- are
illegal.  In 1975, the state Legislature repealed and prohibited
such ordinances when it adopted a policy that addresses
intoxication as a health issue, not a criminal one, said Steven
E. Angstreich, Esq., Mr. McMullen's attorney.

"What Mr. McMullen is trying to accomplish in this lawsuit is to
stop municipalities from criminally charging individuals with
conduct that is not criminal," Mr. Angstreich told Burlington
Times, adding that the suit does not challenge any drunken-
driving laws.

The lawsuit says that 74 municipalities still have these laws on
the books.

Mr. McMullen claims in his suit that his civil rights were
violated when he was arrested and charged with public
intoxication in Maple Shade in October 2007.  He was released
after spending several hours in police custody, he said.
McMullen was required to appear in municipal court, where Judge
Gregory R. McCloskey dismissed the charge.

"They're damaging and hurting people with these laws.  It's not
right," Mr. McMullen said.  "I was just walking down the road,
minding my own business.  You shouldn't be locked up, handcuffed
and shackled to a bench for just walking down the road at
1 a.m."

The report relates that the lawsuit seeks to educate the
municipalities that the ordinances are unenforceable and have
the towns return all fines and court costs to defendants charged
under the ordinances.  It also seeks other monetary damages.


PET FOOD: Class Notified of Settlement; Claims Due on Nov. 24  
-------------------------------------------------------------
The counsel for the plaintiffs in the class action suit "In re
Pet Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1850" sends out
notice to eligible class members.

The class includes all those who purchased, used or obtained, or
whose pets used or consumed pet food and pet treats that were
recalled between March 16, 2007, and the present because they
allegedly contained contaminated wheat gluten or rice protein
concentrate.

The plaintiffs allege through lawsuits filed in the United
States and Canada that various companies and other defendants
manufactured, distributed, sold and marketed Recalled Pet Food
Products, and that as a result of contamination, persons who
purchased or whose pets consumed the Recalled Pet Food Products
were damaged.

The lawsuits allege that some pets were taken for health
screening, or may have became sick and died after consuming the
Recalled Pet Food Products.  The defendants have denied any
wrongdoing.

The Settlement Agreement would resolve more than 100 class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. and Canadian courts.  Similar
motions for approval will soon be heard in the Canadian courts
(Class Action Reporter, June 3, 2008).

The Settlement Agreement creates a Settlement Fund of
US$24 million that will allow a potential recovery of up to 100%
of all economic damages incurred by pet owners, subject to
certain limitations.  The Settlement Fund, administered by a
neutral claims administrator, will be available to persons in
the United States and Canada who purchased or obtained, or whose
pets used or consumed, recalled pet food.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Fund will
be funded by the defendants, including Menu Foods and its
product liability insurer.  Menu Foods' corporate contribution
to the settlement is within Menu Foods' previously published
estimate for recall costs of CDN$55 million.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
granted preliminary approval to the settlement, and will hold a
Final Approval Hearing on October 14, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Deadline to file for exclusion is on August 15, 2008.  Deadline
to file for claims is on November 24, 2008.

Persons with potential claims should not contact Menu Foods, but
can contact the claims administrator at:

          In re Pet Food Products Liability Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          P.O. Box 890
          Philadelphia, PA 19105-0890
          Phone: 1-800-392-7785
          Web site: http://www.petfoodsettlement.com/


RADIAN GROUP: Amended Complaint Filed in Pa. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit against Radian Group, Inc., which is
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

In August and September 2007, two purported stockholder class
action complaints were filed against Radian Group and individual
defendants.

The suits are:

       * "Cortese v. Radian Group Inc.," and

       * "Maslar v. Radian Group Inc."

The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that
Radian Group was aware of and failed to disclose the actual
financial condition of C-BASS prior to Radian Group's
declaration of a material impairment to its investment in C-
BASS.

On Jan. 30, 2008, the Court ordered that the cases be
consolidated into "In re Radian Securities Litigation," and
appointed the Institutional Investors Iron Workers Local No. 25
Pension Fund and the City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System as lead plaintiffs in the case.  

On April 16, 2008, a consolidated and amended complaint was
filed, adding one additional defendant, 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 "John Cortese, et al. v. Radian Group Inc., et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert P. Frutkin, Esq. (rpf@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross
          450 John Wanamaker Bldg.
          Juniper & Market Sts.
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-561-3600
          Fax: 215-561-3000

          David A. 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

               - and -

          David Seamus Kaskela, Esq. (skaskela@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants are:

          Leslie J. Abrams, Esq. (labrams@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
          1440 New York Avenue
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-371-7977


RADIAN GROUP: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The purported class action was filed on April 29, 2008, against
Radian Group, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of
the company's board of directors, and certain individual
defendants.  It alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Securities Act as it relates to the company's Savings
Incentive Plan.  The named plaintiff is a former employee of
Radian.

The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Radian Group Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:2008cv02007," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Debra S. Goodman, Esq. (dsg@weiserlawfirm.com)
          The Weiser Law Firm
          121 N. Wayne Avenue
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-225-0273
          Fax: 610-225-2678

Representing the defendants is:

          David Smith, Esq. (dsmith@schnader.com)
          Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis LLP
          1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-751-2190
          Fax: 215-972-7409


RAYTHEON CORP: Transfers Contamination Lawsuits to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Corp. is making a federal case out of two class-action
lawsuits filed by St. Petersburg homeowners, Mark Douglas writes
for News Channel 8.

According to the report, the law firm of Kirkland and Ellis
filed a "removal of an action" petition that automatically moves
two lawsuits filed against Raytheon to federal court.

The report recounts that these lawsuits arose after a Target
Eight/Tampa Tribune investigation in March 2008 revealed that
toxic waste from Raytheon is polluting the Azalea neighborhood.
Raytheon and the state knew about the pollution for years but
failed to warn homeowners about a spreading plume of industrial
waste under their homes, the suits allege.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 21, 2008,
Pinellas County attorney Joe Saunders, Esq., has filed a class-
action lawsuit against Raytheon on behalf of residents
who may be affected by contaminated groundwater in the Azalea
area of St. Petersburg.  Mr. Saunders said that he was contacted
several weeks ago by Linda and John Swartout, residents of the
Azalea neighborhood.  The Swartouts filed their suit after Tampa
Tribune investigation revealed that chemicals such as vinyl
chloride, 1,4-Dioxane and trichloroethylene that came from
Raytheon's plant on 72nd Street are contaminating groundwater in
the neighborhood.

Mr. Saunders earlier said that the stigma of contamination
already has diminished property values.  He also said he wants
Raytheon to pay for medical screening of people in the
neighborhood.

News Channel 8 notes that recent tests show at least six private
irrigation wells in the neighborhood are now contaminated from
chemicals that started leaking 17 years ago when e-systems
occupied the property now owned by Raytheon.  Previous tests
show contamination has spread at least half a mile from
Raytheon's defense plant in northwest St. Petersburg, the report
adds.

Brian Barr, Esq., one of the lawyers representing homeowners in
one of the two class-action lawsuits, told news Channel 8 that
his team at the Levin, Papantonio environmental law firm in
Pensacola is considering an appeal of the move to federal
jurisdiction, to bring the lawsuit back to state court.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection expected to
receive a final assessment report from Raytheon on the extent of
groundwater pollution, the report says.  A cleanup plan is due
soon after this report.

Raytheon says any cleanup required by the state won't begin
until sometime next year.

According to News Channel 8, the plant is now for sale, where
Raytheon has not set an asking price.

    
SOLUTIA INC: Parties Expect 2008 Trial Date for Ill. ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A late 2008 trial date is expected in a consolidated lawsuit
that claims Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan discriminated
against employees on the basis of their age.

Since October 2005, current or former participants in the
Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan have filed three class
action complaints alleging that the Pension Plan is
discriminatory based upon age and that the lump sum values of
individual account balances in the Pension Plan have been, and
continue to be, miscalculated.

Two of these cases are:

       1. "Davis, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension
          Plan," and

       2. "Hammond, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension
          Plan."

The two are still pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.  

Those two cases have been consolidated with similar cases
against Monsanto Co., and Monsanto Company Pension Plan, and
Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, Pharmacia Corp., Pharmacia
and Upjohn, Inc., and Pfizer Inc.  

Those two cases that were consolidated with the Solutia suits
are:

       -- "Walker, et al. v. The Monsanto Pension Plan, et al."
          and

       -- "Donaldson v. Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, et
          al."

The plaintiffs seek to obtain injunctive and other equitable
relief (including money damages awarded by the creation of a
common fund) on behalf of themselves and the nationwide putative
class of similarly situated current and former participants in
the Pension Plan.

A consolidated class action complaint was filed by all of the
plaintiffs in the consolidated case on Sept. 4, 2006.  

The complaint alleged three separate causes of action against
the Pension Plan:

       -- the Pension Plan violates the Employee Retirement
          Income Security Act by terminating interest credits on
          prior plan accounts at the age of 55;

       -- the Pension Plan is improperly backloaded in violation
          of ERISA; and

       -- the Pension Plan is discriminatory on the basis of
          age.  

In September 2007, the second and third of these claims were
dismissed by the court.

By consent of the parties, the court certified a class in
September 2007 with respect to the Pension Plan on plaintiffs'
claim that the Pension Plan discriminated against employees on
the basis of their age by only providing interest credits on
prior plan accounts through age 55.  

Summary judgment motions must be filed in the case by June 6,
2008, and a trial, if necessary, would be expected to occur in
late 2008, according to Solutia's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2008.

Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its   
subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety
of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in
a range of consumer and industrial applications.  Solutia has
two segments.  The Performance Products segment manufactures
performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market
applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals,
heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid.  The
Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of
nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers.
Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various
industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a
lesser extent, by using distributors.


SOLUTIA INC: Court Yet to Approve Settlement of SIP Plan Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement for two purported class action lawsuits against
current and former officials of Solutia, Inc., has yet to
receive court approval.

Two companion purported class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
The suits are:

       1. "Dickerson v. Feldman et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
          07935-LAP," filed in October 2004; and

       2. "Reiff v. Metz, Case No. 07-06011," filed in June
          2007.

The suits were filed against a number of defendants, including
Solutia's former officers and employees and the Solutia Employee
Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and Savings Funds
Committee.  The company was not named as a defendant.  

The actions alleged breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and sought to recover
alleged losses to the Solutia Inc. Savings and Investment Plan
during the period December 16, 1998, to the date the action was
filed.  

The plaintiffs in both cases alleged the investment of SIP Plan
assets in our common stock was imprudent, and the actions sought
monetary payment to the SIP Plan to recover the losses resulting
from the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, as well as
injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and interest.  

In addition, the plaintiffs in these actions filed a proof of
claim for $269 million against the company.

In December 2007, the company, the named defendants, and the
plaintiffs reached a global settlement in principle which would
resolve the Dickerson and Reiff lawsuits on a class-wide basis.  

Under the terms of the global settlement, the plaintiffs agreed
that the maximum amount of any claim against the company would
be $15 million to be paid in New Common Stock from the disputed
claim reserve.  

The settlement remains subject to the parties entering into a
formal settlement agreement, and must be approved by the
Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, according to Solutia,
Inc.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its    
subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety
of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in
a range of consumer and industrial applications.  Solutia has
two segments.  The Performance Products segment manufactures
performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market
applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals,
heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid.  The
Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of
nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers.
Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various
industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a
lesser extent, by using distributors.


SPRINT PCS: NERA Testimony Supports Termination Fee Court Win
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three experts from NERA Economic Consulting provided testimony
in support of Sprint Spectrum LP -- doing business as Sprint PCS
Group, and SprintCom, Inc. -- in a class action lawsuit over
early termination fees in Alameda County Superior Court,
California.

NERA Senior Vice President Dr. William Taylor and Vice President
Christian Dippon testified in "Ayyad, et al. v. Sprint Spectrum
Limited Partnership, et. al., on the economic damages allegedly
inflicted on California consumers by Sprint's decision to charge
early termination fees.

NERA Senior Vice President Jeffrey Baliban testified on several
key accounting aspects of the damages.

The three NERA experts concluded that the damages to Sprint
caused by subscribers that terminated their contract early far
outweighed the early termination fees charged and collected by
Sprint.  The NERA team also showed that subscribers typically
incur an early termination fee due to non-payment and that
Sprint collected very few of these fees from default customers.

After a month-long trial, the California jury ruled on June 12,
that the early termination fees were not excessive and,
consistent with the NERA experts' testimony, found that the fees
were a fair reflection of Sprint's damages when customers
terminate their contracts early.

The jury determined that, while Sprint customers paid $73.8
million in early termination fees, the breaches of contract
caused losses to the company in the amount of $225.7 million.
The presiding judge, the Honorable Bonnie Sabraw, still must
decide on certain aspects of the case, including liability.

The outcome of this case is likely to impact not only similar
outstanding litigation, but potential regulatory action as well.

A class action lawsuit involving claims about early termination
fees charged by Verizon Wireless begins in the same Alameda
County court.  In addition, US Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Kevin J. Martin said in a hearing recently that he
would seek to establish a federal policy on the early
cancellation fees charged by cell phone and other service
providers as early as July 2008.

US Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass) had recently introduced
draft legislation calling for the FCC to intervene in this
competitive market and to introduce rules regarding early
termination fees.

NERA Economic Consulting http://www.nera.com/-- is an  
international firm of economists who understand how markets
work.


STANDARD PACIFIC: Officers Seek Nixing of Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain officers of Standard Pacific Corp. are seeking the  
dismissal of a purported securities fraud class action lawsuit
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

On Aug. 16, 2007, a securities class action suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Andrew H. Parnes, the company's Executive Vice
President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer, by putative
plaintiff Vinod Patel.  The company was not named in the
complaint.

The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duties to the
company's stockholders, as well as violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, during the
period between Oct. 27, 2005, and Aug. 2, 2007.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company:

       -- issued materially false and misleading statements
          regarding our finances, business and prospects;
       
       -- lacked requisite internal controls over lending
          practices; and
   
       -- misrepresented the extent of risk in the company's
          loans.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages (including
interest), reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as well as
equitable, injunctive or other relief that the court may deem
just and proper.  The complaint has not been served.

On Dec. 3, 2007, the Court appointed Pinellas Park Retirement
System, Plumbers Local No. 98 Defined Benefit Pension Fund, and
the City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System as lead
plaintiffs.

On Jan. 23, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint for violations of federal securities laws.

The Consolidated Complaint names Andrew Parnes and Stephen
Scarborough, Standard Pacific's chief executive officer,
president and chairman of the board, as defendants.  It does not
name the company as a defendant.  

In the Consolidated Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to certify a
class of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Standard Pacific within the proposed Oct. 27,
2005, and Aug. 2, 2007 class period.  

The plaintiffs allege that the price of Standard Pacific's
common stock was artificially inflated during this period
because Mr. Parnes and Mr. Scarborough provided false and
misleading earnings and sales guidance to the public that lacked
a reasonable basis due to the adverse impact of rising interest
rates, slowing housing markets and other macro-economic factors
affecting Standard Pacific.

The plaintiffs assert claims against Mr. Parnes and Mr.
Scarborough for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and against Mr. Parnes for
violation of Section 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Mr. Scarborough and Mr. Parnes have filed a motion seeking
dismissal of the case, according to the company's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Vinod Patel v. Andrew H Parnes., Case No. 2:07-cv-
05364-MMM-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Judge Margaret M. Morrow, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com)
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              - and -

         Joon M. Khang, Esq. (jkhang@lhlaw.com)
         Lee Hong Degerman Kang & Schmadeka
         660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-623-2221
         Fax: 213-623-2211

Representing the defendants are:

         Kristopher Price Diulio, Esq. (kdiulio@gibsondunn.com)
         Matthew E. Lilly, Esq. (mlilly@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         3161 Michelson Dr.
         Irvine, CA 92612-4412
         Phone: 949-451-3907
                949-451-3800

    
STATION CASINOS: Responds to Allegations in Nevade Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos, Inc., filed a response to allegations asserted
in a labor-related class action lawsuit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.

The purported class action complaint against the company was
initiated on Feb. 4, 2008, by former Station Casinos employees
Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company:

       -- failed to pay its employees for all hours worked,

       -- failed to pay overtime,

       -- failed to timely pay wages, and

       -- unlawfully converted certain earned wages.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000,
punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs' counsel.

The company filed a response to the complaint on March 10, 2008,
according to 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 "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case No.
2:08-cv-00141-LRH-LRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kelly McInerney, Esq. (kelly@mcinerneylaw.net)
          McInerney & Jones
          9460 Double R Blvd., Suite 103
          Reno, NV 89521
          Phone: 775-853-6440
          Fax: 775-853-6445

               - and -

          Matthew Righetti, Esq. (matt@righettilaw.com)
          Righetti Law Firm, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-983-0900
          Fax: 415-397-9005

Representing the defendants is:

          Joanna S. Kishner, Esq. (joanna.kishner@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US LLP
          3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Phone: 702-677-3900
          Fax: 702-737-1612


TIME WARNER: Free Cable Proposed Under Data Breach Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable has settled a lawsuit for allegedly selling
subscribers' personal information for marketing purposes,
WRAL.com reports.

Under the proposed settlement, Time Warner Cable customers could
be eligible for a month of free cable.  Those eligible are
Hillsborough customers who had subscribed to the service anytime
from Jan. 1, 1993, to Dec. 31, 1998.

Deadline to file claims is on March 10, 2009.

The settlement must still be approved by a U.S. District Court
judge.  A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Dec. 9, 2008.

Time Warner Cable is one of the largest cable operators in the
United States.  Among other products and services, TWC markets
"Digital Phone," a bundle of local and long distance calling
services that utilize Voice over Internet Protocol technology.

VoIP uses the Internet to transmit telephone signals rather than
using the traditional public switched telephone network.  As
such, VoIP has the capacity to transmit voice and data streams
simultaneously, whereas PSTN-based connections only have the
capacity to transmit one signal at a time.


TRANS UNION: Illinois Court Begins Settlement Notification
----------------------------------------------------------
A notification program began, as ordered by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to alert
consumers about a proposed settlement with Trans Union LLC and
Acxiom Corporation in a class action lawsuit involving credit
reporting data.

The lawsuit claims that the Defendants violated state laws and
the Fair Credit Reporting Act when they sold lists containing
personal and financial consumer information to third parties for
marketing purposes.

The lawsuit also claims that the Defendants provided more
information than was allowed under the FCRA to credit grantors
or insurance companies who used the lists to make pre-approved
offers of credit or insurance.  The Defendants deny the
Plaintiffs' allegations and maintain that they did nothing
wrong.

The Court decided that the Class includes all consumers who had
an open credit account or an open line of credit from a credit
grantor (including, for instance automobile loans, bank credit
cards, department store credit cards, other retail store credit
cards, finance company loans, mortgage loans, and student loans)
located in the United States anytime from January 1, 1987, to
May 28, 2008.

Notices informing members of the settlement Class about their
legal rights are scheduled to appear nationwide on television
and in newspapers and magazines, leading up to a hearing on
September 10, 2008, when the Court will consider whether to
approve the settlement.

The case is "In re Trans Union Corporation Privacy Litigation,
No. 00-CV-4729, MDL 1350," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and is
being presided over by Judge Robert W. Gettleman and Magistrate
Judge Michael T. Mason.

The Court has appointed as class counsel:

          The Law Offices of Dawn Wheelahan
          650 Poydras St., Suite 1550
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Fax: 504-581-1624

          Caddell & Chapman, PC
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: 713-751-0400
          Fax: 713-751-0906
          e-mail: firm@caddelchapman.com

          Righetti Law Firm, P.C.;
          456 Montgomery St Ste 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-983-0900

               - and -

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
                 800-449-4900


TRIPLE PLAY: Sued for Telephone Consumer Protection Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 16, 2008, Peter Strojnik, P.C., filed a proposed class
action lawsuit against illegal stock manipulator Triple Play
Stock Alert for transmitting between 12 million and 16 million
unsolicited faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Complaint alleges that Triple Play Stock Alert is a
fictitious name used by stock manipulators who want to conceal
their identity to avoid liability for their illegal activities.

The Complaint identifies those who benefit by the illegal stock
manipulation and the illegal mass faxes transmitted by Triple
Play Stock Alert.  In the Conspiracy Count, the Complaint
alleges, "Plaintiff has identified two classes of stock
manipulators who benefit by the illegal stock manipulation . . .
Signalife, Inc. and/or Signalife's insiders, officers, directors
and/or shareholders."

The complaint alleges that the illegal stock manipulators "are
liable in statutory damages between $6 billion and $18 billion."

"Damages in billions of dollars are possibly annihilating to
these stock manipulators," noted Peter Strojnik, Esq., a Phoenix
attorney involved in the preparation of the lawsuit, "but
Congress made a legislative decision authorizing such damages in
order to stop the unlawful distribution of illegal faxes."

The Complaint does not name Signalife or its officers,
directors, insiders and shareholders as the "aiders and
abettors" of the massive illegal fax scheme. "Who profited by
the illegal scam?" quizzed Mr. Strojnik.  "We will engage in
discovery to determine who profiteered -- or tried to profiteer
-- by the illegal fax transmissions, and we will know who the
responsible parties are."

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona under case number 2:08-cv-1116.

For more information, contact:

          Peter Strojnik, P.C. (ps@strojnik.com)
          3030 North Central Avenue, Suite 1401
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-524-6602


VERTEX PHARMA: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is facing two purported securities
fraud class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

On March 13, 2008, a purported shareholder class action suit  
captioned, "Waterford Township Police Fire Retirement System v.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al.," named the company
and certain of its officers as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the company made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in the its
disclosures leading up to its Nov. 2, 2007 press release
immediately preceding the American Association for the Study of
Liver Diseases meeting, all in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5).

On April 18, 2008, a further class action complaint based on the
same factual allegations and naming the same defendants, but
including further allegations of insider trading violations
during the class period by three of the company's officers, was
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Each of the lawsuits seeks the same relief: certification as a
class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and
unspecified equitable or injunctive relief, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing before the U.S. Securities
and exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.vrtx.com/-- is a  
biotechnology company in the business of discovering, developing
and commercializing small molecule drugs for the treatment of
serious diseases.  Telaprevir, lead drug candidate, is an oral
hepatitis C protease inhibitor and one of the advanced of a new
class of antiviral treatments in clinical development that
target hepatitis C virus (HCV), infection.  Vertex's other drug
candidates are VX-770 and VX-809, two drug candidates targeting
cystic fibrosis, or CF; VX-500 and VX-813, two second-generation
HCV protease inhibitors; and VX-509, a janus kinase 3, or JAK3,
inhibitor that targets immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, or
IMID.  The Company also includes several drug candidates that
are being developed by its collaborators.


WALT DISNEY: Sued for Alleged Religious Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------
The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the oldest
Sikh American civil rights and advocacy organization in the
United States, in collaboration with Matthew Sarelson of
Sarelson, P.A., has filed a class action religious
discrimination lawsuit against Walt Disney World Company on
behalf of Mr. Sukhbir Channa and the Sikh American community.

Plaintiff brings this action for violations of the Florida Civil
Rights Act, Fla. Stat. Section 760.01 et seq..

Mr. Channa, a practitioner of the Sikh religion, applied for a
job with Disney in the Fall of 2006 but was not hired and was
allegedly told that he did not have "the Disney look" -- a
negative reference to his religiously-mandated dastaar (Sikh
turban).  Witnesses have filed affidavits in his support.

The lawsuit seeks financial damages and a court order barring
Disney from ever discriminating against prospective Sikh
employees.

"Disney's position is fundamentally un-American because it
forces Sikhs and also observant Jews and Muslims to sacrifice
religious freedom in order to pursue their career goals," said
SALDEF Chairman Manjit Singh.  "It is also hypocritical for
Disney to make millions of dollars promoting cartoon characters
that wear turbans and simultaneously reject the right of an
employee to wear a turban in accordance with his faith."

The suit is "Sukhbir Channa, et al. v. Walt Disney World
Company, Case No. 08-13246," filed in the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq. (msarelson@sarelson.com)
          Sarelson, PA
          1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510
          Miami, Florida 33131
          Phone: 305-379-0305
          Fax: 800-421-9954


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Still Faces Ala. Racial Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., continues to face a purported class
action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District
of Alabama accusing it of discriminating against blacks in its
check acceptance policies at its supermarkets, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2,
2008.

In January 2008, an African-American customer filed a putative
class action suit against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., alleging that
the company discriminates against customers on the basis of race
with regard to its cash-back policies for customers writing
checks.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the company allows
customers in stores located in predominantly white areas to
write checks for amounts in excess of the purchase price of the
sale and receive cash back but does not allow customers in
stores located in predominantly black areas to do the same based
on race.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. -- http://www.winn-dixie.com/-- is a  
food retailer operating primarily under the Winn-Dixie and Winn-
Dixie Marketplace banners.  During the fiscal year ended
June 27, 2007 (fiscal 2007), the Company operated 520 stores in
five states in the southeastern U.S.  The Company operates its
grocery warehouse stores under the SaveRite banner.  In fiscal
2007, the Company closed seven United States stores and sold its
78% ownership interest in Bahamas Supermarkets Limited, which
owned all of the Company's operations in the Bahamas.  On
Nov. 21, 2006, the Company emerged from bankruptcy protection.


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Settlement Leads to Fla. ERISA Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed the consolidated class action lawsuit captioned, "In
re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-
00194-HES-MCR," after a settlement was reached by the parties in
the case.

Initially, a consolidated class action lawsuit was filed against
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.  This suit alleges claims under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended,
related to the Company's Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan.

In March and April 2004, three other putative class action
lawsuits were filed before the District Court against the
company and certain of its present and former executive officers
and employees, also asserting similar allegations.

By way of a court order, the ERISA claims were consolidated and
were to proceed as a single and consolidated action.

However, as a result of Winn-Dixie's Chapter 11 filing, the
automatic stay prevented the plaintiffs in the class action suit
from proceeding against the company.  Any such claims against
the company were subordinated under the Reorganization Plan
pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b) and were
treated in the same manner as the company's existing shares,
which were canceled without any distribution, and such claims
were discharged as against the company.  The discharge
injunction imposed by the Plan will protect the company from the
assertion of these claims in the future.

As to the individual co-defendants in the class-action suit, on
May 10, 2005, the District Court entered an order staying the
suit as to all parties and all issues in light of the company's
Chapter 11 filing.

On April 5 and May 1, 2007, the District Court entered orders
lifting the stays in the suit.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs
filed an amended, and consolidated complaint against the
individual defendants, who asked for it to be dismissed.

On or about Nov. 6, 2007, the individual defendants and
applicable insurers reached agreements with the plaintiffs to
settle the litigation.

On Dec. 4, 2007, the District Court granted the individual
defendants' motion to dismiss the securities litigation,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q ciling with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 2, 2008.

The suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA Litigation,
Case No. 3:04-cv-00194-HES-MCR," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Virginia M.
Hernandez Covington, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brian D. Brooks, Esq. (bbrooks@murrayfrank.com)
          Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
          Suite 801, 275 Madison Ave
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          Fax: 212-682-1982
          
               - and -

          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:

          William A. Clineburg, Jr., Esq. (bclineburg@kslaw.com)
          King & Spalding, LLP
          1180 Peachtree St. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Phone: 404-572-4600

               - and -

          Robert Bruce George, Esq. (rgeorge@lgcglaw.com)
          Liles, Gavin, Costantino & George
          Suite 1500, 225 Water St.
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: 904-634-1100
          Fax: 904-634-1234


WINN-DIXIE: Fla. Court Still to Rule on Motions in Workers' Suit  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Brevard County, Florida, has yet to rule
on certain motions submitted by Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., in
connection with a purported class action lawsuit filed against
the company by several current and former employees.

In December 2007, 26 current and former employees filed a
putative class action complaint before the Circuit Court for
Brevard County, Florida, against Winn-Dixie.  The suit is
alleging company-wide systemic age discrimination under the
Florida Civil Rights Act with respect to the terms and
conditions of their employment and that of others who were
similarly-situated.

The company denies all allegations raised in the lawsuit and has
answered the complaint and filed motions asserting various
defenses to the claims.  It has removed the case to the
bankruptcy court on the ground that the action is, either
partially or in its entirety, barred by the company's Plan of
Reorganization.

The company has also filed an adversary proceeding in the
bankruptcy court against the current and former employees as
well as their counsel regarding claims barred by the Plan of
Reorganization.   Discovery in the bankruptcy court is underway.  

The company's state court motions are pending, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2,
2008.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. -- http://www.winn-dixie.com/-- is a  
food retailer operating primarily under the Winn-Dixie and Winn-
Dixie Marketplace banners.  During the fiscal year ended
June 27, 2007 (fiscal 2007), the Company operated 520 stores in
five states in the southeastern U.S.  The Company operates its
grocery warehouse stores under the SaveRite banner.  In fiscal
2007, the Company closed seven United States stores and sold its
78% ownership interest in Bahamas Supermarkets Limited, which
owned all of the Company's operations in the Bahamas.  On
Nov. 21, 2006, the Company emerged from bankruptcy protection.


YAMHILL COUNTY: Patton Butt Slappers Sue Over Strip Searches
------------------------------------------------------------
The culprits in Oregon's infamous "butt slapping" case are suing
Yamhill County for allegedly violating their rights with
repeated strip-searches, Willamette Week reports.

A federal class-action lawsuit filed on June 12, 2008, claims
that six former inmates at the Yamhill County Juvenile Detention
Center were searched in violation of federal court rulings and
the U.S. Constitution.

The alleged victims include Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison,
who were 13 last year when they were charged with first-degree
sex abuse for slapping girls' behinds at McMinnville's Patton
Middle School.  They also told investigators they had touched
and poked girls' breasts.

According to Willamette Week, the butt-slapping case drew
national attention and reams of angry letters directed at
Yamhill County District Attorney Brad Berry.  Yamhill County
Circuit Court Judge John Collins dismissed the charges after
Mr. Mashburn and Mr. Cornelison reached a deal with the victims
and apologized publicly.

The strip-search lawsuit claims that Mr. Mashburn, Mr.
Cornelison and others were ordered to "lift their testicles,
turn around, bend at the waist, spread the lobes of (their)
buttocks and squat while coughing," while corrections officers
conducted "a visual inspection of their genitals and rectal
cavity."  The lawsuit says they "suffered and continue to suffer
psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish."

In addition, the suit claims that Mr. Mashburn was strip-
searched five times and Mr. Cornelison eight times after
meetings with counselors and attorneys.  The plaintiffs also
include former inmates Amy Hinmon and Nathanael Williams, two
unidentified minors, and potentially anyone ever strip-searched
at the juvenile detention center.

According to the lawsuit, "blanket strip-search policies" such
as the one allegedly practiced at Yamhill County have been
struck down by federal courts in Oregon and by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

The suit, filed by Portland lawyer Leonard Berman, Esq.,
specifically names Yamhill County, county Juvenile Department
Director Tim Loewen and juvenile detention center manager Chuck
Vesper as defendants.  The lawsuit seeks $1 million in punitive
damages from each of the defendants plus other damages to be
proven at trial and an injunction against further strip
searches.

Mr. Loewen declined to comment and Ms. Vesper has not yet
returned a phone call, Willamette Week says.


* Milberg Admits Kickback Scheme, Pays $75 Million Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
As part of an agreement with federal prosecutors, the New York-
based law firm now known as Milberg LLP has admitted that senior
members of the firm paid secret kickbacks to plaintiffs in more
than 165 lawsuits filed from the 1970s through 2005 -- lawsuits
that brought the firm approximately $239 million in legal fees.

The firm has agreed to pay $75 million as part of the
settlement.

The Justice Department has agreed not to pursue criminal charges
against the law firm, which has agreed to employ a compliance
monitor and enact "Best Practices Program" for two years.

The settlement with Milberg reflects the seriousness of what was
probably the longest-running scheme ever conducted by a law
firm," said United States Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien.  "The
monetary payment will punish the firm for allowing this conduct
to occur, and the compliance monitor should ensure that Milberg
will not again lie to judges presiding over cases it is
litigating."

The agreement with Milberg follows guilty pleas by four former
senior partners at the firm, one of whom is currently serving a
federal prison sentence and one of whom is scheduled to soon
begin a 30-month sentence.

Milberg was named just over two years ago in a federal
racketeering indictment that alleged that several of the firm's
senior attorneys paid millions of dollars in secret kickbacks to
individuals in exchange for them serving as named plaintiffs in
class-action and shareholder derivative-action lawsuits.  The
indictment alleged a conspiracy with several objects, including
obstructing justice, perjury, bribery and fraud.  To conceal the
illegal kickback scheme from judges presiding over the lawsuits
and other parties involved in the litigations, Milberg and its
senior partners made, and caused the paid plaintiffs to make,
false and misleading statements in documents and in under-oath
depositions.  In the settlement filed today, Milberg
acknowledged that its former partners engaged in this conduct.

Milberg also admitted that members of the firm paid kickbacks to
several stockbrokers in exchange for referring clients who would
serve as plaintiffs in Milberg lawsuits.  Additionally, in the
statement of facts, Milberg acknowledges that once it learned
about the investigation into the kickback scheme it failed to
conduct an independent internal investigation and delayed taking
steps to ensure that the illegal conduct would stop.

"Today's agreement scores a victory for American consumers,"
said B. Bernard Ferguson, Inspector in Charge, Los Angeles
Division of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.  "Milberg's cash
payments to stockbrokers, its circuitously routed kickbacks, and
its millions of dollars in fraudulently inflated expense
reimbursement applications caused immeasurable harm to
consumers.  The firm will pay $15 million to our Consumer Fraud
Fund to be used for the investigation and prevention of mail
fraud."

Debra D. King, Special Agent in Charge of IRS- Criminal
Investigation in Los Angeles, stated, "Milberg exploited our
legal system, exhibiting greed on an unprecedented scale in its
class-action lawsuits.  The Global Non-Prosecution Agreement
entered into today by the firm and the government effectively
settles the pending criminal case against Milberg and is the
result of the cooperative investigative and prosecutorial effort
put forth by the United States Postal Inspection Service and
United States Attorney's Office in conjunction with IRS -
Criminal Investigation."

The resolution of the case against Milberg leaves only one
defendant in the case.  Attorney Paul T. Selzer, of Palm
Springs, who allegedly served as an intermediary lawyer who
laundered illegal kickback payments for the benefit of a paid
plaintiff, is scheduled to go on trial in August.

Previously in this case, Milberg founding partner Melvyn I.
Weiss, former name partner William S. Lerach, former name
partner Steven G. Schulman and former name partner David J.
Bershad have pleaded guilty to federal charges.

The case against Milberg was investigated by the United States
Postal Inspection Service and IRS-Criminal Investigation.


* Government Dismisses Money Laundering Charges vs. Milberg LLP
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal prosecutors have agreed to dismiss all charges against
Milberg LLP as part of a comprehensive settlement relating to
the misconduct of certain former senior partners.

The non-prosecution agreement provides that the government will
promptly move to dismiss the indictment of the firm, and
eliminates any plea or trial.

Sanford Dumain, a member of the firm's Executive Committee,
stated, "We are pleased that the government specifically
recognizes that none of the lawyers now at the firm was involved
in any of the misconduct, and that in fact our former partners
who were prosecuted were deliberately concealing their illegal
activities from us.  This favorable outcome now allows us to put
a painful chapter behind us so that we can resume building one
of the best known plaintiffs firms in the country."

"This settlement enables us to move forward with our continuing
representation of investors and consumers in class actions and
other important lawsuits, and allows us to capitalize on the
tremendous talents of the lawyers at the firm," he continued.

The firm will make payments to the government totaling
$75 million over the next five years as part of the settlement.
Regarding the amount, Mr. Dumain stated, "The firm risked having
to pay forfeitures and penalties of many hundreds of millions of
dollars if the criminal case against the firm had gone forward.
We wanted to avoid that enormous risk, which we faced solely
because of the misconduct of certain of our partners who are no
longer with the firm."

The firm plans to make the settlement payments out of firm
resources and income, and is evaluating pursuing claims against
responsible parties.  The firm also agreed to expand its "best
practices" compliance program, which it instituted prior to
indictment.

Mr. Dumain reiterated the firm's apology, based on the former
partners' misconduct, to "all judges, lawyers, clients and class
members who deserve full and complete adherence to all legal and
ethical norms.  We pledge to faithfully comply with those
standards as we rebuild our practice."

Management of the firm was taken over last year entirely by
partners who were neither engaged in nor aware of the misconduct
charged by the government, thereby clearing the way for the firm
to expand its retention by top-tier clients and its appointment
as lead or co-lead counsel in prominent cases.

Recent new matters include securities cases in the fields of
subprime mortgage and auction-rate obligations, and other ERISA,
consumer, and antitrust cases.  The firm has over 65 lawyers and
130 staff employees in New York, Los Angeles and Tampa.

Recognizing the start of a new era for the firm, Mr. Dumain
added, "Even during our darkest times, our talented team of
lawyers continued to achieve significant results for our
clients.  Now, with the non-prosecution agreement, we are
prepared to re-affirm our position as the nation's leading class
action law firm."


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of purchasers of the Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond Fund who
purchased the Fund within three years of the filing of this
lawsuit.

The complaint seeks remedies for shareholders under the federal
Securities Act of 1933.

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

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

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

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

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

    (iv) is geared toward the preservation of capital.

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

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

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

By June 11, 2007, defendants slowly began lowering the value of
the share price for the Ultra-Short Bond Fund.  Since then, the
value of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund's share price has been
precipitously lowered.  By November 15, 2007, the value of the
per-share price was reduced below $9.  The shares were trading
as low as $8.25 as of the filing of the complaint on June 5,
2008.

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

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of purchasers of Franklin Bank Corp. common
or preferred stock during the period from October 29, 2007,
through May 1, 2008.

The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a variety of
accounting improprieties, including their admitted failure to
charge off uncollectible loans and to mark Franklin's loans to
market.

As a result of the misconduct alleged, defendants understated
the Company's delinquent, nonperforming, and uncollectible loans
and thereby misrepresented Franklin's financial condition and
results, including its overall and per-share profit 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:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          The Peoples Building, 18 Broad Street, Suite 201
          P.O. Box 1840
          Charleston, South Carolina 29401
          Phone: 212-686-1060
          Weekends Phone: 917-797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


INDYMAC BANCORP: 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
IndyMac Bancorp, Inc., between August 16, 2007, and May 12,
2008.

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

IndyMac is the holding company for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., a
hybrid thrift/mortgage bank.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants downplayed and concealed IndyMac's growing exposure
to non-performing assets, particularly loans in its pay-option
adjustable-rate mortgages and homebuilder construction
portfolios, and made numerous positive representations regarding
the Company's capital position to alleviate investors' fears
concerning the Company's capital erosion.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, IndyMac stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
Class Period high of $24.55 per share in October 2007.

Then, 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.

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

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

     (b) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
         losses and defaults concerning its book of business
         related to its home builder and Option ARM portfolios
         than it had previously disclosed;

     (c) 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;

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

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired IndyMac's common stock during
the Class Period, which is between August 16, 2007, and May 12,
2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
June 11, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 1-212-490-2022
          Web site: http://www.ssbny.com/


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *