CAR_Public/080623.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 123
  
                            Headlines

AGRIFOOD CANADA: Negligence Suit Launched After Computer Theft
ALABAMA: Lawsuit Challenges Jefferson County's Huge Sewer Debt
AMERICAN FLAME: Replaces Gas Valves Due to Fire, Explosion Risks
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Suit
AUSTRIAN GOV'T: EUR13.9-Mln Deal Reached in Cable Car Fire Case

BIG LOTS: Appeal on Calif. Labor Suit Deal Approval Dismissed
BIG LOTS: La. Court Considers Arguments in FLSA Violations Suit
BIG LOTS: Calif. Court Mulls Certification of Workers' Lawsuit
BIG LOTS: Seeks Stay for Calif. Suits Over Client Info. Request
BIG LOTS INC: Seeks Consolidation of Calif. Workers' Wage Cases

BROWN SHOE: High Court Denies Retrial Request in Redfield Suit
BUSH HOG: Recalls Off-Road UVs Due to Loss of Speed Control
CAPE & ISLANDS: ACLU Launches Suit Over Worthington DNA Testing
CARDINAL HEALTH: Patients Sue Over Contaminated Surgical Tools
CSX CORP: Fla. Suit Claims Directors Breached Fiduciary Duties

ESTYLE INC: Recalls Toy Kitchens Posing Choking, Tip-Over Risks
FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Settles Calif. Consumer Privacy Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Upholds Class Status of Truck Brake Suit
GENESCO INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tenn.
GENESCO INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss "Falzone" Lawsuit in New York

GENESCO INC: Tenn. Court Dismisses Suit Over Foot Locker Offer
GENESCO INC: Settles California Labor Code Violations Lawsuit
GENESCO INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Customer E-mail Addresses
MEDICARE LITIGATION: Nationwide Prescription Drug Case Settled
MEDIS TECH: Court Still to Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid

MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Ohio Suit Over Document Preparation Fees
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Peeling Paint
MTD: Recalls Cub Cadet Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
PARMALAT: Defendants Object to Interim Approval of Hermes Deal
ROHM & HASS: Minnesota Lawsuit Alleges Plastics Price Fixing

RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Labor-Related Lawsuit in California
SHORETEL INC: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
SOLERA HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuit Over "Total Loss Estimation"
TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Junk Securities Suit Pending
U.S. AUTO: Settles Calif. Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit

VIRGIN MOBILE: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Ballas" Lawsuit
VIRGIN MOBILE: Continues to Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Excise Tax
VIRGIN MOBILE: Named as Defendant in New Jersey IPO-Related Suit
WAL-MART: Recalls Charm Key Chains Due to Risk of Lead Exposure
WET SEAL: California Court Approves Employees' Suit Settlement

WET SEAL: Withdraws Settlement Offer in Calif. FCRA Litigation

* Securities Litigation Team Gets 3 Major Victories in 10 Days



                           *********


AGRIFOOD CANADA: Negligence Suit Launched After Computer Theft
--------------------------------------------------------------  
The federal government is being accused of negligence regarding
the theft of a laptop from the Canadian Canola Growers
Association, Portage Online reports.

According to Portage Online, a class action lawsuit was filed
against Agriculture and Agrifood Canada and the Canola Growers
Association as the computer contained confidential information
on about 32,000 Canadian producers.

Tony Merchant, of the Merchant Law Group, contends that the
Canadian government made little effort to protect the data.  He
notes, in some cases, that people were no longer farming but
their information was still stored on the computer.

Currently no suspicious activity stemming from the theft has
been reported, Portage Online relates.

The Canola Growers Association had said that the computer was
secured by a password and biometric fingerprinting.


ALABAMA: Lawsuit Challenges Jefferson County's Huge Sewer Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed on June 17, 2008, in the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, alleges fraudulent bond
deals left Jefferson County sewer customers owing $11,491
apiece, the highest debt in the nation, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The defendants named in the suit:

     -- JP Morgan Chase & Co.;
     -- Morgan Keegan & Company Inc.;
     -- Regions Bank;
     -- Charles LeCroy;
     -- Douglas McFaddin;
     -- Goldman Sachs Specialty Lending Group LP;
     -- Bear Stearns Funding Inc.;
     -- Blount Parrish & Roton Inc;
     -- William Blount;
     -- Bank of America, National Association;
     -- Lehman Brothers Inc.;
     -- Gardner-Michael Capital Inc.;
     -- Larry Langford; Gary White;
     -- Steve Small;
     -- Bettye Fine Collins;
     -- Jeff Germany;
     -- Mary Buckalew;
     -- Sheila Smoot;
     -- Steve Saylor;
     -- CDR Financial Services Inc.;
     -- Financial Guaranty Insurance Co.; and
     -- XL Capital Assurance Inc.

The genesis of this civil action can to be traced to the series
of events over the last eleven to fifteen years where the
Jefferson County Commissioners, various investment banks,
insurers and advisors have continuously failed to act in the
best interests of the citizens of Jefferson County.

Plaintiffs claim ewer bills have risen more than threefold since
1997.

Through a long series of ill-conceived financial transactions,
the sewer ratepayers of Jefferson County have been saddled with
a debt of roughly $11,491 per residential sewer customer, which
is the highest in the nation.

Also, the sewer ratepayers have seen exponential growth, an
increase of 329%, in their sewer rates in the last eleven years.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants, both named and fictitious, engaged
         in a combination and conspiracy among themselves to
         fix, maintain or stabilize prices, and rig bids and
         allocate customers and markets of Municipal
         derivatives;

     (b) whether defendants, both named and fictitious, failed
         to properly capitalize their portfolio of investments
         to ensure that the product and service that was
         offered to Jefferson County for the benefit of
         Plaintiffs could be delivered to ensure the protection
         for unforeseen events that was the intended benefit of
         the offered product and service;

     (c) whether defendants, both named and fictitious, failed
         to properly disclose the inherent risks of moving from
         fixed rate to floating and adjustable rate securities
         whether set by agreement or by auction;

     (d) whether defendants, both named and fictitious, exceeded
         their power, authority and scope of their elective
         office in saddling plaintiffs with a debt load of
         $11,491 per residential customer and increasing their
         sewer rates by 329% and depriving the taxpaying
         citizens of Jefferson County, Alabama, of funds which
         should have been dedicated to building and repairing
         the new sewer system in accordance with the terms and
         conditions of the settlement of the lawsuit brought by
         taxpayers of Jefferson County and the Environmental
         Protection Agency in 1996;

     (e) whether the rate increase of 7.7% in January 2008 and
         other prior rate increases that have led to a 329%
         increase in sewer rates and the insufficient funds
         to adequately replace and repair the sewer system due
         to the debt load can be attributed to the actions of
         all defendants, jointly and severally, in causing harm
         to plaintiffs; and

     (f) the appropriate class-wide measure of damages.

Plaintiff asks the court to:

     -- determine that this action may be maintained as a class
        action under Rule 23 of the Alabama Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- enter judgment for plaintiffs and class members against
        defendants for monetary damages sustained by plaintiffs
        as a result of the herein described wrongful conduct and
        actions between 1993 and 2008;

     -- enter judgment for plaintiffs and class members against
        defendants for the disgorgement of fees, kickbacks and
        premiums received by defendants as a result of their
        wrongful conduct and actions between 1993 and 2008;

     -- award injunctive relief against defendants and prevent
        future excessive fees from being paid and that this
        Court set-aside the transactions that are made the basis
        of this case as all were entered into in contravention
        of Alabama law;

     -- award injunctive relief in the form of the disgorgement
        of fees, kickbacks and premiums received by defendants
        as a result of the wrongful conduct and actions between
        1993 and 2008;

     -- award the plaintiffs and the class interest at the
        highest legal rate available under law related to
        excessive fees and kickbacks; and

     -- award attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Charles E. Wilson, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
et al.," filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Kathryn S. Harrington, Esq.
          Hollis, Wright & Harrington, PC
          1500 Financial Center
          505 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205-324-3600
                 205-324-3636


AMERICAN FLAME: Replaces Gas Valves Due to Fire, Explosion Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Flame Inc., of Fort Wayne, Ind., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
12,000 fireplace gas valves.

The company said the gas can continue to flow into the fireplace
pilot light area after the switch has been turned "off," posing
a fire or explosion hazard to consumers.

American Flame has received two reports of incidents involving
valve failure and continuous gas flow.  No injuries or fires
have been reported.

The recall involves American Flame AF-4000 series fireplace gas
valves installed in residential fireplaces made by twelve
manufacturers under the following brand names: Pacific Energy,
Travis Industries, CFM Corporation, Canadian Heating Products,
Portland Willamette, Rasmussen, Chimeneas de Columbia, Twin
Eagles, FDM, Inca Metals (Savannah Heating), Even Temp, and
Valley Comfort.  The valves were installed in some but not all
fireplaces.  Date codes included in the recall include 0622
through 0718.  The gas valve model number is located on a label
on the bottom of each gas valve.  The date code is located above
the label.

These recalled gas valves were manufactured in Taiwan and were
being sold by fireplace retailers and distributors nationwide
from September 2006 through July 2007 for between $500 and
$2,000 for the fireplaces, with additional costs for
installation.

Pictures of the recalled gas valves are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08277a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08277b.jpg

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fireplaces
and contact their dealer for a free repair.  The repair involves
replacing the fireplace's valve if it leaks gas in the "off"
position when tested by a qualified service technician.

For additional information, contact American Flame toll-free at
888-672-8929 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET to determine if
your fireplace is included in the recall and to arrange for a
free repair, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.skytechsystem.com/


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP filed a securities
class action lawsuit against American International Group, Inc.,
and certain senior executives in the Southern District of New
York on behalf of Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board and
similarly situated investors in AIG securities during the period
November 10, 2006, through June 6, 2008.

The case was filed as a related action to Jacksonville Police
and Fire Pension Fund v. American International Group, Inc., No.
08-CV-4772 (RJS), the first-filed securities class action in
this matter, which is presently pending before the Honorable
Richard J. Sullivan.

Investors should note that the Ontario Teachers action expands
the class period alleged in the Jacksonville action.  All
interested investors are directed to the notice published on
May 22, 2008, in connection with the filing of the Jacksonville
action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995.  As set forth in that notice, investors wishing to
serve as the lead plaintiff are required to file a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than July 21, 2008.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, AIG and the
individual defendants -- former Chief Executive Officer Martin
J. Sullivan, former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer Steven J. Bensinger, Senior Vice President and Chief
Risk Officer Robert Lewis and Joseph Cassano, the former head of
AIG subsidiary American International Group Financial Products  
-- violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading press releases, financial statements, filings with
the SEC and statements during investor conference calls.

As alleged in the Complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants overstated the Company's earnings and financial
position while repeatedly reassuring investors that AIG had
successfully insulated itself from the turmoil in the housing
and credit markets due to its superior risk management.  In
particular, defendants touted the value and security of AIGFP's
super senior credit default swap portfolio, making numerous
statements that this portfolio was secure and that AIG's method
for accounting for the valuations of this portfolio was proper.

Investors began to learn the truth regarding AIG's financial
condition and the Company's exposure to the mortgage market
when, on February 11, 2008, the Company disclosed that its
outside auditor had determined that there was a "material
weakness in its internal control" over the financial reporting
and oversight relating specifically to its accounting for the
CDS portfolio, and that the Company was revising the loss
valuations it previously reported.  Under the new valuations,
losses on the CDS portfolio more than quadrupled -- from the
$1.4 billion reported on the CDS portfolio just weeks before to
over $4.5 billion.  Two weeks later, on February 28, 2008, AIG
disclosed that the market valuations on the CDS portfolio would
increase to $11.5 billion and revealed for the first time that
the Company had notional exposure of $6.5 billion in liquidity
puts written on collateralized debt obligations linked to the
subprime mortgage market.

Then, on May 8, 2008, the Company disclosed that market
valuation losses on the CDS portfolio for the quarter climbed an
additional $9.1 billion, for a cumulative loss of $20.6 billion,
and that the Company was expecting actual losses on the
portfolio to be about $2.4 billion.

On June 6, 2008, the Company disclosed investigations by the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of
Justice concerning AIG's accounting and financial disclosures
with respect to its CDS portfolio.  As a result of these
disclosures, the price of AIG stock plunged from a Class Period
high of $72.81 per share on December 18, 2006, to $33.93 per
share on June 6, 2008, wiping out tens of billions of dollars in
shareholder value and causing damage to the class.

The Complaint asserts claims against all defendants under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as claims against
defendants Sullivan and Bensinger under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

This case is filed as a separate case from a preexisting
securities class action in the Southern District of New York
arising from allegations concerning undisclosed bid-rigging and
improper reinsurance transactions.

That action, filed in 2004 and presently pending before the
Honorable John E. Sprizzo, is captioned "In re American
International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04-CV-8141
(JES) (AIG I)."

The lead plaintiff in the older AIG I action has sought leave to
amend the action to encompass the allegations and time period at
issue in the Jacksonville and Ontario Teachers actions.

Ontario Teachers, which has suffered significant financial
losses as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct that is the
subject of the Jacksonville and Ontario Teachers actions,
believes that these actions are and should remain separate from
the AIG I action and that the interests of class members would
be prejudiced by the proposed amendment of the AIG I action.
Ontario Teachers intends to oppose any effort to amend AIG I to
subsume the new actions into the older case.

Ontario Teachers is the largest single-profession pension plan
in Canada, with over US$100 billion in assets.  Ontario Teachers
invests the pension fund's assets and administers the pensions
of over 278,000 active and retired Ontario teachers.  Ontario
Teachers has significant experience serving as a lead plaintiff
in securities class actions, including in "In re Nortel Networks
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 05-MD-1659 (LAP)
(S.D.N.Y.)," in which a settlement worth over $1.3 billion was
obtained for investors, and "In re Williams Securities
Litigation, 02-CV-72 (N.D. Okla.)," which settled for
$311 million shortly before trial.

The Ontario Teachers action is being investigated and prosecuted
by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and its subprime
litigation group.  The subprime litigation group is also
representing investors in class and derivative subprime-related
actions against Washington Mutual, Inc., American Home Mortgage
Investment Corp., New Century Financial Corporation, Countrywide
Financial Corporation and State Street, among others.

For more information, contact:

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1400


AUSTRIAN GOV'T: EUR13.9-Mln Deal Reached in Cable Car Fire Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Austrian authorities announced that families of 155 people who
died from a fire that raged through a crowded Alpine cable car
in 2000 will share EUR13.9 million in compensation, The
Associated Press relates.

According to the report, the settlement, equivalent to about
US$21.5 million, ends more than seven years of legal battle over
the fire, which caused what is considered as the worst peacetime
disaster in Austrian history.  

Klaus Liebscher, governor of the Austrian Central Bank and
chairman of the compensation commission, told the AP that the
money would be paid immediately.

Mr. Liebscher said that a total of 451 claimants, who signed the
settlement on June 12, will split the settlement amount.  The
cash amounts will vary according to a claimant's relation to the
victim, he explained.

Mr. Liebscher added that the agreement also stipulated that the
relatives abandon any pending lawsuits seeking compensation.

The report recounts that the victims died on Nov. 11, 2000, when
a fire swept through a cable car that was packed with skiers and
snowboarders.  The authorities blamed a faulty heater for the
blaze, which broke out as the car passed through a tunnel on its
way to the summit of the Kitzsteinhorn glacier near the Austrian
ski resort of Kaprun.

Only 12 people escaped alive, the AP says.  Most of the victims
were from Austria and Germany, eight were from the United States
and the others were from Japan, Slovenia, the Netherlands and
Britain.

According to the report, Austrian prosecutors charged 16 people
with criminal negligence in the case, including employees of
Gletscherbahnen Kaprun, which operated the cable car; employees
of the company that manufactured the car; technicians; and two
government officials.  In February 2004, however, the court
acquitted all 16.  Eight were retried on appeal and again
acquitted.

At one point, the relatives of the victims tried to take the
case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, but
the court refused to hear it, the AP further recalls.

The AP notes that there was no immediate reaction from groups
representing the victims and their families, which had sought
higher damages in class-action lawsuits filed in Austria and the
United States.  In Europe, compensation in such cases is
typically much lower than the multimillion-dollar settlements
often awarded by U.S. courts, the report points out.

But no sum could ever compensate families for the "infinite
pain" of losing a loved one, the Austrian justice minister,
Maria Berger, told the AP.  "Nevertheless, it's important that
after years of discussions, we are able to give survivors a
tangible sign of our sympathy and respect," she said.

The Austrian government, Gletscherbahnen Kaprun and the
insurance company Generali paid into the compensation fund,
officials said.


BIG LOTS: Appeal on Calif. Labor Suit Deal Approval Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by two individuals in connection with a final order
approving a settlement reached in the labor class action lawsuit
filed against Big Lots, Inc., has been dismissed, according to
Big Lots' June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2008.

In October 2005, a class action complaint was served on the
company for adjudication in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Ventura.  The suit alleged that the
company had violated certain California wage and hour laws.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all other individuals who are similarly situated, unpaid
wages and rest and meal period compensation, as well as
penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive and
other equitable relief.

In the third quarter of fiscal year 2006, the company and the
plaintiff reached a tentative settlement of the California
matter.  On April 30, 2007, the court approved the deal on a
final basis and entered a judgment of dismissal with prejudice.  

Two class members whose objections to the settlement were
overruled by the court have appealed the final order to the
California Court of Appeal, challenging the settlement.  These
two objectors also filed a separate putative class action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging the same class claims that were tentatively
settled through the California matter.   

The federal court stayed the federal action pending resolution
of the appeal before the California Court of Appeal.

The objectors recently dismissed the federal action with
prejudice.  The objectors also recently dismissed the appeal.  

The parties are awaiting the Court of Appeal's final remittitur
of the case to the trial court.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national  
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.'s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


BIG LOTS: La. Court Considers Arguments in FLSA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
has yet to issue a decision in the matter, "Johnson, et al. v.
Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:04-cv-03201-SSV-SS," which
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to
the company's June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2008.

The civil putative collective action complaint was filed on
November 2004 against the company in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.  It alleges that the company
violated FLSA by misclassifying assistant managers as exempt.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all
other individuals who are similarly situated, unpaid overtime
compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.

On July 5, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally
certifying a class of all current and former assistant store
managers who have worked for the company since Nov. 23, 2001.  
As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to
approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to
the Louisiana matter.

As of Nov. 3, 2007, approximately 1,100 individuals had joined
the Louisiana matter.  

The company filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion
was denied on Aug. 24, 2007.  The trial began on May 7, 2008,
and concluded on May 15, 2008.  A decision has yet to be issued.  

The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No.
2:04-cv-03201-SSV-SS," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Sarah S. Vance,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq. (phil@bohrerlaw.com)
          Bohrer Law Firm
          8712 Jefferson Hwy, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: 225-925-5297

Representing the defendant is:

          Dominic J. Ovella, Esq. (dovella@hmhlp.com)
          Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale
          One Galleria Blvd., P.O. Box 8288, Suite 1400          
          Metairie, LA 70011-8288
          Phone: 504-836-6500

    
BIG LOTS: Calif. Court Mulls Certification of Workers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, has yet to certify a class or set a trial date for a
purported class action lawsuit against Big Lots Inc., alleging
that the company violated certain California wage and hour laws
by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees.

The purported class action complaint was filed in September
2006.  In it, the plaintiff seeks to recover, on his own behalf
and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly
situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage
statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods,
reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has not yet determined whether the case may proceed as
a class action, and has not set any deadlines for class
certification or trial, according to the company's June 10, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2008.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national  
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.ís
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


BIG LOTS: Seeks Stay for Calif. Suits Over Client Info. Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., asks the court to stay two purported class
action lawsuits filed against it in California, alleging that it
violated state law by requesting certain customer information in
connection with the return of merchandise for which the customer
sought to receive a refund to a credit card.

The two class-action complaints were filed in May 2007 against
the company.  One was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Orange (Stary matter), and the other
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,        
County of San Diego (Christopher matter).

Both suits alleged that the company had violated California law
by requesting certain customer information in connection with
the return of merchandise for which the customer sought to
receive a refund to a credit card.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated,
statutory penalties, costs and attorneys' fees and seek
injunctive relief.  

The company believes that substantially all of the purported
class members of the Christopher matter are within the purported
class of the Stary matter.

The Stary matter has been transferred to the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego, where it will be
coordinated with the Christopher matter before the same judge.

Both matters were stayed pending the ruling of the California
Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate Division Three in a similar
case involving another retailer.  

The appellate court recently ruled in favor of the other
retailer, holding that the California law at issue does not
apply to merchandise return transactions.  

After the opinion in that matter becomes final and the
remittitur issues, which may not occur for some time, the
company anticipate seeking the dismissal of the Stary and
Christopher matters based on the appellate court ruling.  

In the interim, the company will request that both matters
remain stayed pending finality and the remittitur issuing,
according to the company's June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2008.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national  
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.'s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


BIG LOTS INC: Seeks Consolidation of Calif. Workers' Wage Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., is seeking either the coordination or
consolidation of several purported class action lawsuits filed
against the company in California, asserting various wage and
hour claims.

In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were
filed against the company by a California resident.  

The first was filed before the Superior Court of California,
Orange County, alleging that the company violated certain
California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store
managers as exempt employees.  

The second and third matters, filed before the U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, and the Superior Court of
California, Riverside County, respectively, allege that the
company violated certain California wage and hour laws for
missed meal and rest periods and other wage and hour claims.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her own behalf and on behalf
of a California statewide class of all other individuals who are
similarly situated, damages resulting from improper wage
statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment
of wages at termination, reimbursement of expenses, loss of
unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company believes that these matters overlap and it intends
to transfer venue and to consolidate them before one court,
according to the company's June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2008.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is a national  
broadline closeout retailer.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company
operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states.  Big Lots, Inc.'s
merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and
Toys, and Other.


BROWN SHOE: High Court Denies Retrial Request in Redfield Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Colorado denied a request that sought a
review of the decision denying a new trial for a class action
lawsuit filed against Brown Shoe Co., Inc., in connection with
the company's operations at its Redfield, Colorado site.

The suit was filed in March 2000 alleging claims for trespass,
nuisance, strict liability, unjust enrichment, negligence, and
exemplary damages arising from the alleged release of solvents
contaminating the groundwater and indoor air in the areas
adjacent to and near the site.

In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict
finding the company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class
plaintiffs $1.0 million in damages.

The company recorded this award along with estimated pretrial
interest on the award and estimated costs related to sanctions
imposed by the court related to a pretrial discovery dispute
between the parties.  The total pretax charge recorded for these
matters in 2003 was $3.1 million.  

The company recorded an additional $0.6 million in expense in
2004, related to pretrial interest, to reflect the trial court's
ruling extending the time period for which prejudgment interest
applied.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the December 2003 jury
verdict, and in August 2007, the Colorado Court of Appeals
rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain a new trial by
affirming the trial court judgment.

The Court also denied a cross-appeal by the company seeking a
reversal of a portion of the pretrial interest awarded to the
plaintiffs, and the company paid an additional $0.8 million in
April 2008 for the remainder of the pretrial interest owing on
the judgment.

In addition, the Court reversed the trial court's award of costs
to the company and remanded the case to the trial court for a
determination of whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover
their costs related to the trial.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition with the Supreme
Court of Colorado seeking review of the Court of Appeal's
decision denying them a new trial, which appeal was then denied
the Supreme Court on May 19, 2008, effectively ending the
plaintiffs' attempts to obtain a retrial, according to the
company's June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2008.

Brown Shoe Co., Inc. -- http://www.brownshoe.com/-- operates in  
the footwear industry.  The Company's activities include the
operation of retail shoe stores, and the sourcing and marketing
of footwear for women, men and children.  It operates in two
segments: Retail Operations and Wholesale Operations.


BUSH HOG: Recalls Off-Road UVs Due to Loss of Speed Control
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bush Hog LLC, of Selma, Ala., in cooperation with the U.S.
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,000 Bush Hog
Off-Road Utility Vehicles.

The company said the utility vehicle's throttle cable can freeze
in freezing temperatures.  This can cause the engine not to
return to idle when the driver takes his or her foot off the
accelerator pedal.

Bush Hog has received 52 reports of incidents involving the
utility vehicle, including one leg fracture injury.

The recall includes the Bush Hog Models:

     -- TH440 (Trail Hunter),
     -- TH4200 (Trail Hand) and
     -- TH4400 (Trail Hand) Off-Road Utility Vehicles.

"Bush Hog" is printed on the utility vehicle's cargo bed tail
gate and on each side of the cargo bed.  Model "TH440,"
"TH4200," or "TH4400" is printed on each side of the hood.  The
hood color is red, green, or mossy oak.

These recalled off-road utility vehicles were manufactured in
the United States and were being sold by Bush Hog dealerships
nationwide from January 2004 through March 2008 for between
$8,000 and $9,900.

Pictures of the recalled off-road utility vehicles are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08586a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08586b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
off-road utility vehicles and contact a Bush Hog dealer to
schedule a free inspection and repair.  All registered owners
have been notified about this recall by mail.

For additional information, contact Bush Hog LLC toll-free at
877-873-0143 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bushhog.com/


CAPE & ISLANDS: ACLU Launches Suit Over Worthington DNA Testing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of men who voluntarily gave DNA samples in the
Christa Worthington murder probe, Cape Cod Today reports.

According to Cape Cod Today, the lawsuit claims that Cape &
Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe failed to make good on
a promise to either return the samples or destroy them after the
case was resolved.

The report recounts that Christopher McCowen was convicted in
the 2002 murder of the fashion writer in her Truro home.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Patients Sue Over Contaminated Surgical Tools
--------------------------------------------------------------
Surgical patients in North Carolina have filed a class-action
lawsuit against Cardinal Health and cleaning-materials company
Steris Corp. in connection with the contamination of surgical
instruments at Duke University hospitals in 2004, Columbus
Dispatch reports.

According to Columbus Dispatch, the Dublin-based health services
company is alleged to have sold barrels containing used
hydraulic fluid but marked as cleaning fluid to two hospitals at
Duke University in 2004.  For two months, surgeons at the
hospitals operated on 4,000 patients not knowing that their
instruments had been washed with waste hydraulic fluid instead
of soap.

The report relates that the lawsuit against Cardinal Health and
Steris represents 67 patients and their spouses.  It alleges
that the barrels had once contained the cleaning products but
had been filled with the waste fluid by an elevator company
doing work at one of the hospitals.

The plaintiffs are seeking more than $30,000 in damages, and
their spouses are seeking $10,000 in damages, according to the
suit filed in Durham County, N.C., Superior Court.

Officials of Dublin-based Cardinal declined to comment, Columbus
Dispatch says.


CSX CORP: Fla. Suit Claims Directors Breached Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of the State of
Florida, in and for Duval County, alleging the company and its
directors breached fiduciary duties in deceitful proxy
statements that restrict, rather than increase, shareholders'
rights to elect and replace CSX directors, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220 on behalf of all common
stockholders of the company.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants made misrepresentations to the class
         in violation of their fiduciary duties;

     (b) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class
         would suffer harm if they are deprived of their right
         to complete, fair and accurate information regarding
         the issues to be voted on at the 2008 shareholder
         meeting; and

     (c) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief as a
         result of the wrongful conduct committed by defendants.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

     -- granting appropriate equitable relief to remedy
        defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties;

     -- directing defendants to cure the material misstatements
        and omissions;

     -- awarding to plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the    
        action, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
        accountants' and experts' fees, costs, and expenses; and

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

The suit is "Louis Steger, et al. v. Michael J. Ward, et al.,
Case No. 2008-CA-007230," filed in the Circuit Court of the
Fourth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Chris A. Barker, Esq.
          (cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com)
          Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
          400 N. Ashley Dr., Suite 2100
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-486-1001
          Fax: 813-489-1008


ESTYLE INC: Recalls Toy Kitchens Posing Choking, Tip-Over Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
eStyle Inc., of Los Angeles, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 65
Mini Chef Complete Toy Kitchens.

The company said the four pegs supporting the oven shelf and
four pegs supporting the refrigerator shelf can pull out of the
wood, posing a choking hazard to children.  The toy kitchen unit
also can tip over, posing a risk of serious injury to children.

eStyle has received one report of a toddler placing a peg in his
mouth.  No injuries have been reported.

The Mini Chef Complete Kitchen is a wooden unit with a metal
sink, faucet, four burner stove with front oven and five turn
knob control panel, refrigerator, shelves, phone, clock,
microwave door and roof.  The recalled toy kitchen is
approximately 32 inches by 43 inches.

These recalled mini toy kitchens were manufactured in Thailand
and were being sold exclusively at Babystyle stores nationwide
and at http://www.babystyle.com/from October 2007 through  
November 2007 for about $200.

A picture of the recalled mini toy kitchens is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08582.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
product and contact the firm for a store credit.  All known
users have been contacted.

For additional information, contact the firm at 877-378-9537
between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or
visit http://www.babystyle.com/


FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Settles Calif. Consumer Privacy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc., and its subsidiary, Frederick's
of Hollywood Stores, Inc., settled a purported class action
lawsuit filed against them before the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, according to the company's
June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 26, 2008.

The suit was filed on Oct. 12, 2006 by Dennis Luciani.  It
alleged that Frederick's of Hollywood violated certain
California consumer privacy laws in requesting cardholders'
telephone numbers during credit card refund transactions and
recording such telephone numbers onto a form.

The plaintiff requested certification of the lawsuit as a class
action, and sought statutory civil penalties and attorneys'
fees, among other things.

Frederick's of Hollywood filed an answer denying the plaintiff's
claims and asserting various defenses.  

In order to mitigate the cost of litigation, the plaintiff,
Frederick's of Hollywood and Frederick's of Hollywood Stores
entered into a settlement agreement for the named plaintiff and
the purported class, which was granted final approval by the
Court on October 2, 2007.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Frederick's of Hollywood:

      -- paid $2,500 to the class representative,
   
      -- paid $150,000 in attorneys' fees to the plaintiff's
         attorneys,

      -- provided each class member who filed a claim form with
         a certificate good for a certain amount off of future
         products purchased from Frederick's of Hollywood
         stores,
     
      -- agreed to adopt a policy not to request personal
         identification information from customers in all
         California Frederick's of Hollywood stores in
         conjunction with the processing of returns for credit
         card refunds, and

      -- agreed to bear the costs of implementing the
         settlement, including the costs of providing notice to
         potential class members and of retaining a claims
         administrator.

The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the settlement
agreement on Dec. 14, 2007.

New York, New York-based Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. --
http://www.moviestarinc.com-- formerly Movie Star, Inc.,  
designs, manufactures (through independent contractors),
imports, markets and distributes a line of women's intimate
apparel to mass merchandisers, specialty and department stores,
discount retailers, national and regional chains, and direct
mail catalog marketers throughout the U.S.  The Company's
products include pajamas, nightgowns, baby dolls, nightshirts,
dusters, shifts, caftans, sundresses, rompers, short sets,
beachwear, peignoir ensembles, robes, leisurewear, panties and
daywear consisting of bodysuits, soft bras, slips, half-slips,
teddies, camisoles and cami tap sets.  These products are
manufactured in various fabrics, designs, colors and styles
depending upon seasonal requirements, changes in fashion and
customer demand.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Upholds Class Status of Truck Brake Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas' highest court upheld the class-action status of a
lawsuit filed against General Motors Corp. that alleges the
company sold 4 million trucks and sport utility vehicles with
defectively designed parking brakes, The Associated Press
reports.

According to the AP report, justices agreed with a Miller County
Circuit judge's decision to grant class certification to Boyd
Bryant, who filed the lawsuit against GM in September 2006. Mr.
Bryant sued the company over vehicles manufactured from 1999
through 2002.

Mr. Bryant claimed that the company discovered the defect in
late 2000, redesigned the brake defect in October 2001 and
withheld from dealers admission of responsibility for the defect
until Jan. 28, 2003.  He accused the automaker of avoiding
paying millions of dollars in warranty claims.

The AP recounts that GM appealed the lower court's ruling,
claiming that the difference in motor vehicle product defect
laws among the states prohibited giving the lawsuit class-action
status.  GM also argued that the class definition in the case
was overbroad and unclear, saying the definition failed to
distinguish between "owners" and "subsequent owners."

However, Associate Justice Paul Danielson wrote in the court's
ruling, "We simply cannot say that the class definition is in
any way overbroad.  Nor do any individual issues among potential
class members raised by General Motors render the definition
imprecise."


GENESCO INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee.

                       Roeglin Litigation

On Dec. 5, 2007, a class-action complaint, entitled "Roeglin v.
Genesco Inc., et al.," was filed against the company and four of
its officers before the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock between April 20 and Nov. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements about
the company's business during that period.  It seeks unspecified
damages and interest, costs and attorneys' fees and other
relief.

                       Koshti Litigation

On Dec. 13, 2007, a second class-action complaint, entitled
"Koshti v. Genesco Inc., et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging violations
of the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock between April 20 and Nov. 26, 2007.

The complaint, which was filed against the company and three of
its officers, also alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by failing to disclose material adverse facts
about the company's financial well being and prospects during
the class period.  It seeks unspecified damages and interest,
costs and attorneys' fees and other relief.

                         Consolidation

On Jan. 22, 2008, the U.S. District Court entered a stipulation
and order consolidating the Koshti case with the Roeglin case,
according to the company's June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2008.

The suit is "Roeglin v. Genesco Inc., et al., Case No. 3:2007-
cv-01183," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Judge William J. Haynes, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          A. Rick Atwood, Esq. (ricka@lerachlaw.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

          George Edward Barrett, Esq.
          (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com)
          Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
          217 Second Avenue, N
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: 615-244-2202

               - and -

          Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. (pknashlaw@aol.com)
          Bramlett Law Offices
          P.O. Box 150734
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Phone: 615-248-2828
          Fax: 615-254-4116

Representing the defendants is:

          Britt K. Latham, Esq. (blatham@bassberry.com)
          Bass, Berry & Sims
          AmSouth Center
          315 Deaderick Street, Suite 2700
          Nashville, TN 37238-3001
          Phone: 615-742-6200


GENESCO INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss "Falzone" Lawsuit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Falzone v. Genesco Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:2007-cv-11146," are voluntarily dismissing the case,
which was filed against Genesco, Inc., according to the
company's June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2008.

The suit was filed against Genesco and its officers befor the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Dec. 11, 2007, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock
between May 31 and Nov. 16, 2007.

The suit also asserted that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements about
the Company's business during that period.  It sought
unspecified damages and interest, costs and attorneys' fees and
other relief.

On Feb. 5, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and Order of
Discontinuance Without Prejudice dismissing the case in light of
the earlier filed cases in Tennessee, one of which is under the
caption, "Roeglin v. Genesco Inc., et al., Case No. 3:2007-cv-
01183."

Genesco, Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of  
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a
wholesaler of branded footwear.


GENESCO INC: Tenn. Court Dismisses Suit Over Foot Locker Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Chancery Court issued an order dismissing without
prejudice the suit captioned, "Phillips v. Genesco Inc., et
al.," which involved a proposal by Foot Locker, Inc., to acquire
Genesco, Inc.

The suit was filed by Maxine Phillips on April 24, 2007, and
generally alleges, among other things, that the individual
defendants -- directors of the company -- refused to consider
properly the proposal.

The complaint seeks class certification, a declaration that
defendants have breached their fiduciary and other duties, an
order requiring defendants to implement a process to obtain the
highest possible price for shareholders' shares, and an award of
costs and attorneys' fees.

Following the execution of the merger agreement with The Finish
Line Inc., the plaintiff's counsel indicated, and continues to
indicate, that the plaintiff intends to file an amended
complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duties by the individual
defendants in connection with the board of directors' approval
of the merger agreement and the disclosures made in the
preliminary proxy statement related to the merger and seeking
injunctive relief.

On April 28, 2008, the court entered an order dismissing the
case without prejudice for failure to prosecute, according to
the company's June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2008.

Genesco Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of  
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a
wholesaler of branded footwear.


GENESCO INC: Settles California Labor Code Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc., and its subsidiary, Hat World, Inc., settled a
purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
California Labor Code, according to the company's June 10, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2008.

On May 18, 2006, a former employee filed the putative class,
representative and private attorney general action alleging
violations of the Labor Code in the Superior Court of
California, Alameda County, seeking statutory penalties,
damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.  On Feb. 21, 2007,
the court granted leave for the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint adding the company's wholly owned subsidiary, Hat
World, as a defendant.

On April 15, 2008, the parties reached an agreement to settle
the matter pursuant to which the company will pay a minimum of
$750,000 and a maximum of $1,025,408, depending upon the number
of verified claims submitted by class members.  

The settlement is subject to definitive documentation and
approval by the court.

Genesco Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of  
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a
wholesaler of branded footwear.


GENESCO INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Customer E-mail Addresses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971,
California Civil Code Section 1747.08, related to requests that
customers in the company's California retail stores voluntarily
provide the company with their e-mail addresses.

The suit was filed before the Superior Court of California, San
Diego County on April 8, 2008.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint consisting of a
general denial of its allegations and asserting a number of
affirmative defenses and is presently unable to predict whether
or to what extent it may have liability in the case, according
to the company's June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2008.

Genesco Inc. -- http://www.genesco.com/-- is a retailer of  
branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a
wholesaler of branded footwear.


MEDICARE LITIGATION: Nationwide Prescription Drug Case Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a settlement agreement filed in federal court in the
Medicare Part D class action lawsuit "Situ v. Leavitt," the Bush
administration has agreed to make significant changes to its
administration of the prescription drug benefit for low-income
beneficiaries.

If approved by the judge, the agreement will make it easier for
seniors and individuals with disabilities to access the full
benefits of the Medicare Part D program and the Low Income
Subsidy.

The case was filed against Michael Leavitt, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services, by the National Senior
Citizens Law Center and the Center for Medicare Advocacy in
April 2006 and was certified as a nationwide class action in
January 2007.

Pro bono counsel from the law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati later joined the plaintiff team.

Plaintiffs argued that the Bush Administration failed to provide
sufficient protections for low- income senior citizens and
persons with disabilities in developing the Medicare Part D
enrollment and low income subsidy deeming system.

The case was brought on behalf of 6.2 million low-income "dual
eligible" Medicare beneficiaries, who also receive Medicaid.
Dually eligible beneficiaries are elderly and disabled and very
poor.  The settlement addresses chronic problems related to
information management in the Medicare Part D program.

Plaintiffs argued that poor management created ongoing barriers
for low-income people struggling to obtain prescription
medications.  Dual eligibles rely on an average of ten more
prescriptions per month than other Medicare beneficiaries.  
These beneficiaries receive a Low-Income Subsidy, which entitles
them to purchase prescription medication for a nominal charge,
and are automatically enrolled into a Part D plan.

"This settlement agreement is a victory for many of our nation's
most vulnerable citizens," said National Senior Citizens Law
Center Staff Attorney Kevin Prindiville.  "These individuals
have faced life-threatening delays in receiving vital
medication.  They do not have the means to front the costs of
their prescription drugs while Medicare and the plans sort out
paperwork.  We view the administration's agreement to this
settlement as a sign that it is now committed to providing
adequate protections for these beneficiaries."


The information management system that notifies pharmacies of
the enrollment and low-income status of dual eligibles has been
dogged by extensive delays when enrollees join the system or
change drug plans.  In addition to voluntary plan changes, a
large proportion of beneficiaries have been forced to change
plans each year due to ongoing shifts in available coverage.  
The system is dauntingly complex for beneficiaries and pervasive
flaws have left many in this vulnerable population with gaps in
coverage of essential medication while technical issues are
resolved among the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS, the federal agency responsible for administering the
Medicare program), state governments, pharmacies and drug plans.
In exchange for the plaintiff's dismissal of their claims
against the Secretary, CMS agreed to make a number of changes
that will streamline the Medicare Part D enrollment process.  
The agency will:

     -- Speed up the enrollment process for new dual eligibles.
        Instead of waiting several weeks to process files
        received from states identifying new dual eligibles, CMS
        will process these files within one business day of
        receipt.  CMS will also allow states to submit these
        files more frequently.

     -- Require plans and CMS Regional Offices to provide
        additional assistance to beneficiaries whose names are
        inadvertently missing from pharmacy or plan computer
        systems.  New protocols will shift the burden of proof
        away from beneficiaries and to providers when
        eligibility is in question.

     -- Educate pharmacy organizations about new policies
        intended to increase protections for dual eligibles who
        are not automatically enrolled in a plan and, therefore,
        are unable to obtain medications.

"We're anxious to see CMS successfully implement the changes
outlined in the agreement," said Gill Deford, Director of
Litigation at the Center for Medicare Advocacy.  "CMS has taken
the first step by agreeing to do more on behalf of low-income
recipients.  We look forward to working with agency staff to
ensure that these improvements are integrated into its standard
business practices."

The settlement agreement does not prevent individual class
beneficiaries from filing separate claims for individual
benefits.  Under the terms of the agreement, the court will
retain jurisdiction over implementation of the agreement for up
to three years, during which time the plaintiffs will monitor
CMS activities to ensure the remedies are fully realized.

The agreement must be approved by the presiding judge in the
case, the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson, in order to take
effect.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati joined the plaintiff team in
June 2007.  Pro bono counsel from the firm played an integral
role in developing the final settlement agreement.


MEDIS TECH: Court Still to Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule Medis Technologies, Ltd.'s motion seeking the
dismissal of a securities fraud class action suit.  The suit was
filed on April 23, 2007, against the company and, among others,
the company's chief executive officer.

The complaint alleges that the company issued a false and
misleading press release on April 13, 2007 regarding sales of
the company's "24/7" fuel cell power packs to a major
international company by overstating the importance of those
sales, which resulted in the company's common stock being
artificially inflated.  

The complaint seeks relief under Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against, among others, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer.  

Thereafter, on Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed the First
Amended Class Action Complaint, which essentially alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false and
misleading press release on April 13, 2007, stating that the
company had begun "commercial sales" of "Microsoft-Branded"
Power Packs to Microsoft.

The announcement is alleged to have caused a temporary
fluctuation in the stock price, causing the stock to trade from
$18.29 to as high as $24.10 per share before closing at $20.32
per share.

The plaintiffs allege that the April 13 Press Release was
misleading because it failed to specifically state that the sale
to Microsoft was for a small quantity and that Microsoft
intended to use the Power Packs as give-aways.  Moreover,
plaintiffs allege, the units were not Microsoft branded.

However, the April 13 Press Release explicitly conveyed the
landmark importance of the sale to us and the fuel cell
industry, and the company has vigorously denied any allegations
of wrongdoing, standing by the truth of the April 13 Press
Release.

The plaintiffs' putative class includes those who "purchased the
common stock, call options, and/or sold put options of Medis for
the time period April 13, 2007 through April 17, 2007."

Discovery was stayed as per the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act, and on Nov. 20, 2007, defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that the First Amended
Complaint failed as a matter of law because it did not allege
"scienter," i.e., that defendants acted with a culpable intent.

The defendants argued, among other things, that plaintiffs could
not allege any reason why the defendants would seek to
temporarily inflate the Company's stock price.

The plaintiffs opposed the Motion to Dismiss on Jan. 28, 2008,
arguing, among other things, that scienter was properly pled
because defendants knew or should have known that they were
misrepresenting material facts.

The plaintiffs further asked the Court for permission to cross
move to strike certain exhibits relied on by defendants and to
convert the Motion to Dismiss into one for summary judgment,
lifting the stay of discovery.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' request, stating that it would
consider those issues in due course when it ruled on the Motion
to Dismiss.

The defendants' reply papers on the Motion to Dismiss were filed
on April, 24, 2008.  The Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed,
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 "Kou v. Medis Technologies, Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-03230-PAC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Paul A. Crotty, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Phillip C. Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Fax: 212-202-3827


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Ohio Suit Over Document Preparation Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch Credit Corp. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
alleging it charges document preparation fees for work that is
not done by attorneys, which is illegal in Ohio, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Plaintiff brings this class action suit to recover document
preparation fees charged for services performed by clerical
personnel preparing or completing legal documents relating to
the issuance of mortgage loans.

According to the complaint, Merrill Lynch routinely charges
customers a document preparation fee in the sum of approximately
$150 for services performed by non-lawyers in preparing legal
documents relating to the issuance of mortgage loans, including,
without limitation, promissory notes, mortgages, deeds or
documents incorporated therein, even though Ohio law prohibits
Merrill Lynch from charging fees for such legal services
performed by non-attorneys.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons in the
State of Ohio who were charged a fee for the preparation of
documents that was paid to Merrill Lynch in connection with a
loan at any time after six years preceding the filing of this
action and before Sept. 15, 2004.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Merrill Lynch charged a document preparation
         fee in connection with the preparation of legal
         documents relating to mortgage loans;

     (b) whether the agents or employees of Merrill Lynch who
         prepared the legal documents relating to such mortgage
         loans were not licensed to practice law;

     (c) whether the document preparation fee charged by Merrill
         Lynch for services performed by non attorneys in
         preparing such legal documents is prohibited by Ohio
         law;

     (d) whether Merrill Lynch should not be allowed to retain
         the money it received from the plaintiff and class
         members for such improper document preparation fees;

     (e) whether Merrill Lynch has been unjustly enriched
         through improper document preparation fees charged to
         the plaintiff and class members; and

     (f) the nature of the damages and other relief to which the
         plaintiff and class members are entitled as a remedy
         for Merrill Lynch's improper practices that are the
         subject of this action.

Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment ordering the
defendant to disgorge the amounts by which it has been unjustly
enriched by charging improper document preparation fees, and
refund such amounts to the plaintiff and the class, together
with prejudgment interest thereon as provided by law, and
awarding attorneys' fees, the costs of this action, and such
other relief as may be proper.

The suit is "Steven Romanoff, et al. v. Merrill Lynch Credit
Corp., Case No. CV 08 662306," filed in the Court of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Mark Schlachet, Esq.
          1700 North Point Tower
          1001 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-696-5248
          Fax: 216-696-5288


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Peeling Paint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California alleging paint on Mitsubishi model 2000-
2008 autos peels, fades and becomes discolored, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Pete Vizzi brings this action for money damages,
injunctive, equitable, and declarative relief on behalf of all
current and original owners or lessees of 2000-2008 Mitsubishi
automobiles in the United States outfitted with the
manufacturer's original paint.

Public record demonstrates that, due to a defect in the paint of
these Mitsubishi vehicles, they are prone to and do experience
paint peeling and fading at rates and in a manner that does not
conform to the industry standard.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant is responsible for injunctive
         allegedly defective vehicles in the United States'
         stream of commerce;

     (b) whether the 2000-2008 model year Mitsubishi automobiles
         are unduly prone to experience paint peeling, fading or
         discoloration;

     (c) whether the 2000-2008 model year Mitsubishi vehicles or
         their factory-original paint are defective, and if so,
         the nature of the defect;

     (d) whether defendant breached any duty imposed upon it by
         law;

     (e) whether defendant fraudulently concealed any defect or
         breach of its duty to the members of the putative
         class; and

     (f) whether class members are entitled to the relief
         sought, and if so, the proper scope of such relief.

The plaintiff asks the court:

     -- to determine that this action may be litigated as a
        class action, and that plaintiff and his counsel be
        appointed class representative and class counsel,
        respectively;

     -- that the defendant be permanently enjoined from
        continuing in any manner the violations alleged;

     -- enter judgment against defendant and in favor of
        plaintiff and the class members on all counts;

     -- to require defendant to create an equitable fund to be
        made available to remedy the defects alleged, and to
        order defendant to bear the cost of notifying the absent
        class members as to the availability of this fund to
        remedy the defects alleged; and

     -- to award plaintiff and the class members all such
        other relief as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Pete Vizzi, et al. v. Mitsubishi Motors North
America, Inc., Case No. SACV08-650 JVS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group, PC
          12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 109
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: 310-442-7756


MTD: Recalls Cub Cadet Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
MTD, of Brownsville, Tenn., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 700 Cub
Cadet 4x4 EFI Volunteer Utility Vehicles.

The company said excessive heat can cause the wiring harness to
melt.  This defect can result in a fire hazard to consumers.

MTD has received five reports of heat damage to the vehicle.
There have been no reports of personal injury.

The recalled utility vehicle is a four-wheel drive vehicle with
"Cub Cadet, Tracker Edition" printed on the side panel.  This
vehicle has roll over protection and an open cargo bed in the
back with "Volunteer" printed on the side.  It is equipped with
a Kohler electronic fuel-injected engine.  The model/serial
plate is located under the driver's seat.

These recalled utility vehicles were manufactured in the United
States and were being sold at Cub Cadet dealerships and Bass Pro
retail outlets nationwide under the Cub Cadet brand name from
March 2008 through April 2008 for between $9,700 and $10,500.

A picture of the recalled utility vehicle is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08583.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these vehicles immediately
and contact their Cub Cadet dealership to have their utility
vehicle serviced at no charge.  All known consumers have been
contacted.  Each reworked utility vehicle has a green "X" label
on the model/serial tag.

For additional information, contact the firm toll-free at
888-848-6038 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.


PARMALAT: Defendants Object to Interim Approval of Hermes Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A.,
Banc of America Securities Limited, Citigroup Inc., Citibank
N.A., Eureka Securitisation Plc, Grant Thornton International,
Grant Thornton LLP and Pavia e Ansaldo filed a memorandum with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
June 5, 2008, in opposition to the District Court's preliminary
approval of Hermes Focus Asset Management Europe, Ltd.'s
proposed settlement with Parmalat S.p.A, a report from the
PARMALAT Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 103 said.

The Non-Settling Defendants object to approval of the proposed
Settlement unless the minimum pro tanto judgment credit
incorporates:

  (1) the full value of the Settlement Class' negotiated allowed
      claim in Parmalat's Italian bankruptcy, or, in the
      alternative, the full market value of the Parmalat stock,
      provided under the Concordato as of May 1, 2008; and

  (2) the value of the settlement of Parmalat's claims against
      the Hermes Plaintiffs.

Daniel A. McLaughlin, Esq., at Sidley Austin LLP, in New York,
counsel to the BofA, tells the District Court that the judgment
credit is particularly important in the Settlement, since
Parmalat is the principal wrongdoer.  Each claim against the
Defendants is based on a theory of secondary participation,
Mr. McLaughlin contends.  Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement
should incorporate the full value of the settlement, he asserts.

In the alternative, Mr. McLaughlin says, should the District
Court measure the judgment credit by the outcome of Parmalat's
Italian bankruptcy proceeding, the distribution of 10,500,000
Parmalat S.p.A. shares to the settlement class -- the arbitrary
valuation of the shares being worth $14,000,000 -- should not be
used, since it understates inaccurately the value of the shares
at the time of the agreement.

Mr. McLaughlin contends that there is additional, preferential
compensation provided to the Hermes Plaintiffs.  The Settlement
includes not only the settlement of the U.S. class action, but
also settlement of a separate lawsuit brought by Parmalat
against Hermes in Italy, as well as other complaints with the
Italian prosecutors relating to Parmalat.

According to Mr. McLaughlin, Parmalat seeks very substantial
damages based on Hermes' alleged misconduct.  Specifically,
Parmalat sought EUR5,000,000,000 in damages, according to a
press release from which Mr. McLaughlin cites.  He added that
the release of those claims provides relief to the Hermes
Plaintiffs far in excess of the value of the stock component of
the Settlement.

Mr. McLaughlin points out the release of claims, seeking in
excess of $7,000,000,000 at current exchange rates, have been a
factor in the settlement.  Accordingly, it must be incorporated
in any meaningful estimate of the Settlement value.  The Non-
Settling Defendants submit that the release must be valued at
the face value of the claims, unless the settling parties can
come forward with evidentiary basis for assigning a lesser
amount.

Mr. McLaughlin maintains that while these matters may not
require final resolution by the District Court until the
Settlement is presented for final approval, they are properly
raised at this time.  He says that the Court should examine the
issues, in light of their impact on the notice and certification
of the settlement class.

The Lead Plaintiffs and Parmalat should provide a more complete
disclosure of the facts necessary to permit an informed
evaluation of the Settlement Agreement, Mr. McLaughlin asserts.

In light of these, the Non-Settling Defendants ask the Court to
include the (i) full value of the allowed claim, and (ii)
settlement of Parmalat's claims against the Hermes Plaintiffs in
any judgment credit resulting from the Settlement.

Meanwhile, Defendants Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Deloitte &
Touche LLP and James E. Copeland tell Judge Kaplan that they do
not object to Hermes' settlement of its disputes with Parmalat.  
However, they oppose the granting of Hermes' Motion, to the
extent it would compromise the Deloitte Touche Defendants' right
to the proper calculation of a pro tanto judgment reduction
credit, as set forth by the Non-Settling Defendants, Michael J.
Dell, Esq., at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, in New York,
tells the Court.

                       Hermes Responds

According to Hermes, the Defendants' responses do not challenge
the the relief sought in the motion for preliminary approval,
which was limited to the (i) preliminary certification of a
settlement class, (ii) approval of the notice form, and (iii)
scheduling a hearing.

The Defendants' submissions are irrelevant to the Hermes'
Preliminary Motion, James J. Sabella, Esq., at Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., in New York, reasons out, and their statements
should not delay the approval of the Preliminary Motion and the
commencement of the notice process.

Moreover, the points raised by the Defendants, according to
Mr. Sabella, are without merit since the Settlement Agreement
and proposed final judgment contain a provision for judgment
reduction that directly tracks the language in the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The exact amount that the
Defendants will receive cannot be calculated at this juncture,
Mr. Sabella insists.  There is no merit to the Defendants'
assertions that the credit should be based on the $200,000,000
judgment credit needed to yield 10,500,000 shares, or on the
$7,000,000,000 ad damnun by Parmalat in its Italian proceeding
against Hermes, Mr. Sabella tells the Court.

However, Hermes does not dispute the Defendants' contention that
the judgment credit should be based on the market value of the
Parmalat stock as of May 1, 2008, valued at $35,000,000.

Mr. Sabella maintains that granting the Preliminary Motion will
be without prejudice to the Defendants' arguments as to class
certification, and to their ability to present arguments at an
appropriate time with respect to the amount of the judgment
credit.


ROHM & HASS: Minnesota Lawsuit Alleges Plastics Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm & Hass is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging it
conspired to fix prices for plastic additives, a $16.3 billion
annual market, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Other named defendants in the complaint are:

     -- Arkema fka Atofina Chemicals fka Elf Atochem North
        America,

     -- Ferro Corp.,

     -- Mitsubishi Rayon America,

     -- Akcros Chemicals America, and

     -- Akzo Nobel.

The chemicals companies are accused of conspiring to restrain
trade and fix prices for plastic additive "such as heat
stabilizers, impact modifiers, and processing aids used to
manufacture or process plastics."

Named plaintiff Sharon Defren alleges that she directly
purchased plastic additives from defendants whose conspiracy
violated Minn. Stat. Section 325D.49, et seq.  Plaintiff also
states a common-law claim for unjust enrichment under
Minnesota's unjust enrichment law.

Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and
business entities in Minnesota that indirectly purchased
products containing plastic additives manufactured, sold or
distributed by defendants, other than for resale, from Jan. 1,
1990 to and including Jan. 31, 2003.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain,
         or stabilize the prices of plastic additives marketed,
         distributed, and sold in Minnesota;

     (b) whether defendants conspired to manipulate and allocate
         the market for plastic additives marketed, distributed,
         and sold in Minnesota;

     (c) the existence and duration of defendants' horizontal
         agreements to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the
         prices of plastic additives marketed, distributed, and
         sold in Minnesota;

     (d) the existence and duration of defendants' horizontal
         agreements to manipulate and allocate the market for
         plastic additives marketed, distributed and sold in
         Minnesota;

     (e) whether each defendant was a member of, or participated
         in, the arrangement, contract, or agreement to fix,
         raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of plastic
         additives marketer, distributed and sold in Minnesota;

     (f) whether each defendant was a member of, or participated
         in, the arrangement, contract, or agreement to allocate
         the market for plastic additives marketed, distributed
         and sold in Minnesota;

     (g) whether defendants' conspiracy was implemented;

     (h) whether defendants took steps to conceal their
         conspiracy from plaintiff and the class members;

     (i) whether defendants' conduct caused injury in fact to
         the business or property of plaintiff and the class
         members, and if so, the appropriate classwide measure
         of damages;

     (j) whether the agents, officers or employees of
         defendants and their co-conspirators participated in
         telephone calls, meetings, and other communications in
         furtherance of their conspiracy; and

     (k) whether the purpose and effect of the acts and
         omissions alleged was to fix, raise, maintain or
         stabilize the prices of plastic additives marketed,
         distributed, and sold in Minnesota and to manipulate
         and allocate the market for plastic additives marketed,
         distributed and sold in Minnesota.

Plaintiff requests:

      -- that the court determine that this action may be
         maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the
         Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certify
         plaintiff's proposed class;

      -- that the court rules that defendants' conspiracy
         violated Minn. Stat. Section 325D.49 et seq. and that
         compensatory damages, including treble damages and      
         attorneys' fees are appropriate;

      -- that the court determine that defendants were unjustly
         enriched;

      -- that the court permanently enjoin defendants from
         conspiring to fix plastic additives prices and
         allocating plastic additives markets or other
         injunctive relief as the court deems appropriate;

      -- that the court award plaintiff post-judgment interest,
         their costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees; and

      -- that the court order any other relief as it deems just
         and proper.

The suit is "Sharon Defren, et al. v. Rohm & Haas Company, et
al., Case No. 08cv2208 JNE/FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stanley E. Karon, Esq. (karontrial@yahoo.com)
          Karon Trial Law PA
          6600 Lyndale Ave., S., Suite 1004
          Minneapolis, MN 55423
          Phone: 612-236-1324
          Fax: 612-236-1325


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Labor-Related Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc., is facing a purported class action
suit in California state court, alleging that it failed to
provide former employees with certain meal and rest period
breaks and overtime pay.  

The suit was filed on March 24, 2005, by a former employee of
the company.  The parties moved the matter into arbitration, and
the former employee amended the complaint to claim that he
represents a class of potential plaintiffs.

The amended complaint alleges that current and former shift
leaders who worked in the company's California restaurants
during specified time periods worked off the clock and missed
meal and rest breaks.  

This case is still in the pre-class certification discovery
stage, and no class has been certified, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008.

Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- owns,  
operates and franchises restaurants.  As of March 25, 2008, the
Company owned and operated 174 fast-casual Mexican restaurants,
three licensed locations, and two franchised restaurants that
offers Mexican cuisine, including chargrilled chicken, steak and
fresh seafood items, such as burritos, tacos and quesadillas
inspired by the Baja, California region of Mexico.  The Company
has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Rubio's Restaurants of
Nevada, Inc. and and Rubio's Promotions, Inc.  Its restaurants
are located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah.
The Company's menu includes the Fish Tacos, HealthMex and Kidís
Meals.


SHORETEL INC: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
ShoreTel, Inc., is facing two purported securities fraud class
action suits before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the company's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Jan. 16, 2008, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned "Watkins v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al.," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against ShoreTel, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.

On Jan. 29, 2008, a second purported stockholder class action
complaint, captioned "Kelley v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al.," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the same defendants.

Both complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock pursuant to its initial
public offering on July 3, 2007.  Both complaints purport to
allege claims for violations of the federal securities laws and
seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

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

ShoreTel, Inc. -- http://www.shoretel.com/-- is a provider of  
Internet protocol telecommunications systems for enterprises.
The Company's systems are based on its distributed software
architecture and switch-based hardware platform, which enable
multi-site enterprises to be served by a single
telecommunications system.  ShoreTel's solution consists of
ShoreGear switches, ShorePhone IP telephones and ShoreWare
software applications.  It provides its systems to enterprises
across all industries, including to small, medium and large
companies, and public institutions.  Its enterprise customers
include multi-site Fortune 500 companies.  As of June 30, 2007,
ShoreTel had sold its IP telecommunications systems to over
5,000 enterprise customers, including CNET Networks, Robert Half
International, SEGA, Wedbush Morgan Securities, and the City of
Oakland, California.


SOLERA HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuit Over "Total Loss Estimation"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Solera Holdings, Inc., is facing a putative class action lawsuit
in connection with total loss estimation, 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 alleges that the company colluded with its insurance
company customers to cause the estimates of vehicle fair market
value generated by the company's total loss estimation products
to be unfairly low.

Solera Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.solerainc.com/-- is a  
global provider of software and services to the automobile
insurance claims processing industry.  The Company's customers
include more than 900 automobile insurance companies; 33,000
collision repair facilities; 7,000 independent assessors, and
3,000 automotive recyclers.  Solera Holdings, Inc. helps its
customers estimate the costs to repair damaged vehicles;
determine pre-collision fair market values for vehicles damaged
beyond repair; automate steps of the claims process; outsource
steps of the claims process that insurance companies have
historically performed internally, and improve their ability to
monitor and manage their businesses through data reporting and
analysis.  As of June 30, 2007, it served more than 55,000
customers in 49 countries.  Its software and services are
organized into five general categories: estimating and workflow
software; salvage and recycling software; business intelligence
and consulting services; shared services, and other.


TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Junk Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against
TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. -- formerly Axonyx, Inc.

Several lawsuits were filed against the company in February
2005, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
from June 26, 2003, through and including Feb. 4, 2005.

Director and former Axonyx chief executive officer, Dr. M.
Hausman, and current Axonyx CEO Dr. G. Bruinsma, were also named
as defendants in the lawsuits.  These suits were consolidated
into a single class action in January 2006.  

The plaintiffs allege generally that the company's Phase III
Phenserine development program was subject to errors of design
and execution, which resulted in the failure of the first Phase
III Phenserine trial to show efficacy.

They also said that the defendants' failure to disclose the
alleged defects resulted in the artificial inflation of the
price of the company's shares during the class period.

On April 10, 2006, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  The company filed its answer to that
complaint on May 26, 2006.

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 26, 2006, and was submitted to the
court for a decision in September 2006.  The motion to dismiss
is still pending.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 13,
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: Axonyx Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-02307-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Thomas P. Griesa,
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Evan Jay Kaufman, Esq. (ekaufman@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs)
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

              - and -
       
          Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
          Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C.
          240 Mineola Blvd.
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-741-4977

Representing the defendants are:

         May Orenstein, Esq. (morenstein@brownrudnick.com)
         Sigmund Samuel Wissner-Gross, Esq.
         (swissnergross@brownrudnick.com)
         Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP
         Seven Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-209-4800
                212-209-4930
         Fax: 212-938-2804


U.S. AUTO: Settles Calif. Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., reached a settlement in a
consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against
it before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

On March 24, 2007, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and certain officers, directors
and underwriters.  

The complaint alleges that the company filed a false
Registration Statement in connection with the company's initial
public offering in violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  

On April 26, 2007, a second complaint containing substantially
similar allegations was filed, and also included a claim under
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.  

The complaints were consolidated on May 15, 2007.  A lead
plaintiff was appointed on Aug. 9, 2007.  

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in October 2007.  
The amended complaint is against the company and certain current
and former officers, as well as Oak Investment Partners XI, LP,
and the underwriters involved in the initial public offering.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution,
unspecified equitable relief, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on Oct. 31, 2007.

In January 2008, the parties reached a settlement in principle
to resolve the matter.  A definitive settlement agreement was
filed on May 1, 2008, which settlement is still subject to the
Court's approval.

The suit is "Patricia Johnson, et al. v. U.S. Auto Parts
Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02030," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
George H. Wu, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Sarah Catherine Boone, Esq.
          (sarah.boone@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-455-1400 x106
          Fax: 504-455-1498

               - and -

          Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
          Stull Stull and Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Luke A. Liss, Esq. (lliss@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300

               - and -

          Diane Lee McGimsey, Esq. (mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan And Cromwell
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-712-6600


VIRGIN MOBILE: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Ballas" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter "Ballas v. Virgin Mobile USA, LLC,
Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. and Virgin Media, Inc.," has appealed
the dismissal of the case, which names Virgin Mobile USA, Inc.,
as a defendant.

The putative class action suit was commenced on May 21, 2007,
before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau
County.  It was brought on behalf of a purported class of
individuals who purchased Virgin Mobile-brand handsets within
the State of New York.

The complaint names three defendants: the company, Virgin Mobile
USA, LLC, and Virgin Media, Inc.  Virgin Media was subsequently
dismissed voluntarily from the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose, on
their Web sites and on the retail packaging of Virgin Mobile-
brand handsets, the replenishment or "Top-Up" requirements (the
periodic minimum payments required to keep an account active)
and the consequences of failing to adhere to them, and further
alleges that the retail packaging implies that no such
requirements exist.

The plaintiff asserts two causes of action, one for breach of
contract and one for deceptive acts and practices and misleading
advertising under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and
350.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the case for
failure to state a cause of action.  

On Jan. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in
connection with the court's dismissal of the suit, according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is   
a provider of wireless communications services, offering
prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth
market.  The Company offers its products and services on a flat
per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified
quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each
case without requiring VMU's customers to enter into long-term
contracts or commitments.  The Company markets its products and
services under the Virgin Mobile brand.  VMU has rights to use
the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services
through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin
Group.


VIRGIN MOBILE: Continues to Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Excise Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virgin Mobile USA, Inc., is still one of 12 telecommunications
carriers named as defendants in a class action lawsuit entitled,
"Belloni, et al. v. Verizon Communications, et al.," which was
brought on behalf of a purported class of long distance
telephone customers.

The amended class action complaint was filed in October 2006
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  It alleges that the defendants unlawfully collected and
remitted money to the IRS in the guise of an excise tax that the
plaintiffs assert was inapplicable to the services provided.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
conditionally transferred the action to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with related actions, under the caption,
"In Re: Long-Distance Telephone Service Federal Excise Tax
Refund Litigation, MDL-1798, Case No. 1:2007mc00014."

The plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
in an amount not specified.

They generally claim that the defendants are liable for the full
amount collected from customers and remitted to the government,
and damages flowing from the alleged failure to file with the
FCC and communicate to the public the non-applicability of the
Communications Excise Tax.  The plaintiffs also seek attorneys'
fees and costs.

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

Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is   
a provider of wireless communications services, offering
prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth
market.  The Company offers its products and services on a flat
per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified
quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each
case without requiring VMU's customers to enter into long-term
contracts or commitments.  The Company markets its products and
services under the Virgin Mobile brand.  VMU has rights to use
the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services
through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin
Group.


VIRGIN MOBILE: Named as Defendant in New Jersey IPO-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virgin Mobile USA, Inc., certain of the its officers and
directors, and other defendants, face a purported class action
lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, according to Virgin Mobile's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Initially, two federal class-action lawsuits were filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Each suit alleges that the prospectus and registration statement
filed pursuant to the company's IPO contained materially false
and misleading statements in violation of the Securities Act of
1933, and additionally alleges that at the time of the IPO the
Company was aware, but did not disclose, that results for the
third quarter of 2007 indicated widening losses and slowing
subscriber growth trends.

On Jan 7, 2008, the company filed a motion to consolidate all
cases with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York for pre-trial purposes.

On April 7, 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted the motion and consolidated the cases with
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On March 17, 2008, the district court judge in the New Jersey
matter appointed the New Jersey plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs
for the litigation.  

Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. -- http://www.virginmobileusa.com/-- is   
a provider of wireless communications services, offering
prepaid, or pay-as-you-go, services targeted at the youth
market.  The Company offers its products and services on a flat
per-minute basis and on a monthly basis for specified
quantities, or buckets, of minutes purchased in advance, in each
case without requiring VMU's customers to enter into long-term
contracts or commitments.  The Company markets its products and
services under the Virgin Mobile brand.  VMU has rights to use
the Virgin Mobile brand for mobile voice and data services
through 2027, in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands through its trademark license agreement with the Virgin
Group.


WAL-MART: Recalls Charm Key Chains Due to Risk of Lead Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Ark. in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about  
39,000 (firm previously recalled 12,000 key chains in April
2008) "Hip Charm" Key Chains imported by FGX International Inc.,
of Smithfield, R.I.

The company said the charms on the key chain can contain high
levels of lead, which is toxic if ingested and can cause adverse
health effects.

here have been no injuries reported with the additional key
chains included in this recall.  The Illinois Attorney General
informed Wal-Mart and CPSC in April that the previously recalled
key chain was found in the home of a 9-month-old child who was
discovered to have high blood levels of lead.  The child was
observed mouthing this key chain.

The recalled key chains have several charms including a button,
clover, leaf, and heart. The charms hang from a silver-colored
chain.  The words "Hip charm" and the following UPC numbers are
printed on the products packaging:

     -- 03156811032,
     -- 03156811029,
     -- 03156811019,
     -- 03156811016,
     -- 03156811018,
     -- 03156811028, and
     -- 03156811030.

These recalled hip charms were manufactured in China and were
being sold at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from April 2005 through
June 2008 for between $ .50 and $6.

Pictures of the recalled hip charms are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08307a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08307b.jpg

Consumers should not allow children to handle the key chain and
return it to any Wal-Mart store for a full refund.

For further information, contact Wal-Mart at 800-925-6278
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.walmartstores.com/


WET SEAL: California Court Approves Employees' Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California gave final approval
to a settlement deal in a purported labor-related class action
lawsuit filed on July 19, 2006, against The Wet Seal, Inc.,
according to the company's June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2008.

The class action complaint was filed on behalf of certain of the
company's current and former employees that were employed and
paid by the company on an hourly basis during the four-year
period from July 19, 2002, through July 19, 2006.  

The complaint alleges violations under the State of California
Labor Code, the State of California Business and Professions
Code, and violation of orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission with respect to paying employees all overtime wages
due, observing meal and rest periods and maintaining proper
records of wages earned and rates of pay.  

The complaint seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
costs, attorney's fees, injunctive relief and such other and
further relief that the Superior Court may deem just and proper.  

On November 30, 2006, the company reached an agreement to pay
approximately $0.3 million to settle this matter.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the court issued its order granting final
approval of the class action settlement.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a  
national specialty retailer operating stores selling apparel and
accessory items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35.  As
of Feb. 2, 2008, the Company operated 494 retail stores in 47
states, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.  Its products can also
be purchased online.  The Company operates two nationwide,
primarily mall-based, chains of retail stores under the names
Wet Seal and Arden B. Wet Seal is the junior apparel brand for
teenage girls that seek trend-focused and value competitive
clothing with a target customer age of 13 to 19 years old.  Wet
Seal seeks to provide its customer base with a balance of
affordably priced fashionable apparel and accessories.  Arden B
is a fashion brand for the feminine contemporary woman with sex
appeal.  Arden B targets customers aged 25 to 35 and seeks to
deliver contemporary collections of fashion separates and
accessories for various aspects of the customers' lifestyles.


WET SEAL: Withdraws Settlement Offer in Calif. FCRA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc., withdrew its offer to settle a purported
class action suit over alleged violations of credit rules, after
a similar case was filed against the company, according to the
company's June 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2008.

In January 2007, a class-action complaint was filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging violations of The Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Act provides in part that portions of the credit card number
may not be printed together with expiration dates on credit or
debit card receipts given to customers.  It imposes significant
penalties upon violators of these rules and regulations where
the violation is deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise,
damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the card
holder.

In February 2007, a second class-action complaint was filed
against the company alleging similar violations in the same
court.  Both parties in the February 2007 complaint have agreed
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  

On Dec. 11, 2007, the company reached a tentative agreement to
settle the January 2007 suit for less than $0.1 million.

However, prior to the receipt of the executed settlement
agreement, on Feb. 8, 2008, the company was named in another
action, alleging the same violation, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As a result, the company withdrew its offer to settle the
January 2007 action.  

On June 3, 2008, the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification
Act of 2007 was enacted.  This measure amends the FCRA to
declare that a company that printed an expiration date on any
receipt provided to a consumer cardholder at the point of sale
or transaction between Dec. 4, 2004, and the enactment of this
legislation, but otherwise complied with FCRA requirements for
such receipt, shall not be in willful noncompliance by reason of
printing such expiration date in it.

Under this definition, the company believes that it has not
committed any willful violation of the FCRA.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a  
national specialty retailer operating stores selling apparel and
accessory items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35.  As
of Feb. 2, 2008, the Company operated 494 retail stores in 47
states, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.  Its products can also
be purchased online.  The Company operates two nationwide,
primarily mall-based, chains of retail stores under the names
Wet Seal and Arden B. Wet Seal is the junior apparel brand for
teenage girls that seek trend-focused and value competitive
clothing with a target customer age of 13 to 19 years old.  Wet
Seal seeks to provide its customer base with a balance of
affordably priced fashionable apparel and accessories.  Arden B
is a fashion brand for the feminine contemporary woman with sex
appeal.  Arden B targets customers aged 25 to 35 and seeks to
deliver contemporary collections of fashion separates and
accessories for various aspects of the customers' lifestyles.


* Securities Litigation Team Gets 3 Major Victories in 10 Days
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pepper Hamilton LLP recently secured major victories for
biotechnology and pharmaceutical clients in three separate
securities class actions in a 10-day period.

Representing Discovery Laboratories, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company
and GlaxoSmithKline, the firm won dismissals from three federal
courts between April 29 and May 9, 2008.

"Pharmaceutical securities litigation is different than
securities cases in other industries because the industry is
heavily regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, which
allows a lot of information to fall into the public arena and be
available to investors quickly," said Robert L. Hickok, a
partner with Pepper Hamilton and a leader of its securities
litigation practice.

He continued, "There is high potential for risk in the industry.
If the FDA does not approve a company's product or issues a
safety alert regarding a drug that is already on the market, the
company's stock price may drop, causing investors concern.  Our
job, as defense attorneys, is to explain how the FDA works so
that the judge can evaluate a company's disclosures within the
proper context.  Pepper Hamilton's long history of representing
pharmaceutical clients, our extensive knowledge of the FDA
process, and the depth of our securities litigation practice in
general are tremendous assets.  These three recent victories
illustrate that."

                        Discovery Labs

On April 29, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of In re
Discovery Laboratories Securities Litigation, a securities class
action filed against Discovery Laboratories, Inc. --
http://www.discoverylabs.com/-- a biotechnology company  
developing Surfactant Replacement Therapies for respiratory
diseases.

The complaint alleged that Discovery Labs misled investors about
the prospects for regulatory approval of its lead product,
Surfaxin, for the prevention of Respiratory Distress Syndrome in
premature infants.

In 2007, before Judge Stewart Dalzell of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Pepper Hamilton won
motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' first and second amended
securities class action complaints, as well as a motion to
dismiss a separately filed derivative action.

The Pepper Hamilton team representing Discovery Labs in the
litigation included partners Robert L. Hickok, Gay Parks
Rainville and Christopher J. Huber; of counsel James D.
VandeWyngearde; and associates Thomas T. Watkinson II and
Michele C. Zarychta.

                          Eli Lilly

Eli Lilly and Company's -- http://www.lilly.com/-- victory  
occurred in the Zyprexa litigation pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In "In re Eli Lilly and Company Securities Litigation," a
securities class action involving Lilly's atypical antipsychotic
medication Zyprexa, the court granted Lilly's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' federal securities
fraud claims on statute of limitations grounds.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that articles
published in The New York Times in December 2006 reported for
the first time that Zyprexa allegedly presents a higher risk of
diabetes-related conditions than do other atypical antipsychotic
medications, and that Lilly allegedly engaged in off-label
promotion of the medicine.

In his April 30, 2008 opinion, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York held
that the class action was time-barred since both issues were
publicly debated by scientists, investment analysts and members
of the legal profession long before the two-year statute of
limitations began to run on plaintiffs' claims on March 28,
2005.

The Pepper Hamilton team representing Lilly in the litigation
included partners Robert L. Hickok, Gay Parks Rainville,
Christopher J. Huber and Kenneth J. King; and associates Andrea
Toy Ohta, Elizabeth M. Ray, April Denise Seabrook, Thomas T.
Watkinson II, Michele C. Zarychta, Amber M. Schuknecht and
Andrea M. de Vries.

                        GlaxoSmithKline

In "Borochoff, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, et al.," a federal
district judge granted GlaxoSmithKline's -- http://www.gsk.com/
-- motion to dismiss the securities class action filed by
investors alleging that GSK's statements about its diabetes
medicine, Avandia, were false and misleading.

Judge Louis L. Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed the case on May 9, 2008,
and denied the plaintiffs' request to replead. The court held
that the complaint failed to sufficiently plead that the
defendants made any material misrepresentation or omission or
acted with fraudulent intent.

The plaintiffs recently filed a motion asking the court to
reconsider its decision.

The Pepper Hamilton team representing GSK in the litigation
included partners Robert L. Hickok, Gay Parks Rainville, Michael
E. Baughman and Kenneth J. King; and associates Patricia A.
McCausland, William C. Root and Aubrey L. Jones.


Pepper Hamilton LLP  -- http://www.pepperlaw.com/-- is a multi-
practice law firm with more than 500 lawyers in seven states and
the District of Columbia.  The firm provides corporate,
litigation and regulatory legal services to leading businesses,
governmental entities, nonprofit organizations and individuals
throughout the nation and the world.  The firm was founded in
1890.

Pepper Hamilton's securities litigation practice includes
representing corporations, their directors and officers,
investment bankers and accountants in civil, criminal and
administrative proceedings regarding corporate governance and
the issuance and trading of securities.  The firm's practice
takes it before federal and state courts and administrative
agencies in jurisdictions throughout the United States.  Pepper
lawyers also are experienced in representing clients in
investigations and litigation by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Pepper Hamilton works with many biotechnology and pharmaceutical
companies and has extensive experience defending them in
securities class action litigation.  Pepper lawyers know and
understand the drug development and regulatory approval
processes, and provide the courts with the context they need for
fairly assessing the disclosures at issue.

The firm's commercial litigators often draw upon the experience
of their health effects litigation colleagues, whose deep
expertise in the industry helps make the firm's representations
more effective.  Members of the Health Effects Litigation
Practice Group, led by partner Nina M. Gussack, counsel clients
and handle litigation involving claimed adverse health effects
from ingestion of or exposure to pharmaceuticals, medical
devices, radiation, chemicals, consumer goods, environmental
substances and industrial equipment.





                            *********

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  * * *