CAR_Public/080625.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, June 25, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 125
  
                            Headlines

ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE: Individual Defendants Still Face Merger Suit
ALLPHONES: Franchisees May Sue Over Withheld Commission Payments
ALLTEL CORP: Ark. & Del. Lawsuits Deal Yet to Receive Final OK
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Certification Record in Wage Lawsuit Filed
BASSETTBABY: Recalls Cribs Posing Entrapment Hazard

BIGBAND NETWORKS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Faces Several Lawsuits in N.Y. Over 2007 IPO
CABLE TV: Judge Mulls Fate of Antitrust Lawsuit in California
CARE INVESTMENT: Wants N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
CHAMPION LABORATORIES: Faces Lawsuit in Canada Over Filters

CONSTAR INT'L: Pa. Court Stays Proceedings in Securities Lawsuit
DUKE ENERGY: Briefing Ongoing in Appeal Katrina-Related Suit
DUKE ENERGY: Discovery Continues in Ohio Air Pollution Lawsuit
EFH CORP: Reaches Settlement for Multiple Merger-Related Suits
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Expert Witness Says Rules Required Secrecy

FINANCIAL SECURITY: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Bidding of GICs
KMART: Ashley Peach Drops 52-Cents Gift Card Suit in Illinois
LIFE INVESTORS: Cheats on "Actual Charges", Miss. Suit Claims
LML PAYMENT: Subsidiary Still Faces DPPA Violations Suit in Tex.
NETMANAGE INC: Faces California Lawsuit Over Micro Focus Merger

RIVER VALLEY: Working to Settle Indiana Suit Over Pre-Need Trust
ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls Hammer Drills Due to Risk of Injury
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Demurrers Filed in California Shareholder Suit
SPAIN: Brits Begin Fight to Reclaim Millions from Spanish Gov't.
SS&C TECH: Plaintiffs Oppose Fee Petition in Carlyle Merger Case

TRADEWINDS INTL: Recalls RC Helicopters Posing Fire, Burn Risks
TRAILER BRIDGE: Sued in Fla. & Puerto Rico Over Pricing Practice
U-HAUL CO: Agent Seeks Damages for Malicious Prosecution
UNITED COMPONENTS: Faces Multiple Suits Over Aftermarket Filters
ZIBA BEAUTY: Beauty Salon Chain Exploits Workers, Suit Claims

* One of U.S.A.'s Largest Trial Firm Adds 2 Litigators in Dallas


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

EVERGREEN ULTRA: Page Perry Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
FIFTH THIRD: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE: Individual Defendants Still Face Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit that was originally filed against Abraxis BioScience,
Inc. -- formerly American Pharmaceutical Partners Inc. -- in
connection with the company's merger with American BioScience,
Inc., continues to proceed as a putative class action solely
against the individual defendants.

In December 2005, several stockholder derivative, and class
action lawsuits were filed against the company, its directors
and ABI in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to the
merger.  The company is a nominal defendant in the stockholder
derivative actions.

The lawsuits allege that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by causing the company to enter
into the merger agreement and for not providing full and fair
disclosure to stockholders regarding the recently completed
merger which allegedly caused the value of the shares held by
the company's public stockholders to be significantly
diminished.  

They seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages
and the recession of the merger.

On April 18, 2006, Abraxis BioScience completed the merger with
American BioScience, pursuant to the terms of an Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated Nov. 27, 2005.

The company has moved to dismiss the derivative claims filed on
its behalf, and certain of the director-defendants have moved to
dismiss some of the claims alleged against them.

In May 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the derivative
and unjust enrichment claims, and the action is proceeding as a
putative class action solely against the individual defendants.

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

Abraxis BioScience, Inc. -- http://www.abraxisbio.com/--   
formerly American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. is a
biopharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and
markets injectable pharmaceutical products.  It manufactures
products in each of the three basic forms, in which injectable
products are sold: liquid, powder and lyophilized, or freeze-
dried.  The Company has two business segments: Abraxis
BioScience, representing the combined operations of Abraxis
Oncology and Abraxis Research, and Abraxis Pharmaceutical
Products, representing the hospital-based operations.


ALLPHONES: Franchisees May Sue Over Withheld Commission Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allphones is facing a backlash from its franchisee network and
could be slapped with a class action lawsuit after it was found
guilty of "calculated dishonesty" and "continuing deceit"
against franchisees, NEWS.com.au reports.

According to NEWS.com, The Weekend Australian has learned that
about 30 franchisees met on June 6 to discuss the possibility of
bringing a class action suit against Allphones for withholding
commission payments.  

Allphones could face a payout of tens of millions of dollars,
the report notes.  Specifically, the retailer could be forced to
pay out a lump sum of more than AU$11.25 million to its
remaining retailer network, after the Federal Court awarded
Sydney Allphones franchisee Hoy Mobile AU$75,169 arising out of
Allphones' conduct.

The report relates that Allphones is already under investigation
by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for a
range of alleged breaches of agreements with its franchisees.  
The ACCC has alleged that Allphones did not honor promises to
its franchisees that it would share gross profits with them,
operate its business as a partnership and work to maximize
returns for itself and its franchisees.

Allphones CEO Matthew Donnellan and two other Allphones
executives are also the subject of individual actions by the
ACCC.

In an email obtained by The Weekend Australian, NEWS.com says,
Mr. Donnellan explained to staff that attempts to terminate the
franchisees were merely aimed at protecting customers and the
Allphones business.

In a written judgment, judge Steven Rares said Mr. Donnellan
knew that the true commission amounts were being concealed from
franchisees.

A directions hearing for the ACCC case has been set down for
July 18, according to NEWS.com.


ALLTEL CORP: Ark. & Del. Lawsuits Deal Yet to Receive Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement proposals in class action lawsuits filed against
ALLTEL Corp. in Arkansas and Delaware in connection with a
merger agreement that the company entered into with affiliates
of private investment funds TPG Partners V, L.P. and GS Capital
Partners VI Fund, L.P. (Sponsors), have yet to receive final
approval.

On May 20, 2007, ALLTEL entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Atlantis Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company and Atlantis Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Atlantis.  

Under the terms of the Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with
and into ALLTEL, with ALLTEL surviving the merger as a wholly  
owned subsidiary of Atlantis.  Merger Sub and Atlantis are
affiliates of the Sponsors.

Later on, ALLTEL, its directors, and in certain cases the
Sponsors, were named in 16 putative class action complaints
alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting such alleged breaches arising out of the proposed sale
of ALLTEL.  

Eight of the complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, and were subsequently consolidated
into one class action complaint for breach of fiduciary duty.   

The other eight complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and were also consolidated into one complaint.

Among other things, the complaints in the Arkansas and Delaware
actions allege that:

       -- ALLTEL conducted an inadequate process for extracting
          maximum value for its shareholders, including
          prematurely terminating an auction process by entering
          into a merger agreement with Atlantis on May 20, 2007,
          despite previously setting June 6, 2007, as the
          outside date for submitting bids;

       -- the ALLTEL directors are in possession of material
          non-public information about ALLTEL;

       -- the ALLTEL directors have material conflicts of
          interest and are acting to better their own interests
          at the expense of ALLTEL's shareholders, including
          through the vesting of certain options for Scott Ford,
          the retention of an equity interest in ALLTEL after
          the merger by certain of ALLTEL's directors and
          executive officers, and the employment of certain
          ALLTEL executives, including Scott Ford, by ALLTEL (or
          its successors) after the merger is completed;

       -- taking into account the current value of ALLTEL stock,
          the strength of its business, revenues, cash flow and
          earnings power, the intrinsic value of ALLTEL's
          equity, the consideration offered in connection with
          the proposed merger is inadequate;

       -- the merger agreement contained provisions that will
          deter higher bids, including a $625.0 million
          termination fee payable to the Sponsors and
          restrictions on ALLTEL's ability to solicit higher
          bids;

       -- that ALLTEL's financial advisors, JPMorgan Securities
          Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., and
          Stephens Inc. have conflicts resulting from their
          relationships with the Sponsors; and

       -- that the preliminary proxy statement filed by ALLTEL
          with the SEC on June 13, 2007, failed to disclose
          material information concerning the merger.  

The complaints seek, among other things, class action status, a
court order enjoining ALLTEL and its directors from consummating
the merger, and the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 19, 2007, the parties in the shareholder litigation
entered into a memorandum of understanding contemplating the
settlement of the litigation.  

Shareholders of ALLTEL who are members of the class expected to
be certified in the shareholder litigation will receive written
notice of the terms of the proposed settlement.  

Among other things, the memorandum of understanding provides
that:

       -- the termination fee payable under certain
          circumstances by ALLTEL to Atlantis is waived to the
          extent it exceeds $550 million;

       -- certain additional disclosures were made in the proxy
          statement filed with the SEC on July 24, 2007, asking
          shareholders to approve the merger transaction; and

       -- shares personally owned by Scott Ford and Warren
          Stephens were voted in the same proportion in favor,
          against and abstaining as all votes cast other than
          with respect to such shares at the special
          shareholders' meeting held on Aug. 29, 2007.

ALLTEL also agreed that, at a regularly scheduled meeting of its
board of directors on July 19, 2007, the board would request and
receive oral advice from JPMorgan and Merrill Lynch concerning
whether they had learned of any matter that would cause them to
withdraw or modify their fairness opinions.   

At the board of directors' meeting, J.P. Morgan and Merrill
Lynch advised the board that, taking into consideration the
types of factors and analyses considered in rending their
May 20, 2007 opinions, they were aware of no matter, during the
period from May 20, 2007, to July 19, 2007, that would cause
them to withdraw or modify their fairness opinions.  

Certain provisions of the proposed settlement and the memorandum
of understanding are subject to court approval, which is
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.

ALLTEL Corp. -- http://www.ALLTEL.com/-- provides an array of  
wireless communication services to individual and business
customers.


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Certification Record in Wage Lawsuit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Fulawka, who launched a proposed national class action
lawsuit against The Bank of Nova Scotia in December 2007 for
unpaid overtime, filed her certification record in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on June 20, 2008.

Ms. Fulawka is suing the Bank for $250 million in general
damages for unpaid overtime and for $100 million in punitive
damages.  The proposed class action suit covers thousands of
current and former non-management, non-unionized employees of
the Bank who are or were personal or small business bankers
working at the Bank's retail branch offices across Canada.

Ms. Fulawka is a personal banking representative who has worked
in several of the Bank's branches in Saskatchewan and Ontario
for almost 20 years.  In support of her request to certify her
claim as a class action, Ms. Fulawka has filed six affidavits
from current or former employees of the Bank from across Canada,
including her own, all of whom allege that they were required to
work unpaid overtime by the Bank in order to meet their basic
job requirements.

Ms. Fulakwa said, "I was certain that I wasn't the only person
who was forced to work for free.  I'm encouraged that other
personal banking officers came forward in support."

The evidence filed by Ms. Fulawka includes that class members
had to work over lunch and before and after hours regularly in
order to meet their sales targets.  In one case, an affiant
explains that he was actually demoted by the Bank after
complaining about his unpaid overtime.

In addition to the evidence from her co-workers, Ms. Fulawka has
filed three affidavits from experts on issues such as the
prevalence of unpaid overtime in the workplace, the
ineffectiveness of the enforcement provisions of the Canada
Labour Code (to which the Bank is subject), and the possibility
of determining liability and damages on a class-wide basis
through the use of statistical evidence.

Lead counsel for Ms. Fulawka and the putative class members are
Roy Elliott O'Connor LLP and Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP.  The
firms are joined by a team of law firms across the country who
will ensure that class members in all provinces are represented.

This action is the second largest employment-related class
action ever undertaken in Canada.  The first was launched by
Dara Fresco in June of last year against CIBC, also for unpaid
overtime.  REO and SGM are counsel in the CIBC action as well.
While The Bank of Nova Scotia lawsuit is entirely new, it
alleges many of the same types of problems relating to unpaid
overtime as in the CIBC claim.  SGM and REO are also lead
counsel in an overtime class action against CN Rail launched in
April.

Douglas Elliott, Esq., a partner at REO said that "The problem
of personal banking officers and other sales-oriented employees
working unpaid overtime has been a chronic problem in the U.S.
for years.  The evidence we have filed suggests that this
problem also exists in Canada."

Louis Sokolov, Esq., a partner at SGM said that "The affidavits
of class members disclose a long-standing and systemic practice
of unpaid overtime at Scotiabank and a corporate culture in
which employees must focus on meeting sales irrespective of
whether these can be achieved within an employee's regular hours
of work."

Mr. Elliott added, "I'm not surprised that we have had such a
great response to these two actions given what we are being told
about the treatment of these workers.  One of our affiants told
us that on after-hour "call nights" employees weren't paid or
given dinner.  Instead, $20 gift certificates to Harvey's and
Swiss Chalet were given to employees who booked the most client
appointments on call nights."

Mr. Elliott noted, "Offering someone a $20 fast food coupon is a
poor substitute for paying the overtime the law requires."

Mr. Sokolov added, "The Canada Labour Code clearly states that
the class members must be paid for overtime that is required or
permitted by the employer in excess of eight hours per day or 40
hours per week.  If an employer gets the benefit of an
employee's overtime, the employer must pay for it."

More information about Bank of Nova Scotia unpaid overtime suit
can be found at: http://www.unpaidovertime.ca/


BASSETTBABY: Recalls Cribs Posing Entrapment Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
Bassettbaby, of Bassett, Va., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 550 Wendy
Bellissimo Hidden Hills Collection Cribs.

The company said the space between the spindles on some cribs
can fail to meet federal standards and can pose an entrapment
hazard to infants.

Bassettbaby has received no reports of incidents or injuries.

This recall involves a full-size crib from the Wendy Bellissimo
Hidden Hills collection, model number 5446-0521.  The model
number is located on the bottom rail of the headboard.  The crib
was sold in a Navajo Pine finish.

These recalled cribs were manufactured in China and were being
sold by Babies "R" Us stores nationwide from November 2007
through February 2008 for about $500.

A picture of the recalled cribs is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08581.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the crib immediately and
contact Bassettbaby to schedule an in-home inspection of the
crib.  Recalled cribs will be replaced.  The firm has contacted
consumers directly.

For additional information, contact Bassettbaby at 866-618-5446
between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET Monday through Sunday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.bassettbaby.com/


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
BigBand Networks, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Since Oct. 3, 2007, several purported shareholder class action
complaints were filed against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering.  One of these suits was subsequently dismissed.

The lawsuits allege that the company officers and directors made
false or misleading statements to investors in connection with
the company's initial public offering and that its registration
statement and prospectus contained false or misleading
statements regarding its business prospects.

The plaintiffs purport to represent anyone who purchased the
company's common stock in the initial public offering, or
purchased the company's common stock between March 14, 2007, and
Sept. 27, 2007.

The lawsuits assert causes of action for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages.

In February 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed 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 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re BigBand Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:2007cv05101," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. (reed@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          Fax: 510-725-3001

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael Carl Tu, Esq. (mtu@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          777 S. Figueroa St., Ste 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-629-2020
          Fax: 213-612-2499


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Faces Several Lawsuits in N.Y. Over 2007 IPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blackstone Group L.P. is facing several purported class action
lawsuits before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

In April and May 2008, four substantially identical complaints
were brought before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Blackstone; its chairman and chief
executive officer, Stephen A. Schwarzman; and its chief
financial officer, Michael A. Puglisi.

These suits purport to be class actions on behalf of purchasers
of Blackstone common units in the company's June 21, 2007
initial public offering and claim that the prospectus for the
initial public offering was false and misleading for failing to
disclose that certain investments made by Blackstone private
equity funds were performing poorly at the time of the initial
public offering and were materially impaired.

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

The Blackstone Group L.P. -- http://www.blackstone.com/-- is a  
global alternative asset manager and provider of financial
advisory services.  It is an independent alternative asset
manager with assets under management of $102.43 billion, as of
Dec. 31, 2007.  Its alternative asset management businesses
include the management of corporate private equity funds, real
estate funds, funds of hedge funds, mezzanine funds, senior debt
vehicles, hedge funds and closed-end mutual funds.  The Company
also provides various financial advisory services, including
corporate and mergers and acquisitions advisory, restructuring
and reorganization advisory, and fund placement services.  It
operates in four business segments, including Corporate Private
Equity, Real Estate, Marketable Alternative Asset Management and
Financial Advisory.  On March 3, 2008, the Company acquired GSO
Capital Partners LP and certain of its affiliates.


CABLE TV: Judge Mulls Fate of Antitrust Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christina Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California said on June 16, 2008, that she
will mull the consumer lawsuit challenging cable and satellite
providers' unwillingness to let subscribers buy pay TV
programming on a channel-by-channel, the Reed Business
Information reports.

In 2006, satellite and cable TV giants faced a class-action
antitrust complaint filed Sept. 20 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California accusing the companies of
conspiring to restrict competition between content providers and
distributors by offering only prepackaged, bundled programs and
refusing to offer cable programs a la carte (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 26, 2007).

The complaint named as defendants:

          -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
          -- Viacom Inc.,
          -- The Walt Disney Company,
          -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
          -- Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
          -- Comcast Corporation,
          -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
          -- Cox Communications, Inc.,
          -- The DirecTV Group, Inc.,
          -- Echostar Satellite LLC,
          -- Charter Communications, Inc.,
          -- Cablevision Systems Corp.

According to the complaint, the bundling conspiracy restrains
trade, suppresses and eliminates competition, fixes and elevates
prices and forces consumers to pay hundreds of millions of
dollars for channels they do not want.

This lawsuit challenges the collective conduct of defendants
which was eliminated, in material part, competition among and
between the content providers and programmers for
cable/satellite television distribution and the cable and
satellite providers by the practice of offering only prepackaged
tiers of bundled programs and refusing to offer cable
programming to consumers on an "a la carte" basis.

The class action sees to terminate the practice of offering
consumers only bundled or prepackaged bundled tiers and to
require programmers and cable providers to offer channels on an
"a la carte" or individual choice basis.

The plaintiffs brought this action under Sections 4 and 16 of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26, for treble
damages, injunctive relief, costs of suit and a reasonable
attorneys' fee, against defendants for the injuries sustained by
plaintiffs and class members by reason of defendants' violations
of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2.

They brought this action as a class action pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all persons residing in
the United States who subscribe to "expanded basic cable"
provided by one of the cable television or direct broadcast
satellite television provider defendants within four years of
the date of the filing of the complaint.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants have engaged in collaborative
         activity to preclude cable/satellite subscribers from
         securing "a la carte" programming apart from "basic"
         cable service;

     (b) whether, as a result of the antitrust violation as set
         forth in the complaint, plaintiffs and the class are
         entitled to damages, equitable relief or other relief,
         and the amount and nature of such relief;

     (c) whether defendants acted on grounds generally
         applicable to the class, making injunctive relief
         appropriate;

     (d) whether a class can be certified pursuant to
         Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3); and

     (e) whether, alternatively, a class can be certified
         pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).

The plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, pray:

     -- that this matter be certified as a class action with the
        class defined set forth in the complaint under
        Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), or in the alternative
        Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), and that the named plaintiffs be
        appointed class representatives and their attorneys be
        appointed class counsel;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants, and each of
        them jointly and severally, for the treble damages as a
        result of defendants' violations of Section 1 and 2 of
        the Sherman Act, and that plaintiffs be awarded a
        reasonable attorneys' fee and the costs of suit as
        required by Section 4 of the Clayton Act;

     -- that the court enter an order requiring defendants, and
        each of them, to immediately cease the wrongful conduct
        as set forth in the complaint and specifically enjoining
        defendants from unlawfully bundling expanded basic cable
        channels and ordering defendant cable providers and
        direct broadcast satellite providers to notify their
        subscribers that they each can purchase "a la carte"
        (separately) except for "basic cable"; and

     -- for such other and further relief as to the court may
        seem just and proper.

The named plaintiffs are:

          -- Rob Brantley,
          -- Darryn Cooke,
          -- William and Beverly Costley,
          -- Christiana Hills,
          -- Michael B. Kovac,
          -- Michelle Navarrette,
          -- Timothy J. Stabosz,  
          -- Joseph Vranich

In a motion filed by the content providers and distributors,
attorneys assert that antitrust law is meant to prevent large
providers from colluding in order to keep smaller companies out
of a line of business.  The complaint does not demonstrate that
any company has been kept out of business; in fact, attorneys
arguing before Snyder noted that Discovery Networks, which was
not sued, but is affiliated with defendant DirecTV, successfully
distributes as many channels as Disney.

Furthermore, independent channels benefit from bundled
programming because they are placed in expanded basic tiers
where they are more likely to be viewed and thrive, according to
the motion by the companies.  Consumers are not injured by
programming pacts, the attorneys argued.  If anyone has grounds
for a case for damages, it's distributors, stated Arthur Burke,
an attorney for Comcast who argued before Snyder on behalf of
the sued cable and satellite companies.

On June 16, however, Judge Snyder said that she will mull the
case further but added she is not persuaded by the motion by
defendants who argued on procedural grounds that attorneys for
the consumers have not made a proper claim for the court to
adjudicate.

Judge Snyder said some of the arguments against the amended
complaint raised by the defendants are issues to be determined
at a trial, not in a motion to dismiss. She promised a ruling on
that motion soon.

The suit is "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al., Case No. CV07-06101," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
          David W. Kesselman, Esq.
          (dkesselman@blechercollins.com)
          Blecher & Collins, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334
          Phone: 213-622-4222
          Fax: 213-622-1656


CARE INVESTMENT: Wants N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Care Investment Trust, Inc., is asking the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a purported
securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against the company.

The suit was filed on Sept. 18, 2007, alleging that the
registration statement relating to the initial public offering
of shares of Care Investment Trust's common stock, filed on
June 21, 2007, failed to disclose that certain of the assets in
the contributed portfolio were materially impaired and
overvalued and that Care was experiencing increasing difficulty
in securing its warehouse financing lines.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the court entered an order appointing co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  On Feb. 19, 2008, the co-lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint citing additional
evidentiary support for the allegations asserted in the
complaint.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 22,
2008.  

The suit is "Briarwood Investments, Inc., et al. v. Care
Investment Trust Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-08159," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Judge Louis L. Stanton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0853
          Fax: 212-883-7053

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

              - and -

          Jack Gerald Fruchter, Esq.
          (JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants is:

          Andrew David Kaizer, Esq. (akaizer@mwe.com)
          McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP
          340 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-547-5400
          Fax: 212-547-5444


CHAMPION LABORATORIES: Faces Lawsuit in Canada Over Filters
-----------------------------------------------------------
Champion Laboratories, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of United
Components, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit in
Canada over aftermarket filters, according to United Components'
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The company, but not United Components, was named one of five
defendants in a class action suit filed in Quebec, Canada, on
April 25, 2008, entitled, "Jean-Paul Perrault v. Champion Labs.
et al."  

This complaint alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian
Competition Act and violations of the obligation to act in good
faith (contrary to art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related
to the sale of aftermarket filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five
defendants in the amount of $5.0 million in compensatory damages
and $1.0 million in punitive damages.

The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter
proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been
ruled on.  There is an initial court return date of August 29,
2008.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,  
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The Company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 31, 2007, were made to vehicle
replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided
into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and
original equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up
40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for
cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management
products.


CONSTAR INT'L: Pa. Court Stays Proceedings in Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
stayed all proceedings in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit filed against Constar International, Inc.

The company and certain of its present and former directors,
along with Crown Holdings, Inc., as well as various
underwriters, were named defendants in the consolidated putative
securities class action suit, captioned "In re Constar
International Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-
05020."

This action is a consolidation of two complaints:

     1. "Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et
        al., Case No. 03-5020," filed on Sept. 5, 2003; and

     2. "Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 03-5166," filed on Sept. 15, 2003.

A consolidated and amended complaint, filed June 17, 2004,
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the company's initial public offering of its common stock on
Nov. 14, 2002 contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants in these lawsuits
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  They
seek class-action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit.

The court has previously denied the company's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
as well as the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On May 7, 2007, the Special Master issued a Report and Order
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
company filed objections to the Report and Order.  

The Court later overruled the company's objections, adopting the
Special Master's Report and Order, and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On March 18, 2008, the company filed a Rule 23(f) Petition in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking leave to
take an immediate appeal from the class certification ruling.

On April 30, 2008, the Third Circuit entered an Order granting
the company's Rule 23(f) Petition.  The Third Circuit has not
yet issued a briefing schedule for the class certification
appeal.

At the company's request, the Special Master has agreed to stay
all further proceedings before the District Court pending the
outcome of the appeal, with the exception of certain limited
discovery, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge
Edmund V. Ludwig, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Stephanie M. Beige, Esq. (beige@bernlieb.com)
        Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
        10 East 40th Street
        New York, NY 10016
        Phone: 212-779-1414

        Andrew J. Brown, Esq. (andrewb@lcsr.com)
        Milberg Weiss Berghad Hynes & Lerach, LLP
        401 B. Street, STE. 1700
        San Diego, CA 92101
        Phone: 619-231-1058

             - and -

        Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbclasslaw.com)
        Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
        280 King of Prussia Road
        Radnor, PA 19087
        Phone: 610-667-7706

Representing the defendants are:

        Steven B. Feirson, Esq. (steven.feirson@dechert.com)
        Michael L. Kichline, Esq. (michael.kichline@dechert.com)
        Scott A. Thompson, Esq. (scott.thompson@dechert.com)
        Dechert, Price & Rhoads
        1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
        Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
        Phone: 215-994-2749
               215-994-2390
        Fax: 215-994-2222


DUKE ENERGY: Briefing Ongoing in Appeal Katrina-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing is ongoing in the purported class action lawsuit,
captioned "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,"
which is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.  The suit names Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as a
defendant

Duke Energy Indiana, which is an Indiana corporation organized
in 1942, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp., which
itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp.  

The company is a vertically integrated and regulated electric
utility that provides service in north central, central, and
southern Indiana.  Its primary line of business is generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity.

On April 19, 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy Corp. were named in
a third amended complaint of the purported class action suit,
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.  The plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy
and Cinergy, along with numerous other utilities, oil companies,
coal companies and chemical companies, are liable for damages
relating to losses suffered by victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants' greenhouse gas
emissions contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms
such as Hurricane Katrina.

In October 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy were served with this
lawsuit.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the court dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs
have filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.  

Briefing is ongoing in the Fifth Circuit, according to Duke
Energy Indiana'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 "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          F. Gerald Maples, Esq. (federal@geraldmaples.com)
          Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
          (mmayberry@geraldmaples.com)
          F. Gerald Maples, PA
          902 Julia Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Phone: 504-569-8732

              - and -

          Randall Allan Smith, Esq. (rasmith3@bellsouth.net)
          Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. (smwiles@smithfawer.com)
          Smith & Fawer
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-525-2200
          Fax: 504-525-2205


DUKE ENERGY: Discovery Continues in Ohio Air Pollution Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
alleging violations of the Clean Air Act by Duke Energy Ohio,
Inc.

Duke Energy Ohio, which is an Ohio corporation organized in
1837, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp., which
itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp.  The
company is a combination electric and gas public utility company
that provides service in the southwestern portion of Ohio and
through Duke Energy Kentucky, in nearby areas of Kentucky.  
Its principal lines of business include generation, transmission
and distribution of electricity, the sale of and transportation
of natural gas, and energy marketing.

A citizen of the Village of Moscow, Ohio, the town adjacent to
the company's Zimmer Station filed the suit in November 2004.
The case seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief against
the company for alleged violations of the CAA, the Ohio State
Implementation Plan, and Ohio laws against nuisance and common
law nuisance.

The plaintiffs have filed a number of additional notices of
intent to sue and two lawsuits raising claims similar to those
in the original claim.  One lawsuit was dismissed on procedural
grounds, and the remaining two have been consolidated.  

On Dec. 28, 2006, the District Court certified the consolidated
case as a class action.  Discovery in the case continues.

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

The suit is "Freeman v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., Case No.
1:04-cv-00781-SJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Judge Susan J. Dlott, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Paul Alley, Esq. (palley@graydon.com)
         John Charles Greiner, Esq. (jgreiner@graydon.com)
         Graydon Head & Ritchey
         2500 Chamber Center Drive, P.O. Box 17070, Suite 300
         Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017
         Phone: 859-282-8800

Representing the company are:

         Louis Francis Gilligan, Esq. (lgilligan@kmklaw.com)
         Keating Muething & Klekamp
         One E Fourth Street, Suite 1400
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-579-6400
         Fax: 513-579-6523

              - and -

         Ariane Johnson
         Cinergy Services, Inc.
         1000 East Main Street
         Plainfield, IN 46168


EFH CORP: Reaches Settlement for Multiple Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
EFH Corp. reached a settlement deal for several lawsuits in
connection with a merger agreement that the company entered into
and completed in Oct. 10, 2007, according to Energy Future
Holdings Corp.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

                       Merger Agreement

On Oct. 10, 2007, EFH Corp. completed its merger with Texas
Energy Future Merger Sub Corp., a unit of Texas Energy Future
Holdings Limited Partnership, which is a Delaware limited
partnership controlled by the Sponsor Group -- investment funds
affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., TPG Capital,
L.P. and Goldman Sachs & Co. -- which is the parent of EFH Corp.

As a result of the merger, EFH Corp. became a subsidiary of
Texas Holdings, which is controlled by the Sponsor Group, and
substantially all of the outstanding shares of common stock of
EFH Corp. were converted into the right to receive $69.25 per
share.

                       Federal Lawsuits

Two putative class and derivative lawsuits and one derivative
lawsuit were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas in March 2007 against EFH Corp. -- as a
nominal defendant -- its former directors, and the Sponsor Group
arising out of the Merger Agreement.

On April 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints
asserting only derivative claims against the same defendants.
The lawsuits sought to enjoin the Merger Agreement.

The cases alleged that the former directors violated various
fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement and the
Sponsor Group aided and abetted that alleged conduct.

The plaintiffs contended that the former directors violated
fiduciary duties owed to shareholders by failing to maximize the
value of EFH Corp. and by breaching duties of loyalty and due
care by not taking adequate measures to ensure that the
interests of shareholders were properly protected.

The Merger Agreement allowed EFH Corp. to solicit other
proposals from third parties until April 16, 2007, and the
transaction was subject to the approval of the company's former
shareholders, which was obtained at the annual meeting of
shareholders on Sept. 7, 2007.

Accordingly, EFH Corp. and its former directors filed motions to
dismiss based on the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the
provisions of the Texas Business Organizations Code applicable
to filing and pursuing derivative proceedings.

The motions are pending before the Court.  No further action has
been taken by the parties, and the Court has not yet ruled upon
the Written Statement and Application, given the memorandum of
understanding executed by the parties on July 23, 2007, and the
proposed settlement.

                State Court Derivative Lawsuits

In February and March 2007, three derivative lawsuits were filed
in Dallas County state district courts arising out of the Merger
Agreement.

The suits, filed by putative shareholders, allege that EFH
Corp.'s former directors breached fiduciary duties owed EFH
Corp. by approving the Merger Agreement.

The petitions, now consolidated into one action in the 44th
District Court, Dallas County, Texas, include claims that the
defendants failed to ensure that the transaction was in the best
interest of EFH Corp.; that the former directors participated in
a transaction where their loyalties were divided and where they
were to receive a personal financial benefit; that such alleged
conduct constituted a breach of their duties of care, loyalty,
good faith, candor and independence owed to EFH Corp.; and that
the Sponsor Group aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the directors.

EFH Corp. believes that the plaintiffs failed to comply with
provisions of the TBOC applicable to filing and pursuing
derivative proceedings and filed a Motion to Dismiss that is
pending before the Court.

Additionally, EFH Corp. filed a Written Statement with the Court
advising that, pursuant to the TBOC, a Derivative Demand
Committee of independent and disinterested former members of EFH
Corp.'s board of directors has been formed and is engaged in the
active review, in good faith, of the allegations in the
consolidated derivative lawsuits.

EFH Corp. also requested that the Court enforce the automatic
and mandatory stay of the proceedings as provided in the TBOC
until the Derivative Demand Committee has completed its review.

On May 16, 2007, the parties agreed to stay the consolidated
derivative proceeding pending the Derivative Demand Committee's
review of the plaintiffs' claims in that proceeding.

On May 18, 2007, the Court entered an order staying the action
in accordance with Section 21.555 of the TBOC.

On July 18, 2007, EFH Corp. filed a Written Statement pursuant
to TBOC Section 21.555(c) and an Application for Additional Stay
informing the District Court that the Derivative Demand
Committee was continuing its active review, in good faith, of
the allegations set forth in the derivative lawsuits and
accordingly requested an extension of the order staying the
action through August 31, 2007.  

No further action has been taken by the parties, and the Court
has not yet ruled upon the Written Statement and Application,
given the memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on
July 23, 2007 and the proposed settlement as described below.

                State Court Shareholder Lawsuits

In February and March 2007, eight lawsuits were filed in state
district court in Dallas County, Texas by putative shareholders
against the former EFH directors, EFH Corp., the Sponsor Group,
and certain financial entities, asserting claims on behalf of
former owners of shares of EFH Corp. common stock as well as
seeking to certify a class action on behalf of allegedly
similarly situated shareholders.

The lawsuits, which were consolidated into one action in the
44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, contended that the
former directors of EFH Corp. violated various fiduciary duties
owed plaintiffs and other shareholders in connection with the
execution of the Merger Agreement and that the Sponsor Group and
certain financial entities aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the former directors.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin defendants from consummating the
Merger Agreement until such time as a procedure or process was
adopted to obtain the highest possible price for shareholders,
as well as a request that the Court direct the preclosing
officers and directors of EFH Corp. to exercise their fiduciary
duties in order to obtain a transaction in the best interest of
EFH Corp. shareholders.

The consolidated suit included claims that the former directors
failed to take steps to properly value or maximize the value of
EFH Corp. and breached their duties of loyalty, good faith,
candor and independence owed to former EFH Corp. shareholders.

The Merger Agreement allowed EFH Corp. to solicit other
proposals from third parties until April 16, 2007, and was
subject to the approval of EFH Corp.'s former shareholders,
which was obtained at the annual meeting of shareholders on
September 7, 2007.

The consolidated suit purports to assert claims by shareholders
directly against the directors.  

EFH Corp. and its former directors filed a Motion to Dismiss.  
On May 25, 2007, the Court granted the Motion and dismissed the
consolidated putative class action suit with prejudice.

On May 31, 2007, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the
May 25 Order dismissing the action.  However, the plaintiffs
subsequently withdrew this reconsideration motion.

No further action has been taken by the parties, and the Court
has not yet ruled upon the Written Statement and Application,
given the memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on
July 23, 2007, and the proposed settlement as described below.

                  Federal Shareholder Lawsuit

On July 19, 2007, a putative class action was filed with the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, by a putative
shareholder against EFH Corp. and its former directors asserting
a claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the rules and regulations thereunder.

The case asserts that the preliminary proxy statement of EFH
Corp. filed June 14, 2007, failed to adequately describe the
relevant facts and circumstances regarding the merger as well as
seeking to certify the litigation as a class action on behalf of
allegedly similarly situated shareholders.

EFH Corp. has not yet responded to this litigation and, on
July 23, 2007, the Sponsor Group, joined by EFH Corp., entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs that
would result in the dismissal of this litigation if the
settlement is approved by the courts.

In the event that EFH Corp. is required to respond to this
litigation, EFH Corp. will file a Motion to Dismiss based on the
fact that this proxy statement clearly and accurately described
the information regarding the Merger and the information
necessary for a shareholder to evaluate the proposal to approve
the Merger Agreement.

                           Settlement

On July 23, 2007, the Sponsor Group, joined by EFH Corp. for the
limited purpose described below, executed a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in certain of the lawsuits
described above pursuant to which, if approved by the court in
which the litigation is pending, to the extent required, all of
the litigation related to the Merger described above will be
dismissed with prejudice.

None of EFH Corp.'s former directors agreed to fund any payment
or pay any other consideration under the settlement.  EFH Corp.
did agree to make certain revisions to the final proxy statement
as part of the agreement between the Sponsor Group and the
plaintiffs to settle the litigation and agreed that under
certain circumstances the termination fee payable by EFH Corp.
under the Merger Agreement would be $925 million rather than
$1 billion.

In addition, by reasons of the closing of the Merger on Oct. 10,
2007, EFH Corp. merged with the entity obligated to fund any
court approved attorneys' fees.  Accordingly, EFH Corp. is
legally obligated for such payment.

On Jan. 7, 2008, a final settlement agreement was executed by
the plaintiffs in these litigation matters.  

The defendants and the courts with jurisdiction over the
litigation considered the settlement for approval on April 18,
2008.

The settlement was approved and a Final Order and Judgment was
entered dismissing with prejudice all litigation pending in the
State District Court, Dallas County, Texas.

The settlement is pending approval by the US District Court,
Northern District of Texas, which will result in a dismissal of
all claims related to the Merger against EFH Corp. and its pre-
closing officers and directors.

Dallas Texas-Based Energy Future Holdings Corp. --
http://www.energyfutureholdings.com/-- is a non-fregulated  
retail electric provider in Texas, with more than 2 million
customers, and through its Luminant unit it has a generating
capacity of more than 18,300 MW from its interests in nuclear
and fossil-fueled power plants in the state.  Energy Future
Holdings has regulated power transmission and distribution
operations through Oncor Electric Delivery.  In 2007 the company
was acquired in a $45 billion leveraged buyout by an investor
group led by Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and Texas
Pacific Group.


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Expert Witness Says Rules Required Secrecy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three lawyers accused of taking more than $65 million from their
former clients could not give their clients details about a 2001
diet drug settlement because it would have violated a
confidentiality clause, an expert in class-action litigation
testified recently, Bmusgrave@Herald-Leader.com reports.

Richard Robbins, Esq., an Atlanta attorney who has more than 27
years of experience in class-action law, testified on behalf of
William Gallion, Esq., Shirley Cunningham Jr., Esq., and
Melbourne Mills Jr., Esq., in federal court in Covington. Mr.
Robbins said the three lawyers were bound by the settlement
agreement with fen-phen manufacturer American Home Products not
to discuss details of the settlement.  If details of the
settlement had become public, the three lawyers could have been
fined, Mr. Robbins explained.

According to Bmusgrave@Herald-Leader.com the three lawyers, who
have been on trial since the middle of May on charges of
conspiracy to commit wire fraud, are accused of conspiring to
keep the bulk of a $200-million settlement from more than 440
former clients who sued diet-drug maker American Home Products,
alleging the diet drug ruined their hearts and lungs.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 21, 2008,
Messrs. Gallion, Mills, and Cunningham are accused of taking
$65 million more than what their individual contracts with 440
clients said they should receive.  Specifically, court records
say that the lawyers were entitled to about $60 million in fees,
but took an additional $45 million and put another $20 million
into a charity they created and controlled.

Prosecutors allege that as part of the fraud, the three failed
to tell clients how much the total settlement was for,
threatened many with a fine if they told their family members
about the settlement and also failed to tell many that some of
the settlement money was going into a non-profit.  They also
failed to notify clients that there was a settlement until after
the settlement had been finalized.  

The Kentucky Bar Association has already suspended the lawyers.
A judge in a civil lawsuit regarding the same fen-phen
settlement has said the lawyers have to repay at least
$42 million to their former clients, the CAR report said, citing
an earlier Associated Press report.

Mr. Robbins testified on June 9 that the judge decides if and
when clients are notified in a class action.  "It is the judge's
responsibility to decide when notice should be given and what
that notice should consist of," Mr. Robbins said.

Bmusgrave@Herald-Leader.com recounts that three lawyers for
American Home Products had testified earlier in the trial that
the $200 million settlement was for only 440 people and was not
meant to settle future claims brought by people who had taken
fen-phen but were not part of the 2001 Boone Circuit Court
lawsuit.  The three lawyers have argued that some money from the
settlement had to be set aside in case other people who took
fen-phen came forward with other lawsuits.

When no one came forward, the lawyers put some of the money in a
non-profit and the rest went to legal fees and expenses.  The
lawyers on the case received approximately $105 million, their
clients received $74 million and the remaining money went into a
non-profit.

But Mr. Robbins, after reviewing transcripts, depositions and
court documents related to the 2001 case, said he does not
understand how American Home Products could say the $200 million
settlement was strictly for the 440 clients.  Documents indicate
that American Home Products said the 440 people who took the
drug were entitled to $30 million to $50 million.

Instead, the pharmaceutical company paid $200 million.  On the
question regarding why the company would pay an additional
$150 million, if it was not to pay for future claims, Mr.
Robbins said "They were buying peace in Kentucky."


FINANCIAL SECURITY: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Bidding of GICs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd., is facing several
purported class action lawsuits seeking damages for alleged
violations of antitrust laws in connection with the bidding of
municipal guaranteed investment contracts and derivatives.

The suits, filed between March and April 2008, are captioned:

     -- "Hinds County, Mississippi et al. v. Wachovia Bank,
        N.A. et al., Case No. 08 CV 2516," filed on March 12,
        2008, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
        District of New York;

     -- "Fairfax County, Virginia et al. v. Wachovia Bank,
        N.A., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00432," filed on March 12,
        2008, before the U.S. District Court for the District of
        Columbia;

     -- "City of Oakland, California, et al. v. AIG Financial
        products Corp. et al., Case No. 08-CV-2116," filed on or
        about April 23, 2008, before the U.S. District Court for
        the Northern District of California.

In the lawsuits, a large number of financial institutions,
including the company, are named as defendants, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

New York-based Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd. --
http://www.fsa.com/-- through its subsidiary, Financial  
Security Assurance, Inc. provides guaranty insurance on
municipal bonds and asset-backed obligations.  The company
insures new issues and those already trading in the secondary
market; it also writes portfolio insurance for securities held
by investment funds.  The company is licensed as a guaranty
insurer in the US and in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands; it also operates in Europe and the Pacific Rim.  
French-Belgian financial services company Dexia owns almost all
of Financial Security Assurance Holdings.


KMART: Ashley Peach Drops 52-Cents Gift Card Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Granite City, Illinois resident Ashley Peach dropped her class
action suit against K-Mart Corp. before the Madison County
Circuit Court, reports say.

CourtHouse Service News recounts that in 2004, Ms. Peach filed
the suit claiming K-Mart should have given her 52 cents in
change on a gift card purchase because gift cards are the same
as cash.

Ms. Peach's attorney Jeff Millar, Esq., sought to certify
Ms. Peach as the representative of all K-Mart customers with
gift cards.  He alleged that K-Mart improperly kept 52 cents
from Peach.

Mr. Millar, of the Lakin Law Firm, however, moved to dismiss the
suit a week before a scheduled hearing K-Mart had set on its
motion to dismiss.  

According to Madison County Record's Steve Korris, K-Mart has
asked Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron for a June 20
hearing on a motion to dismiss the class action claiming K-Mart
should give customers change on gift card purchases.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Jeffrey A. J. Millar, Esq.
          Lakin Law Firm
          300 Evans Ave., P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, IL 62095
          Phone: 618-208-4240

Representing K-Mart is:

          Jennifer Kingson, Esq.
          Bryan Cave Strategies LLC
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102-2750


LIFE INVESTORS: Cheats on "Actual Charges", Miss. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Life Investors Insurance Co. of America and Aegon USA are facing
a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi accusing them of cheating
policyholders of "actual charges" for cancer policies,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff John Ross brings claims pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
Mississippi residents who were insureds or were beneficiaries
under any cancer insurance policies issued, assumed,
administered or sold by Life Investors Insurance Company of
America, and where:

     -- the policies provide for payment of certain benefits
        based on actual charges;

     -- the insureds or beneficiaries, while residents of
        Mississippi, filed actual actual charges claims and were
        paid actual charges benefits subject to insurance
        discounts, other insurance payments, reductions or other
        discounts; and

     -- the date of service for the actual charges claims was
        after April 1, 2006.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants have systematically refused or
         failed to pay the proper amount of actual charges
         benefits as the term is properly defined;

     (b) whether defendants systematically notified plaintiff
         and members of the class that they would refuse on a
         prospective basis to pay benefits in the amount of
         actual charges as reflected in healthcare provider
         billing statements;

     (c) whether the policies of insurance unambigously provide
         that actual charges benefits should be based on the
         amount  healthcare provider bills, prior to any write-
         offs, reduction or payments by third parties;

     (d) whether the policies of insurance unambigously provide
         that actual charges benefits should be based on the
         amount the healthcare provider bills, rather than the
         amount ultimately paid to said providers by third-party
         payors;

     (e) whether defendants' prior standard practice and uniform
         course of conduct, established as a matter of law and
         contract, that the term actual charges means and refers
         to the amount billed by healthcare providers;

     (f) whether defendants' unilateral change upon which they
         paid actual charges benefits is contrary to their
         contractual obligations and implied duties of faith and
         fair dealing;

     (g) whether the class members who were denied or were
         partially denied benefit payments based on write-offs,
         reductions or payments by third parties, are entitled
         to restitution or damages for amounts wrongfully denied
         to them;

     (h) whether class members are entitled to a declaratory
         judgment, holding as a matter of law and contract, that
         actual charges with respect to policy benefits refers
         to the amount billed for treatment before any insurance
         discounts, other insurance payments, reductions or
         discounts of any kind;

     (i) whether class members are entitled to injunctive relief
         requiring defendants to honor and pay future claims
         based on actual charges, in the amount billed for
         treatment before any insurance discounts, other
         insurance payments, reductions or discounts of any
         kind; and

     (j) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by paying
         reduced benefits instead of actual charges as reflected
         on healthcare providers' billing statements.

The plaintiff asks the court:

     -- that defendants be served with a copy of this class
        action complaint, and after due proceedings, this case
        be certified as a class action;

     -- that plaintiff and members of the class be awarded
        restitution or monetary damages as afforded by law and
        where applicable;

     -- that plaintiff and members of the class be awarded
        punitive damages as afforded by law and where
        applicable;

     -- that declaratory judgment and injunctive relief be
        granted for plaintiff and the members of the class as
        set forth in the complaint; and

     -- that plaintiff and the members of the class be awarded
        the costs incurred in bringing this action together with
        reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, including
        expert fees and interest.

The suit is "John Ross, et al. v. Life Investors Insurance Co.
America, et al., Case No. 4:08CV64HTW-LRA," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Norman Gene Hortman, Jr., Esq.
          Deidra J. Bassi, Esq.
          April C. Ladner, Esq.
          Hortman Harlow Martindale Bassi Robinson & McDanile,
          PLLC
          414 West Oak Street, P.O. Drawer 1409
          Laurel, MS 39441-1409
          Phone: 601-649-8611
          Fax: 601-649-6062


LML PAYMENT: Subsidiary Still Faces DPPA Violations Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of LML Payment Systems, Inc., continues to face a
purported class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging violations of the
Driver's Privacy Protection Act, according to the company's
June 19, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

DPPA regulates the use of personal information such as driver's
license numbers and home addresses contained in motor vehicle
records held by motor vehicle departments, by not having a
permissible use in obtaining the State of Texas' entire database
of names, addresses and other personal information.    

In the case, which was originally filed on Jan. 12, 2007, the
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, $2,500 for each
instance in which the defendants obtained, disclosed or used
personal information, and are claiming that because the Texas
database includes the information of approximately 20 million
persons, that the mere act of improperly obtaining that database
constitutes 20 million violations of the statute by each
defendant.  

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that a provider of
check verification services (such as LML) should not be allowed
to obtain and use Texas' entire driver's license database for
the purpose of enabling merchants to check driver's licenses or
other forms of identification at the point of sale, and that
instead providers of check verification services should only be
allowed to obtain the driver's license numbers of individuals at
the time that such individual presents his or her driver's
license to a merchant (in other words, plaintiffs allege that
when a customer gets to the cashier and presents a driver's
license to the merchant for the purpose of enabling the merchant
to verify such person's identity when such person is using a
credit card or check to purchase goods or services, that this is
the first time at which it would be appropriate for a provider
of check verification services to obtain such driver's license
number from the state of Texas).  

LML Payment Systems Inc. -- http://www.lmlpayment.com/-- is a  
financial payment processor that primarily provides consumer
financial payment processing solutions to retailers and other
clients in the U.S.


NETMANAGE INC: Faces California Lawsuit Over Micro Focus Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
NetManage, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit
before the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, in
connection with the company's proposed merger with Micro Focus
(US), 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.

On April 30, 2008, NetManage entered into an agreement and plan
of merger with Micro Focus and MF Merger Sub, pursuant to which
Merger Sub will be merged with and into NetManage with NetManage
continuing as the surviving entity.

On May 9, 2008, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
related to the Merger Agreement was filed in the Superior Court
of Santa Clara County, California, naming the company, Micro
Focus, Merger Sub, and each of its directors as defendants.  The
suit is captioned, "Gottlieb Family Foundation v. NetManage,
Inc., et al., Case No. 108CV112353."

This lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company's
directors violated their fiduciary duties to the company's
stockholders in approving the merger.  It seeks class action
status and injunctive and other equitable relief against
completion of the merger.

In the event that the merger is completed before the entry of
the court's final judgment, the lawsuit seeks to rescind the
merger or award recissory damages.  Additionally, the lawsuit
seeks an award of the costs of this action, including attorney's
fees and expenses.

NetManage, Inc. -- http://www.netmanage.com/-- develops and  
markets software and service solutions that are designed to
enable its customers to access and use the investment they have
in their corporate business applications, processes, and data.  
The Company provides different personal computer, browser-based
and server-based software products and tools.  These products
allow NetManage's customers to access and leverage applications,
business processes and data on IBM and IBM compatible mainframe
computers, IBM mid-range computers, such as the iSeries (often
referred to as host access), in packaged applications,
middleware and databases, such as SAP, Siebel, Oracle and
PeopleSoft, amongst others, and on UNIX and Microsoft-based
servers.  The Company provides support, maintenance, and
technical consultation services to its customers in association
with the products it develops and markets.


RIVER VALLEY: Working to Settle Indiana Suit Over Pre-Need Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
River Valley Financial Bank is working on settling a purported
class action lawsuit in Indiana over the loss of money in a pre-
need trust fund, according to River Valley Bancorp's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On April 27, 2007, Cecilia Means filed a putative class action
complaint in the Marion County Superior Court, Marion County,
Indiana.  The suit was brought on behalf of herself and others
who paid funds into a pre-need trust for burial services and
merchandise from Grandview Memorial Gardens against the Bank, a
former trustee of the Pre-Need Trust; three other banks that
serve or have served as trustees of the Pre-Need Trust; and the
current and former owners of Grandview Memorial Gardens.  

Ms. Means is a Jefferson County resident.  Specifically, she
brought the case on behalf of herself and thousands of Madison,
Indiana residents, who paid money in trust for burial services
and merchandise to be provided upon their death (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 28, 2007).

The suit named as defendants:

     -- River Valley Financial Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary
        of River Valley Bancorp;

     -- The Friendship State Bank;

     -- Monroe Bank;

     -- National City Bank f/k/a First America Bank Corp.;

     -- Carriage Cemetery Services, Inc. f/k/a Carriage Funeral
        Services of Indiana, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
        Carriage Services, Inc.;

     -- Madison Funeral Service, Inc.; and

     -- Grandview Memorial Gardens, LLC

The complaint alleges that the Bank and other trustees did not
properly account for funds placed in the Pre-Need Trust and did
not properly verify the legitimacy of disbursements from the
Pre-Need Trust in violation of certain state statutes and in
breach of the trustees' alleged fiduciary duties.  

The suit is not specific as to the amount of damages sought, but
states that the plaintiff believes that the Pre-Need Trust has
an estimated $4 million in unfunded liabilities.

The Bank denies the plaintiffs' allegations but, along with the
other trustee defendants, has agreed to terms for a settlement
of the plaintiffs' claims.  

The Bank anticipates that the settlement will be submitted to
the court for approval within the next 90 days.

River Valley Bancorp -- http://www.rvfbank.com/-- was formed  
for the primary purpose of purchasing all of the issued and
outstanding common stock of River Valley Financial Bank.  The
activities of the Holding Company have been limited to holding
the stock of the Bank.  River Valley Financial, which provides
banking services in a single significant business segment,
conducts operations from its seven full-service office locations
in Jefferson and Clark Counties, Indiana, and Carroll County,
Kentucky, and offers a range of deposit and lending services to
consumer and commercial customers.  The Bank has concentrated
its lending activities on the origination of loans secured by
first mortgage liens for the purchase, construction, or
refinancing of one- to four-family residential real property.  


ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls Hammer Drills Due to Risk of Injury
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bosch Tool Corp., of Mount Prospect, Illinois, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 9,700 Bosch Hammer Drills.

The company said the drill can continue to operate after the
trigger has been released, posing a risk of injury to consumers.
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled hammer drill is blue with "BOSCH" printed on the
side.  The model number 1191VSR can be located on the product
nameplate mounted on the side of the motor.  The product's
packaging will be marked as 1191VSRK (the "K" indicates that the
hammer drill was packaged with a case in a kit).  Only drills
with a serial number that begins with "7" are included in the
recall.

These recalled hammer drills were manufactured in Malaysia and
were being sold at Menards and other hardware retailers and
industrial distributors nationwide from July 2007 through April
2008 for about $100.

A picture of the recalled hammer drills is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08303.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled hammer drill
immediately and contact the firm for a free repair.

For additional information, contact the Robert Bosch Tool Corp.
toll-free at 877-472-0007 between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. CT
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.boschtools.com


SONIC SOLUTIONS: Demurrers Filed in California Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Solutions filed additional demurrers in a putative
shareholder class action lawsuit against Sonic Solutions and
various of its executive officers and directors.

On Nov. 16, 2007, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Marin against the company and various of its executive officers
and directors on behalf of a proposed class of persons that
purchased its shares between July 12, 2001, and May 17, 2007.

The action alleges breach of fiduciary duties, and is based on
substantially similar factual allegations and claims as in the
other lawsuits.

The court in the state putative shareholder class action
sustained the company's demurrers to the complaint with leave to
amend.  

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiffs in that action filed an
amended complaint (Class Action Reporter, May 12, 2008).

On May 27, 2008, the company filed additional demurrers to the
complaint, according to the company's June 23, 2008 Form
10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets   
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats.  Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.  
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats.  The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name.  The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.


SPAIN: Brits Begin Fight to Reclaim Millions from Spanish Gov't.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of Britons who have sold a property in Spain between
June 2004 and December 2006 have begun the fight to reclaim
their money from the Spanish government, who overcharged them
Capital Gains Tax by 20%.  However, where as initial
conservative estimates put the total amount to be reclaimed at
GBP11,000 per person -- totaling an estimated GBP37 million --
over the last three months, hundreds of Brits have registered
average reclaims of more than GBP19,300 each, totaling more than
an estimated GBP86 million that British people have been
overcharged by the Spanish government.

The tax loophole, which was originally exposed by currency
exchange brokers HiFX and Spanish lawyers, Costa, Alvarez,
Manglano & Associates, came about after British non residents
paid a Spanish Non Residents' Income Tax rate of 35% on any
capital gains, compared to a rate of 15% paid by Spanish
nationals.  This 20% overpayment not only totals a profit
somewhere in the region of an estimated GBP86 million, but also
contravenes European Community Treaty rules on discrimination
and therefore was unduly charged by the Spanish Government.
British people applying for a refund are also set to add on
missing interest at a compound rate of 6% to their reclaims,
meaning payouts could be on average 26 % larger than first
thought.

However, whilst more than 300 people have so far joined forces
and registered requests for rebates since the launch of the Web
site -- http://www.spanishtaxreclaim.co.uk/-- that was set up  
to help them, thousands more are still to come forward.

Mark Bodega, Director of currency specialists HiFX said: "Since
launching the website and establishing this class action against
the Spanish tax authorities, we have always said it would be
extremely difficult to put an actual figure on the number of
people affected by this tax issue and how much they would be
able to reclaim from the Spanish government.  This is largely
because the Spanish government will not reveal this information,
and this is why our initial estimation about the amount being
able to be reclaimed was on the conservative side.  However, the
sums that people are coming forward to reclaim are much larger
than anticipated, almost double in size.  So far more than 300
people have registered to be part of the class action, which is
a huge response -- but we anticipate there are more than 4,500
British people affected by this, meaning there are still a lot
of people who need to come forward to reclaim what is rightfully
theirs."

People who have sold property previous to June 2004 have already
missed out on being able to make a reclaim on their overpaid
tax, as under Spanish law claims can only be made dating back
over a four year period, meaning millions more have become
victim to this tax trap.

Commenting on the issue, Spanish Lawyer Emilio Alvarez said: "A
change in the law at the start of 2007, which saw the standard
Capital Gains Tax for non Spanish residents being brought in to
line, a reduction from 35% to 15% , passed by largely unnoticed.  
As a result, thousands of people who had previously sold
property in Spain are entitled to a 20% rebate, with estimates
now standing at GBP19,000 each plus interest.  The response so
far has been amazing, thousands have made inquiries, with more
than 200 people registering to begin the reclaim process.
However, if anyone believes they have been affected by this they
need to move quickly, due to stringent legal restrictions people
who sold their property before June 2004 have already missed
out, as claimants must register within 4 years, but thousands of
Brits can still join forces and fight to get the Spanish tax
authorities to pay back the money owed.

"In some cases potential claimants are being put off by the
lawyers who acted for them during the sale as they are being
told that they will not be able to get hold of the necessary
forms (Form 212) or that this consumer campaign will not
succeed.  As a result, we are offering to speak to the Spanish
Tax Office on behalf of any clients who have doubts to ascertain
whether or not they are eligible and get the forms they need."

For more information, and details of how to register your
interest, visit http://www.spanishtaxreclaim.co.uk/

    
SS&C TECH: Plaintiffs Oppose Fee Petition in Carlyle Merger Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against SS&C
Technologies, Inc., over the definitive merger agreement that
the company signed on July 28, 2005, wherein it agreed to to be
acquired by a corporation affiliated with The Carlyle Group, are
opposing a fee petition by the defendants in the lawsuit,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Initially, two purported class action complaints were filed
against the company, each of its directors, and, with respect to
the first matter, Sunshine Acquisition Corp., before the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle
County.

The first suit, "Paulena Partners, LLC v. SS&C Technologies,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1525-N," was filed on July 28, 2005.

The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against all of the company's directors at the time of
filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

      -- the merger will benefit company's management at the
         expense of company's public stockholders,

      -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is
         inadequate and does not represent the best price
         available in the marketplace for the company and

      -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
         company's stockholders in negotiating and approving the
         merger.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the
merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief), compensatory and rescissory damages to
the class and attorneys' fees and expenses, along with such
other relief as the court might find just and proper.

The second lawsuit is "Stephen Landen v. SS&C Technologies,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1541-N," which was filed on Aug. 3, 2005.
The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against all of the company's directors at the time of
filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint asserts similar allegations as the first lawsuit.

It also seeks class certification, an injunction preventing the
consummation of the merger, compensatory and rescissory damages
to the class and costs and disbursements of the lawsuit,
including attorneys' and experts' fees, along with such other
relief as the court might find just and proper.

The two lawsuits were consolidated by order dated Aug. 31, 2005.   

On Oct. 18, 2005, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit
entered into a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which
the company agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its
stockholders in connection with their approval of the merger.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the
parties would enter into a settlement agreement, which the
parties executed on July 6, 2006.

Under the settlement agreement, the company agreed to pay up to
$350,000 of plaintiffs' legal fees and expenses.  

The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to its stockholders.

The court did not find that the settlement agreement was fair,
reasonable and adequate and rejected it on Nov. 29, 2006.  

The court criticized the plaintiffs' counsel's handling of the
litigation, noting that the plaintiffs' counsel displayed a lack
of understanding of basic terms of the merger, did not appear to
have adequately investigated the plaintiffs' potential claims
and was unable to identify the basic legal issues in the case.

The court also raised questions about the process leading up to
the transaction, but the court did not make any findings of fact
on the litigation other than that there were not adequate facts
in evidence to support the settlement.

The plaintiffs decided to continue the litigation following
rejection of the settlement, and the parties proceeded with
discovery.

On Nov. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to withdraw from the
lawsuit with notice to SS&C's former shareholders.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the defendants opposed the plaintiffs' motion
for notice to shareholders in connection with their withdrawal
and moved for sanctions against the plaintiffs and removal of
confidentiality restrictions on plaintiffs' discovery materials.

At a hearing on Feb. 8, 2008, the court orally granted the
plaintiffs' motion to withdraw, declined to order notice and
took the defendants' motion for sanctions under advisement.

In its memorandum opinion and order dated March 6, 2008, the
court granted in part the defendants' motion for sanctions,
awarding attorneys' fees and other expenses that the defendants
reasonably incurred in defending the plaintiffs' motion to
withdraw and in bringing a motion to unseal the record and for
sanctions.

The court noted that further proceedings were required to
determine the proper amount of the award, and it directed the
parties to submit a schedule to bring this matter to a
conclusion.

On March 28, 2008, the defendants submitted their fee petition
to the court.  The parties subsequently submitted to the court a
proposed schedule, which was approved by the court on April 21,
2008.

On May 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to
defendants' fee petition.  

SS&C Technologies Holdings -- http://www.ssctech.com/-- helps  
its clients buy low and sell high.  The company (which operates
through its SS&C Technologies subsidiary) designs software for
managing financial portfolios, loans, real estate equity, back-
office processing, and securities trading, and it provides
consulting and outsourcing services.  SS&C's software handles
investment portfolio management, asset and liability management
for actuaries, property and casualty insurance company risk
management, and trade ordering and modeling.  Customers include
asset managers, insurance companies, banks, corporate
treasuries, hedge funds, home offices, and government agencies.


TRADEWINDS INTL: Recalls RC Helicopters Posing Fire, Burn Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tradewinds International Enterprises Inc., of San Francisco,
California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 152,000 "Sky Champion" Wireless
Indoor Helicopters.

The company said the rechargeable battery contained inside the
helicopter can catch fire, igniting the helicopter and nearby
combustible materials.  This poses a burn or fire hazard to
consumers.

TWIE has received two reports of helicopters catching fire.  No
injuries or property damage have been reported.

This recall involves the "Sky Champion" wireless indoor
helicopter.  The helicopter comes with a transmitter that
controls and recharges the helicopter.  The helicopter is made
of foam and plastic and measures about 7 inches by 3 inches.  
The transmitter measures about 6 inches by 4 inches.  "BH26047"
is printed on the tail of the helicopter.  "WIC 551777" and the
UPC code is 630990006005 are printed on the packaging.

These recalled remote-controlled helicopter toys were
manufactured in China and were being sold at Walgreens stores
nationwide from June 2007 through November 2007 for about $20.

Pictures of the recalled remote-controlled helicopter toys are
found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08293a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08293b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop playing with the
recalled helicopters and contact TWIE for a full refund.  
Returns will be accepted by TWIE.  Walgreens will not accept
returns or provide a refund.

For additional information, contact TWIE toll free at
888-583-4908 anytime or send an e-mail to this address:
returncopters@aol.com


TRAILER BRIDGE: Sued in Fla. & Puerto Rico Over Pricing Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trailer Bridge, Inc., is facing several purported class action
lawsuits in Florida and Puerto Rico over its pricing practices,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a subpoena from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a grand jury investigation
of pricing practices among Puerto Rico ocean carriers.

The company was not served with a search warrant, although press
accounts indicate that other carriers were.  The company
representatives have met with DOJ attorneys and immediately
pledged the company's full and complete cooperation with the DOJ
investigation.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, and through May 10, 2008, customers in the
Puerto Rico trade lane have filed 10 purported class action
complaints against domestic ocean carriers, including Horizon
Lines, Sea Star Lines, and Crowley.  The company has been named
as a co-defendant in these lawsuits.

Specifically, the suits named as defendants:

     -- Horizon Lines, Inc.,
     -- Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.,
     -- Horizon Lines, LLC,
     -- Sea Star Line, LLC,
     -- Crowley Maritime Corp.,
     -- Crowley Liner Services, Inc., and
     -- Trailer Bridge, Inc.

Four of the actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, three were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and three
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico.

The actions allege that the defendants inflated prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- http://www.trailerbridge.com/-- is a  
trucking and marine transportation company with contract and
common carrier authority.  Highway transportation services are
offered in the continental U.S., while marine transportation is
offered between Jacksonville, Florida, San Juan, Puerto Rico and
Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the
Company operated a fleet of 114 tractors, consisting of 82
company owned units and 32 leased and owner operator units,
3,882 53' high cube containers, 3,177 53' chassis, 241 high-cube
trailers and 305 53' vehicle transport modules that transport
truckload freight between the Company's San Juan, Puerto Rico
port facility, its Jacksonville port facility, the Dominican
Republic and inland points in the U.S. and Puerto Rico.


U-HAUL CO: Agent Seeks Damages for Malicious Prosecution
--------------------------------------------------------
U-Haul Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Superior Court of the State of  California in and for the County
of Solano seeking damages for malicious prosecution, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The complaint accuses U-Haul of enforcing illegal non-compete
contracts on independent dealers whom it cheats by failing to
provide trucks, providing inoperable or unsafe trucks, and from
whom it poaches customers by directing them away from
independent franchises to company-owned outlets.

Named plaintiff Leigh Robinson claims U-Haul's non-compete
contracts are illegal and unenforceable, as U-Haul has no "trade
secrets" to protect.  Robinson claims U-Haul diverts trade away
from its 13,950 independent agents toward the 1,450 company-
owned and -operated outlets.

Mr. Robinson claims U-Haul has been enjoined in Santa Cruz
County "from using the words 'guaranteed' or 'confirmed' in
connection with any rental reservation with any of its trucks
because of U-Haul's abysmal failure to actually have trucks on
site at independent rental agencies (such as the self-storage
business plaintiff operated) on the date and at the time
'guaranteed' and 'confirmed' by U-Haul.  Moreover, even when a
truck is physically present at an independent rental agent's
site when and where reserved, the trucks are often inoperable
and/or unsafe to operate."

Mr. Robinson says U-Haul is illegally trying to prevent him from
re-opening his truck rental outlet with Budget, because it
falsely asserts it has trade secrets.  He says there are no such
trace secrets.

Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Cal.
Code of Civ. Proc. Section 382 on behalf of all persons or
entities who are operating, or have operated independent U-Haul
truck rental agencies or dealerships which offered U-Haul trucks
or trailers for rental to the general public at any time in the
four years immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.

The plaintiff demands an injunction, costs, and damages for
malicious prosecution and business code violations.

The suit is "Leigh Robinson, et al., v. U-Haul Co., Case No.
CSVLS8997," filed in the Superior Court of the State of  
California in and for the County Solano.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Matthew C. Freeman, Esq.
          Kevin McConnell, Esq.
          Law Offices of Freeman & Freeman
          2255 Challenger Way, Suite 119
          Santa Rosa, CA 95407
          Phone: 707-575-7141
          Fax: 707-575-4382


UNITED COMPONENTS: Faces Multiple Suits Over Aftermarket Filters
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Components, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Champion Laboratories Inc., are facing several purported class
action lawsuits alleging conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, related to aftermarket
oil, air, fuel and transmission filters, 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.

                   Direct Purchaser Litigation

As of May 12, 2008, United Components and Champion Laboratories
have been named as two of multiple defendants in several
complaints filed in various federal courts.

The suits are:

       -- "T.D.S. Co. v. Champion Labs. et al." (D. Conn., filed
          April 8, 2008);

       -- "Barjan, LLC v. Champion Labs et al." (D. Conn., filed
          April 10, 2008);

       -- "Bruene v. Champion Labs. et al." (D. Conn., filed
          April 8, 2008);

       -- "S&E Quick Lube Distrib., Inc. v. Champion Labs. et
          al." (D. Conn., filed March 31, 2008);

       -- "Flash Sales, Inc. v. Champion Labs. et al." (D.
          Conn., filed April 4, 2008);

       -- "The Parts Plus Group, Inc. v. Champion Labs. et al."
          (D. Conn., filed April 28, 2008);

       -- "Ward's Auto Painting & Body Works, Inc. v. Champion
          Labs. et al." (D. Conn., filed April 29, 2008);

       -- "Werner Aero Services v. Champion Labs. et al." (M.D.
          Tenn., filed May 9, 2008);

       -- "Central Warehouse Sales Corp. v. Champion Labs. et
          al." (D.N.J., filed April 29, 2008). [Note: Central
          Warehouse also named The Carlyle Group as a
          defendant.]

Champion, but not United Components, was also named as a
defendant in virtually identical actions filed in the Northern
and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the District of New
Jersey.

These are:

       -- "Lovett Auto & Tractor Parts, Inc. v. Champion Labs.
          et al." (N.D. Ill., filed April 10, 2008);

       -- "Manasek Auto Parts, Inc. v. Champion Labs. et al."
          (S.D. Ill., filed April 23, 2008);

       -- "Neptune Warehouse Distributors, Inc. v. Champion
          Labs. et al." (N.D. Ill., filed April 23, 2008);

       -- "Big T Inc. v. Champion Labs. et al." (S.D. Ill.,
          filed May 6, 2008); and

       -- "Worldwide Equipment, Inc. v. Honeywell Int'l et al."
          (D.N.J., filed May 9, 2008).

All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket
filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of
their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present.

Each suit seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an
injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees.

                 Indirect Purchaser Litigation

United Components and Champion Laboratories were also named as
defendants in similar complaints filed in the District of
Connecticut by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect purchasers of
aftermarket filters.

These are:

       -- "Packard Automotive, Inc. v. Honeywell International
          Inc. et al." (D. Conn., filed April 21, 2008);

       -- "Doll et al. v. Champion Labs. et al." (D. Conn.,
          filed May 9, 2008); and

       -- "Austin v. Honeywell Int'l et al." (D. Conn., filed
          May 8, 2008).  [Note: Austin also named The Carlyle
          Group as a defendant.]

Champion, but not United Components, was also named in a similar
suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee.  That suit is entitled, "Bathea, et al. v.
Champion Labs," which was filed on April 25, 2008.

These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and violations of state antitrust, consumer
protection and unfair competition law.

The suits are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all
persons or entities who acquired indirectly aftermarket filters
manufactured and distributed by one or more of the defendants,
their agents or entities under their control, at any time
between Jan. 1, 1999, and the present; with the exception of
"Austin," which alleges a class period from January 1, 2002, to
the present.

The complaints seek damages, including statutory treble damages,
an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of
profits, costs and attorney's fees.

The company reported no developments in the matters in its
regulatory filing.

United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs,  
develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling
and engine management products to the automotive, trucking,
industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining
vehicle markets.  The Company offers approximately 41,000 part
numbers.  It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts
market, or the aftermarket.  Over 85% of its net sales, during
the year ended December 31, 2007, were made to vehicle
replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided
into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and
original equipment service (OES).  Filtration products made up
40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for
cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management
products.


ZIBA BEAUTY: Beauty Salon Chain Exploits Workers, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Little India beauty salon chain, Ziba Beauty, is facing a class-
action complaint alleging it exploits its workers, Lori Shepler
of The Los Angeles Times reports.

Former Ziba workers filed a class action lawsuit last week
alleging the owners of the 11-store salon chain failed to give
them the minimum wage, overtime compensation and meal and rest
breaks.

Owners of Ziba Beauty, which specializes in eyebrow threading,
are accused of building their business by exploiting workers,
many of them female immigrants.

The class action says Ziba employees, many immigrant women, were
paid less than minimum wage and forced to work long hours with
no breaks.

The plaintiffs include Payal Modi of India and Bishnu Shahani
from Nepal, who say they were paid as little as $4 an hour at
the salon, denied rest breaks and required to deliver hours of
free henna tattooing services at parties.

Ziba owners, however, deny allegations that workers were
underpaid and didn't get breaks.

Lawyer for Ziba Chief Executive Sumita Batra, Navneet Chugh,
denied the allegations saying all of the salon's beauty workers
receive medical benefits, lunch and rest breaks and legal wages.
In 2007, three-fourths of the 60 beauty workers on the payroll
earned between $18,000 and $55,000 a year plus tips, he said.

"There is absolutely no merit in the lawsuit against Ziba," Mr.
Chugh said.


* One of U.S.A.'s Largest Trial Firm Adds 2 Litigators in Dallas
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKool Smith, one of the nation's largest trial firms, is
expanding its Dallas headquarters with the addition of attorneys
Aimee Fagan, Esq., and Michael J. Donley, Esq.

Ms. Fagan joins the firm as a principal, focusing her practice
on complex business litigation.  A graduate of the Southern
Methodist University Dedman School of Law, Ms. Fagan has been
featured in the "Texas Super Lawyers Rising Stars" listing in
Texas Monthly magazine since 2005.  Additionally, D Magazine has
profiled her among the top North Texas attorneys under 40, and
the Dallas Business Journal has recognized her as one of the top
professionals under 40 in Dallas.  Ms. Fagan currently serves as
Chair of the Trial Skills Section of the Dallas Bar Association,
Treasurer and Council Member of the Business Litigation Section
of the Dallas Bar Association, and is a supporting member of the
Dallas Bar Foundation.

Ms. Fagan's extensive experience includes representing and
defending clients in federal and state court, governmental
investigations, and arbitration. She has a broad array of
complex business litigation expertise in matters including
contract disputes, securities class actions, intellectual
property disputes, broker dealer claims, governmental
investigations, trademark disputes, partnership dissolutions,
and business torts, among others.

Mr. Donley joins McKool Smith as an associate after serving as
the first appointed inspector general for the Texas Education
Agency.  As Inspector General, Mr. Donley directed complex
investigations involving fraud, the integrity of the state's
educational assessment systems, and irregularities in
contracting and procurement.  His experience includes
representing clients in a wide variety of complex business
litigation matters, including contractual disputes, multi-
district litigation, intellectual property, public policy
matters, environmental litigation, state and federal regulatory
matters, and white collar defense.

Mr. Donley is a graduate of the Harvard Law School, where he was
Senior Editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
"Aimee and Michael are the kind of attorneys that we seek out at
McKool Smith -- immensely talented lawyers with diverse
backgrounds," says firm co-founder Mike McKool.  "They will be
tremendous advocates for our clients, and we're excited to have
them join our team."

McKool Smith has more than 95 attorneys in Dallas, Austin,
Marshall, New York and Washington, D.C., handling commercial and
intellectual property litigation for national and international
clients.  The firm is recognized as one of the premier
litigation law firms in the United States, having earned
significant courtroom victories for clients such as American
Airlines, BearingPoint, Ericsson, Electronic Data Systems,
Lockheed Martin, Medtronic Inc., and Sony Ericsson.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

EVERGREEN ULTRA: Page Perry Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Page Perry, LLC, and David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA,
commenced a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of all
classes of shares of the Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities
Fund who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Fund
within three years of the filing of this lawsuit, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

Prior to August 1, 2005, the Fund was known as the Evergreen
Ultra Short Bond Fund.

The complaint alleges that Evergreen Investment Management Co.,
LLC and certain related entities, and officers and directors,
violated the Securities Act.  Evergreen Investment Management
Co., LLC, serves as the investment advisor to a group of mutual
funds marketed under the Evergreen name.

Evergreen Investments is the brand name under which Wachovia
Corporation conducts its investment management business.

On or about May 29, 2003, the defendants began offering shares
of the Ultra Short Bond Fund pursuant to an initial registration
statement, filed with the SEC as a Form 485BPOS (the
Registration Statement).

The complaint charges that defendants solicited investors to
purchase shares of the Fund by stating that the Fund's
investment objective was to "provide current income consistent
with preservation of capital and low principal fluctuation."  
The complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because the fund employed an undisclosed
high-risk strategy that led to realized losses of approximately
18 percent and seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Beginning on or about June 9, 2008, the Fund's per share net
asset values declined precipitously across all share classes.  
On June 19, 2008, the Fund reported that it was liquidating, and
that its net assets were only $403 million, far lower than the
$731.4 million net asset value reported by the Fund on March 31,
2008.

For more information, contact:

          J. Boyd Page, Esq. (jpage@pageperry.com)
          David Worley, Esq. (dworley@pageperry.com)
          Page Perry, LLC
          1040 Crown Pointe Parkway, Suite 1050
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 770-673-0047
          Web site: http://www.pageperry.com/

               - and -

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. (mwilson@dmlaws.com)
          David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-224-6000
          Web site: http://www.dmlaws.com/


FIFTH THIRD: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, discloses that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been 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  from October
19, 2007 through June 17, 2008, inclusive.

Also included are those who purchased Trust Preferred Securities
in an initial public offering on October 25, 2007.

The Complaint charges that FITB and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of 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.

The Complaint further alleges that Trust Preferred Securities
were sold to the investing public in the Offering pursuant to a
Prospectus that 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 Prospectus.

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

For more information, contact:

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


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *