CAR_Public/080624.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 24, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 124
  
                            Headlines

ABX AIR: Dismissed From "Hager" Lawsuit in Ohio
BIG LOTS: Louisiana Court Decertifies Class in FLSA Lawsuit
BUCA INC: Parties Reach $1.6-Mln Deal in Minn. Securities Suit
BUCA INC: California Court Gives Preliminary OK to $650,000 Deal
CALIFORNIA: Lawyers Challenge State Compensation Insurance Fund

CASH SYSTEMS: Faces Nevada Suit Over Global Cash Access Sell-Off
CHEVY CHASE: Seventh Circuit Considers Appeals in "Andrews" Case
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls Pajamas Due to Excessive Lead Content
CITIGROUP INC: Faces Lawsuit in New York Over MAT Funds
CONCORD CAMERA: Fla. Court Still to Approve Securities Suit Deal

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Civil Group Sues Over Police Checkpoints
ELECTROLYTIC ZINC: Motion to Institute Class Action Dismissed
EXCEL DAIRY: Sued in Minnesota Over Hazardous Dairy Fumes
FIRST DATA: Plaintiffs in Calif. ATM Fee Suit to Appeal Rulings
FIRST DATA: Tennessee Court Dismisses Concord EFS Lawsuit

GAMING PARTNERS: Seeks Dismissal of "Kaplan" Lawsuit in Nevada
GSI TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Tolling Agreements in SRAM Lawsuits
HELEN OF TROY: Awaits Final OK to $4.5-Mln. Securities Suit Deal
INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Calif. Sup. Court Mulls Review of "Nuanes"
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: April 24 Mediation Fails to Resolve Case

KNOLLS ATOMIC: Supreme Court Favors Laid-Off Workers in Ruling
MEDIACOM LLC: Nov. 3 Trial Set for Missouri Landowners' Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ: Court Upholds Replacement Smart-Keys Claims
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Makes $20M Loan for $16M Settlement Pay-Out
NATURAL HEALTH: Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Texas Lawsuit

NU HORIZONS: Plaintiffs Mull Appeal of California Suit Dismissal
PACIFIC CYCLE: Recall Merry-Go-Rounds Due to Fall Hazard
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Answers Second Amended Complaint in Md. Matter
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Lead Plaintiff & Lead Counsel Named in Ga. Suit
POMEROY IT: Faces Ky. Lawsuit Over Stock Acquisition Proposal

PRESSTEK INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.H.
SAN DIEGO CORRECTIONAL: ACLU Suit Settles Overcrowding Problem
STERLING CHEMICALS: Plan Administrator Denies Claims in "Evans"
STOCKERYALE INC: N.H. Court Approves $3.4MM Securities Suit Deal
ULTA SALON: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Illinois

VEDA ADVANTAGE: Court Nixes Suit Over Flawed Reporting System
ZORAN CORP: California Court Approves Backdating Case Settlement

* The Notary Advocate LLC Has 2 New Latest Additions To Arsenal

* Senator Cornyn Pushes for U.S. Securities Class Action Reforms


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BEAR STEARNS: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
FIFTH THIRD: Wolf Haldenstein Files Ohio Securities Fraud Suit
FIFTH THIRD: Strauss & Troy Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio



                           *********



ABX AIR: Dismissed From "Hager" Lawsuit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
dismissed ABX Air, Inc., a subsidiary of ABX Holdings, Inc., and
DHL Holdings (USA), Inc., from the matter, "Hager v. ABX Air,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00317-JDH-MRA."

ABX Air sought the dismissal of the purported class action suit
filed against it.  The suit, filed on April 13, 2007, alleged
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 14, 2007).

Aside from ABX Air and DHL Holdings, the suit also named as
defendants:

     -- Joe C. Hete, president and chief executive of ABX;

     -- Gene Rhodes, vice-president for human resources of ABX;

     -- Douglas Steele, human resources manager for ABX;

     -- Garcia Labor Co. of Ohio Inc., temporary labor provider;

     -- Garcia Labor Co. Inc. of Tenn., temporary labor
        provider;

     -- Maximino Garcia, president and owner of Garcia Labor;

     -- Gina Luciano, director of human resources of Garcia
        Labor; and

     -- Dominga McCarroll, vice-president of Garcia Labor;

The complaint asserted that ABX conspired to employ more than
1,000 undocumented immigrants in a scheme.  This scheme was
executed between approximately December 1999 and January 2005
and has directly and proximately caused the wages paid to named
plaintiff and the class to be substantially depressed, i.e.,
below the level of wages ABX and DHL would have paid its lawful
workers if they had not engaged in the scheme to hire
unauthorized aliens (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2007).

Lead plaintiff ABX employee, Ronnie Hager, claims that ABX
conspired with co-defendant Garcia Labor Co., of Morristown,
Tenn., to recruit illegal workers and depress U.S. citizens'
wages.

The plaintiff filed the suit as a purported class action, on
behalf of himself and all hourly employees of ABX and DHL at
their Wilmington, Ohio facility, authorized for employment in
the U.S. from December 1999 to the present, to recover damages
and other appropriate relief from the defendants for violations
of the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et al.

The class claims top officers of all the corporations knowingly
hired illegal workers to sort freight at Wilmington.  The class
members claim the conspiracy lasted from December 1999 until
January 2005, and that Garcia provided rental housing in
Wilmington for the illegal workers it provided.

Furthermore, they claim ABX kept hundreds of illegal workers on
staff after the Social Security Administration told it twice
that the workers were using fraudulent documents.

Several corporate officers have been sentenced to prison after
the Transportation Security Agency found that virtually all the
400 workers provided by Garcia were illegal, the complaint
states.

Questions of law that the purported class raise, include:

     (a) whether ABX has engaged in an illegal immigrant hiring
         scheme;

     (b) whether DHL has engaged in an illegal immigrant hiring
         scheme;

     (c) whether Garcia Labor Co. of Ohio, Inc. and Garcia Labor
         Co., Inc., have engaged in an illegal immigration
         hiring scheme;

     (d) whether the individual defendants have conspired to
         perpetuate the illegal immigrant hiring scheme;

     (e) whether ABX and the individual defendants have engaged
         in this scheme to depress the lawful employees' wages;

     (f) whether DHL and the individual defendants have engaged
         in this scheme to depress the lawful employees' wages;

     (g) whether Garcia Labor and the individual defendants have
         engaged in this scheme to depress the lawful employees'
         wages;

     (h) whether the illegal hiring scheme has caused the class
         members' wages to be depressed;

     (i) whether the illegal immigrant hiring scheme violates
         RICO and the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
         Section 1324; and

     (j) whether ABX, DHL and Garcia Labor should be enjoined
         from conducting further racketeering activity and
         whether the individual defendants should be bared from
         further association with ABX and DHL.

The plaintiff prays that the court enter a judgment:

     -- awarding damages in an amount equal to three times the
        damage caused the putative class by defendants'
        racketeering activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1964(c);

     -- awarding pre- and post-trial interest;

     -- awarding reasonable attorney fees and court costs
        incurred in the prosecution of this action, including
        all expert witness fees and other litigation expenses;

     -- declaring this action to be a class action properly
        maintained pursuant to Civ. R. 23 and certifying the
        named plaintiff as class representative and his counsel
        as class counsel; and

     -- awarding any other relief to which plaintiff may be
        entitled in law or equity that the court considers to be
        appropriate under the circumstances.

ABX filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was subsequently
granted on March 25, 2008, with respect to DHL and ABX,
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 "Hager v. ABX Air, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00317-JDH-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Judge John D. Holschuh, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Douglas Carter Knisley, Esq. (doug@knisleylaw.com)
         Knisely Wilhelm & Knisely
         1395 Dublin Road
         Columbus, OH 43215-1046
         Phone: 614-486-9503

              - and –

         John T. Murray, Esq. (jotm@murrayandmurray.com)
         Murray & Murray
         111 E. Shoreline Drive, P.O. Box 19
         Sandusky, OH 44871-0019
         Phone: 419-624-3000
         Fax: 419 624 0707


BIG LOTS: Louisiana Court Decertifies Class in FLSA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarah Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana decertified a nationwide class-action
lawsuit against Big Lots Stores, Inc., over claims that the
company failed to pay overtime to salaried store managers,
Bloomberg News reports.

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

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all
other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged 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 Aug. 4, 2007, approximately 1,100 individuals had joined
the Louisiana matter.  

The company filed a motion to decertify the class (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 10, 2008).

In a recent ruling, Judge Vance decertified the class-action
suit on behalf of 936 current and former employees and dismissed
their claims.

Two original plaintiffs, John Johnson and Robert Charles Burden,
will be allowed to pursue their claims individually, Judge Vance
said in the ruling.

"The claims will continue," Michael Josephson, Esq., an attorney
for the plaintiffs in Houston, said in a telephone interview
with Bloomberg.  "The consequence of Judge Vance's ruling is
that now Big Lots will have to defend its conduct in courts
throughout the entire country instead of just one court in New
Orleans."

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

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


BUCA INC: Parties Reach $1.6-Mln Deal in Minn. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
against BUCA, Inc., reached a tentative $1.6-million settlement
deal in the matter, which was filed before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  This according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30,
2008.

Between Aug. 7, 2005, and Sept. 7, 2005, three identical civil
actions were commenced against the company.  The three actions
were later consolidated.    

On Jan. 11, 2006, the four lead plaintiffs filed and served a
consolidated amended complaint.  The complaint was brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the
company's common stock in the market during the time period from
Feb. 6, 2001, through March 11, 2005.    

The lead plaintiffs allege that in press releases and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings issued during the
class period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements about the company's income, revenues, and internal
controls, which allegedly had the result of artificially
inflating the market price for the company's stock.   

The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount, plus an award of attorneys'
fees and costs of litigation.   

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which
motion was granted on Aug. 30, 2007.  The plaintiffs later filed
an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As of March 20, 2008, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement to resolve the securities litigation on a class-wide
basis for a total amount of $1.6 million.  The amount will be
paid by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA,
the company's director's and officer's liability insurance
carrier.

The settlement is contingent upon approval by the Court, after
giving notice to class members.  The process of getting the
settlement approved, and a final judgment entered dismissing the
securities litigation with prejudice, likely will take until
fall 2008.

The suit is "West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, et al. v.
Buca, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-1762," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Donovan W.
Frank, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:    

         Bryan L. Crawford, Esq. (bcrawford@heinsmills.com)
         Muria J. Kruger, Esq. (mkruger@heinsmills.com)
         Stacey L. Mills, Esq. (smills@heinsmills.com)
         Heins Mills & Olson, PLC
         80 S. 8th St., Ste. 3550,   
         Mpls., MN 55402
         Phone: 612-338-4605
         Fax: 612-338-4692
  
         Jay W. Eng, Esq. (jeng@bermanesq.com)
         Michael J. Pucillo, Esq. (mpucillo@bermanesq.com)
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         222 Lakeview Ave., Ste. 900
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401
         Phone: 561-835-9400   
         Fax: 561-835-0322

              - and -

         Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. (dsommers@cmht.com)
         Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
         Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC – DC
         1100 New York Ave., NW Ste.   
         500, Washington, DC 20005-3934,
         Phone: 202-408-4609
                202-408-4646

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael M. Krauss, Esq. (mkrauss@faegre.com)
         Wendy J. Wildung, Esq. (wwildung@faegre.com)
         Faegre & Benson, LLP
         90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
         Phone: 612-766-8514
         Fax: 612-766-1600


BUCA INC: California Court Gives Preliminary OK to $650,000 Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court, State of California, gave
preliminary approval to the $650,000 settlement of a purported
class action lawsuit against BUCA, Inc.

The suit was filed in January 2008 by one of the company's
former hourly employees.  It alleges causes of action for
failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to provide meal
breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
ensure that paychecks can be cashed without discount, failure to
pay wages at termination, negligent misrepresentation, and
unfair business practices.

On April 23, 2008, the company agreed to settle the matter for a
cash payment of $650,000 to be paid to claimants upon the
earliest to occur of:

       -- March 31, 2009,
       
       -- 30 days following a sale, merger or other business
          combination of the company with another company or

       -- the company  filing a petition for bankruptcy.

The settlement received preliminary approval from the court on
May 7, 2008, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2008.

BUCA, Inc. -- http://www.bucainc.com/-- develops, owns and  
operates a chain of Italian restaurants under the name Buca di
Beppo.  The Company's Buca di Beppo restaurants are full service
restaurants that offer Italian cuisine served in family-style
portions meant for sharing, as well as single portions for
individuals, in an atmosphere that reflects the decor and
ambiance of post-War Italian/American restaurants.  Most recipes
come from the southern region of Calabria, although Buca also
offers northern Italian favorites.  Majority of the Buca di
Beppo restaurants are open seven days a week for lunch and
dinner.  Its dinner-only restaurants typically are open during
the week days, as well as on the weekends.  As of Dec. 30, 2007,
the Company has 90 existing Buca di Beppo restaurants located
across the U.S. in 25 states and in the District of Columbia.


CALIFORNIA: Lawyers Challenge State Compensation Insurance Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two attorneys filed a class-action complaint before the Los
Angeles Superior Court alleging the State Compensation Insurance
Fund refuses to pay interest on attorney fees for worker's
compensation awards and orders, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Kenton Koszdin, Esq., and Gilbert Lipman, Esq.,
practice in Los Angeles and Riverside Counties, respectively.

The plaintiffs demand accounting, a constructive trust,
restitution, and an injunction.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Pejman Ben-Cohen, Esq.
          Novak & Ben-Cohen
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1004
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: 323-651-4222
          Fax: 323-651-4221


CASH SYSTEMS: Faces Nevada Suit Over Global Cash Access Sell-Off
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Systems, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint before
the District Court in Clark County, Nevada, alleging its
directors sold the company too cheaply, via an unfair process,
to Global Cash Access, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a stockholder class action suit brought on behalf of
holders of Cash Systems common stock against the company and
certain officers and directors arising out of defendants efforts
to sell the company to Global.

The complaint states that in pursuing the unlawful plan to
solicit shareholder approval of their proposed sale of Cash
Systems via an unfair process, each of the defendants violated
applicable law by directly breaching or aiding the other
defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due
care, candor, independence, good faith and fair dealing.

The complaint claims that the acquisition is designed to
unlawfully divest Cash Systems' public stockholders of their
controlling interest in the company for grossly inadequate
consideration.  The defendants know that these assets will
continue to produce substantial revenue and earnings.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, separately and
together, in connection with the acquisition, are knowingly or
recklessly violating their fiduciary duties and aiding and
abetting such breaches, including their duties of loyalty, good
faith and independence owed to the plaintiff and other public
shareholders of Cash Systems.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

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

     (b) whether defendants are engaging in self-dealing in
         connection with the acquisition;

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

     (d) whether defendants are unjustly enriching themselves
         and other insiders or affiliates of Cash Systems;

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

     (f) whether the defendants have breached their fiduciary
         duties of candor to plaintiff and the other members of
         the class in connection with the acquisition by
         soliciting shareholder vote in favor of the acquisition
         contract based upon inadequate disclosures;

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

     (h) whether Cash Systems aided and abetted the individual
         defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties; and

     (i) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class
         would be irreparably harmed were the transactions
         complained of are consummated.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

     -- declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a
        class action;

     -- declaring and decreeing that the acquisition agreement
        was entered into breach of the fiduciary duties of
        defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable;

     -- enjoining defendants, their agents, counsel, employees
        and all persons acting in concert with them from
        consummating the acquisition, unless and until the
        company adopts and implements a procedure or process to
        obtain a merger agreement providing the highest possible
        terms for shareholders;

     -- directing defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties
        to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests
        of Cash Systems' shareholders until the process for the
        sale or auction of  the company is completed and the
        best possible consideration is obtained for Cash
        Systems;

     -- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
        acquisition agreement or any of the terms thereof;

     -- imposing a constructive trust, in favor of the plaintiff
        and members of the class, upon any benefits improperly
        received by defendants as a result of their wrongful
        conduct;

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

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

The suit is "Steven R. Staehr, et al. v. Cash Systems, Inc., et
al., Case No. A565593," filed with the District Court in Clark
County, Nevada.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John Aldrich, Esq.
          Black & Lobello
          10777 W. Twain Avenue, #300
          Las Vegas, NV 89135
          Phone: 702-869-8801
          Fax: 702-869-2669


CHEVY CHASE: Seventh Circuit Considers Appeals in "Andrews" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is considering
appeals made by Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B., a subsidiary of B.F.
Saul Real Estate Investment Trust in the matter, "Andrews v.
Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.," which generally alleges violations of
the Truth-in-Lending Act, according to B.F. Saul Real Estate
Investment Trust'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, 2007, in the case of "Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank"
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, the court ruled that the Bank's disclosures relating
to certain residential mortgage loans violated the federal
Truth-in-Lending Act.

The mortgage loans in question have a feature, which permits a
borrower to elect monthly, for up to five years, to make either:

      -- a minimum payment based on a payment rate less than the
         variable interest rate;

      -- a payment equal to all accrued interest;

      -- a fully amortizing payment based on a 15-year term; or

      -- a fully amortizing payment based on the original term
         of the loan ("five year option ARMs").

The case was brought as a class action on behalf of borrowers of
five-year option ARMs for the period April 20, 2004, to the date
of class certification who had received the same disclosure
documents as the named plaintiff.  The court granted class
status to those plaintiffs.

With respect to a remedy, no actual damages were alleged and the
court concluded that the violations did not give rise to
statutory damages.

However, the court said that the affected borrowers were
entitled to be given the option under the TIL Act to rescind
their loans.

The rescission remedy is available only for certain loans that
are secured by a principal residence but were not used to
purchase the residence, principally refinancings.

The court further excluded borrowers who had received a
different version of the TIL disclosure document than had been
received by the Andrews.  The precise parameters and members of
the class will depend upon further court proceedings.

The Bank has appealed the availability of a class-wide
rescission remedy to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, which held oral argument on the matter on September 26,
2007.

Several major bank trade associations have filed a brief
supporting the Bank's position.  

The only two federal courts of appeal that have considered the
question have ruled unanimously that a class wide rescission
remedy is not available.  The question has not yet been
addressed by the Seventh Circuit.

The District Court has suspended further proceedings in the case
pending a ruling on the Bank's appeal.  However, subsequent to
that action, the District Court issued an opinion finding that
the filing of the class action lawsuit tolled the running of the
three-year rescission period under the Truth in Lending Act.

The Bank plans to appeal that ruling, as well as the ruling that
the Bank's disclosures violated the Truth in Lending Act, at the
proper time.

The suit is "Andrews et al. v. Chevy Chase Bank FSB, Case No.
2:05-cv-00454-LA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Lynn Adelman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Michael J. Aprahamian, Esq. (maprahamian@foley.com)
         Foley & Lardner LLP
         777 E. Wisconsin Ave.
         Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300
         Phone: 414-297-5516
         Fax: 414-297-4900

Representing the defendants is:

         Kevin J. Demet, Esq. (KDemet@Sprintmail.com)
         Demet & Demet SC
         815 N. Cass St.,
         Milwaukee, WI 53202
         Phone: 414-291-0800
         Fax: 414-291-9560


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls Pajamas Due to Excessive Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place Retail Stores Inc., of Secaucus, New
Jersey, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 28,000 Camouflage Pajama Sets.

The company said the screen print on the shirt contains excess
levels of lead.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves long- and short-sleeved pajama sets.  The
sets have a blue shirt with a red screen print that reads
"Athletics 90" and coordinating camouflage pants. The pajama
sets were sold in boys’ sizes XXS (2/3) to XL (14).

These recalled pajama sets were manufactured in Vietnam and were
sold exclusively at The Children's Place stores nationwide and
http://www.childrensplace.com/from December 2006 to January  
2008 for between $15 and $17.

Pictures of the recalled pajama sets are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08302a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08302b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the pajama sets from
children and return them to any The Children's Place store for a
full refund.

For additional information, contact The Children's Place at
877-752-2387 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at:
http://www.childrensplace.com/ Consumers can also contact the  
company through this e-mail address:
customerservice@childrensplace.com


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Lawsuit in New York Over MAT Funds
-------------------------------------------------------
Silverman Acampora LLP and Bragar Wexler Eagel & Squire have
filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court State of New
York, New York County, on behalf of investors of the Municipal
Opportunity (MAT) fund seeking damages against Citigroup and its
subsidiary entities including Citi Alternative Investments LLC
for the substantial losses incurred in the investments.

Clients of Silverman Acampora LLP, as investors in Citigroup's
MAT funds, reported that they sustained heavy losses (between
approximately 48% and 85%) in their investments.  Citigroup, in
marketing the funds, compared the funds to relatively safe,
fixed-income investments.

According to investors, Citigroup, its subsidiary entities, and
each of their representatives also touted the investments as low
risk and low volatility for guaranteed income, and stated that
the investors' maximum loss of principal would range only
between 10% and 15%.

Investors of Citigroup's MAT funds are urged to explore legal
options with Silverman Acampora LLP.  Ronald J. Friedman, Esq.,
said, "We would be pleased to confer with any other investors in
the MAT funds.  The class action lawsuits may help recover some
of the substantial losses of the Citigroup fund investors."

For more information, contact:

          Ronald J. Friedman, Esq.
          Silverman Perlstein & Acampora LLP
          100 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: 516-479-6300


CONCORD CAMERA: Fla. Court Still to Approve Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
yet to grant final approval to a proposed settlement in a
consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit against
Concord Camera Corp. and certain of its officers.

The class action complaint was filed in September 2004 against
the company and certain of its officers by individuals
purporting to be holders of the company's common stock.  In
August 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a
former officer of the company as a defendant.  

The lead plaintiff in the amended complaint seeks to act as a
representative of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock from Aug. 14, 2003, to
Aug. 31, 2004, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged
thereby.

On March 23, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and certified as plaintiffs all persons who
purchased the common stock within the proposed class period.

The allegations in the amended complaint are centered around
claims that the company failed to disclose, in periodic reports
it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in
press releases it made to the public during the class period
regarding its operations and financial results:

       -- the full extent of the company's excess, obsolete and
          otherwise impaired inventory;

       -- the departure from the company of the aforementioned
          former officer defendant until several months after
          his departure; and

       -- that Eastman Kodak Co. had notified the company that
          it would stop purchasing cameras from the company
          under its two design and manufacturing services (DMS)
          contracts with the company due to the company's
          alleged infringement of Kodak's patents.

The amended complaint also alleged that the company improperly
recognized revenue contrary to generally accepted accounting
principles due to an alleged inability to reasonably estimate
digital camera returns.  It claimed that such failures
artificially inflated the price of the common stock.  

The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs of suit and unspecified other and further
relief from the court.

Subsequently, the company reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs to resolve the lawsuit and, on Nov. 15, 2007, a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement was filed before the
court.

On April 11, 2008, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement.  A final approval has yet to
be handed down by the court, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008.

The suit is "Mazur, et al. v. Lampert, et al., Case No. 0:04-cv-
61159-JAL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Judge Joan A. Lenard, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
         Berger & Montague, P.C.
         1622 Locust Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
         Phone: 215-875-3071
         Fax: 215-875-4604

              - and -

         Julie Prag Vianale, Esq. (jvianale@vianalelaw.com)
         Vianale & Vianale
         2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Phone: 561-392-4750
         Fax: 561-392-4775

Representing the defendants are:

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

              - and -

         Richard Eugene Brodsky, Esq. (rbrodsky@ssd.com)
         Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
         Wachovia Financial Ctr., 200 S Biscayne Blvd., 40th Fl.
         Miami, FL 33131-2398
         Phone: 305-577-7000
         Fax: 305-577-7001


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Civil Group Sues Over Police Checkpoints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partnership for Civil Justice filed a lawsuit seeking an
injunction against the District of Columbia Police Department's
vehicle checkpoint program, calling the "military-style"
initiative unconstitutional and ineffective, The Associated
Press reports.

According to the AP, the class-action lawsuit was filed in
Federal District Court by the civil liberties group on behalf of
four Washington residents who were stopped at the checkpoints in
the Trinidad area.  

The report relates that the police initiative was in effect for
six days beginning June 7, 2008, after a surge of violence.
Officers checked drivers' identification and turned away those
who did not have a "legitimate purpose" in the area.

The police say that they turned away 46 of over 700 vehicles
that tried to pass through checkpoints, the AP notes.


ELECTROLYTIC ZINC: Motion to Institute Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noranda Income Fund (TSX: NIF.UN) has confirmed that the
Honourable Justice Helene Poulin of the Superior Court of the
province of Quebec has dismissed a motion to institute a class
action suit against its manager, Canadian Electrolytic Zinc
Limited (CEZinc), following the release of sulphur trioxide
(SO3) from the refinery in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield on August 9,
2004.

The Superior Court's judgment confirms the position held by
CEZinc since the beginning, that the class action suit was
unfounded.

The class representative had sought authorization to file a
class action suit in the days following the incident, on behalf
of the individuals who were inconvenienced by the accidental
release of sulphur trioxide.  CEZinc management is satisfied
with the judgment and hopes this will put an end to the
proceedings.  The class representative has 30 days to appeal the
decision.

Since 2004, CEZinc management has reviewed and improved its
communications protocol, and has invested $1.1 million to
improve the control systems at the acid plants and to increase
the number of electronic sulphur surveillance posts.  In 2005,
CEZinc obtained ISO 14 001 certification for environmental
management.

The staff and management at CEZinc are committed to ethical
values by adhering to the strictest norms.  CEZinc remains a
responsible corporate citizen, dedicated to protecting the
environment and respecting its laws. It works closely with
Environment Canada, Quebec's Ministere du Developpement durable,
de l'Environnement et des Parcs and is an involved partner in
sustainable development within the community.

Noranda Income Fund is an income trust whose units trade on the
Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "NIF.UN".  The Noranda
Income Fund owns the CEZinc processing facility and ancillary
assets (the CEZinc processing facility) located in Salaberry-de-
Valleyfield, Quebec.

The CEZinc processing facility is the second-largest zinc
processing facility in North America and the largest zinc
processing facility in eastern North America, where the majority
of its customers are located.  It produces refined zinc metal
and various by-products from zinc concentrates purchased from
mining operations.  The Processing Facility is operated and
managed by Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Xstrata Canada Corporation.


EXCEL DAIRY: Sued in Minnesota Over Hazardous Dairy Fumes
---------------------------------------------------------
The state of Minnesota is suing a Thief River Falls-area dairy
whose hazardous fumes are believed to have violated state
environmental laws and led to the evacuation of nearby
residents, Ryan Schuster writes for Grand Forks Herald.

State Attorney General Lori Swanson and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency filed a joint lawsuit against Excel Dairy and its
parent company, Dirty Dozen LLP, on June 20, 2008, in Marshall
County District Court.  The suit claims that the 1,500-cow dairy
has repeatedly violated state air quality regulations,
environmental laws and feedlot operating permits.

Grand Forks Herald notes that the complaint states that "Excel
Dairy's operations constitute a continuing public nuisance" and
asks the court for a temporary injunction to force the company
to comply with the law and be fined for its violations.

The report says that a July 1 hearing for the suit has been
scheduled in Marshall County District Court in Warren,
Minnesota.

Grand Forks Herald recounts that more than four households in
the area have evacuated after neighbors recorded hand-held air
measurements in the past two weeks showing hydrogen sulfide
levels more than 200 times higher than what state air quality
standards allow.  About 40 residents live within a mile of the
dairy near U.S. Highway 59 north of Thief River Falls.

The attorney general and MPCA's suit claims that continuous air
monitors installed on the dairy's perimeter in May have recorded
185 hydrogen sulfide readings between May 6 and June 15 in
excess of the state's air quality limit of no more than 30 parts
per billion in a half-hour average, no more than twice in a
five-day period.

The suit also claims the MPCA recorded 134 instances of hydrogen
sulfide readings in excess of 50 parts per billion during the
same time period.  No more than two readings of 50 parts per
billion are allowed per season.

Neighbors have complained of symptoms including fatigue, nausea,
vomiting, headaches, blurred vision and shortness of breath, the
report further recalls.  

"Nobody should have to suffer these types of health effects
living on their own property," Ms. Swanson told Grand Forks
Herald.  "This feedlot has clearly not been complying with the
law for quite a while now."

Rick Millner, chief executive officer of Prairie Ridge
Management, which manages Excel Dairy, told the newspaper that
the smell has improved since nearby residents began leaving
their homes more than two weeks ago and said the dairy is
working to improve the smell.

"Their lawsuit is really misguided," Mr. Millner said.  He added
that Excel Dairy is attempting to cooperate with state pollution
control officials and took issue with some of the claims in the
lawsuit.

The report notes that a statement released by the company on
June 20 claimed that the odor does not pose any health threat
and said it expected the lawsuit to be dismissed.  The company
has also offered to pay for meals and motel accommodations for
residents who left their homes as a result of the odor.

Nearby resident Jeff Brouse, however, disputed that the odor has
improved and disputed the dairy's statements, Grand Forks Herald
notes.  He said he wants to see the dairy shut down permanently.

Grand Forks Herald points out that the state allows a 21-day
exemption each year when dairies are agitating or pumping stored
manure, which Excel Dairy has been doing.  Conditions in an
amended permit the dairy received allowing it to add two new
manure storage basins required it to empty and repair its
original lagoon.  The dairy has received two extensions on its
original deadline from the MPCA and is required to complete
repairs by June 30.

The attorney general and MPCA's court filing alleges that Excel
Dairy has not abided by the conditions in its permit by failing
to maintain a crust over its manure storage basins and
depositing manure on top of the lagoons instead of pumping it in
below the liquid level, also hampering the formation of a crust,
the report says.

Last week, the MPCA sent a letter to the dairy's owners
requiring the dairy apply and maintain a thick crust on its
lagoons, stop depositing manure on top of the lagoons, complete
the repairs to the original lagoon by the June 30 deadline and
notify the MPCA of which 21 days in 2008 it is claiming an
exemption from the air quality standards.

The filing also alleges that the dairy has installed an aerator
in at least one of its lagoons, which was not approved by the
MPCA.  It also says that the dairy failed to report violations
of state air quality standards.

In a statement, the dairy said it was working on a "long-term
solution instead of a short-term cover-up."

A July 5 hearing also has been set in a misdemeanor public
nuisance charge brought by Marshall County against the dairy and
Dirty Dozen, the report relates.  The dairy group entered a not
guilty plea to the charge the other week.

Some residents also have joined in a class-action lawsuit
planned against Excel Dairy.

"This is a clear example of toxic air pollution from a factory
farm with a long record of violating air quality standards,"
Julie Jansen of the Clean Water Action environmental group said
in a statement.  "The bottom line is this is illegal.  Excel
Dairy is putting people's health in danger."


FIRST DATA: Plaintiffs in Calif. ATM Fee Suit to Appeal Rulings
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the suit, "In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 4:04-cv-02676-SBA," are seeking to appeal certain court
rulings entered in the case, which names First Data Corp., and
its subsidiary, Concord EFS, Inc., as defendants.

On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla
Martinez filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against First Data, Concord
EFS, and various financial institutions.   

The plaintiffs claim the defendants violated antitrust laws by
conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM fees that were
ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.  They seek a declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and other relief as the nature of the case may
require or as may seem just and proper to the court.  

Five similar suits were filed and served in July, August and
October 2004 -- two in the Central District of Los Angeles,
California; two in the Southern District of New York, and one in
the Western District of Seattle, Washington.   

The plaintiffs sought to have all of the cases consolidated by
the Multi-District Litigation panel.  The panel denied that
request in December 2004 and all cases were transferred to the
Northern District Court of California and assigned to a single
judge.  All cases other than the Brennan case were stayed.

Subsequently, a seventh lawsuit was filed in the District of
Alaska, which was also consolidated with the case before the
Northern District of California.

In Brennan, on May 4, 2005, the court ruled on the defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  The
court did not dismiss the complaint, except for a technical
dismissal of the claims against First Data, Bank One Corp. and
JPMorgan Chase.   

On May 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
clarified the basis for alleging that the holding companies
First Data, Bank One and JPMorgan Chase were liable.   

On July 21, 2005, Concord filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking to foreclose claims arising after Feb. 1, 2001, the date
that Concord acquired the STAR network.   

On Aug. 22, 2005, the Court also consolidated all of the ATM
interchange cases pending against the defendants in the Brennan
suit.  A hearing on Concord's Motion for Summary Judgment was
then held and the Court requested additional briefing.

In November 2006, the Court issued an order that terminated the
pending motion and requested further discovery on the limited
issue of pro-competitive justifications for the fixed ATM
interchange by March 1, 2007.

A hearing was held on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel on
May 23, 2007, at which time the Court directed the defendants to
file a motion for summary judgment.  On June 25, 2007, the Court
entered an order on the Motion to Compel.

On Aug. 3, 2007, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' per se claims, arguing that
there are pro-competitive justifications for the ATM
interchange.  

On March 24, 2008, the Court entered an order granting the
defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, finding that
the claims raised in this case would need to be addressed under
a "Rule of Reason" analysis.

In April 2008, the Court entered an order certifying for appeal
the March 24, 2008 order.  The plaintiffs filed their petition
for permission to appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit on May 2, 2008, according to First Data's May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:04-
cv-02676-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Daniel O. Myers, Esq. (dmyers@rpwb.com)
         Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and Brickman, LLC
         1037 Chuck Dawley, Building A,
         Mt. Pleasant, SC 92464
         Phone: 843-727-6500
         Fax: 843-216-6509

              - and -

         Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. (jsaveri@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heiman & Bernstein, LLP
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000
         Fax: 415-956-1008

Representing the defendants are:

         Buckmaster DeWolf, Esq. (dewolfb@howrey.com)
         Peter Edward Moll, Esq. (mollp@howrey.com)
         Benjamin K. Riley, Esq. (rileyb@howrey.com)
         Brian Wallach, Esq. (wallachb@howrey.com)
         Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP
         301 Ravenswood Avenue
         Menlo Park, CA 94025
         Phone: 650-463-8100


FIRST DATA: Tennessee Court Dismisses Concord EFS Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Shelby County Circuit Court in Tennessee granted a motion
that sought the dismissal of a third amended complaint in a
consolidated securities fraud suit filed against Concord EFS
Inc., a subsidiary of First Data Corp.

On April 3-4, 2003, two purported class action complaints were
filed on behalf of the public holders of Concord EFS's common
stock, excluding shareholders related to or affiliated with the
individual defendants.

The defendants in those actions were certain current and former
officers and directors of Concord.  The complaints generally
alleged breaches of the defendants' duty of loyalty and due care
in connection with the defendants' alleged attempt to sell
Concord without maximizing the value to shareholders to advance
the defendants' alleged individual interests in obtaining
indemnification agreements related to the securities litigation
discussed above and other derivative litigation.

The complaints sought class certification, injunctive relief
directing the defendants' conduct in connection with an alleged
sale or auction of Concord, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts'
fees and other costs and relief the Court deems just and proper.

On April 2, 2003, Barton K. O'Brien filed an additional
purported class-action complaint against the same defendants.

The O'Brien complaint contained allegations regarding the
individual defendants' alleged insider trading and alleged
violations of securities and other laws and asserted that the   
alleged misconduct reduced the consideration offered to Concord
shareholders in the proposed merger between Concord and a
subsidiary of the company.

The complaint also sought class certification, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, costs and other relief the Court deems just and
proper.  

Moreover, the complaint also sought an order enjoining
consummation of the merger, rescinding the merger if it is
consummated and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
to members of the putative class, and directing the defendants
to account to the putative class members for unspecified
damages.

The suits were consolidated.

                      Consolidated Lawsuit

On Sept. 19, 2003, a second amended consolidated complaint was
filed, consolidating the actions under "In Re: Concord EFS, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation," before the Shelby County Circuit
Court.

On Oct. 15, 2003, the plaintiffs in "Concord EFS, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation," sought leave to file a third amended
consolidated complaint to include allegations that the proxy
statement disclosures relating to the antitrust regulatory
approval process were inadequate.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on June 22,
2004, alleging that the claims should be denied and deemed moot
since the merger has occurred.

On Oct. 18, 2004, the Court heard arguments on the plaintiffs'
motion to amend complaint and the defendant's motion to dismiss.  

On Sept. 12, 2006, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
file a third amended complaint.  In early November 2006, Concord
sought to dismiss the third amended complaint.

On June 28, 2007, a hearing was held on Concord's dismissal
motion.  On May 2, 2008, the Court issued an order granting
Concord's motion and dismissing the case, according to First
Data's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

First Data Corp. -- http://www.firstdatacorp.com/-- operates  
electronic commerce, payment services and customer account
management businesses.  FDC has four main business segments:
First Data Commercial Services Segment, First Data Financial
Institution Services Segment, First Data International Segment
and Integrated Payment Systems Segment, and a fifth segment,
known as All Other and Corporate.


GAMING PARTNERS: Seeks Dismissal of "Kaplan" Lawsuit in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gaming Partners International Corp. is seeking the dismissal of
the purported class action suit entitled, "Robert J. Kaplan v.
Gerard P. Charlier, Melody J. Sullivan a/k/a Melody Sullivan
Yowell, David Grimes, Charles T. McCullough, Eric P. Endy,
Elisabeth Carrette and Gaming Partners International
Corporation."

On June 27, 2007, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misstatements and omissions by the company, entitled, "Robert J.
Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P. Endy,
Alain Thieffry, Elisabeth Carrette, Robert J. Kelly, Charles R.
Henry, Laura McAllister Cox and Gaming Partners International
Corporation, Case No. 2:07-cv-00849-LDG-GWF," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, under.

Mr. Kaplan has been designated by the court as lead plaintiff.

On Feb. 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
deleting several of the originally named defendants, and adding
three others.  The action is now captioned, "Robert J. Kaplan v.
Gerard P. Charlier, Melody J. Sullivan a/k/a Melody Sullivan
Yowell, David Grimes, Charles T. McCullough, Eric P. Endy,
Elisabeth Carrette and Gaming Partners International
Corporation."

The defendants, on April 16, 2008, filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The disposition of that motion is currently pending,
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.

Gaming Partners International Corp. -- http://www.gpigaming.com/
-- manufactures and supplies casino table game equipment.  The
Company's business activities include the manufacture and/or
supply of gaming chips, table layouts, wheels, playing cards,
dice, gaming furniture and miscellaneous table accessories,
which are used in conjunction with casino table games, such as
blackjack, poker, baccarat, craps and roulette.  It has three
subsidiaries: Gaming Partners International USA, Inc. (GPI USA),
Gaming Partners International SAS (GPI SAS) and GPI Mexicana
S.A. de C.V. (GPI Mexicana).  GPIC's products are sold to
licensed casinos primarily in the United States and Canada,
under the brand names Paulson, Bourgogne et Grasset (B&G), Bud
Jones and T-K.  The Company has existing production facilities
in Las Vegas, Nevada; San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico, and Beaune,
France.


GSI TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Tolling Agreements in SRAM Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
GSI Technology, Inc., has entered into tolling agreements that
voluntarily dismissed it from certain U.S. and Canadian
antitrust lawsuits regarding static random access memory – SRAM
-- products, according to the company's June 17, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

On Oct. 23, 2006, GSI Technology was served with a civil
antitrust complaint filed by Reclaim Center, Inc., and other
plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California against the company and a number of other
semiconductor companies.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of
indirect purchasers of SRAM products throughout the U.S.  It
alleges that the defendants conspired to raise the price of SRAM
in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the California
Cartwright Act, and several other state antitrust, unfair
competition and consumer protection statutes.

Shortly thereafter, a number of similar complaints were filed by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions on behalf of purported
classes of both direct and indirect purchasers.  The company was
served in some but not all of these subsequent actions.  

Many of these cases have been transferred by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Additionally, the company has also been named in similar class
action suits filed before the Superior Court of Ontario, Canada
and the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada.  

On July 23, 2007, the company entered into agreements with the
lead plaintiffs for the direct and indirect classes with the
U.S. cases under which the company was voluntarily dismissed
from the litigation in exchange for a tolling of the statute of
limitations.  

The plaintiffs have the right to terminate the tolling agreement
and reassert their claims against the company in the future.

On April 23, 2008, the company entered into a similar tolling
agreement with the plaintiffs in the lawsuits pending in Canada.

GSI Technology, Inc. -- http://www.gsitechnology.com/-- is a  
provider of static random access memory (SRAM) products that are
incorporated primarily in networking and telecommunications
equipment, such as routers, switches, wide area network
infrastructure equipment, wireless base stations and network
access equipment.  The Company also serves the ongoing needs of
the military, industrial, test equipment and medical markets for
SRAMs.  GSI Technology, Inc. sells its products to original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers, including Alcatel-
Lucent, Cisco Systems, Huawei Technologies and Nortel Networks.
The Company has developed a variety of SRAMs.  The vast majority
of its products have random access times of nine nanoseconds or
less, while its new products have random access times of less
than five nanoseconds, and clock access times as fast as 0.45
nanoseconds with bandwidth as high as 48 gigabits per second.


HELEN OF TROY: Awaits Final OK to $4.5-Mln. Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has
yet to give final approval to a proposed $4.5-million settlement
in a securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against Helen
of Troy, Ltd.

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Helen of Troy common stock between Oct. 12, 2004, and
Oct. 10, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2008).

The class action is a consolidation of several suits against the
company; Gerald J. Rubin, the company's chairman of the board,
president, and chief executive officer; and Thomas J. Benson,
the company's chief financial officer, on behalf of purchasers
of publicly traded securities of the company.

The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10 (b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, on the grounds that the company and the
two officers engaged in a scheme to defraud the company's
shareholders through the issuance of positive earnings guidance
intended to artificially inflate the company's share price so
that Mr. Rubin could sell almost 400,000 of the company's common
shares at an inflated price.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, interest, fees,
costs, an accounting of the insider trading proceeds, and
injunctive relief, including an accounting of and the imposition
of a constructive trust and asset freeze on the defendants'
insider trading proceeds.

An agreement in principle has been reached to settle the
consolidated class action.  The proposed settlement remains
subject to a number of conditions, including the negotiation of
final settlement documents and court approval following notice
to class members (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2008).

Under the proposed settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed
with prejudice in exchange for a cash payment of $4.5 million.  

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 29, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Helen of Troy, Ltd., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00431-DB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Judge David Briones, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ariel Acevedo, Esq.
         Tower One, 5200 Town Center Circle, #600
         Boca Raton, FL 33486
         Phone: 561-361-5000

              - and -

         Daniel R. Malone, Esq.
         The Malone Law Firm
         300 East Main, #1100
         El Paso, TX 79901
         Phone: 915-533-5000
         Fax: 915-533-5009

Representing the defendants are:

         Nicholas Even, Esq. (nick.even@haynesboone.com)
         Noel M. Hensley, Esq. (noel.hensley@haynesboone.com)
         Haynes Boone, LLP
         901 Main St., Ste. 3100
         Dallas, TX 75202-3789
         Phone: 214-651-5000
         Fax: 214-651-5940
              214-200-0470

              - and -

         H. Christopher Mott, Esq. (cmott@gordonmottpc.com)
         Krafsur Gordon Mott, PC
         4695 North Mesa Street
         El Paso, TX 79912-6103
         Phone: 915-545-1133
         Fax: 915-545-4433


INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Calif. Sup. Court Mulls Review of "Nuanes"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has to decide whether or not it
will review the matter, "Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia
Financial Group, Inc., et al."

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited
partnership units of National Property Investors 5 commenced a
purported class action lawsuit entitled, "Rosalie Nuanes, et al.
v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al.," before the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo.

The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the
Partnership, its managing general partner, NPI Equity
Investments, Inc., a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and
Management Co., and several of their affiliated partnerships and
corporate entities.

The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of
limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of
limited partnerships that are named as nominal defendants,
challenging, among other things:

       -- the acquisition of interests in certain Managing
          General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group,
          Inc., and entities that were, at one time, affiliates
          of Insignia;

       -- past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to
          acquire limited partnership units;

       -- management of the partnerships by the Insignia
          affiliates; and

       -- the series of transactions which closed on Oct. 1,
          1998, and Feb. 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia
          Property Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO.

The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief,
including judicial dissolution of the Partnership.

In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint
captioned, "Heller v. Insignia Financial Group," was filed
against the same defendants that are named in "Nuanes."

The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action,
and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary
duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
judicial dissolution.

On Jan. 28, 2002, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to strike the Heller complaint.  The plaintiffs took an appeal
from this order.

On Jan. 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller
action.

On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the
settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller
matters.

In August 2003, an objector filed an appeal seeking to vacate
and reverse the order approving the settlement and entering
judgment thereto.  On May 4, 2004, the objector filed a second
appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order
requiring objector to pay those fees.

In March 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both
pending appeals.  

With regard to the settlement and the judgment entered, the
Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded to
the trial court for further findings on the basis that the
"state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful
appellate review."

The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21,
2005.  

With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
the order requiring the objector to pay referee fees.  With
respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the
first amended complaint.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the objector and his counsel filed a motion to
disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and
filed a motion to disqualify for cause on Oct. 17, 2005, both of
which were ultimately denied and struck by the trial court.

On Oct. 13, 2005, the objector filed a motion to intervene and
on Oct. 19, 2005, filed both a motion to take discovery relating
to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and
a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with
settlement.  

On Nov. 14, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Further
Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals.
The defendants joined in that motion.  

On Feb. 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters
pending before it and ordered additional briefing from the
parties and the objector.  

On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming
its approval of the class action settlement and entering
judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the
matter for further findings.  

The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain
unchanged.  

The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1,
2006, denying the objector's Motion to File a Complaint in
Intervention, the objector's Motion for Leave of Discovery and
Objector's Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice
of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Court's June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders.  

The matter was argued and submitted and the Court of Appeal
issued an opinion on Feb. 20, 2008, affirming the order
approving the settlement and judgment entered thereto.

On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied Appellant's
Petition for Re-Hearing.  Appellant has until April 1, 2008, to
file a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court.

The matter has been submitted and the parties are awaiting a
decision by the California Supreme Court regarding whether or
not it will accept the matter for review, according to Fox
Strategic Housing Income Partners' May 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: April 24 Mediation Fails to Resolve Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 24, 2008 mediation session failed to resolve a
securities fraud class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Interlink Electronics, Inc., according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit, filed on Nov. 15, 2005, under the caption, "Roger
Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," was brought against the company and two of
its current and former officers.  

The suit alleges that between April 24, 2003, and Nov. 1, 2005,
the company and the individual defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information regarding the company's results of operations and
financial condition.  

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

On Nov. 3, 2006, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs, who
later filed an amended complaint.  The amended complaint
includes claims under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act
and seeks unspecified damages and legal expenses.

In September 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss the operative complaint, filed by the  
defendants.  The lead plaintiffs currently have a May 14, 2008
deadline to file an amended complaint.

On April 24, 2008, the parties participated in a mediation with
Retired Justice Howard B. Wiener in Los Angeles.  The parties
were unable to reach resolution and will continue to litigate.

The suit is "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Percy Anderson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         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

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150

              - and –

         Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
         Roy L. Jacobs and Associates
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Phone: 212-867-1156

Representing the defendants is:

         Daniel S. Floyd, Esq. (dfloyd@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000


KNOLLS ATOMIC: Supreme Court Favors Laid-Off Workers in Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of laid off Knolls Atomic
Power Laboratory workers in the suit, "Meacham v. Knolls Atomic
Power Laboratory," according to The Business Review.

The suit, which was also filed against Lockheed Martin Corp. and
John Freeh, alleged that the companies discriminated against  
employees laid off in 1995.

In 2000, a jury verdict awarded 17 former employees of the  
company nearly $6 million in a case spurred by a December 1995  
layoff that terminated 31 professionals, 30 of whom were over  
the age of 40.

Northern District Judge David Homer ruled then that the layoff  
had a discriminatory impact on older workers, and that officials  
at the nuclear facility willfully refused to rectify the  
situation.

The laboratory appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which  
remanded the case back to the second circuit, and issued a stay  
of its $6-million award for the plaintiffs.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree with the  
2000 verdict (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 25, 2006).  An opinion
written by Judge Dennis Jacobs and joined by Judge Joseph M.
McLaughlin stated that "plaintiffs have failed to carry their
burden of demonstrating that the challenged employment practice
was unreasonable."

The Appeal Court's decision was further appealed.

Recently, in a 7-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor
of Clifford B. Meacham and the other laid off workers in the
case.

Justice David Souter said the court's decision puts "employers
to the work of persuading factfinders that their choices are
reasonable."  He said the ruling "makes it harder and costlier
to defend" against age discrimination lawsuits.

Of the 31 salaried employees laid off in 1995, 30 were at least
40 years old.  Twenty-eight of the laid off workers sued.

Knolls Atomic is a government contractor that works on the
country's fleet of nuclear-powered warships.  KAPL has a history
dating back to the 1950s.


MEDIACOM LLC: Nov. 3 Trial Set for Missouri Landowners' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 3, 2008 trial is scheduled for a purported class action
lawsuit filed in Missouri against Mediacom, LLC, over alleged
trespassing at private lands.

The company is named as a defendant in the putative class action
suit, "Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom, LLC," pending in the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, by which the plaintiffs
are seeking class-wide damages for alleged trespasses on land
owned by private parties.  

The lawsuit was originally filed on April 24, 2001.  Pursuant to
various agreements with the relevant state, county or other
local authorities and with utility companies, the company placed
interconnect fiber optic cable within state and county highway
rights-of-way and on utility poles in areas of Missouri not
presently encompassed by a cable franchise.  

The suit alleges that the company was required, but failed to
obtain permission from the landowners to place the cable.  The
lawsuit has not made a claim for specified damages.   

An order declaring that the action is appropriate for class
relief was entered on April 14, 2006.  The company's petition
for an interlocutory appeal or in the alternative a writ of
mandamus was denied by order of the Supreme Court of Missouri
dated Oct. 31, 2006.  

A trial date of November 3, 2008 has been set for the claim by
the class representatives, Gary and Janice Ogg, according to the
company's May 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Mediacom Communications Corp. -- http://www.mediacomllc.com/--  
is engaged in the acquisition and development of cable systems
serving smaller cities and towns in the U.S.  Through these
cable systems, MCC provides entertainment, information and
telecommunications services to its subscribers.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Court Upholds Replacement Smart-Keys Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California has upheld claims in a nationwide class action
lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, for failure to make
adequate disclosures regarding replacement smart keys or
electronic ignition keys.

In denying, in part, the defendant's motion to dismiss the
action, the Court sustained the plaintiff's allegations that
Mercedes committed one or more acts of unfair or fraudulent
business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., and concealed material
information from consumers.

The Court has not made any finding as to Mercedes' liability.
The parties are now conducting discovery.

Since at least 2001, Mercedes has manufactured vehicles under
its brand names with sophisticated electronic "transponder keys"
or "smart keys."

These keys contain a computer chip or transponder that is
programmed with a PIN code that matches the code in the
vehicle's ignition.  Without this code, a replacement key will
not start the ignition.

For more information, contact:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Weiss & Lurie
          10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-208-2800
                 800-437-7918
          Web site: http://www.weisslurie.com/


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Makes $20M Loan for $16M Settlement Pay-Out
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Healthcare (f/k/a Merge Technologies) has borrowed
$20 million in order to pay the $16-million settlement amount it
promised to pay to resolve consolidated securities class action
suits filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Securities Class Action
Reporter reports.

Between March 22 and April 26, 2006, seven putative securities
class action suits were filed on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired shares of the company's common stock
between Aug. 2, 2005, and March 16, 2006.

The defendants in the suit include the company; Richard A.
Linden, its former president and chief executive officer; and
Scott T. Veech, its former chief financial officer.  One of the
suits also names Brian E. Pedlar, former president of Cedara
Software Corp. and former senior vice president, who served as
interim co-president and co-chief executive officer from July 2,
2006 to Aug. 18, 2006.  One case has been voluntarily dismissed.

The cases arise out of the company's March 17, 2006 announcement
that the company would revise its results of operations for the
fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005, as well
as its investigation of allegations made in anonymous letters
received by the company.  

The lawsuits allege that the company and individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  It seeks damages in
unspecified amounts.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the suits on July 16,
2007.  The plaintiff filed its response brief afterward (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 21, 2008).

In May, Merge Healthcare entered into an agreement in principle
to settle the consolidated securities class-action (Class Action
Reporter, May 26, 2008).

The agreement in principle provides for the settlement, release
and dismissal of all claims asserted against Merge and the
individual defendants in the litigation.  In exchange, Merge
Healthcare has agreed to a one time cash payment of $3,025,000
to the plaintiff and Merge's primary and one of its excess D&O
insurance carriers have agreed to a one time cash payment of
$12,975,000 to the plaintiff, for a total of $16 million.

The settlement is subject to, among other things, the closing of
the financing, the drafting and execution of the
final settlement documents, and the approval of the settlement
by the court.

The suit is "Maiden v. Merge Technologies Inc, et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00349-RTR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
Judge Rudolph T. Randam presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Daniel M. Shanley, Esq.
         DeCarlo & Connor
         533 S. Fremont Ave., 9th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1706
         Phone: 213-488-4100
         Fax: 213-488-4180

              - and -

         Paul J. Geller, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants is:

         David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
         (david.kistenbroker@kattenlaw.com)
         Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
         525 W. Monroe St., Ste. 1900
         Chicago, IL 60661-3693
         Phone: 312-902-5200
         Fax: 312-577-4481


NATURAL HEALTH: Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Texas Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
denied motions that sought the dismissal of a securities fraud
class action lawsuit pending against Natural Health Trends Corp.

On Sept. 11, 2006, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed a putative
class action suit purportedly on behalf of certain purchasers of
the company's common stock to recover damages caused by alleged
violations of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit names the company and certain current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  

On Dec. 20, 2006, the court granted an unopposed motion to
designate The Rosen Law Firm P.A. as lead counsel.  

On Feb. 20, 2007, the named plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.  

On March 26, 2008, the District Court denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-01654," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404
  
         Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
         The Hinton Law Firm
         350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 646-723-3377
         Fax: 212-202-3827

              - and -

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm
         350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Fax: 214-202-3827


NU HORIZONS: Plaintiffs Mull Appeal of California Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against Nu
Horizons Electronics Corp. and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Titan Supply Chain Services Corp., which suit was recently
dismissed, have not yet determined whether they will appeal the
case.

The suit was commenced by a group of Vitesse shareholders on or
about Oct. 4, 2007.  Specifically, the consolidated class action
complaint for securities fraud, which was later amended, was
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
California by Louis Grasso, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated against:

     -- Vitesse Semiconductor Corp.,

     -- Louis Tomasetta,

     -- Yatin Mody,

     -- Eugene F. Hovanec,

     -- Silicon Valley Bank,

     -- Nu Horizons Electronics Corp.,

     -- Titan Supply Chain Services, Corp. (formerly Known as
        Titan Logistics Corp.), and

     -- KPMG LLP.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Nu Horizons
and Titan violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks
rescission or unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class
which purchased Vitesse common stock during the period from
Jan. 27, 2003, to and including April 27, 2006.  

As of Feb. 29, 2008, a class has not been certified.  The
complaint against Nu Horizons was dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have not determined whether they will appeal that
ruling, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Feb. 29, 2008.

Nu Horizons Electronic Corp. -- http://www.nuhorizons.com/-- is  
engaged in the distribution of, and supply chain services for,
high technology active and passive electronic components.


PACIFIC CYCLE: Recall Merry-Go-Rounds Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Cycle Inc., of Madison, Wis., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
15,000 Playsafe Spinning Quad Merry-Go-Rounds.

The company said the inner bearing on the merry-go-round can
fail, causing the seat assembly to suddenly drop to the ground.
This poses a fall hazard to children riding the merry-go-round.

Pacific Cycle has received one report of an injury involving the
merry-go- round, which resulted in a fall and abrasions to a
child.

The Playsafe Spinning Quad Merry-Go-Round has four yellow
plastic seats and black and silver metal bars.

These recalled merry-go-rounds were manufactured in China and
were being sold exclusively by Toys R Us nationwide between
January 2008 through March 2008 for between $80 and $100.

A picture of the recalled merry-go-rounds is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08305.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the merry-go-round
away from children and return it to Toys R Us for a full refund,
or contact Pacific Cycle to receive a free retrofit kit.

For additional information, contact Pacific Cycle toll free at
877-564-2261 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at:
http://www.pacific-cycle.com/


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Answers Second Amended Complaint in Md. Matter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. (Piedmont REIT), f/k/a/ Wells
Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (Wells REIT), answered the
second amended complaint filed in the matter, "In Re Wells Real
Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation Case No.
1:07-cv-00862-CAP."

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a
purported class action suit and derivative complaint, "Washtenaw
County Employees Retirement System v. Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc., et al." before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells REIT,
and the officers and directors of Wells REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf
of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
         fees.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an
order enjoining the internalization transaction.  

The court then granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
and the case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on
April 24, 2007.  In June 2007, the court granted a motion to
designate the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which contains the same counts as the original complaint, with
amended factual allegations based primarily on events occurring
subsequent to the original complaint and the addition of a
Piedmont officer as an individual defendant.

On March 31, 2008, the court granted in part a motion by the
defendants to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court
dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in
their entirety.  The court dismissed the remaining two counts
with the exception of allegations regarding the company's
failure to disclose in its proxy statement details of certain
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain
approval for Internalization omitted details of certain
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind
Internalization, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to
the defendants as consideration for Internalization.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered the second complaint,
according to Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.'s May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge
Charles A. Pannell, Jr, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com)
         Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq. (mcates@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Lead Plaintiff & Lead Counsel Named in Ga. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
designated a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel in the matter,
"In Re Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-02660-CAP."

The purported class action suit was filed on Oct. 25, 2007, by a
Piedmont Office Realty Trust Inc. stockholder before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the
company and its board of directors.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf
of:

       -- those persons who were entitled to tender their shares
          pursuant to the tender offer filed with the SEC by
          Lex-Win Acquisition LLC on May 25, 2007, and

       -- all persons who are entitled to vote on the proxy
          statement filed with the SEC on Oct. 16, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated
thereunder.  

In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed classes.

On Dec. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking that the
court designate it as lead plaintiff and its counsel as class
lead counsel, which the court granted on May 2, 2008, according
to Piedmont Office Realty Trust's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Piedmont Office Trust Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-02660-CAP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge
Charles A. Pannell, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com)
          Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, PA 19041-0100
          Phone: 215-642-8500

          Meryl W. Edelstein, Esq. (MEdelstein@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700

Representing the defendants is:

          J. Timothy Mast, Esq. (tim.mast@troutmansanders.com)
          Troutman Sanders, LLP-ATL
          Suite 5200, Bank of America Plaza
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-885-3312
          Fax: 404-962-6796


POMEROY IT: Faces Ky. Lawsuit Over Stock Acquisition Proposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., is facing a purported class action
lawsuit filed before the Commonwealth of Kentucky Boone Circuit
Court in connection with a proposal that sought to acquire all
of the outstanding common stock of the company, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 5, 2008.

On April 9, 2008, the company filed a report on SEC Form 8-K
reporting that its board of directors received a letter from
David B. Pomeroy, II, a director of the company and its largest
stockholder, proposing to acquire, with Charlesbank Equity Fund
VI, LP, all of the outstanding common stock of the company not
owned by him for a price of $7.05 per share and that the non-
binding indication of interest was referred to a special
committee for review and consideration.    

On May 6, 2008, a purported class-action complaint was filed in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky Boone Circuit Court against the
company, each of its directors and two executive officers.  
Charlesbank Equity Fund VI Limited Partnership and Charlesbank
Capital Partners LLC were also named as defendants in the
lawsuit.  

The action was brought by Kenneth Hanninen, an alleged Pomeroy
shareholder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated.  It alleges, among other things, that the directors
and officers of the company are in breach of their fiduciary
duties to shareholders in connection with the offer letter that
the company received from Mr. Pomeroy.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief to
enjoin the company, its directors and named executive officers
from consummating the acquisition proposed by Mr. Pomeroy and
Charlesbank Equity Fund VI, LP, along with attorneys' fees and
costs.   

Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.pomeroy.com/-- is an  
information technology solutions provider with a portfolio of
hardware, software, technical staffing services, as well as
infrastructure and lifecycle services.  Pomeroy delivers IT
services to enterprise clients, mid-size businesses, and state
and local government entities.  The Company's markets include
Fortune 2000 companies, medium sized business, state and local
governmental agencies and educational institutions and vendor
alliance customers.  These customers fall into government and
education, financial services, health care and other sectors.  
Pomeroy's clients are located throughout the U.S., Midwest,
Southeast, and Northeast.


PRESSTEK INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.H.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Presstek, Inc., continues to face a purported securities fraud
class action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampshire, according to the company's May  
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008.

In October 2006, the company and two of its former executive
officers were named as defendants in a purported securities
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire.  The suit claims to be brought on
behalf of purchasers of the ompany's common stock during the
period from July 27, 2006, through Sept. 29, 2006.  

The suit alleges, among other things, that the company and the
other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on
allegedly false forecasts of fiscal third quarter and annual
2006 revenues.

As relief, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, but make no allegation as to losses incurred by any
purported class member, court costs and attorneys' fees.

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

The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire, Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St., Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617 439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

               - and -

          Mark L. Mallory, Esq. (mark@malloryandfriedman.com)
          Mallory & Friedman PLLC
          8 Green St., Concord, NH 03301
          Phone: 603-228-2277

Representing defendants is:

          Robert E. McDaniel, Esq. (remcdanielesq@aol.com)
          McDaniel Law Offices
          755 North Main St.
          Laconia, NH 03246
          Phone: 603-527-0520
          Fax: 603-279-0540


SAN DIEGO CORRECTIONAL: ACLU Suit Settles Overcrowding Problem
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Homeland Security and the for-profit company
that manages the San Diego Correctional Facility agreed to keep
the number of immigration detainees housed at the lockup within
its design capacity, XETV FOX6 San Diego reports.

According to FOX6, the agreement, which is subject to court
approval, would settle a class-action lawsuit filed by the
American Civil Liberties Union claiming that chronically severe
overcrowding at the correctional facility was unconstitutional
and placed detainees' health and safety at risk.

The lawsuit, filed in January 2007, addressed the practice of
long-term overcrowding at the San Diego facility.

When the lawsuit was filed, the report recounts, more than 650
immigration detainees at the facility were living three-to-a-
cell, resulting in one of them having to sleep on a plastic slab
on the floor by the toilet.  Additional detainees slept on bunk
beds in the recreation area, driving the population of some
housing units to more than 50 percent over design capacity,
according to the ACLU.

"This agreement is a step toward justice for a particularly
vulnerable constituency of people who have no right to appointed
counsel," David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU Foundation
of San Diego and Imperial counties, told FOX6.  "Detaining these
people in crowded, unsafe conditions for months or years on end
is perverse and inhumane and should never be acceptable," he
added.

The report points out that the SDCF is one of the largest
immigration detention facilities in the country and at one point
housed about 1,000 detainees under the custody of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, which is under the umbrella of the
Department of Homeland Security.

The Corrections Corporation of America, the nation's largest
for-profit prison company, manages the facility under a contract
with ICE, FOX6 relates.

Today's agreement, if approved by the court, will help ensure
that the population at SDCF will not exceed capacity by
requiring CCA to demonstrate three times between now and January
that it is keeping the facility's population with design
capacity, FOX6 notes.

The ACLU's complaint charged that both ICE and CCA were
responsible for the widespread practice of packing three
detainees into cells designed for two.

Lauren Mack, a spokeswoman for ICE, gave a statement after the
agreement was announced.  "Despite its settlement in this, ICE
makes no admission of wrongdoing, and maintains that the agency
houses the immigration-detainee population -- including those
housed at the San Diego facility -- in a safe and secure
environment that is in compliance with national compliance
standards."

Ms. Mack said both sides agreed to pay their own attorneys fees
in the case.


STERLING CHEMICALS: Plan Administrator Denies Claims in "Evans"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The administrator of Sterling Chemicals Inc.'s Chapter 11 plan
denied the plaintiffs' claims in the matter, "Evans, et al. v.
Sterling Chemicals, et al., Case No. H-07-0625," which is a
purported class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the company.

On Feb. 21, 2007, the company received a summons naming it as a
defendant in the class action complaint.  The plaintiffs
comprising the proposed class are employees and retired
employees of Sterling Fibers, Inc., one of the company's former
subsidiaries that was sold in connection with its Plan of
Reorganization in 2002.  

The plaintiffs allege that the company was not permitted to
increase their premiums for retiree medical insurance based on a
provision contained in the asset purchase agreement between the
company and Cytec Industries Inc., governing its purchase of
Sterling Chemicals' former acrylic fibers business in 1997.  

At the time of Sterling Chemicals' bankruptcy, it specifically
rejected this asset purchase agreement.   

The plaintiffs are also asserting claims for breach of contract
and claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
are seeking damages, declaratory relief, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.  

The parties have taken minimal discovery to date.  The
plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment and for class
certification related to their claims for denial of benefits
under the company's retiree medical plans.

The parties have fully briefed the issues and the motions are
pending before the court.

However, the court has stayed all proceedings while the
plaintiffs pursue administrative remedies under the terms of the
company retiree medical plans.

On April 23, 2008, the administrator of the company's
reorganization plan denied the plaintiffs' claims under the
terms of the company's retiree medical plans, 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 "Evans, et al. v. Sterling Chemicals, et al., Case  
No. H-07-0625," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ronald Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
          (mweber@davis-davislaw.com)
          Davis & Davis, 1301 McKinney, Ste. 3500
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: 713-781-5200
          Fax: 713-781-2235


STOCKERYALE INC: N.H. Court Approves $3.4MM Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire gave
final approval to the $3,400,000 settlement of a securities
fraud class action lawsuit filed against StockerYale, Inc.,
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.

Beginning in May 2005, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire against the company; Mark Blodgett,
the company's president, chief executive officer and chairman of
the board of directors; Lawrence Blodgett, a former director;
Frances O'Brien, former chief financial officer; Richard
Lindsay, former chief financial officer; and Ricardo Diaz, the
company's former chief operating officer, purportedly on behalf
of some of the company's shareholders (Class Action reporter,
Aug. 31, 2007).

The class consists of all persons who acquired any common stock
of Stockeryale during the period from April 19, 2004, through
May 24, 2005, inclusive.

The complaints, which assert claims under the Exchange Act,
allege that some disclosures in company press releases dated
April 19, 2004, and April 21, 2004, were materially false or
misleading.  They seek unspecified damages, as well as interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

The three complaints were consolidated into one action and
assigned to a single federal judge.  The court also appointed a
group of lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel, who recently
filed a consolidated amended complaint to supersede the
previously filed complaints.  Mr. Lindsay is no longer named as
a defendant in the amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On Jan. 31, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss all claims asserted against the company in the
consolidated amended complaint.  The court ruled on Sept. 29,
2006, in the plaintiffs' favor.

On June 26, 2007, a settlement agreement between the company and
the lead plaintiffs in the class action was submitted to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire for
approval.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, which would resolve
all claims asserted against the company and the individual
defendants, the plaintiffs would receive $3.4 million, to be
paid entirely by the company's insurance carrier.

On Aug. 21, 2007, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement and directed the plaintiffs' counsel to provide
notice of the proposed settlement to members of the class by
mail and newspaper publication.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment
in the class action lawsuit, which provided final approval of
the settlement agreement and dismissed all claims of the members
of the class against the company and the individual defendants
with prejudice.

The suit is "In re StockerYale, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 1:05cv00177-SM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, Judge James R.
Muirhead, presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm PA
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/

Representing the company is:

          Douglas C. Doskocil, Esq.
          (ddoskocil@goodwinprocter.com)
          Goodwin Procter, LLP, (MA)
          Exchange Place, 53 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109-2881
          Phone: 617-570-1000


ULTA SALON: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., is facing a
consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit that is
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, according to the company's June 16, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2008.

In December 2007 and January 2008, three putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the company and
certain of its current and then-current executive officers.

Each suit alleges that the prospectus and registration statement
filed pursuant to the company's initial public offering
contained materially false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material facts.

Each suit claims violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and the two later filed suits
added claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the associated Rule
10b-5.

On March 18, 2008, the suits were consolidated and plaintiffs in
the action, "Mirsky v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:2007cv07083," were appointed lead plaintiffs.  

The lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in May 2008,
alleging no new violations of the securities laws not asserted
in the prior complaints.  It adds no new defendants and drops
one of the then-current officers as a defendant.  

The suit is "Mirsky v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:2007cv07083," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Robert W.
Gettleman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori Ann Fanning, Esq. (LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com)
          Miller Law LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-332-3400
          Fax: 312-676-2676

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq. (cgilden@cmht.com)
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-357-0370
          Fax: 312-357-0369

               - and -

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          The Wanamaker Building
          100 Penn Square East, Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-561-3600

Representing the defendants is:

          Sean M. Berkowitz, Esq. (sean.berkowitz@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins LLP (IL)
          233 South Wacker Drive
          5800 Sears Tower
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-876-7700
          Fax: 312-993-9767


VEDA ADVANTAGE: Court Nixes Suit Over Flawed Reporting System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nine individuals failed in their attempt to mount a class action
suit against credit reporting agency Veda Advantage based on
claims that its reporting system had flaws that caused hardship
to credit applicants, The Sheet reports.

According to The Sheet, the federal court said that Veda has no
case to answer on the basis of the claims made by the nine
applicants.

The report relates that the applicants may appeal against the
court's ruling and there are a number of individual cases being
brought against Veda, but it is unlikely that a class action
will go ahead.

The Sheet says that Sydney law firm Gerard Malouf and Partners
has been representing the applicants who filed claims in the
Federal Court in March 2007, alleging that their credit files
contained listings of default or bankruptcy when they did not
satisfy the criteria for such listings.  All claimed damages
against Veda for misleading and deceptive conduct, negligence
and defamation.

The report says that at the heart of the action was an argument
that the credit reporting agency had a flawed data management
process.  

Veda relies on an "honour system" to ensure that credit
providers and other subscribers to its service get it right when
they update credit files, The Sheet explains.  The applicants
assert that the use of such a system does not meet Veda's
obligations under the Credit Reporting Code of Conduct, which is
issued under section 18 of the Privacy Act and which requires
that credit reporting agencies take steps to ensure that
personal information on files is accurate.

According to the applicants' claims, Veda did not have a system
in place for ensuring accuracy, nor did it do any checking of
subscriber listings.

The court found that pleadings under section 52 of the Trade
Practices Act did not apply to the circumstances of the case.     
It ruled that the claim of negligence could not be proven
because Veda had no duty of care to the applicants.


ZORAN CORP: California Court Approves Backdating Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California gave preliminary approval to a settlement
that will hand the company $3.4 million to bring an end to a
derivative suit filed over options-granting practices, Bailey
Somers of Securities Law 360 reports.

Previously, the judge denied the original settlement proposed in
the derivative options backdating suit against Zoran Corp.

Under the original settlement proposal presented to the court in
April, the agreement would not have given any cash to Zoran.
Rather, the deal would have canceled certain options owned by
the three individual defendants in the case, worth a total of
$1.65 million.

Judge Alsup refused to approve the first settlement, finding
that the deal did not adequately benefit the company.  "The
essence of the problem is that the proposed consideration for
the settlement falls short of even its purported value," the
judge wrote in his refusal.

"The proposed settlement would confer so little value on the
corporation that it could only be approved by showing that the
suit is virtually worthless.  No such showing has been made."

The original settlement proposal would not have given any cash
to Zoran. Rather, the deal would have canceled certain options
owned by the three individual defendants in the case, worth a
total of $1.65 million.

The plaintiffs counsel in the case would have received
$1.2 million in fees and expenses, which would have been "the
only cash involved in the settlement," the judge said.

However, under an order handed down on June 12, shareholders,
who sued on behalf of Zoran, will receive $3.4 million, $395,000
of which will be paid by executives implicated in the backdating
scandal.  Zoran's insurance company will put up the rest of the
settlement funds.

Of the cash paid by the executives, Zoran CEO Levy Gerzberg will
pay $296,250 and Zoran Chief Financial Officer Karl Schneider
will pay $98,750.  In addition, both executives will either
cancel or reprice stock options for a total of $256,920 in
repricings and $482,310 in cancellations.

In an effort to address an issue raised by the judge in his
denial of the first settlement proposal, the new settlement also
stipulates that "lead plaintiff's counsel will seek only its
actual costs through entry of final judgment, estimated to be
less than $500,000, and will limit its fee request for work
performed by lead plaintiff's counsel to no more than
$1,000,000.'

Based in Sunnyvale, Calif., Zoran Corp. develops and market
integrated circuits and related products used in digital
versatile disc players, movie and home theater systems, digital
cameras and video editing systems.


* The Notary Advocate LLC Has 2 New Latest Additions To Arsenal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Notary Advocate, LLC, has been helping the Notary Signing Agent
(NSA) get more work and assists them with collections at
http://www.NotaryAdvocate.com/

President, Ryan Edwards, states, "We take away the guesswork
regarding what companies to sign up with.  We also take away the
endless searching and data entry."  By completing one form the
NSA is entered into 150 leading Notary searches.

Now the NSA that would like to recommend a non-paying company
for a Notary Class Action Lawsuit can go to
http://www.NotaryClassAction.com/and enter the company's  
information free of charge.

Notary Advocate, LLC offers a collection assistance plan but if
that is not enough they are assisting with the next step. Notary
Class Action company heads clearly state that they are not a law
firm, nor do they give any legal advice.  The purpose of the
site is to create one central location allowing the NSA to
recommend companies that have taken advantage of them.  Notary
Class Action compiles the information and when there have been
enough valid complaints regarding a given company, the
individual notaries will be contacted and matched with a
qualified attorney.

Their other new site is http://www.AllLocationNotary.com/  
Notary Advocate, LLC representatives tout the difference of this
new locater.  They offer a free listing as well as the
opportunity to be listed based on knowledge & experience.  We
are told there will be points assigned to certain proofs of
knowledge and experience.

"This will not only ensure the experienced NSA is not lost
behind a slew of new Notaries that pay to be at the top of a
list but it will assist the companies looking for the cream of
the crop NSA as well," says Mr. Ryan.

The site is up and they encourage interested notaries to get
listed.  The locater is not active yet but they are not asking
for any money.  They just advise the interested NSA to be
entered so that they are ready come launch day.

Notary Advocate, LLC says they have many other Notary assistance
tools planned.  With their slogan "Helping The Average Notary
Signing Agent Become Great" they proclaim their determination to
assist and protect the NSA.

For more information, contact:

          Ryan M. Edwards
          President
          Notary Advocate, LLC
          Phone: 909-797-3663
          e-mail: Info@NotaryAdvocate.com


* Senator Cornyn Pushes for U.S. Securities Class Action Reforms
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Senator John Cornyn is set to speak to the Federalist
Society about a legislation he has introduced aimed at
preventing plaintiffs' attorneys from giving their clients
kickbacks for filing lawsuits, Legal Newsline reports.

According to the report, Senator Cornyn, a Texas Republican,
will address the Federalist Society on June 25, 2008, in
Washington.

Legal Newsline points out that Senator Cornyn introduced the
Securities Litigation Attorney Accountability and Transparency
Act on May 19, 2008, the same day disgraced attorney William
Lerach, formerly of the law firm of Milberg LLP, began his two-
year prison sentence for his role in a $25- million illegal
kickback scheme.

The senator said the bill will help "ensure that the lawyer for
shareholder plaintiffs in securities class action lawsuits truly
and faithfully represents the interests of the entire class, and
not just their own interests and those of the large investors
who are the lead plaintiffs."

The report relates that the legislation, outlined in Senate Bill
3033, would require the disclosure of payments between attorneys
and clients, the competitive bidding as a factor for the
selection of lead counsel, and a congressional study to
determine appropriate attorneys fees.

Legal Newsline notes that prosecutors said Mr. Lerach's firm
raked in $251 million in fees from cases in which the firm's
lawyers illegally paid kickbacks to clients who file lawsuits
claiming they suffered a loss because corporate executives
misled them about a company's financial condition.

Among corporations targeted were AT&T Inc., Lucent, WorldCom,
Microsoft Corp. and Prudential Insurance, the report points out.

"As recent events have shown, current securities litigation laws
have been subject to abuse, and there is reason to believe this
criminal activity may not be limited to just a few bad actors,"
Senator Cornyn said in a statement when introducing his
proposal.  "It is important that corporations be held
accountable through securities fraud litigation when they cheat
ordinary shareholders out of their hard-earned money."

"But it is equally important that attorneys be held accountable
when they do the same thing.  The recent securities litigation
kickback scandals ought to spur Congress to action," the senator
added.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BEAR STEARNS: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 2, 2008, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all current and
former employees of The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., whose
compensation, in part, was in the form of restricted stock units
and capital accumulation plan units, issued to the current and
former Bear Stearns employees pursuant to the Company's
Restricted Stock Unit Plan and Capital Accumulation Plan, and
whose rights to either Restricted Stock Units and CAP Units were
vested, thus providing them a present entitlement to be paid and
credited an equivalent number of shares of Bear Stearns common
stock upon settlement at the end of a deferral period between
December 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008, inclusive.

The suit was filed against the Company and certain officers and
directors, alleging fraud pursuant to pursuant to Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. ss.ss. 78j(b) and
78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC (17
C.F.R. ss. 240.10b-5) (the Class).

Bear Stearns proudly promoted a culture of circled wagons -- "an
us against them camaraderie ingrained in the belief that Bear
Stearns' employees success was not based on their birthright or
pedigree, but a superior work ethic."  As part of the effort to
unify the employees and mold a particular culture, the Company
paid a significant portion of its employees' compensation in
Company Stock.  Some estimates indicate that nearly one-third of
the firm is employee owned (as of March 17, 2008).  These same
employees suffered at least a $5 billion loss over the last year
as the Company's stock plunged and then was acquired by JP
Morgan Chase & Co. at the rock bottom price of $10 per share.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive, but false or misleading
press releases, statements and financial reports filed with the
SEC that purported to describe Bear Stearns' financial
performance and results.  These statements were materially false
and misleading and, as a result, Bear Stearns stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $171.51 per share in January 2007.

Beginning in late June 2007, however, Bear Stearns' efforts to
deceive the investing public began to unravel.  In late June,
the Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC commenced an
inquiry into a Bear Stearns operated hedge fund that invested in
credit instruments.  That fund, as well as another, ultimately
filed for bankruptcy protection.

Bear Stearns nonetheless continued to misrepresent and downplay
the seriousness of its problems.  On August 3, 2007, the Company
issued a press release that tried to put a positive spin on
Standard & Poor's decision to change the Company's outlook
premised upon concerns with the Company's BSAM hedge funds.

On August 5, 2007, the Company announced a management shake-up
that included the ouster of defendant Warren Spector.

On January 4, 2008, Reuters reported that the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of New York was interviewing
investors in the two failed Bear Stearns' hedge funds.

On March 10, 2008, information began to leak into the market
about Bear Stearns' liquidity problems, causing Bear Stearns
Stock to drop $7.98, to close at $62.30 per share.  On the same
day, MarketWatch reported on how Bear Stearns' executives began
to "spin" the Company's crisis into a non-event that they could
control absent extraordinary measures.  Despite defendant Alan
Greenberg's efforts, the article went on to discuss how ratings
agencies were viewing the situation and how the Company's
liquidity position was under pressure.

On March 12, 2008, Bear Stearns' President Alan Schwartz, also a
defendant in this action, reaffirmed Bear Stearns' financial
position and liquidity by stating that Bear Stearns has more
than $17 billion in excess cash on its balance sheet.  He also
affirmed Bear Stearns' book value of $80 per share and further
indicated that analysts' estimates of substantial profits for
the most recently ended quarter were accurate.

On March 13, 2008, however, after the market closed news broke
that Bear Stearns was forced to seek emergency financing from
the Federal Reserve and J.P. Morgan Chase.

On Sunday, March 16, 2008, J.P. Morgan announced that it reached
an agreement to purchase Bear Stearns for $2 per share, or about
$236 million.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Daniel W. Krasner, Esq.
          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/


FIFTH THIRD: Wolf Haldenstein Files Ohio Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP along with Strauss &
Troy of Cincinnati, Ohio, filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, on
behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Fifth
Third Bancorp from October 19, 2007, through June 17, 2008,
inclusive against the Company and Kevin T. Kabat, the Company's
president and chief executive officer, alleging violations under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. ss.ss. 78j  and
78t(a) and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17
C.F.R. ss. 240.10b-5.

This action is also brought on behalf of a sub-class of Class
members who purchased $750,000,000 (in aggregate liquidation
amount) of 7.25% Trust Preferred Securities, liquidation amount
$25 per security, which were registered pursuant to an automatic
shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (SEC File Nos. 333-
141560 and 333-141560-03) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 26, 2007, (the Trust Preferred Securities),
the sale of which to investors was in an initial public offering
which became effective on or about October 25, 2007, Fifth Third
Capital Trust VI (NYSE: FTB-PB or FTB/PB), seeking to pursue
remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
15 U.S.C. ss.ss. 77k and 77l.

The Securities Act claim is also bought against:

     -- the underwriters of Fifth Third Capital Trust VI
        preferred securities, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.;

     -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated;

     -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated;

     -- UBS Securities LLC.;

     -- Banc of America Securities LLC; and

     -- Credit Suisse Securities LLC.

The Complaint asserts that during the Class Period, FITB issued
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
quality of the Company's Tier 1 capital, the relevant ratios and
sufficiency of its Tier 1 capital, the necessity to take net
charge-offs stemming from increasing credit losses, and the need
to shore up capital due to the Company's exposure to poorly
performing real estate markets in the Mid-West region.

This Complaint further alleges that Trust Preferred Securities
were sold to the investing public in the Offering pursuant to a
Prospectus that negligently omitted material information.  The
statements made in the Company's Prospectus contained material
omissions because, at the time of the Offering, FITB was already
suffering from several adverse factors that were not revealed
and adequately addressed in the document.  The omitted
information included, but is not limited to, failure to
disclose:

     (a) the Company's exposure to certain poorly performing
         real estate markets, including Florida, Ohio, and
         Michigan, and the extent to which this exposure was
         materially increasing;

     (b) the Company's growing exposure to late payments and
         defaults on mortgages and other non-performing loans,
         and the extent to which this exposure was materially
         increasing;

     (c) the extent of the decline in the quality of the
         Company's Tier 1 capital base;

     (d) the deteriorating credit trends and increasing
         expenses, including negative trends, in the Company's
         consumer loan portfolio, including the extent of the
         increase in late payments and defaults;

     (e) the negative trends in the Company's home equity and
         commercial construction loans, and the extent to which
         there was a decrease in the value of the underlying           
         assets and an increase in late payments and defaults
         and

     (f) the deterioration in the credit quality of its loans.

The Defendant Kevin T. Kabat, the Company's president and chief
executive officer, and FITB's underwriters could have -- and
should have -- discovered the material misstatements and
omissions in the Company's Prospectus prior to its filing with
the SEC and distribution to the investing public.  They,
instead, failed to do so as a result of a negligent and grossly
inadequate due diligence investigation.

Certain of the adverse factors affecting FITB's business were
first revealed on June 18, 2008, before the market opened.  At
that time, the Company issued a press release stating that it
was forced to cut its quarterly dividend by 66.0%, to 15 cents
from 44 cents a share, and had to sell non-core businesses for
at least $1.0 billion in extra capital.  The Company also stated
it planned to raise $1.0 billion through an offering of
convertible preferred shares, which would prove dilutive to
common shareholders.

The Company further stated that earnings would be reduced by a
provision expense expected to be between $350.0 million and
$375.0 million greater than net charge-offs for the second
quarter.  "Our bottom line results won't meet our expectations.
We are not satisfied with these results and know that they are
as disappointing to investors as well," the Company said.
The Company also revised its capital targets to an 8.0% to 9.0%
range for its Tier 1 capital ratio and projected a second-
quarter Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, which includes the impact
of its First Charter acquisition and related accounting
adjustments.  The projection did not, however, include a
possible reduction of 20 basis points from charges on earnings
related to leveraged leases in the second quarter.

The Company now expects 2008's ratio of reserves to loans and
leases to exceed 2.0% and anticipates an even higher ratio in
2009.

These disclosures caused the Company's common stock to decline
27%, to close on June 18, 2008 at $9.26 per share on very heavy
volume.  The Company's stock had traded as high as $28 per share
in February, 2008.

The Trust Preferred Securities also traded sharply lower and
closed at $16.35 per share, 34% below their October 2007
offering price.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 19,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Robert B. Weintraub, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/


FIFTH THIRD: Strauss & Troy Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Strauss & Troy discloses that a class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
Fifth Third Bancorp between October 19, 2007, and June 17, 2008,
inclusive against Fifth Third and Kevin T. Kabat, president and
chief executive officer.

This action is also brought on behalf of a sub-class of Class
members (the Sub-Class) who purchased $750,000,000 (in aggregate
liquidation amount) of 7.25% Trust Preferred Securities,
liquidation amount $25 per security, which were registered
pursuant to an automatic shelf registration statement on a Form
S-3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 26, 2007.

The claims of the Sub-Class are brought against:

     -- the underwriters of Fifth Third Capital Trust VI
        preferred securities, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.;

     -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated;

     -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated;

     -- UBS Securities LLC.;

     -- Banc of America Securities LLC; and

     -- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the
quality of Fifth Thirds Tier 1 capital, the relevant ratios and
sufficiency of its Tier 1 capital, the necessity to take net
charge-offs stemming from increasing credit losses, and the need
to shore up capital due to its exposure to poorly performing
real estate markets in the Mid-West region.

As a result of these materially false and misleading statements
and omissions, plaintiffs allege that the price of Fifth Third's
securities were artificially inflated during the Class Period.

On June 18, 2008, the Company disclosed certain of the adverse
factors of FITB's business and announced that it would slash its
quarterly dividend and its earnings would be as little as 1 to 5
cents a share for the second quarter.

In addition, the Company said it would sell subsidiaries and
issue preferred stock to raise $2 billion.  These disclosures
caused Fifth Third's common stock to decline 27%, to close on
June 18, 2008 at $9.26 per share on very heavy volume.  The
Company's stock had traded as high as $28.00 per share in
February, 2008.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all those that
purchased or otherwise acquired Fifth Third's securities during
the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq. (rswayne@strausstroy.com)
          Joseph J. Braun, Esq. (jjbraun@strausstroy.com)
          Matthew R. Chasar, Esq.
          Strauss & Troy
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 800-669-9341
                 513-621-2120






                            *********

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  * * *