CAR_Public/080626.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, June 26, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 126
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN ITALIAN: E&Y Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Aug. 5
AUDIOVOX CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Cell Phone Radiation
BROOKS AUTOMATION: Settles Massachusetts Suit for $7.75 Million
CAREER EDUCATION: Engages in Fraudulent Solicitation, Suit Says
CENDANT CORP: Ninth Circuit Nixes Appeal in Homestore.com Suit

COLDWELL BANKER: Faces First-Time Homebuyers Suit in Minnesota
CORN PRODUCTS: $4.8-Bln. Bunge Offer Challenged in Illinois Suit
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Lawsuit in Florida
DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: Sex Crimes by Priests Lead to Canada Suit
DIRECTV INC: Faces La. Suit Over $162 "Early Cancellation" Fee

E.I. DUPONT: Appeals Rulings in Spelter Lawsuit to Supreme Court
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Reaches Tentative Settlement in USWA Lawsuit
GLOBAL CASH: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
HA-INT'L: Settlement Results in Dismissal of Foundry Resins Suit
HIH INSURANCE: NSW Sup. Ct. Throws Out Misleading Conduct Claim

MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Parties Wants Proceedings in "Bateman" Stayed
MCKESSON CORP: May Be Forced to Settle AWP Suit, Report Says
MINNESOTA: Housing Authority Won't Take Applications, Suit Says
PEOPLEPC INC: To Refund Up To $30 as Part of "Nelsen" Suit Deal
PZENA INVESTMENT: Faces N.Y. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit

RC2 CORP: Claim Forms in Thomas & Friends Lawsuit Due on Oct. 6
REALOGY CORP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in "Berger" Lawsuit
SELECT COMFORT: Customers Sue Over Moldy Mattresses
SPARK NETWORKS: July Ruling Expected on Fees Issue in "Adelman"
SULPICIO LINES: Suit Looms Over Capsized Ferry During Typhoon

TIME WARNER: Notice on Data Breach Suit Deal Sent to Claimants
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Settles Indiana FATA Violations Suit
TRI-S SECURITY: Faces Georgia Suit Over Initial Public Offering
U.S. HOME: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Labor Lawsuit
U.S. HOME: Dismissal of "Spiegler" Suit Appealed to 9th Circuit

UNITED PARCEL: Settles Tendered Packages Lawsuit for $6.25 Mln.
UTSTARCOM INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Securities Suit
UTSTARCOM INC: Court Nixes Amended Complaint in "Rudolph" Matter

* Law Firm Elevates 11 to Partnership in Chicago, 34 Firm-Wide


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

EVERGREEN ULTRA: Klayman & Toskes Files Suit in Massachusetts
FIFTH THIRD: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
WACHOVIA CORP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Calif.



                           *********


AMERICAN ITALIAN: E&Y Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Aug. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on May 26, 2008, that Ernst &
Young has settled its part of a class-action shareholder
lawsuit involving American Italian Pasta Co. filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  The
report said that E&Y agreed to pay $3.5 million.

The CAR report recounted that shareholders filed lawsuits
against American Italian since August 2005 when the firm started
reviewing its accounting practices.  The suits accuse the
company of improper inventory, underreporting marketing
allowances paid to distributors and improperly capitalizing
costs that should have been listed as expenses.  American
Italian later said it is withdrawing financial results
for the last three years because they contained errors in
accounting for product promotion and overhead costs.

Seven of the suits were consolidated in December 2005 (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).  In March, Judge Ortrie Smith
granted certification to the consolidated lawsuit designating
three Iron Workers' Union locals as lead plaintiffs (Class
Action Reporter, March 28, 2007).  The ironworkers' locals had
hired Kent T. Perry & Co. LC, of Overland Park as local counsel.  
Judge Smith accepted Perry & Co.'s motion to make the New York
law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross lead
counsel.

Previously, a settlement was reached resolving the federal
securities law claims asserted in the consolidated class action
suit pending in federal court in Kansas City, styled, "In re
American Italian Pasta Company Securities Litigation (Case No.
05-CV-0725-W-ODS)."

Under the deal, the federal securities law claims were settled
for approximately $25 million, comprised of $11 million in cash,
all of which were contributed by American Italian's insurers,
and $14 million in the company's common shares.

Ernst & Young recently proposed another settlement deal to
resolve the remaining claims in the case.  Under this
settlement, E&Y will pay $3,500,000 in cash.

A hearing on the E&Y Settlement will be held on August 5, 2008,
at 1:30 p.m., before Judge Smith, at the Charles Evans Whittaker  
Courthouse, at 400 E. 9th Street, in Kansas City, Missouri.

The purpose of the E&Y Settlement Hearing is to determine, among
other things:

   1. whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the
      Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;

   2. whether the case should be dismissed with prejudice
      against E&Y;

   3. whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and
      adequate, and should be approved;

   4. whether the application of lead plaintiff's counsel for
      the payment of attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses
      incurred in connection with the case should be approved;
      and

   5. whether a compensatory award to lead plaintiff should be
      granted.

All individuals who purchased American Italian common stock
during the periods between (a) January 23, 2002, and August 9,
2005, and (b) August 10, 2005, and August 17, 2005, could be a
member of the Class or the Stub Period Class, respectively, and
their rights may be affected by the settlement.

The suit is "In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge
Ortrie D. Smith.  

The plaintiffs' lead counsel is:

          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, New York 10017-5516
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665
          Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com/


AUDIOVOX CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Cell Phone Radiation
------------------------------------------------------------
Audiovox Corp. and other suppliers, manufacturers and
distributors of hand-held wireless telephones continue to face
certain consolidated class action lawsuits that were transferred
to a Multi-District Litigation Panel of the U.S. District Court
of the District of Maryland.

The suits are generally alleging damages relating to exposure to
radio frequency radiation from hand-held wireless telephones.  

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

Audiovox Corp. -- http://www.audiovox.com/-- is an  
international distributor and value added service provider in
the accessory, mobile and consumer electronics industries.


BROOKS AUTOMATION: Settles Massachusetts Suit for $7.75 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brooks Automation, Inc., reached a settlement in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit filed in June 2006 in connection
with the company's historical stock option granting practices
and related accounting.

The original complaint alleges that defendants Brooks Automation
and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by publicly
issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding
the company's business and financial results, thus causing
Brooks' shares to trade at artificially inflated prices (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2007.

Early this year, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss, and allowed the lead
plaintiff's motion to add a named plaintiff.

In particular, the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against
individual defendants, Joseph Martin, and Ellen Richstone were
dismissed, and the Section 11 claims against Mr. Martin,  
defendants Robert Woodbury, and Edward Grady were dismissed.  
Also, the Section 11 claims against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
were dismissed, and therefore dismissed entirely.

The dismissal motions were denied as to the remaining claims in
the consolidated amended complaint.

On Jan. 22, 2008, the plaintiffs in the action filed a motion
for class certification for the matter, which is captioned
"James R. Shaw v. Brooks Automation, Inc. et al." and is pending
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2008).

The terms of the recent settlement, which include no admission
of liability or wrong doing by Brooks, provide for a full and
complete release of all claims in the litigation and a payment
of $7.75 million into a settlement fund, pending final
documentation and approval by the Court of a plan of
distribution.  There will be no earnings or cash effect of this
settlement as the $7.75 million will be paid by the company's
liability insurers.

Once approved, the settlement will provide a full release of
Brooks and the other named defendants in connection with the
allegations raised in the class action, and it will resolve all
class action litigation pending against the company and against
its present and former officers and directors.

The suit is "James R. Shaw v. Brooks Automation, Inc., et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Rya W. Zobel presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Peter A. Pease, Esq. (ppease@bermanesq.com)
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-542-8300
         Fax: 617-542-1194

              - and -

         Daniel P. Chiplock, Esq. (dchiplock@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-355-9500
         Fax: 212-355-9592

Representing the defendants are:

         Randall W. Bodner, Esq. (rbodner@ropesgray.com)
         Ropes & Gray LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7000 x7776
         Fax: 617-951-7050

              - and -

         Joseph P. Messina, Esq. (jpmessina@mintz.com)
         Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC
         One Financial Center
         Boston, MA 02111
         Phone: 617-542-6000
         Fax: 617-542-2241


CAREER EDUCATION: Engages in Fraudulent Solicitation, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California School of Culinary Arts and Career Education
Corp. are facing a class-action complaint before the Superior
Court in Los Angeles alleging that they fraudulently solicit
students with misleading claims about the school's selectivity
and graduates' career prospects, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The plaintiffs say they are each $50,000 in debt, after the
defendants lured them with ads on "television, radio, print, and
direct mail advertisements and in-person recruitment at high
school campuses."

The plaintiffs claim that to entice students to enroll the
defendants lie repeatedly about its contacts in the field, the
quality and selectiveness of its programs, its job-seeking
assistance and the employment rates of its graduates.

Courthouse News says that as is often the case in class action
suits, the defendants are accused of counting any student who
found any job whatsoever, even if they found it without the
defendants' help, as being successfully placed in a job.

The plaintiffs demand restitution and punitive damages for
fraud, unfair competition and violations of business laws.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Behrem Parekh, Esq.
          Kirtland & Packard
          2361 Rosecrans Avenue, Fourth Floor
          EI Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: 310-536-1000
          Fax: 310-536-1001
          Web site: http://www.kirtlandpackard.com


CENDANT CORP: Ninth Circuit Nixes Appeal in Homestore.com Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the
appeal in the matter, "In Re Homestore.com Securities
Litigation, No. 10-CV-11115 (MJP)," which suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and
names Cendant Corp. as one of the defendants.

On Nov. 15, 2002, Cendant and Richard A. Smith, vice chairman of
the board, president and director, were added as defendants in
the putative class action complaint.  The 26 other defendants in
the suit include Homestore.com, Inc., certain of its officers
and directors, and its auditors.  

The suit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased stock of
Homestore.com, an Internet-based provider of residential real
estate listings, between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 21, 2001.

The complaint in this action alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act based on purported
misconduct in connection with the accounting of certain revenues
in financial statements published by Homestore during the class
period.

On March 7, 2003, the court granted Cendant's motion to dismiss
the lead plaintiff's claim for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted.  The court dismissed the
complaint as it was filed against Cendant and Richard Smith,
with prejudice.

On March 8, 2004, the court entered final judgment, thus
allowing for an appeal to be made regarding its order
dismissing the complaint against Cendant, Mr. Smith and others.
Oral argument of the appeal took place on Feb. 6, 2006.  

On June 30, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's
complaint.  The Court of Appeals also remanded the case back to
the district court so that the plaintiff may seek leave in the
district court to amend the complaint if that can be done
consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion.

Cendant and Mr. Smith filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
in the United States Supreme Court.  

On Dec. 19, 2006, the trial court entered an order denying the
plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
against Cendant and Mr. Smith, among other parties.  The
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit.  

On March 26, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a writ of
certiorari in a case arising out of the Eighth Circuit,
"Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v.Scientific Atlanta,
Inc.," which raises the same legal issue raised in the Ninth
Circuit case involving Cendant and Mr. Smith.  On Jan. 15, 2008,
the Supreme Court held in "Stoneridge Investment," that
secondary actors cannot be held liable under Section 10(b) if
their acts are not disclosed to the investing public because
Section 10(b) plaintiffs cannot establish the necessary element
of reliance with respect to such actors.

On January 16, 2008, the defendants made a written request that
the plaintiff withdraw its appeal in light of the "Stoneridge"
ruling, to which they received no response.  

On March 26, 2008, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the holding in "Stoneridge," 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 Homestore.com Securities Litigation, No. 10-
CV-11115 (MJP) (U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal.)," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Ronald S.W. Lew, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bruce L. Simon, Esq. (bsimon@cpsmlaw.com)
         Cotchett Pitre Simon & McCarthy
         San Francisco Airport Office Center
         840 Malcolm Rd., Ste. 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Phone: 650-697-6000

         Gary S. Soter, Esq.
         Wasserman Comden Casselman & Pearson
         5567 Reseda Blvd., Ste. 330
         P.O. Box 7033
         Tarzana, CA 91357-7033
         Phone: 818-705-6800

              - and -

         Tracey L. Worthington, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
         12544 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 150
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Phone: 858-793-0070

Representing the defendants are:

         Jeffrey H. Dasteel, Esq.
         Samuel Kader, Esq.
         Stephen P. Warren, Esq.
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom,
         Phone: 213-687-5000
                212-735-3000


COLDWELL BANKER: Faces First-Time Homebuyers Suit in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coldwell Banker Burnet Realty, a unit of Realogy Corp., reached
a settlement in the purported class action lawsuit, "Grady v.
Coldwell Banker Burnet Realty."

This action was a putative class action suit filed against
Burnet Realty, Inc., d/b/a Coldwell Banker Burnet in the
Hennepin County District Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota, on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who were customers
of Coldwell Banker in residential real estate transactions that
closed in specific Minnesota counties since Feb. 21, 2001, where
the customers were referred to Burnet Title for title insurance
and settlement services, and where the customers paid Burnet
Title for those products and services.

The named plaintiffs, Kenneth and Dylet Grady, were first-time
homebuyers for whom Coldwell Banker acted as their broker, and
who used Burnet Title to close the buyers' side of the
transaction.  The Grady transaction closed on June 3, 2003.  

The complaint had alleged various legal theories for breach of
fiduciary duty and for violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud
Act.  It also claimed that Coldwell Banker Burnet breached its
fiduciary duties to its customers by referring them to Burnet
Title when there are other comparable title companies that would
provide the same products and services allegedly at lower
prices.

In April 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
under which the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the action with
prejudice and the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiffs a de
minimus amount, according to Realogy Corp.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Realogy Corp. -- http://www.realogy.com/-- is all about keeping  
it real. The company is one of the biggest names in the real
estate business you've never heard of.  Instead, it operates
through the names you have heard of: Century 21, Coldwell
Banker, Sotheby's International Realty, and ERA. The company
also licenses the Better Homes and Gardens brand from Meredith
Corporation.  Realogy has nearly 16,000 offices (more than 900
are company-owned) in nearly 90 countries.  Besides its bread
and butter of residential real estate and corporate relocation,
it also offers title settlement and research through Title
Resource Group.  Domus Holding (an affiliate of Apollo Advisors)
acquired Realogy for a reported $9 billion.


CORN PRODUCTS: $4.8-Bln. Bunge Offer Challenged in Illinois Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corn Products International is facing a class-action complaint
before the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, over
allegations that the company is selling itself too cheaply to
Bunge Ltd. -- for $4.8 billion -- after nine consecutive
quarters of record sales and demand for its products growing,
for food and ethanol, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The report says that this is a stockholders' class action
brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Corn Products
who have been, and continue to be, deprived of the opportunity
to realize fully the benefits of their investment in the
company.

Shareholders sued the 10 directors of the company, which was
founded in 1906 and is based in Westchester, Illinois.  Bunge's
buyout, if accepted, would create the third-largest agribusiness
company in the United States.

Bunge offered Corn Products shareholders $56 per share; Corn
Products shareholders would end up owning 21% of Bunge if the
deal goes through.

Bunge's purchase of Corn Products is opportunistic and at an
unfair price, the complaint states, adding that world demand is
soaring and food prices are rising.

According to a June 23, 2008 Reuters report regarding the
transaction, "the deal comes as ethanol production, as well as
demand for food in developing economies such as India and China,
is driving up prices for corn.  Corn prices in the United States
have topped $7 per bushed this month, about double the levels of
a year ago, as flooding in the Midwest has wiped out wide
swathes of agricultural production."

"CPO recently reported its ninth consecutive quarter of record
sales and a 29% increase in net income over the same period in
the prior year.  On April 22, 2008, the company significantly
increased its earnings and revenues forecast, expecting earnings
to increase 12-22% and revenues to top $4 billion," Reuters
further says.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
         owed by them to plaintiffs and other members of the
         class; and

     (b) whether plaintiffs and other members of the class are
         being and will continue to be injured by the wrongful
         conduct alleged and, if so, what is the proper remedy
         and measure of damages.

The plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment:

     -- declaring this to be a proper class action and
        certifying named plaintiff as a class representative of
        the proposed class;

     -- ordering defendants to fulfill their fiduciary duties to
        plaintiffs and other members of the class by announcing
        their intention to:

        (1) cooperate fully with any entity or person, including
            any rival, having a bona fide interest in proposing
            any transactions that would maximize shareholder
            value, including, but not limited to, a merger or
            acquisition of CPO;

        (2) adequately ensure that no conflicts of interest
            exist between the defendants' own interest and their
            fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value
            or, in the event such conflicts exist, to ensure
            that all conflicts of interest are resolved in the
            best interest of the public stockholders of CPO; and

        (3) act independently so that the interests of the
            company's public stockholders will be protected;

     -- ordering the individual defendants, jointly and
        severally, to account to plaintiff and the other members
        of the class for all damages suffered and to be suffered
        by them as a result of the acts and transactions
        alleged;

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

     -- granting such other and further relief as may be just
        and proper.

The suit is "Sheila Simon, et al. v. Richard J. Almeida, et al.,
Case No. 08CH22717," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC
         55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-984-0000
         Fax: 312-984-0001


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Lawsuit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, has recently
filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, on behalf of all
purchasers of securities of Darden between June 19, 2007, and
December 18, 2007.

The complaint alleged that the company failed to disclose
material adverse facts about its financial well-being and
prospects, especially that food costs were rising at a higher
rate than the company admitted and its same-store sales were
experiencing negative trends.

Darden Restaurants, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in
the ownership and operation of casual dining restaurants in the
United States and Canada. The Company is based in Orlando, Fla.


DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: Sex Crimes by Priests Lead to Canada Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The brother of a man whose suicide note led to charges of sex
crimes against a Nova Scotia priest has filed a class action
lawsuit against the Diocese of Antigonish, claiming the diocese  
failed to protect the children in its care when it became aware
of the abuse, The Canadian Press reports.

The class action suit, filed on June 24, 2008, by Ronald Martin,
also names the Roman Catholic Church and a church official.

According to the report, Mr. Martin's brother, David, committed
suicide in April 2002, leaving behind a note that sparked a
criminal investigation and charges of rape, buggery and indecent
assault against former priest Hugh Vincent MacDonald.  These
charges also involved 18 children between the ages of eight to
15.

Mr. MacDonald, who served in various parishes in Pictou,
Guysborough and Antigonish counties and in Cape Breton, was
facing 27 charges when he died in 2004, Canadian Press recounts.
Halifax lawyer John McKiggan filed three separate civil lawsuits
against the diocese soon after Mr. MacDonald died and the
criminal charges were withdrawn.

Canadian Press says that the class action, also prepared by Mr.
McKiggan, was filed under Nova Scotia's new Class Proceedings
Act and announced in a release this Tuesday.  The class action,
which contains allegations not yet proven in court, involves
claims that Mr. MacDonald and several other priests were
sexually abusing children in their care between 1962 and this
year.

The lawsuit also claims that the diocese sent priests for
treatment for "sexual deviations" while failing to disclose
their behavior to the proper authorities.

"The priest abuse scandals across North America have raised
serious questions of how these kinds of horrible crimes against
children could happen again and again in parish after parish
over several decades," Mr. McKiggan said in a statement.  "This
lawsuit alleges that there was a worldwide conspiracy of silence
within the Roman Catholic Church and that the church's policy of
secrecy resulted in sexually abusive priests in the Antigonish
diocese being able to molest children . . . without fear of
public exposure."

Canadian Press recalls that 15 years ago, Mr. McKiggan filed
lawsuits against the diocese after two priests were convicted of
sexually assaulting more than a dozen boys in their parishes in
the 1960s and 1970s.  

"Unfortunately, this is more of the same," said Mr. McKiggan.
"The same pattern of secrecy; the same lack of accountability."

In an open letter to other potential plaintiffs, Mr. Martin
tells of how his family was shocked when his brother took his
own life.  "He was married, had two wonderful sons, a thriving
construction business on the West Coast of Canada and the world
seemed to be his oyster," he wrote.  "Although David outwardly
appeared to have a great life, there always seemed to be
something missing.  . . . He suffered from alcohol addiction, a
failed marriage and never seemed to be able to have a real
father-son relationship with his boys, although it was certain
that he loved them deeply."

In the letter, Mr. Martin revealed that he, too, was the victim
of abuse.  "I, like many of you, have lived in silence carrying
this horrible secret through every day of my life.  . . . I made
a vow to my brother that I would see justice served, that the
church and its representatives would be held accountable for his
death."

Canadian Press says it could not reach the diocese for comment
Tuesday.


DIRECTV INC: Faces La. Suit Over $162 "Early Cancellation" Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
DirecTV Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed on
June 23, 2008, before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana over allegations that it charged a $162
"early cancellation" fee, though the customer did not cancel
early, and the contract specified that such a fee would be only
$15, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff alleges that DirecTV's breach of contract and
charge of an excessive "early cancellation fee" was fraudulent,
arbitrary, capricious and in bad faith, entitling plaintiff to
attorney's fees and treble damages.  DirecTV is also allegedly
guilty of violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in its
furnishing of false and inaccurate account information regarding
alleged delinquencies for early termination fees, which were not
due, to credit agencies.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all those who have
suffered economic loss, damaged credit, aggravation, and other
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether an early cancellation fee was charged to an
         account after notice of cancellation of services was
         provided to DirecTV;

     (b) whether the individual customer complied with the terms
         of the customer agreement;

     (c) whether DirecTV breached the agreement with the
         individual customer by charging a fee that was not
         warranted and was deceptive;

     (d) whether DirecTV acted in bad faith in charging fees to    
         its customers which are not provided for in any
         contract or agreement;

     (e) whether DirecTV is liable to the plaintiff and class
         members for damages sustained by each individual;

     (f) whether the plaintiff and members of the class are
         entitled to receive remuneration for the economic loss,
         aggravation, pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages; and

     (g) whether the plaintiff and members of the class are
         entitled to attorney's fees, punitive or treble damages
         for the bad faith and fraudulent conduct of defendants
         in charging excessive and fees to its customers and
         in reporting inaccurate credit information and
         attempting to collect upon debts not due.

The plaintiff asks the court:

     -- to certify the class in appointing him as class
        representative;

     -- that the defendants be duly cited and served with a copy
        of the complaint and be required to answer same in
        accordance with law;

     -- to enter, after due delays and proceedings, a judgment
        in favor of representative individually and all other
        members of his representative class for all necessary
        and appropriate damages in the premises, as well as
        attorney's fees and penalties, along with legal interest
        from date of judicial demand, and all costs of these
        proceedings, but less than $75, 000 to each members of
        the plaintiff class exclusive of interest, cost and
        penalties, against the defendants jointly and severally;

     -- to award general and equitable relief; and

     -- for a trial by jury as to the claims asserted in the
        class action.

The suit is "Jack E. Truitt, et al. v. DirecTV Inc., et al.,
Case No. 08-3782," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Jack E. Truitt, Esq.
          Jennifer Cortes Poirier, Esq.
          Nancy N. Butcher, Esq.
          The Truitt Law Firm
          251 Highway 21
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Phone: 985-792-1062
          Fax: 985-792-1065
          e-mail: mail@truittlaw.com


E.I. DUPONT: Appeals Rulings in Spelter Lawsuit to Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. filed an appeal with the Supreme
Court of Appeals of West Virginia following a lower court's
October 2007 verdict in a Spelter zinc smelter class action
lawsuit.

The following statement is to be attributed to DuPont General
Counsel Stacey J. Mobley:

"We believe there were many errors that deprived DuPont of a
fair trial. DuPont believes it has been unfairly punished for
doing the right thing for this property and this community.
"The appeal filed today highlights a number of serious errors
committed by the trial court in the Spelter case.  We are
hopeful that the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia will
grant review of this appeal, which raises important questions
not only for DuPont but for the State of West Virginia.

"DuPont should not be penalized for conducting a remediation
under the supervision of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection.

"DuPont's remediation -- and cooperation with state and federal
regulators -- cannot constitute 'wanton, willful or reckless'
conduct required under West Virginia law to justify punitive
damages.

"We believe the evidence at trial showed that there is no
increased risk of disease or need for remediation in the class
area.  This evidence included soil sampling data showing that
contaminant levels on a classwide basis are generally below the
safe screening levels established by the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection.

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with
the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, also
conducted off-site soil testing prior to DuPont's remediation of
the Spelter site.  Based on these results, neither agency
concluded that additional off-site soil testing was necessary.
The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
investigated blood-lead levels of children in the Spelter
community and found no evidence that children in Spelter were
being exposed to hazardous levels of lead.

"DuPont sold the Spelter site in 1950. Nonetheless, the company
assumed responsibility for the site remediation and took the
initiative to reacquire the property in 2001.  DuPont should not
be penalized for working with federal and state authorities,
particularly where the company's clean-up efforts complied with
applicable state and federal regulations and provided a
substantial benefit to the community."

                        Case Background

In 2004, 10 property owners from the town of Spelter in West
Virginia, filed a negligence suit against DuPont for dumping
arsenic, cadmium and lead on a 112-acre site of a former zinc-
smelting plant, which property was bought by DuPont in 1899.  It
re-assumed ownership of the zinc smelting plant when it was shut
down by authorities in 2001 due to health concerns.

The lawsuit demands long-term medical monitoring, property
damages and punitive damages.

Aside from DuPont, the other defendants are:

     -- T.L. Diamond & Co. in New York and plant manager Joe
        Puashel;

     -- Nuzum Trucking Co. of Shinnston; and
        two defunct companies:
     
        * Matthiesen & Hegeler Zinc Co. Inc. of Illinois, and
        * Meadowbrook Corp. of West Virginia.

In Oct. 2007, an 11-member jury heard closing arguments in the
class action suit (class Action Reporter, Oct. 2, 2007).

During opening arguments, DuPont lawyers portrayed the company
as a good corporate neighbor, according to Associated Press.  
DuPont and Diamond deny wrongdoing.  During closing arguments,
an attorney for the plaintiffs argued that DuPont should be
required not only to clean up the mess but also to monitor the
health of the people living around it.

Dupont's attorneys denied the company deliberately created the
waste site saying there is no evidence to support that claim.  
They also said Dupont capped the site so it might someday be
redeveloped.  They also insisted that Dupont kept up its
responsibility of cleaning up the site.  DuPont lawyer Dave
Thomas, Esq., said even now DuPont does quarterly testing of the
West Fork River, where runoff from the waste piles once went.  
Defense attorney Jeffrey A. Hall, Esq., also argued for the
company.

The jury is to decide whether the companies have committed
wrongdoing.  If it found out that they did, it will next
determine whether the plaintiffs deserve medical screenings.  A
third phase would address property damages.  Finally,
the jury would address whether punitive damages should be
awarded.

DuPont has set aside $15 million to deal with the lawsuit,
according to an Aug. 1, 2007 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Wilmington, Delaware-based E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.  
(NYSE: DD) -- http://www.dupont.com/-- operates globally,     
manufacturing a range of products for distribution and sale to  
many different markets, including the transportation, safety and  
protection, construction, motor vehicle, agriculture, home  
furnishings, medical, electronics, communications, protective  
apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Reaches Tentative Settlement in USWA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FreightCar America, Inc., reached a tentative settlement with
representatives of the United Steelworkers of America and the
plaintiffs in the Sowers/Hayden class action litigation.

On Aug. 15, 2007, a lawsuit was filed against FreightCar America
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania by Samuel W. Pollak, Jr., and Robert A. Hayden,
Jr., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
(General Corporate Litigation Updates, Dec 28, 2007).

The plaintiffs were subsequently amended to Kenneth J. Sowers,
Anthony J. Zanghi and Robert A. Hayden, Jr.

The plaintiffs are employees at the Company's Johnstown,
Pennsylvania manufacturing facility and allege that they and
other workers at the facility were laid off by the Company to
prevent them from becoming eligible for certain retirement
benefits, in violation of federal law.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction requiring
the Company to return the laid-off employees to work.

The recent settlement is subject to ratification by the
Johnstown USWA membership in a vote scheduled to take place on
Thursday, June 26 and to court approval.

Thomas P. McCarthy, the Company's Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, commented, "The Company is pleased that the parties
were able to reach a mutually satisfactory tentative
settlement."

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations in this action
and intends to defend itself against these claims.

Chicago-based FreightCar America, Inc. is a manufacturer of
aluminum-bodied railcars and coal-carrying railcars in North
America, based on the number of railcars delivered.


GLOBAL CASH: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., is facing a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1934.

The suit was filed on April 11, 2008, by a stockholder against
the company, certain of its current and former directors, M&C
International, Summit Partners, L.P., Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc.,
and J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.

The action includes claims for, among other things, damages and
rescission, 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.

Las Vegas, Nevada-Based Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.globalcashaccess.com/-- is a provider of cash access  
products and related services to the gaming industry in the
United States and several international markets.  The Company's
products and services provide gaming establishment patrons
access to cash through a variety of methods, including automated
teller machine cash withdrawals, credit card cash advances,
point-of-sale debit card transactions, check verification and
warranty services and money transfers.  Its cash access products
and services enable three primary types of electronic payment
transactions: ATM cash withdrawals, credit card cash advances
and POS debit card transactions.  Holdings' customer solutions
consist of cash access products and services, information
services, cashless gaming products and credit card servicing.


HA-INT'L: Settlement Results in Dismissal of Foundry Resins Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated antitrust class action in Ohio over foundry
resins which named HA-International, LLC, a joint venture
company between Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. and Delta-HA,
Inc., was dismissed after HA-International reached a settlement
in the matter, according to Hexion Specialty's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

Between May and July 2004, 18 lawsuits were filed in various
jurisdictions alleging that Hexion and HAI, along with various
other entities, conspired to fix foundry resin prices and
allocate markets.

Subsequently, 10 of the cases were dropped and the eight
remaining cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.

On May 2, 2007, the District Court ruled that the plaintiffs'
proposed class of non-contract foundry resin purchasers would be
certified as a class for trial.

The defendants took an appeal from this decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which appeal was denied.  

Settlement talks thus began.

HAI's settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs resulted in an
agreement reached on Oct. 29, 2007, pursuant to which the
defendants would pay the class $7,000,000 with no admission of
wrongdoing and a dismissal for all HAI defendants.

Payment was made in the first quarter of 2008.  The action was
dismissed as to all HAI defendants, including the company, on
March 28, 2008.

Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. -- http://www.hexionchem.com/
-- is a maker of thermosetting resins (or thermosets) that add a
desired quality (heat resistance, gloss, adhesion) to a number
of different paints and adhesives.  The company also makers of
formaldehyde and other forest product resins, epoxy resins, and
raw materials for coatings and inks.


HIH INSURANCE: NSW Sup. Ct. Throws Out Misleading Conduct Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Reginald Barrett of the NSW Supreme Court has thrown out
a bid by HIH Insurance Ltd. shareholder Brian Johnston to reopen
his case against the liquidators of the collapsed insurer,
Sydney Morning Herald reports.

The class-action suit was brought by Mr. Johnston in 2007
against HIH liquidators Anthony McGrath and Christopher Honey,
along with a number of HIH subsidiaries, for loss and damage
incurred as a result of deceptive conduct.

SMH recounts that Mr. Johnston bought 40,000 HIH shares for
$10,269.20 in January 2001, just before the insurance giant
collapsed.  Mr Johnston claimed he was duped into buying the
shares because HIH failed to disclose in its financial report
that it had run at a loss the previous financial year.

The case was originally adjudicated in favor of the liquidators
in 2004, when Supreme Court Justice Ian Gzell dismissed Mr.
Johnston's claim for compensation.  Justice Gzell ruled that
Mr. Johnston had failed to satisfy the court that HIH's
financial report and an associated media release had materially
contributed to him purchasing his shares.

SMH further recalls that Mr. Johnston appealed this decision to
the NSW Court of Appeal and the High Court of Australia, and
ultimately lost both appeals.

The report relates that Mr. Johnston then attempted to file an
amended case in the NSW Supreme Court under the Commonwealth
Corporations Act.  On June 25, Justice Reginald Barrett refused
Mr. Johnston leave to appeal, and permanently stayed the
proceedings.

Justice Barrett, SMH notes, labeled Mr. Johnston's case an
"abuse of process."  He said, "The plaintiff, having obtained an
adverse decision on his first claim on the question of the
causative effect of HIH's conduct, has changed the form of the
proceedings to set up the same case again."

"To afford him any such opportunity would be manifestly unfair
to the liquidators of the HIH subsidiaries . . . It would raise
the very real prospect of conflicting judgments, and it would
threaten the integrity of the administration of justice," the
judge said.

Mr. Johnston was ordered to pay the liquidators' costs, SMH
adds.


MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Parties Wants Proceedings in "Bateman" Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter, "Michael Bateman v. American Multi-
Cinema, Inc. Case No. CV07-00171," which names Marquee Holdings,
Inc., as a defendant, are seeking a stay on all proceedings in
the case, according to the company's June 18, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended April 3, 2008.

In January 2007, a class action complaint was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more
than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on receipts given to customers.  It imposes significant
penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have
been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses
incurred by the card holder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.  

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of
certification in a similar FACTA case.

The parties have requested the District Court to stay all
proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit
case.  

The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess,
with referral to Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. (greg@spiromoss.com)
         Ira Spiro, Esq. (ira@spiromoss.com)
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

         David E. Novitski, Esq.
         Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
         333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
         Phone: 213-576-8097
         Fax: 213-576-8080


MCKESSON CORP: May Be Forced to Settle AWP Suit, Report Says
------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corp. will probably be forced to settle damage claims
of as much as $15 billion, or $50.34 a share, in the matter,
"New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al., v. First
DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corporation, Case No. 05-11148,"
Cary O'Reilly and Phil Milford of Bloomberg News report.

On June 2, 2005, a civil class action complaint was filed
against the company before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts and named as plaintiffs several health
benefit plans.  The suit is captioned, "New England Carpenters
Health Benefits Fund et al., v. First DataBank, Inc. and
McKesson Corporation, Case No. 05-11148."

The complaint alleges that in late 2001 and early 2002, the
company and co-defendant First DataBank conspired to improperly
raise the published Average Wholesale Price of certain
prescription drugs, and that this alleged conduct resulted in
higher drug reimbursement payments by plaintiffs and others
similarly situated.

The plaintiffs purported to represent a class of third party
payors who paid any portion of the price of certain prescription
drugs based upon the AWPs published by FDB during the period
Jan. 1, 2002, to March 15, 2005.

The complaint alleges claims against the company based on the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18
U.S.C. section 1962(c); California's Business and Professions
Code sections 17200 and 17500, and common law civil conspiracy,
and seeks injunctive relief, as well as actual, punitive and
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs, in an unspecified
amount.  On December 29, 2005, the company filed a response to
the plaintiffs' complaint, denying the allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

From July 2006 through November 2007, the plaintiffs filed three
amended complaints, which together sought to add a class of
consumers that made percentage co-payments (consumer co-pay
class) for certain prescription drugs and a class of uninsured
consumers who paid usual and customary prices for the
prescription drugs from Aug. 1, 2001 through the present (U&C
class), to modify and extend the purported class period
pertaining to third party payors from Aug. 1, 2001, to March 15,
2005, and to add an alternative count under various state
consumer protection statutes.

According to Bloomberg, the company has responded to all amended
complaints, denying the allegations and asserting numerous
affirmative defenses.   

No trial date has been set with respect to the third party payor
class or consumer co-pay class, the report says.  

However, although the district court has not yet certified any
alleged U&C class, a trial date of Jan. 26, 2009, is presently
set with respect to the alleged U&C class.

On March 19, 2008, the district court denied a motion filed by
the company to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings with
respect to the RICO claims asserted in the third amended
complaint.

Also on the same date, the district court entered an order
certifying:

       -- a consumer co-pay class for all purposes for the
          period Aug. 1, 2001 to May 15, 2005;

       -- the third party payor class for liability and
          equitable relief for the period from Aug. 1, 2001 to
          May 15, 2005; and

       -- the third party payor class for damages for the period
          Aug. 1, 2001 to Dec. 31, 2003.  

Although the complaints do not specify the amount of damages
sought for either of the two certified classes, prior to the
court's March 19, 2008 ruling plaintiffs filed a damages report
claiming damages of $6.8 billion for the third party payor class
and $214 million for the consumer co-pay class, which in the
case of the third party payors represented damages for a period
approximately 16 months longer than the period certified on
March 19, 2008, by the court.

The plaintiffs will submit a new damages report which we expect
will conform to the court's shorter class period and other
issues addressed in the opinion.

On April 2, 2008, the company petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit to allow immediate appeal of the
district court's March 19, 2008 class certification order.

The plaintiffs' filed a response to the petition on April 14,
2008 (Class Action Reporter, May 21, 2008).

In a Bloomberg interview, Diana Lee, an analyst for Moody's
Investors Service in New York, said that the size of damages
being claimed "could be material to the company, but we're not
making any assumptions about the outcome of the case."

"The fact that the judge has certified some classes of
plaintiffs is not viewed as a favorable development for
McKesson," she said.

McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply,   
information and care management products and services across the
healthcare industry.  It conducts business through three
segments.  The Company operates in two segments: The McKesson
Distribution Solutions segment and The McKesson Technology
Solutions segment.  The McKesson Distribution Solutions segment
distributes ethical drugs, medical-surgical supplies and
equipment, and health and beauty care products throughout North
America.  This segment also provides specialty pharmaceutical
solutions for biotech and pharmaceutical manufacturers, sells
pharmacy software and provides consulting, outsourcing and other
services.  The McKesson Technology Solutions segment delivers
enterprise-wide clinical, patient care, financial, supply chain,
and strategic management software solutions, pharmacy automation
for hospitals, as well as connectivity, outsourcing and other
services.


MINNESOTA: Housing Authority Won't Take Applications, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Minneapolis Public Housing Authority is facing a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota over allegations that it illegally refuses
to accept applications from disabled people younger than 50, and
illegally inquires about applicants' disabilities if they are
younger than 50, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The MPHA's policies, practices and actions violate federal
housing law and federal, state, and local law prohibiting
discrimination based on disability.

The nine named plaintiffs, identified only by their initials,
say the defendant has refused to accept applications from
disabled people younger than 50 since Oct. 1, 2007, in violation
of state and federal laws.  They claim that at least 243
disabled people younger than 50 had active applications for
public housing when the defendants illegally stopped accepting
applications.

The plaintiffs bring the suit pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(1)
and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
themselves and a class consisting of all individuals with
disabilities, as defined by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988, 42 USC Sections 3601-3619(2000); the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 Section 504, 29 USC Section 794 (2000); and the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title II, Section 201, 42 USC
Sections 12131-12134 (2000), who since Dec. 1, 2007, have been
unable to apply for the Public Housing Program administered by
the defendant because they were, or are under the age of 50.

The suit is "SRAM, et al. v. Minneapolis Public Housing
Authority, Case No. 08CV2754," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Dorinda L. Wider, Esq.
         Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis
         430 First Avenue North, Suite 300
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Phone: 612-746-3762


PEOPLEPC INC: To Refund Up To $30 as Part of "Nelsen" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A deal resolving a class action lawsuit, captioned "Nelsen v.
PeoplePC, Inc., Case No. CGC-07-460240," has been proposed.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges that, in the sale and
marketing of its dial-up Internet service, PeoplePC takes unfair
or unlawful steps to continue charging customers for PeoplePC
service even when they request cancellation.

PeoplePC has denied and continues to deny all of the plaintiff's
claims.  However, while continuing to deny any wrongdoing, the
company thinks it desirable to resolve the case on certain terms
in order to avoid further expenses, inconvenience, and
interference with its ongoing business operations, and to
dispose of burdensome litigation.  Thus, a settlement agreement
has been entered into by both parties to the case.

Under the settlement, claimants may make a claim for a cash
refund of up to $30.  Specifically, those who submit a valid
claim under penalty of perjury will be eligible to receive a
cash refund of fees paid after attempting to cancel PeoplePC
service, of $3, $5, or up to $30.

Also as part of the settlement, PeoplePC will change its
cancellation practices and policies.

Members of the settlement class are those who, between Feb. 6,
2002, and May 12, 2008, paid PeoplePC for Internet service
following a cancellation request.  To receive the cash payment,
class members must submit a completed claim form at           
http://www.peoplepc-settlement.com/by the later of September 7,  
2008, or 30 days after the court grants final approval to the
settlement.

A hearing has been scheduled in San Francisco Superior Court to
approve the settlement.  

If the settlement is approved, the plaintiff's counsel will
apply for an award of attorneys' fees, expenses and incentive
awards not to exceed $377,500, to be paid separately from and in
addition to the relief available to settlement class members.

Those who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement must
submit an exclusion request to the Claim Administrator at this
address:

          Claim Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting Inc.
          P.O. Box 507
          Minneapolis, MN 55440-0507

Objections to the settlement must be filed with the Court and
serve it on the parties' counsel at:

          Adam Gutride, Esq.
          Gutride Safier LLP
          P.O. Box 460026
          San Francisco, CA 94146
          (counsel for the plaintiff)

               - and -

          Nathan L. Garroway, Esq.
          McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
          303 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 5300
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          (counsel for PeoplePC)

All objections, requests to intervene and requests for exclusion
must be received (not just postmarked) by July 11, 2008, and
must comply with the instructions set forth in the Long Form
Notice at the settlement Web site.


PZENA INVESTMENT: Faces N.Y. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pzena Investment Management, Inc., is facing a consolidated
securities fraud lawsuit 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 quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

On Nov. 21, 2007, and January 16, 2008, substantively identical
putative class action suits were commenced against the company
and Richard S. Pzena, its chief executive officer, seeking
remedies under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.  

The Court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed co-lead
plaintiffs, who filed a consolidated amended complaint.  

The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the
company, Mr. Pzena, and two of the underwriters of the company's
initial public offering -- Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. and UBS
Securities LLC.  

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Class A common stock issued
pursuant or traceable to the company's IPO.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration
statement and prospectus relating to the IPO of the company's
Class A common stock contained material misstatements and
omissions and wrongfully failed to disclose net redemptions in
the John Hancock Classic Value Fund for which the company acts
as sub-investment advisor.  

The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount including rescission or rescissory damages.  

Pzena Investment Management, Inc. -- http://www.pzena.com/- is  
an independent investment management firm.  The Company is the
managing member of Pzena Investment Management, LLC, which is
its operating company.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company managed
assets in 10 value-oriented investment strategies across a range
of market capitalizations in both the U.S. and international
capital markets.  The Company's assets under management (AUM),
was $23.6 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007.  It managed money for
approximately 370 separate client relationships on behalf of
institutions and individuals and acted as sub-investment adviser
to 12 securities and exchange commission (U.S. government)
(SEC)-registered mutual funds and 10 offshore funds.


RC2 CORP: Claim Forms in Thomas & Friends Lawsuit Due on Oct. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 24, 2008, that an
Illinois court granted preliminary approval to a nationwide
class action settlement, resolving the claims of hundreds of
thousands of people who bought Thomas & Friends toys allegedly
contaminated with lead paint.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that RC2 Corp.
manufactured, distributed, sold and marketed certain Thomas &
Friends Wooden Railway toys which contained excessive levels of
lead or heavy metals in surface paint and which were recalled in
June and September 2007.

According to CAR, the settlement, which is valued at over
$30 million, also guarantees that RC2 Corporation -- the
manufacturer of the popular children's toys -- will implement a
battery of safeguards to ensure that its toys are suitable for
children to play with in the future.

People who purchased or own a recalled Learning Curve "Thomas &
Friends Wooden Railway" toy may be a part of the class action
settlement and may be entitled to file a claim for money, toys,
coupons, or limited reimbursement for blood testing of minor
children.

Under the terms if the proposed settlement, each class member
may be eligible to receive a full refund of the purchase prices
or Suggested Retail Prices of the recalled toys, or may exchange
their toy for a replacement toy plus a bonus toy.  If class
members do not have a proof of purchase and no longer possess
their toys due to destruction, they may be eligible for a coupon
towards the purchase of a new toy.  Additionally, each class
member that is entitled to receive a cash refund may also be
eligible for reimbursement of a portion of the costs of blood
lead tests conducted on their minor children as the result of
alleged exposure.  The settlement is not an admission of
wrongdoing by any party.

To obtain the benefits provided by the settlement, claimants
must complete and submit a claim form.  Claim forms can be
obtained by calling a toll-free number or by visiting the
settlement Web site.  Claim forms must be signed and postmarked
no later than October 6, 2008.

Complete information of the settlement is available at
http://www.learningcurvesettlement.com/or call class counsel at  
866-541-0323.

Those who do not wish to be a member of the settlement class
must file a letter with the Clerk of Court no later than
July 21, 2008, advising the Court of such matter.

Objections to the settlement must be filed in writing on or
before July 21, 2008, to:

          Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
          Daley Center, 50 W. Washington
          Chicago, IL 60602

Objectors must include their name and address, the name and
number of the case, and must submit proof of class membership
and a statement of reasons why the Court should find that the
settlement is not in the best interests of the class.  A copy of
the objection or comments must also be sent by first-class mail
to the attorneys for the settlement class and the defendant.

Class Counsel:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          53 W. Jackson, Ste. 550
          Chicago, IL 60604

Defendants Counsel:

          Bart T. Murphy, Esq.
          Ice Miller, LLP
          2300 Cabot Drive, Ste. 455
          Lisle, IL 60532

Judge Willion O. Maki of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, will hold a hearing on August 6, 2008, at 11:00 a.m.,
to consider final approval of the settlement.


REALOGY CORP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in "Berger" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries have reached a
tentative settlement in the matter, "Berger v. Property ID
Corp., et al., Case No. 05-5373," which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The original complaint was filed on July 25, 2005.  The suit, as
amended later, was filed by Mark Berger against Cendant, Century
21, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, and related
entities, among other defendants, who are parties to joint
venture agreements with Property I.D. Corp., which markets and
sells natural hazard disclosure reports in the State of
California.

The complaint names additional defendants, including certain
Realogy subsidiaries and several Prudential Real Estate
companies, which also had joint venture relationships with
Property I.D.

The complaint, as amended to date, alleges, among other things,
violations of RESPA, which restricts direct or indirect payments
from real estate settlement service providers for the referral
of business to other providers, and further alleged unlawful
business practices under the California Business and Professions
Code.  Mr. Berger alleges that the joint ventures are sham
arrangements that unlawfully receive payments or referral fees
in exchange for business.

The defendants have responded that they do not consider natural
hazard disclosure reports to be settlement services and
accordingly, the provision of such services is not within the
purview of RESPA.

In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class, which request was granted by the Court on April 28, 2008.
Classes were certified against the Realogy defendants and the
Pickford defendants, but not against the Silver Oak defendants
or the RE/MAX defendants as the plaintiffs had no class
representative for those joint ventures.

Mediation was held on August 14, 2007, October 23-24, 2007,
April 4, 2008, and May 9, 2008.  

At the mediation hearing on May 9, 2008, the company and the
plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle the matter as it
relates to claims against the company and its subsidiaries.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company
anticipates, based on its current assumptions, that the
aggregate amount it will pay in the settlement (including
attorneys' fees and costs of claims administration) will be
$4 million (the amount of the company's reserve at March 31,
2008).

The settlement is subject to execution of a written settlement
agreement, court certification of a class, and court approval.
There can be no assurance that the settlement will be finalized
or approved on these or other terms.

The suit is "Mark Berger v. Property ID Corp. et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-05373-GHK-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge George H. King, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Caryn Becker, Esq. (cbecker@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
         Embarcadero Ctr W, 275 Battery St, 30th Fl
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000

              - and -

         Jenna Whitman, Esq. (jwhitman@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-956-1000

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael C. Baum, Esq. (mbaum@rpab.com)
         Resch Polster Alpert & Berger
         9200 Sunset Boulevard, 9th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90069
         Phone: 310-277-8300


SELECT COMFORT: Customers Sue Over Moldy Mattresses
---------------------------------------------------
Select Comfort is facing a lawsuit over mold found in some of
its mattresses that were purchased prior to 2005, CBS 5 reports.

The report explains that when moisture from a person's body gets
under the mattress pad, it is trapped with no ventilation,
eventually turning into mold and multiplying.

Customer Gayle Fischer told CBS 5 that Select Comfort have
people register for the warranty and should have warned them
about the mold way in advance.  Ms. Fischer contacted
ConsumerWatch and then Select Comfort, who promised to give her
a refund.

Bill and Diane Balbierz also checked their bed and found mold,
CBS 5 relates.  Mr. Balbierz says this may explain some of his
"unexplainable" recent health issues.

"I've had difficulty with breathing, chest congestion.  I've
seen my doctor, I've gone to an allergist.  I've been taking
allergy shots for the last couple of years. Doctors found I have
some beginning asthma," Mr. Balbierz shared with CBS 5.

Ms. Balbierz also feels this may explain some of her recent
problems.  "I was experiencing rashes, very intense rashes on my
face and arms," she said.


SPARK NETWORKS: July Ruling Expected on Fees Issue in "Adelman"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, PLC, is expecting a July 2008 ruling on the
matter of attorneys' fees in the now dismissed purported class
action suit filed against the company, which alleges violations
of the California Dating Services Act.

On Nov. 14, 2003, Jason Adelman filed a nationwide class action
complaint against the company in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court based on an alleged violation of California Civil Code
section 1694 et seq., which regulates businesses that provide
dating services.

The complaint included allegations that the company is a dating
service as defined by the applicable statutes and, as an alleged
dating service, the company is required to provide language in
contracts that allow:

      -- members to rescind their contracts within three days;

      -- reimbursement of a portion of the contract price if the
         member dies during the term of the contract; and
     
      -- members to cancel their contracts in the event of
         disability or relocation.

Causes of action include breach of applicable state and federal
laws, fraudulent and deceptive business practices, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.  

The plaintiff sought remedies including declaratory relief,
restitution, actual damages although not quantified, treble
damages and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.
The case also sought to certify a nationwide class action based
on their complaints.  Because it was a class action, it was
assigned to the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Litigation
Program.

Mediation occurred in "Adelman" in 2004, but did not result in a
settlement.  A post-mediation status conference was held on
July 16, 2004.  At that status conference, the court suggested
that the parties agree to a bifurcation of the liability issue.  
The purpose of the bifurcation is to allow the court to
determine whether as a matter of law the California Dating
Services Act applies to the company.  

In this way, if the court determines that the CDS Act is
inapplicable, all further expenses associated with discovery and
class certification can be avoided.

The court has permitted limited discovery including document
requests and interrogatories, the parties will each be permitted
to take one deposition without further leave of the court, the
parties will be allowed to designate expert witnesses, and the
court will conduct a trial on the issue of the applicability of
the CDS Act to the company's business in the spring of 2006.

Although some written discovery relating to the bifurcated trial
has been completed, depositions have not yet been completed.  A
second mediation occurred in "Adelman" on Feb. 10, 2006.   

The mediation resumed soon afterward, but did not result in a
settlement.  The bifurcated trial on the issue of the
applicability of the CDS Act to the company's business in the
Adelman action was set for Sept. 12, 2006.

On Aug. 8, 2006, the court granted the company's application to
bifurcate the trial of the issue of actual injury or damages and
set the trial for Aug. 17, 2006.

The court determined at the Bifurcated Damages Trial that
Mr. Adelman did not suffer any actual injury or damages, thus
Mr. Adelman's claims were dismissed and a judgment was entered
to award attorneys' fees and costs to the company.  

On Jan. 31, 2007, the Court awarded the company $50,000 in legal
fees.  

The company filed an appeal of the attorneys' fees award in
order to seek an award of all of the attorneys' fees incurred in
this matter.  Although the company agrees that the Court
properly granted its Attorneys' Fees Motion, it believes that
the Court should have awarded the company attorneys' fees in the
full amount it requested, approximately $390,000, and not the
amount actually awarded, $50,000.

Mr. Adelman has cross-appealed in an attempt to vacate the
attorneys' fees award entirely.  The Appellate Court heard oral
argument on Feb. 19, 2008.

On March 20, 2008, the Appellate Court issued an Order Vacating
Submission in response to a letter dated March 17, 2008, from
the Court of Appeals in which the Court asked to be briefed on
certain additional issues.  Briefs were filed by both parties on
April 23, 2008.

The matter has been submitted to the Court for decision and the
company expects a decision within July 2008, 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.

Spark Networks, Inc. -- http://www.spark.net/-- is a provider  
of online personals services in the U.S. and internationally.  
The Web sites enable adults to meet online, participate in a
community and form relationships.  The features of the Company's
Websites include such as detailed profiles, onsite email
centers, real-time chat rooms, instant messaging services and
offline singles events.  The Websites include
http://www.Jdate.comhttp://www.AmericanSingles.com  
http://www.BlackSingles.comand http://www.ChristianMingle.com   
It also operates several international Web sites and maintains
operations in the United States and Israel.


SULPICIO LINES: Suit Looms Over Capsized Ferry During Typhoon
-------------------------------------------------------------
An advocacy group for crime victims, Volunteers Against Crime
and Corruption, announced on Monday that it was filing a class
action lawsuit against Sulpicio Lines, Inc., over what could be
one of the worst Philippine sea disasters, Carlos H. Conde
writes for International Herald Tribune.

Sulpicio Lines is the owner of 24,000-ton MV Princess of the
Stars, which ran aground and capsized on June 21 after typhoon
Frank (also known as Typhoon Fengshen) battered certain parts of
the country, press reports say.  The ferry held more than 800
passengers and crew members when it set sail from Manila to Cebu
on the night of June 20.

According to GMA News, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo is holding the company accountable for the incident,
which left 70 people dead and 744 others missing.

Rescue officials told International Herald that only 38 people
had been rescued so far, including 28 passengers and crew
members who came ashore Monday after drifting at sea since
Saturday.  Divers who beat against the hull of ferry on Monday
in search of survivors heard nothing that indicated life.

International Herald says that because of the accident, the
president ordered tighter maritime regulations.  "Pending a
review of Philippine Coast Guard protocols, no vessel sails if
it would pass a possible typhoon path," President Arroyo, who is
on a visit in the United States, said in a video conference with
her advisers on Monday.

In addition, the government has suspended the operation of all
vessels of Sulpicio Lines.

Distraught relatives of missing ferry passengers have trooped to
the Manila office of Sulpicio Lines since Sunday, many of them
blaming the company for the disaster, International Herald
relates.

Officials of Sulpicio Lines, however, said that they had tried
to set in motion a rescue operation as soon as they learned that
the ship had encountered problems.  But "severe weather
condition delayed the rescue efforts both from the sea and on
air," Carlos Go, Sulpicio Lines' chief executive officer, said
in a statement.  

"Our company also assures the families of all unfortunate
passengers who perished in this incident that they will be
properly compensated," Mr. Go added.

Coast guard officials explained to reporters earlier this week
that they had cleared the ferry to leave Manila for Cebu on
Friday night because the initial forecast for Typhoon Fengshen
showed that the storm would only hit the eastern part of the
country, away from the ferry's route.  

However, according to the government weather bureau, the typhoon
changed direction Saturday, moving toward the center of the
country, running right into the ferry's path.

Coast guard officials said they had advised the ferry to seek
shelter, but that the boat's engine had failed after the ship
was battered by strong winds and waves, thus leaving it even
more vulnerable to the intensifying storm.

International Herald notes that Sulpicio Lines is one of the
largest Philippine shipping companies, with 22 ships, both
freight and passenger, plying the waters of the Philippine
archipelago.  Its ships and ferries have figured in many of the
worst maritime disasters in the Philippines.  In December 1987,
the report recounts, an overloaded Dona Paz collided with an oil
tanker off Mindoro Island, killing 4,386 people.  A year later,
in October 1988, another Sulpicio Lines ship, Dona Marilyn, sank
near Leyte Province, killing 300 passengers and crew.  In 1998,
200 died when the Princess of the Orient, also a Sulpicio liner,
capsized near Manila during a storm.


TIME WARNER: Notice on Data Breach Suit Deal Sent to Claimants
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on June 18, 2008, that Time
Warner Cable has settled a lawsuit over allegations that it sold
subscribers' personal information for marketing purposes.

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

According to a notice sent to possible claimants, they may avail
of the free cable or get $5 if they submit a claim form.

The CAR report stated that the deadline for claimants to file
proofs of claim is on March 10, 2009.

Claimants may obtain complete information about the settlement,
including a Long Form Notice and Claim Form, by visiting the
settlement Web site at http://www.twcsettlement.com/by calling  
1-800-291-3831, or writing to:

          Time Warner Cable Settlement
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9264
          Dublin, OH 43017-4664

Those who want to be excluded from the settlement may mail a
request stating "I want to opt out," postmarked no later than
November 10, 2008, to the same address.

The settlement still needs to be approved by a U.S. District
Court judge.  A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Dec. 9,
2008.  Parties-in-interest may object to the settlement in
advance of that hearing by following the procedure set forth in
the Long Form Notice.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Settles Indiana FATA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travelcenters of America, LLC, reached a settlement in a
purported class action lawsuit filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, alleging
violations of Fair and Accurate Transactions Act.

The suit, "Bonner v. Travelcenters of America LLC, et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00142-AS-PRC," was filed on May 2, 2007.

FATA limits certain credit and debit card information that may
appear on electronically printed receipts provided to the
cardholder.

The plaintiff purports to represent a class of all persons
provided with electronically printed receipts for transactions
occurring at our travel centers in Indiana after Dec. 4, 2006,
which receipts allegedly violate FATA.  

The complaint also seeks damages of $100 to $1,000 per
violation, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs.

After initial pleadings in this litigation, on Feb. 28, 2008,
the company settled with three identified customers and the
plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice, according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

The suit is "Bonner v. Travelcenters of America LLC et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00142-AS-PRC," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana, Judge Allen Sharp, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
         Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC
         120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800,
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-739-4200
         Fax: 312-419-0379
         e-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Bruce de'Medici, Esq. (Bdemedici@mandellmenkes.com)
         Mandell Menkes LLC
         333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 300,
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-251-1000
         Fax: 312-251-1010


TRI-S SECURITY: Faces Georgia Suit Over Initial Public Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tri-S Security Corp. is facing a purported class action lawsuit
before the State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, in
connection with its initial public offering.

On Nov. 1, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Tri-S Security, its chief executive officer, its former
chief financial officer, and the lead underwriters in Tri-S
Security's initial public offering, alleging, among other
things, violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act.

The suit is entitled, "Unschuld v. Tri-S Security Corp., et
al.," and specifically alleges that the registration statement
relating to the company's IPO was materially inaccurate and
misleading because it failed to disclose certain problems with
the operations and financial condition of Paragon Systems of
which the complaint alleges the company was aware.

The suit seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages or rescission, as appropriate, and costs and
disbursements relating to the lawsuit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.

On Dec. 1, 2006, Tri-S Security removed the lawsuit to the U.S.  
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiff moved to remand the case back to the state court,
which motion was granted on Sept. 14, 2007, and the case is now
pending in the State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia,
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.

Tri-S Security Corp. -- http://www.trissecurity.com/-- is an  
aggregator of guard services, providing equipment and security
services to various government agencies and private sector
through its two direct, wholly owned subsidiaries, Paragon
Systems and Cornwall.  The Company's services include uniformed
guards, electronic monitoring systems, personnel protection,
access control, crowd control and the prevention of sabotage,
terrorist and criminal activities.  In connection with providing
these services, the Company assumes responsibility for a variety
of functions, including recruiting, hiring, training, arming and
supervising guards deployed to the customers.


U.S. HOME: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied a motion by U.S. Home Systems, Inc., that sought the
dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit against the
company, alleging certain violations of the California Labor
Code and unfair business acts and practices in violation of the
California Business and Profession Code, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

Originally, the suit was filed by two former employees in July
2007 before the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles Central District.  It was subsequently
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The plaintiffs assert the claims on their behalf and a class of
other plaintiffs similarly situated.  Relief sought in the
complaint includes unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable
relief, punitive damages, penalties (in addition to wages owed)
and attorney fees.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which request
was denied by the Court.

The suit is "Andrea Spiegler v. Home Depot U S A Inc et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-04428-CAS-AJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 109
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Zevin, Esq. (mzevin@smi-law.com)
          Stanley Mandel and Iola
          550 West C St., Ste. 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-235-5306
          Fax: 815-377-8419

Representing the defendants are:

          John J. Byrne, Jr., Esq.
          Johanson Berenson LLP
          1146 Walker Road Suite C
          Great Falls, VA 22066
          Phone: 703-759-1055

               - and -

          Marc R. Greenberg, Esq. (marc.greenberg@kyl.com)
          Keesal Young and Logan
          400 Oceangate, P.O. Box 1730
          Long Beach, CA 90801-1730
          Phone: 562-436-2000


U.S. HOME: Dismissal of "Spiegler" Suit Appealed to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Andrea Spiegler v. Home Depot U S
A Inc et al., Case No. 2:2007cv04428," which named U.S. Home
Systems Inc. as a defendant, are appealing the dismissal of the
case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In June 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed by a home
improvement customer of The Home Depot against The Home Depot,
Inc., Expo Designs Center, et al., in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles, alleging
certain unfair business acts and practices, violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and breach of contract.

The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.   The court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint.

The plaintiffs, who are comprised of two home improvement
customers of the company and The Home Depot, filed their first
amended complaint in October 2007, which included U.S. Home
Systems as a defendant.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint
against the defendants on Dec. 21, 2007, asserting basically the
same allegations as the original and the first amended
complaints.

The plaintiffs asserted the claims on their behalf and a class
of all others similarly situated.  Relief sought in the second
amended complaint included unspecified damages, and other
equitable relief and attorney fees.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and strike portions of
the plaintiffs' second amended complaint which was argued before
the Federal District Court on March 24, 2008.

On April 9, 2008, the Court granted the defendants' dismissal
motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims.

On May 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in connection
with the earlier dismissal of the case, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

The suit is "Andrea Spiegler v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:2007cv04428," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group PC
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 109
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Zevin, Esq. (mzevin@smi-law.com)
          Stanley Mandel and Iola
          550 West C St, Ste 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-235-5306
          Fax: 815-377-8419

Representing the defendants are:

          Darin T. Beffa, Esq. (dbeffa@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-680-8264

               - and -

          John J Byrne, Jr., Esq. (jjb@johansonberenson.com)
          Johanson & Berenson LLP
          1146 Walker Road, Suite C
          Great Falls, VA 22066
          Phone: 703-759-1055


UNITED PARCEL: Settles Tendered Packages Lawsuit for $6.25 Mln.
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., has settled a class action lawsuit
in connection with tendered packages for delivery within the
United States from the period January 1, 1998, to May 6, 2008.

The lawsuit claimed that, on occasion, UPS incorrectly charged
residential rates for shipping packages to commercial locations.  
Residential rates are higher than commercial rates.  The lawsuit
also claimed that a provision contained in UPS's Tariffs between
Jan. 7, 2002, and August 14, 2005, that required UPS shippers
not to participate in class action lawsuits against UPS was
"unconscionable."

UPS denies all allegations and has asserted many defenses.  UPS
says it is entering into the settlement to avoid burdensome and
costly litigation.  The settlement is not an admission of
wrongdoing or an indication that any law was violated.

The settlement of the class action suit affects people who are
members of either one of these classes:

A. Contract Settlement Class

   All shippers in the United States who tendered a packaged to
   UPS for delivery to a location in the U.S. from Jan. 1, 1998,
   to May 6, 2008, where the shipper was assessed a Residential
   Surcharge or a Residential Adjustment in connection with the
   delivery.

B. Declaratory Relief Settlement Class

   All shippers in the U.S. who tendered a package to UPS for
   delivery between Jan. 7, 2002, and August 14, 2005.  Excluded
   from the Settlement Classes are members of the judiciary,
   UPS, UPS employees, and any of UPS's parents, subsidiaries,
   or affiliates, and their officers, directors, and the members
   of their immediate family.

Under the settlement, UPS has agreed to issue a total of
$4 million in credit to eligible Contract Settlement Class
Members and an additional $2.25 million in vouchers.

Further details regarding the terms and conditions, including
eligibility requirements, are explained in the detailed Class
Notice, Claim Form, and Stipulation of Settlement, all of which
are available on the settlement Web site --
http://www.noticeclass.com/upssettlement-- or may be obtained  
by calling 1-800-754-9649.

To those who are eligible to receive a credit, UPS automatically
will credit your account.  To get a voucher, a claim form
package contains everything you need to know.

Claim forms must be submitted 90 days after the effective date
of the settlement.

Objections to the settlement must be received by July 25, 2008.

The Superior Court of California, County of Orange, will hold a
hearing in the case -- Runner v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et
al., Case No. 04CC00096 -- on September 10, 2008, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider whether to approve the settlement and attorneys'
fees and expenses totaling no more than $1,550,000.


UTSTARCOM INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fourth amended complaint was filed in a consolidated
securities fraud class action lawsuit pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
UTSTARCOM, Inc., according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class action
complaints alleging federal securities violations were filed
against the company and various officers and directors.  The
actions were later consolidated as "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc.
Securities Litigation."  

The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a first amended
consolidated complaint on July 26, 2005, alleging violations of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit was brought
on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the
company's stock after April 16, 2003, and before Sept. 20, 2004.  

On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, adding new allegations and extending the end of the
class period to Oct. 6, 2005.  In addition to the company
defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing Softbank.  The
plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of damages in an
unspecified amount.

On June 2, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  On March 21,
2007, the Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the   
second amended complaint.  The Court, however, granted the
plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint, which the
plaintiffs did on May 25, 2007.

On July 13, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the third
amended complaint.  This was granted by the Court, but with
leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which the plaintiffs
also did on May 14, 2008.

The suit is "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge James Ware presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534

              - and -

         Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100

              - and -

         Scott Christensen Hall, Esq. (halls@sullcrom.com)
         Sullivan & Cromwell
         1870 Embarcadero Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94303
         Phone: 650-461-5600
         Fax: 650-461-5700


UTSTARCOM INC: Court Nixes Amended Complaint in "Rudolph" Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------
At UTSTARCOM, Inc.'s behest, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California dismissed the amended complaint
in the matter, "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-04578-SI."

The purported shareholder class action suit was filed on
Sept. 4, 2007, against the company and some of its current and
former directors and officers.  It alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed
improper accounting practices concerning the company's
historical equity award grants.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between
July 24, 2002, and Sept. 4, 2007.  

On Dec. 14, 2007, the Court appointed James R. Bartholomew as
lead plaintiff.  

On Jan. 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On April 14, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint, according to the company's May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-04578-SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
          (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-398-8700
          Fax: 415-398-8704

               - and -

          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. (ekt@ftllaw.com)
          Attorney at Law
          1050 30th Street
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000

Representing the defendants is:
          Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-565-5100


* Law Firm Elevates 11 to Partnership in Chicago, 34 Firm-Wide
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eleven lawyers in the Chicago office of Sidley Austin LLP are
among the 34 lawyers elevated to partnership in the firm.

Effective July 1, the firm will have 681 partners in offices in
the United States, Europe, Asia and Australia.  The new Chicago
partners will be:

     -- Bobbi O. Anderson, Insurance;

     -- Mark Borrelli, Investment Funds, Advisers and
        Derivatives;

     -- Kara L. McCall, Products Liability;

     -- Robert P. O'Keefe, Insurance;

     -- Patricia M. Petrowski, Litigation;

     -- John T. Schaff, Tax;

     -- Elizabeth M. Schubert, Investment Funds, Advisers and
        Derivatives;

     -- Amanda M. Todd, Insurance;

     -- Dennis M. Twomey, Bankruptcy/Corporate Reorganization;

     -- Scott R. Williams, Corporate; and

     -- Ami N. Wynne, Labor, Employment and Immigration.

"Welcoming this new group of talented lawyers to our partnership
is a great privilege," said Thomas A. Cole, chair of the firm's
Executive Committee.  "Each of these lawyers embodies our firm
ideals and our commitment to excellence, integrity, diversity
and collegiality."

"Our new partners are among the highest caliber lawyers in the
world," added Charles W. Douglas, chair of the firm's Management
Committee.  "It is particularly rewarding to continue to
strengthen Sidley's much respected capacity to provide
exceptional legal services and client service in the U.S.,
Europe and Asia."

Bobbi O. Anderson, 32, will be a partner in the Insurance
practice.  She represents insurance companies, investment banks
and other financial institutions in connection with mergers and
acquisitions, insurance securitizations, structured finance
solutions, alternative risk transfer transactions, the issuance
of insurance-linked securities and other financial transactions.
Ms. Anderson, currently an associate, received her J.D. from
Vanderbilt University Law School and her B.S., with distinction,
from Purdue University.

Mark Borrelli, 44, will be a partner in the Investment Funds,
Advisers and Derivatives practice.  He represents clients,
including broker-dealers, investment advisors, commodity pool
operators, commodity trading advisors, and clearing agencies, on
transactional, compliance and enforcement matters relating to
securities and commodities, including organization and operation
of hedge funds and broker-dealers.  Mr. Borrelli previously
clerked for the Honorable George M. Marovich of the U.S.
District Court, N.D. of Illinois and served as an Assistant
Regional Director in the Midwest Regional Office of the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. Borrelli, currently a counsel, received his J.D., summa cum
laude, Order of the Coif, from University of Illinois College of
Law, where he was a Harno Fellow and on the Dean's List.  He
received his B.S., with highest honors, from University of
Illinois, Bronze Tablet, Beta Gamma Sigma, Phi Kappa Phi.

Kara L. McCall, 32, will be a partner in the Products Liability
practice.  She has worked on complex litigation matters
involving claims for wrongful death, personal injury, emotional
distress, property damage and subrogation arising out of
catastrophic fires and explosions, as well as the defense of
pharmaceutical manufacturing companies in class actions and
multi-district proceedings.  She has also handled several
consumer fraud class actions, including class actions in
arbitration proceedings.  Prior to joining the firm, Ms. McCall
clerked for Judge Diane P. Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals,
7th Circuit.

Ms. McCall, currently an associate, received her J.D., Order of
the Coif, from The University of Chicago Law School.  She
received her B.A. from Butler University.

Robert P. O'Keefe, 33, will be a partner in the Insurance
practice.  He represents insurance companies and other financial
institutions, including hedge funds, investment banks,
commercial banks and financial advisors, in connection with
various types of corporate and regulatory matters relating to
the insurance industry.  Mr. O'Keefe's areas of focus include
the structuring and regulation of alternative risk transfer
mechanisms targeted to both the property and casualty industry
and the life insurance industry and the structuring and
regulation of complex reinsurance arrangements.

Mr. O'Keefe, currently an associate, received his J.D., with
honors, from The University of Chicago Law School and his B.A.,
with honors, from the University of Notre Dame.

Patricia M. Petrowski, 35, will be a partner in the Litigation
practice.  She has worked on a diverse range of complex civil
litigation matters in both state and federal courts, as well as
a wide variety of arbitrations and other alternative dispute
resolution proceedings.  Ms. Petrowski has tried five cases and
has also represented several parties in appellate matters.  Her
areas of practice include False Claims Act litigation,
reinsurance disputes, trust and estate litigation, and white-
collar defense and internal corporate investigations.

Ms. Petrowski, currently an associate, received her J.D. from
The University of Michigan Law School and her B.S., with high
honors, Phi Beta Kappa, from Michigan State University.

John T. Schaff, 33, will be a partner in the Tax practice.  He
represents domestic and foreign entities involved in a variety
of transactions, including mergers and acquisitions,
partnerships and joint ventures, spin-offs and other divisive
transactions, securitizations and securities offerings.  He also
has experience advising clients in connection with contested
federal tax matters, matters involving federal income tax
credits, deferred compensation arrangements and state and local
tax matters.

Mr. Schaff, currently an associate, received his J.D., cum
laude, from Harvard Law School and his B.S. from University of
Minnesota-Twin Cities.

Elizabeth M. Schubert, 41, will be a partner in the Investment
Funds, Advisers and Derivatives practice.  She provides advice
to hedge funds and other end users of derivative products.  Ms.
Schubert's experience includes over the counter derivatives
contracts like ISDA Master Agreements and Master Repurchase
Agreements and also spans to other arrangements, including prime
brokerage and futures agreements.

Ms. Schubert, currently an associate, received her J.D., with
honors, from The George Washington University Law School, her
M.P. from University of Virginia and her A.B. from Bryn Mawr
College.

Amanda M. Todd will be a partner in the Insurance practice. She
provides counsel to various institutions, including insurance
companies, investment banks and registered and unregistered
investment vehicles and advises both SEC registered and non
registered corporations with respect to their disclosure
obligations under applicable securities laws.

Ms. Todd, currently an associate, received her J.D., cum laude,
from Loyola University Chicago School of Law and her B.A. from
University of Michigan.

Dennis M. Twomey, 32, will be a partner in the
Bankruptcy/Corporate Reorganization practice. His practice
encompasses all areas of corporate reorganization and bankruptcy
matters, focusing on the representation of various parties in
complex Chapter 11 cases.

Mr. Twomey, currently an associate, received his J.D., with
honors, from The University of Chicago Law School and his B.S.,
with highest honors, from University of Illinois.

Scott R. Williams, 33, will be a partner in the Corporate
practice.  He represents both buyers and sellers in public and
private acquisitions, issuers and underwriters in public and
private offerings and debtors and creditors in reorganizations
both in and out of bankruptcy. Prior to joining the firm, Mr.
Williams clerked for the Honorable Cornelia Kennedy of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Mr. Williams, currently an associate, received his J.D., magna
cum laude, from Notre Dame Law School, where he served as
Articles Editor for the Notre Dame Law Review, and his B.S.S.
from Cornell College.

Ami N. Wynne, 32, will be a partner in the Labor, Employment and
Immigration practice.  She litigates various employment
discrimination, restrictive covenant, breach of fiduciary duty
and other employment-related cases in state and federal courts
and handles employment and labor matters in arbitrations and
before various administrative agencies.  She also counsels
employers of all sizes with respect to various employment-
related agreements and policies, issues surrounding reductions
in force and facility closings, termination and other personnel
decisions, and numerous other employment-related matters.

Ms. Wynne, currently an associate, received her J.D. from
Harvard Law School and her B.A., cum laude, from Harvard
University.

Sidley also named the following to partnership in its other
offices:

     -- Beijing - Chen Yang;

     -- Brussels - Ken Daly and Kristina Nordlander;

     -- Frankfurt - Werner Geibelmeier;

     -- Geneva - Nicolas J.S. Lockhart;

     -- Hong Kong - Jason T. Kuo and Scott Dennis Peterman;

     -- London - David Howe;

     -- Los Angeles - Joshua E. Anderson, Stephen D. Blevit,
        Alycia A. Degen and Mitchell Poole;

     -- New York - Jonathan P. Brose, Nicholas H. De Baun, Bindu
        Donovan, Stuart S. Koonce, Todd L. Krause, Michael
        Madigan and Xiaowen Qiu;

     -- San Francisco - Theodore W. Chandler;

     -- Sydney - Bruce Dailey;

     -- Washington, D.C. - Karl F. Kaufmann and Robert D.
        Keeling.

Sidley's Chicago office, with more than 500 lawyers, traces its
origins back to 1866.  Chicago office lawyers work on a broad
range of litigation, transactional and regulatory matters.
Lawyers in the litigation practice have trial and appellate
experience in virtually all areas of litigation, including
antitrust, bankruptcy, class action litigation, white collar,
criminal, corporate takeovers, directors' and officers'
liability, employment, environmental, government contracts,
immigration, insurance coverage, intellectual property, lender
liability, products liability, real estate, regulated
industries, securities litigation and tax.  The office's
corporate lawyers advise clients on corporate and related areas,
including mergers and acquisitions, banking and commercial
finance, corporate governance, corporate finance, investment
funds, hedge funds, private equity funds and other pooled
investment entities, insurance, securities regulatory and
enforcement, broker dealer regulation, bankruptcy and
restructuring, commodities, real estate and REITs, intellectual
property, project finance and tax.  Highlights of the regulatory
practice include representation of insurance companies, life
sciences companies, utilities, telecoms and banking and
financial institutions.

Sidley Austin LLP is one of the world's largest full-service law
firms, with more than 1800 lawyers practicing in 16 U.S. and
international cities, including Beijing, Brussels, Frankfurt,
Geneva, Hong Kong, London, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney and
Tokyo.  Every year since 2003, Sidley has been named to Legal
Business' Global Elite, their designation for "the 15 finest law
firms in the world." BTI, a Boston-based consulting and research
firm, has named Sidley to their Client Service Hall of Fame as
one of only two law firms to rank in the Client Service Top 10
for seven years in a row.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

EVERGREEN ULTRA: Klayman & Toskes Files Suit in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes has commenced a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the
Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund.

The Evergreen Fund was managed by Evergreen Investments which is
the name under which Wachovia Corporation operates its
investment management business.

When investors were solicited to purchases shares of the Fund,
they were advised that the investment objective of the Fund was
preservation of capital.  Specifically, within several verbal
discussions as well as the sales material distributed to the
investing public, the Fund was promoted as one that sought
"current income consistent with preservation of capital and low
principal fluctuation."  However, investors have claimed that
Wachovia misled them with regard to the risks associated with
the Fund, as well as the Fund's exposure to the subprime
mortgage market.  It turns out that the Fund was not
diversified, but instead was over-concentrated with
approximately 72% of its assets invested in the mortgage
industry.  Apparently, the Fund primarily invested in
residential and commercial fixed and variable rate mortgage-
backed securities including collateralized mortgage obligations  
and other types of mortgage related securities.

As a result of the high-risk asset allocation of the Fund, it
experienced a decline of about 20% in less than 3 weeks.

For more information, contact:

          Steven D. Toskes, Esq.
          Jahan K. Manasseh, Esq.
          Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
          Phone: 888-997-9956
          Web site: http://www.nasd-law.com/


FIFTH THIRD: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith discloses that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common or
preferred stock of Fifth Third Bancorp between October 19, 2007,
and June 17, 2008, including a sub-class of Class members who
purchased $750,000,000 (in aggregate liquidation amount) of
7.25% Trust Preferred Securities, liquidation amount $25 per
security, which were registered pursuant to an automatic shelf
registration statement on a Form S-3 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Fifth Third Bancorp's financial condition and
prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Fifth
Third Bancorp securities.

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

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847
          Toll-Free: 888-38-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


WACHOVIA CORP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock
of Wachovia Corp. between May 8, 2006, and April 11, 2008.

The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Wachovia.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *