CAR_Public/080701.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 1, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 129
  
                            Headlines

AIRLINES: Lawyers in AU Antitrust Suit Hail Key Development
CONCORD CAMERA: Fla. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
COOLIBAR INC: Recalls Hoodies Posing Strangulation Hazard
CYBERONICS INC: Settlement Dismisses Texas Derivative Lawsuits
DELL: N.M. Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Online PC Purchases

DYNEX CAPITAL: 2nd Circuit Dismisses Teamsters' Securities Suit
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Sept. 8 Docket Call Set in FCA Lawsuit
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Sept. 8 Docket Call Set for PVC Litigation
MEDCO HEALTH: Hearing Expected in 2008 for ERISA Lawsuits Deal
MERCK & CO: Still Faces Vioxx Shareholder Lawsuits in New Jersey

MERCK & CO: Continues to Face Fosamax Product Liability Lawsuits
MERCK & CO: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
MERCK & CO: Plan Member Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit
MERCK & CO: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Vytorin, Zetia Sale
MERCK & CO: N.J. High Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Sinclair"

MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Reverses Certification Order in Viox Suit
NYMEX HOLDINGS: Capozza Wants to Amend Complaint in Del. Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: No Trial Date Set for "Smith" Lawsuit in Kansas
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals Pending in Brazil Smokers' Lawsuit
PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Faces Personal Injury Lawsuit in Brazil

PHILIP MORRIS: Units Face Tar, Nicotine Yields Suit in Bulgaria
PHILIP MORRIS: Israeli High Court Dismisses Appeal in "Sasson"
PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Fraud Suits in Israel Over "Lights" Term
PHILIPPINES: Court Junks Journalists' Suit Over Peninsula Siege
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS: Faces Investor Suit in New South Wales

SPORT CHALET: Faces Purchasers' Suit Over Zip Code Requests
TEAMSTERS INTL: Calif. Suit Accuses Conspiracy Against Workers
TRINITY GLASS: Faces Ala. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION: Sued Over Wrongful Visa Denial
UST INC: Class Member Appeals Final Approval of Calif. Suit Deal

UST INC: Parties Asked to Submit Amended Agreement in Mass. Suit
VERIZON: Workers Seek Pay from Contractors and Subcontractors
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Woman Sues, Saying Bras Caused Rashes
WESTMINSTER INC: Recalls RC Helicopter Toys Due to Fire Risk


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Holzer & Fistel Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
FIRST AMERICAN: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
INDYMAC BANCORP: Brualdi Files Securities Suit in California
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Brualdi Files S.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit



                           *********


AIRLINES: Lawyers in AU Antitrust Suit Hail Key Development
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing hundreds of Australian businesses involved
in a class action against airline freight price fixing have
hailed as a key development a decision by four more
international airlines to plead guilty.

Air France-KLM, Cathay Pacific, SAS Cargo Group and Martinair
reached an agreement with the US Justice Department to plead
guilty to colluding to fix freight rates and pay fines totaling
more than $US500 million.  A US$350-million criminal fine
against Air France-KLM is the second-highest fine ever levied in
a US criminal antitrust prosecution.

The fines follow similar agreements with several other airlines,
including Qantas, which paid a $US61 million fine, and British
Airways, which was slugged $300 million.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn has launched a class action on behalf
of affected companies and has been watching moves in the US
along with regulators in Australia, Europe and New Zealand.

"This is a key development in this case as it means that five
out of the seven respondent airlines in the Australian class
action have either pleaded guilty or received conditional
immunity," Maurice Blackburn lawyer Kim Parker said yesterday.
"The only ones outstanding now are Singapore Airlines and Air
New Zealand."

Ms. Parker said the new fines suggested the issue was developing
significant momentum and said hundreds of companies had already
signed up for the local action.  "We've got a significant number
of multinationals, so there are a lot of medium to large
businesses involved in it and obviously small businesses as
well," she said.

"It's been very promising that people have supported the case in
that way."

She said the local action was in a holding pattern while lawyers
awaited a decision on pleading issues that would allow defenses
to be filed and process of discovery to start.

But she noted that Lufthansa had already paid out money to
litigants in the US and Canada.


CONCORD CAMERA: Fla. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued its final approval of a Stipulations and
Agreements of Settlement in a consolidated securities fraud
class action lawsuit and the related shareholder derivative
action suit filed in November 2004 against Concord Camera Corp.
and certain of its officers and dismissed both actions with
prejudice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On April 11, 2008, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement (Class Action Reporter, June
24, 2008).

On June 19, 2008, the court issued its final approval of the
Stipulations and Agreements of Settlement.

As previously disclosed, the Company sought coverage from its
insurance carrier for these lawsuits under its directors' and
officers' liability insurance policy and the insurance carrier
defended the actions under a reservation of rights.

The agreed upon settlement amounts were within the policy limits
and the insurance carrier has agreed to pay such amounts.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

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

              - and -

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


COOLIBAR INC: Recalls Hoodies Posing Strangulation Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Coolibar Inc., of St. Louis Park, Minn., in cooperation with the  
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
3,000 children's Sun Block jackets and hoodies.

The company said the garments have a drawstring through the
hood, posing a strangulation hazard to children.  In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets or sweatshirts.

No injuries have been reported.

The recalled jackets and hoodies have a drawstring through the
hood.  They were sold in children's sizes 2 through 12.  The
jackets were sold in these colors: tan, stone, bayou blue, crisp
blue, white, berry, and citrus.  The hoodies were sold in teal,
kiwi, mandarin, aloe green, paprika, hibiscus, smokey blue,
white, sherbet, cobalt, and stone.

These recalled hoodies were manufactured in China and were being
sold at Coolibar's catalog and http://www.coolibar.com/from  
March 2005 through April 2008 (hoodies) and from February 2008
through April 2008 (jackets) for between $25 and $40.

Pictures of the recalled hoodies are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08316a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08316b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstring from
the jacket or hoodie to eliminate the hazard, or contact the
firm for instructions on returning the garment to the firm for a
full refund.

For additional information, contact Coolibar Inc. toll-free at
866-266-5422 between 7:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT, visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.coolibar.com/or send e-mail at:  
recall@coolibar.com


CYBERONICS INC: Settlement Dismisses Texas Derivative Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Derivative lawsuits filed in Texas courts against Cyberonics,
Inc., have been dismissed after a settlement was reached and
later approved, according to Cyberonics' June 24, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 25, 2008.

The company was named as a nominal defendant in a stockholder
derivative lawsuit brought on behalf of the company, styled
"Rudolph v. Cummins, et al.," which is pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  This suit
also named several of the company's current and former officers
and directors as defendants.

The suit alleged purported improprieties in the company 's
issuance of stock options and the accounting related to
issuances.

An operative amended complaint purported to state a putative
class action claim against the individual defendants for
violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as
claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty, gross mismanagement and corporate waste, against the
officer defendants for unjust enrichment and against certain
individual defendants for insider trading.

The company was also named as a nominal defendant in five
stockholder derivative lawsuits brought on behalf of the company
in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, alleging
purported improprieties in its issuance of stock options and the
accounting related to such issuances.

These state cases were consolidated into a single case, "In re
Cyberonics, Inc. Derivative Litigation," in the 189th Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas, in January 2007
(together with Rudolph v. Cummins, the "Derivative Lawsuits").

On Nov. 18, 2006, the company's board of directors formed a
Special Litigation Committee to investigate, analyze and
evaluate the claims raised in the Derivative Lawsuits and to
determine the actions, if any, the company should take with
respect to the derivative claims, including whether to pursue,
to seek to dismiss or to attempt to resolve the derivative
claims in the best interests of the company and its
stockholders.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the company moved to stay all proceedings in
the Derivative Lawsuits pending the completion of the SLC
process.

In April 2007, the federal district court entered an order
staying the Rudolph case for 90 days to permit the SLC to
complete its investigation.  The federal district court further
extended the stay of the Rudolph case in August, October and
December 2007.

On Oct. 16, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
reached an agreement in principle, set forth in a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs, to settle claims alleged in
the Derivative Lawsuits.  

On Dec. 27, 2007, as contemplated in the MOU, the company, along
with the individual defendants, entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with the plaintiffs pursuant to which the parties
agreed, consistent with the terms and conditions in the MOU, to
settle the claims alleged in the Derivative Lawsuits.

On Jan. 2, 2008, the 189th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas entered a Preliminary Approval Order in connection
with the settlement.  

On Jan. 17, 2008, the company published notices of the
settlement to shareholders.

On March 7, 2008, the 189th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas entered a final judgment approving the settlement
and dismissing the case.  

On March 17, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas entered a final judgment dismissing, "Rudolph
v. Cummins."  

Also on March 17, 2008, the company's insurer paid $650,000 into
escrow pending finality of the judgments in the Derivative
Lawsuits.  

On April 22, 2008, the period for appealing the judgments in the
Derivative Lawsuits expired without an appeal.  Thereafter, the
escrowed funds were paid to the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Cyberonics, Inc. -- http://www.cyberonics.com/-- is a  
neuromodulation company engaged in designing, developing and
bringing to market medical devices that provide Vagus Nerve
Stimulation (VNS) Therapy, for the treatment of epilepsy,
treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and other debilitating
neurological or psychiatric diseases, and other disorders.


DELL: N.M. Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Online PC Purchases
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Supreme Court is allowing a potential multi-state
class action lawsuit against Dell Inc. in a dispute over online
computer purchases, The Associated Press reports.

The report recounts that the Texas-based computer maker wanted
to force arbitration of a New Mexico resident's claims,
contending that was required under terms and conditions of
computer purchases on the company's Web site.  The company also
maintained that Texas law should apply in the case.

The AP relates that New Mexico's highest court ruled against the
company in a unanimous decision issued on June 27, 2008.  Dell's
arbitration clause banned class action lawsuits and the court
said that was not valid in New Mexico.

"Contractual prohibition of class relief, as applied to claims
that would be economically inefficient to bring on an individual
basis, is contrary to the fundamental public policy of New
Mexico to provide a forum for the resolution of all consumer
claims and is therefore unenforceable in this state," the court
stated.

The decision, according to the AP report, reversed a 2007 ruling
year by the state Court of Appeals.  The case returns to a
district court in Albuquerque for further proceedings.

Albuquerque lawyer Robert Fiser, Esq., filed the lawsuit after
buying a Dell computer online from the company in 2003.  He
contended that the computer had less memory than had been
promised by the manufacturer and the misrepresentation violated
New Mexico law against unfair business practices.


DYNEX CAPITAL: 2nd Circuit Dismisses Teamsters' Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled
in favor of Dynex Capital, Inc., in an appeal regarding a
dismissal of certain defendants in a securities fraud class
action lawsuit filed against Dynex Capital Inc. and its
subsidiary, MERIT Securities Corp.

On Feb. 11, 2005, a putative class-action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and various state
common law claims was filed against:

     -- Dynex Capital, Inc.,

     -- subsidiary MERIT Securities Corp.,

     -- Stephen J. Benedetti, the company's executive vice    
        president, and

     -- Thomas H. Potts, the company's former president and a
        former director.

The Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund filed the
suit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The lawsuit purported to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds,
which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans.  

On May 31, 2005, the Teamsters filed an amended class action
complaint.  The amended complaint dropped all state common law
claims but added federal securities claims related to the MERIT
Series 12 securitization financing bonds.  On July 15, 2005, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  

On Feb. 10, 2006, the District Court dismissed the claims
against the company's former president and its current chief
operating officer, but did not dismiss the claims against the
Company or MERIT.  

The company and MERIT petitioned for an interlocutory appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The
Second Circuit granted the company's petition on Sept. 15, 2006,
and heard oral argument on the appeal on Jan. 30, 2008 (Class
Action Reporter, June 17, 2008).

In its opinion, the Court of Appeals sided with the Company in
ordering the district court to dismiss the litigation against
the Company and its subsidiary, MERIT Securities Corporation,
but with leave to replead.

The Court of Appeals found that the Teamsters failed to identify
any information that would demonstrate that any of the Company's
statements to investors were misleading or that there was any
intent to mislead, in connection with the issuance of bonds
backed by manufactured housing loans in 1999.

The suit is "Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund,
et al. v. Dynex Capital, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01897-
HB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Judge Harold Baer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com)
          Christopher Lometti, Eqs. (chris@spornlaw.com)
          Samuel P. Sporn, Esq. (samuel@spornlaw.com)
          Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., Esq.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-964-0046
          Fax: 212-267-8137

Representing the company are:

          Monica Shelton Call, Esq. (mcall@hunton.com)
          Eric Harrison Feiler, Esq. (efeiler@hunton.com)
          Edward Joseph Fuhr, Esq. (efuhr@hunton.com)
          Terence James Rasmussen, Esq. (trasmussen@hunton.com)
          Joseph John Saltarelli, Esq. (jsaltarelli@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams, LLP
          951 East Byrd Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: 804-788-8632
          Fax: 804-788-8218


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Sept. 8 Docket Call Set in FCA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas set a
Sept. 8, 2008 docket call for a purported class action lawsuit
filed by Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., against funeral home
businesses, including Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., according to
Hill-Rom's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On May 2, 2005, FCA, a non-profit entity, and several individual
consumers filed a purported antitrust class action suit against
three national funeral home businesses -- Service Corporation
International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Stewart Enterprises,
Inc. -- together with the company and its former Batesville
Casket Co., Inc. subsidiary, now wholly owned by Hillenbrand,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The lawsuit alleged:

       -- a conspiracy to suppress competition in an alleged
          market for the sale of caskets through a group boycott
          of so-called independent casket discounters, that is,
          third-party casket sellers unaffiliated with licensed
          funeral homes;

       -- a campaign of disparagement against these independent
          casket discounters; and

       -- concerted efforts to restrict casket price competition
          and to coordinate and fix casket pricing, all in
          violation of federal antitrust law and California's
          Unfair Competition Law.

The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that Batesville's
maintenance and enforcement of, and alleged modifications to,
its long-standing policy of selling caskets only to licensed
funeral homes were the product of a conspiracy among Batesville,
the other defendants and others to exclude independent casket
discounters and that this alleged conspiracy, combined with
other alleged matters, suppressed competition in the alleged
market for caskets and led consumers to pay higher than
competitive prices for caskets.

The FCA Action further alleged that two of Batesville's
competitors, York Group, Inc., and Aurora Casket Company, are
co-conspirators but did not name them as defendants.  The FCA
Action also asserted that SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and other
unnamed co-conspirators conspired to monopolize the alleged
market for the sale of caskets in the U.S.

After the FCA Action was filed, several more purported class
actions on behalf of consumers were filed based on essentially
the same factual allegations and alleging violations of federal
antitrust law and related state law claims.  

Batesville, Hillenbrand, and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the FCA Action and a motion to transfer to a more
convenient forum.  In response, the court in California
permitted the plaintiffs to replead the complaint and later
granted the defendants' motion to transfer the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the FCA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
consolidating all but one of the other purported consumer class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.  The amended FCA complaint contains substantially the
same basic allegations as the original FCA complaint.  

The only other then remaining unconsolidated purported consumer
class action, "Fancher v. SCI et al.," was subsequently
dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff after the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss.

On Oct. 26, 2006, however, a new purported class action suit was
filed by the estates of Dale Van Coley and Joye Katherine Coley,
Candace D. Robinson, Personal Representative, consumer
plaintiffs, against Batesville and the company in U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma alleging violation of
the antitrust laws in fourteen states based on allegations that
Batesville engaged in conduct designed to foreclose competition
and gain a monopoly position in the market.  This lawsuit was
largely based on similar factual allegations to the FCA Action.

Batesville and the company had this case transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas in order to
coordinate this action with the FCA Action and filed a motion to
dismiss this action.

On Sept. 17, 2007, the Court granted Batesville's and the
company's motion to dismiss and ordered the action dismissed
with prejudice.
  
The FCA plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class that
includes all U.S. consumers who purchased Batesville caskets
from any of the funeral home co-defendants at any time during
the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of
limitations.

On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court denied the defendants' November 2005
motion to dismiss the amended FCA complaint.  Class
certification hearings were then held on the matter in early
December 2006.  

Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class certification
motions was completed in March 2007, though briefing on certain
supplemental evidence related to class certification in the FCA
Action also occurred in September 2007 and October 2007.  The
Court has not yet ruled on the motions for class certification.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
both cases, including the previously set February 2008 trial
date.  

On April 25, 2008, the Court reset a docket call in both the FCA
and Pioneer Valley Actions, previously set for May 5, 2008, for
Sept. 8, 2008.

A docket call is typically a status conference with the Court to
set a trial date.  It is anticipated that new deadlines,
including a trial date, will not be set until sometime after the
Court has ruled on the motions for class certification.

The plaintiffs in the FCA Action filed a report indicating that
they are seeking damages ranging from approximately $947 million
to approximately $1.46 billion before trebling.

The suit is "Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc., et al. v. Service
Corp. International, Case No. 4:05-cv-03394," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Kenneth
M. Hoyt, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan S. Abady, Esq. (jabady@ecbalaw.com)
          Emery Celli Brinckerhoff
          545 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-763-5000
          Fax: 212-763-5001
           
               - and -

          Gordon Ball, Esq. (gball@ballandscott.com)
          Ball & Scott
          550 W. Main Ave., Ste. 750
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Phone: 865-525-7028
          Fax: 865-525-4679

Representing the defendants are:  

          John F. Cove, Jr., Esq. (jcove@bsfllp.com)
          Richard Bruce Drubel, Jr., Esq. (rdrubel@bsfllp.com)
          Boies Schiller Flexner
          Phone: 510-874-1000
                 603-643-9090
          Fax: 510-874-1460
               603-643-9010

               - and -

          Kenneth S. Marks, Esq. (kmarks@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey, LLP
          1000 Louisiana, Ste. 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Phone: 713-946-9567
          Fax: 713-654-6666


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Sept. 8 Docket Call Set for PVC Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas set a
Sept. 8, 2008 docket call in the case, "Pioneer Valley Casket,
et al. v. Service Corp. International, et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV
03399," which names Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., as a defendant,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

On July 8, 2005, Pioneer Valley Casket Co., an alleged casket
store and Internet retailer, filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the company and its former Batesville Casket
Co., Inc. subsidiary, Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., as well as
Service Corp. International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Stewart
Enterprises, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of the class of "independent
casket distributors."

The complaint alleges violations of state and federal antitrust
law and state unfair and deceptive practices laws based on
essentially the same factual allegations as in the consumer
cases.  

Pioneer Valley claimed that it and other independent casket
distributors were injured by the defendants' alleged conspiracy
to boycott and suppress competition in the alleged market for
caskets, and by an alleged conspiracy among SCI, Alderwoods,
Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators to monopolize the
alleged market for caskets.

Pioneer Valley seeks certification of a class of all independent
casket distributors who are now in business or have been in
business since July 8, 2001.   Pioneer Valley generally seeks
actual unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class, trebling of any such damages that may be awarded,
recovery of attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief.

The Pioneer Valley complaint was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas but was not
consolidated with the action, "Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc.
et al. v. Service Corp. International, Case No. 4:05-cv-03394,"
although the scheduling orders for both cases are identical.   

On Oct. 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed an amended complaint
adding three new plaintiffs, each of whom purports to be a
current or former "independent casket distributor."  

Like Pioneer Valley's original complaint, the amended complaint
alleges violations of federal antitrust laws, but it has dropped
the causes of actions for alleged price fixing, conspiracy to
monopolize, and violations of state antitrust law and state
unfair and deceptive practices laws.  

On Oct. 25, 2006, the district court denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended Pioneer Valley complaint.

The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs seek certification of a class of
all independent casket distributors in the U.S. who are
presently in business or were in business any time from July 8,
2001, to the present, including the following subclasses of
independent casket distributors who:

       -- paid a surcharge in order to obtain a Batesville
          casket from an entity other than Batesville; and

       -- were engaged in business as of Dec. 4, 2006.

Excluded from the class are independent casket distributors
that:

       -- are affiliated in any way with any funeral home;
      
       -- manufacture caskets;

       -- are Defendants, including all directors, officers,
          agents, and employees of such; or
      
       -- are parents, subsidiaries and affiliates of
          Defendants.

Class certification hearings and the Pioneer Valley Action were
held in early December 2006.  

Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class certification
motions in both cases was completed in March 2007, though
briefing on certain supplemental evidence related to class
certification in the FCA Action also occurred in September 2007
and October 2007.  

The Court has not yet ruled on the motions for class
certification.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in
both cases, including the previously set February 2008 trial
date.

On April 25, 2008, the Court reset a docket call in both the FCA
and Pioneer Valley Actions, previously set for May 5, 2008, for
Sept. 8, 2008.

A docket call is typically a status conference with the Court to
set a trial date.  It is anticipated that new deadlines,
including a trial date, will not be set until sometime after the
Court has ruled on the motions for class certification.

The plaintiffs in the Pioneer Valley Action generally seek
monetary damages, trebling of any such damages that may be
awarded, recovery of attorneys fees and costs, and injunctive
relief.

The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs filed a report indicating that
they are seeking damages of approximately $99.2 million before
trebling.

The suit is "Pioneer Valley Casket, et al. v. Service Corp.
International, et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV-03399," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge
Kenneth M. Hoyt, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404
         
         Robert S. Green, Esq. (rsg@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM)
         595 Market Street, Suite 2750
         Green Welling, LLP
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-477-6700
         Fax: 415-477-6710

              - and -
  
         Christine P. Bartholomew, Esq.             
         (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
         Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
         601 Montgomery Street, Suite 665
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-398-8700
         Fax: 415-398-8704

Representing the company is:

         Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
         (andrew.edison@bracewellgiuliani.com)
         Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP
         711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-221-1371
         Fax: 713-221-2144


MEDCO HEALTH: Hearing Expected in 2008 for ERISA Lawsuits Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A 2008 hearing is expected with regard to the settlement of
several purported class action lawsuits against Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., which Merck & Co., Inc., acquired in 1993.  The
suits allege violations by the company of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Prior to the spin-off of Medco Health, Merck and Medco Health
agreed to settle, on a class action basis, the series of ERISA
lawsuits against them.

Initially, in December 1997, a lawsuit captioned, "Gruer v.
Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Merck and Medco.

The suit alleges that Medco should be treated as a "fiduciary"
under the provisions of ERISA, and that Medco had breached
fiduciary obligations under ERISA in a variety of ways.

After the Gruer case was filed, a number of other cases were
filed before the same court asserting similar claims.

Merck, Medco Health and certain plaintiffs' counsel filed the
settlement agreement in the federal District Court in New York,
where cases commenced by a number of plaintiffs, including
participants in a number of pharmaceutical benefit plans for
which Medco Health is the pharmacy benefit manager, as well as
trustees of such plans, have been consolidated.

Medco Health and Merck agreed to the proposed settlement in
order to avoid the significant cost and distraction of prolonged
litigation.

The proposed class settlement has been agreed to by plaintiffs
in five of the cases filed against Medco Health and Merck.  
Under the proposed settlement, Merck and Medco Health have
agreed to pay a total of $42.5 million, and Medco Health has
agreed to modify certain business practices or to continue
certain specified business practices for a period of five years.

The financial compensation is intended to benefit members of the
settlement class, which includes ERISA plans for which Medco
Health administered a pharmacy benefit at any time since Dec.
17, 1994.

The District Court held hearings to hear objections to the
fairness of the proposed settlement and approved the settlement
in 2004, but has not yet determined the number of class member
plans that have properly elected not to participate in the
settlement.  

The settlement becomes final only if and when all appeals have
been resolved.

Certain class member plans have indicated that they will not
participate in the settlement.  Cases initiated by three such
plans and two individuals remain pending in the Southern
District of New York.

The plaintiffs in these cases have asserted claims based on
ERISA as well as other federal and state laws that are the same
as or similar to the claims that had been asserted by settling
class members in the Gruer Cases.  Merck and Medco Health are
named as defendants in these cases.

Three notices of appeal were filed and the appellate court heard
oral argument in May 2005.

On Dec. 8, 2005, the appellate court issued a decision vacating
the District Court's judgment and remanding the cases to the
District Court to allow the District Court to resolve certain
jurisdictional issues.  A hearing was held to address such
issues on Feb. 24, 2006.

The District Court issued a ruling on Aug. 10, 2006, resolving
such jurisdictional issues in favor of the settling plaintiffs.
The class members and the other party that had previously
appealed the District Court's judgment renewed their appeals.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the renewed appeals were affirmed in part and
vacated in part by the federal court of appeals. The appeals
court remanded the class settlement for further proceedings in
the District Court.

The amended settlement and proposed notice have been filed and a
hearing on the settlement is expected in the second quarter of
2008, according to Merck & Co.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global  
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The Company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.  
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.  
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Still Faces Vioxx Shareholder Lawsuits in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to face a consolidated lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey that the
company designated as the "Vioxx Shareholder Lawsuits,"
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.

                  Vioxx Securities Lawsuits

The company and various current and former officers and
directors are defendants in various putative class action suits
and individual lawsuits under the federal securities laws and
state securities laws.

All of the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits pending in federal court
have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler for inclusion in
a nationwide MDL.  Judge Chesler has consolidated the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits for all purposes.

The plaintiffs requested certification of a class of purchasers
of the company's stock between May 21, 1999, and Oct. 29, 2004.  

The complaint alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding Vioxx in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
sought unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees.

The complaint also asserts a claim under Section 20A of the
Securities and Exchange Act against certain defendants relating
to their sales of Merck stock.

In addition, the complaint included allegations under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 that certain
defendants made incomplete and misleading statements in a
registration statement and certain prospectuses filed in
connection with the Merck Stock Investment Plan, a dividend
reinvestment plan.

On April 12, 2007, Judge Chesler granted a motion by the
defendants to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs have appealed Judge Chesler's decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Oral argument before
the Court of Appeals took place on June 24, 2008.

Various shareholder derivative actions filed in federal court
were transferred to the Shareholder MDL and consolidated for all
purposes by Judge Chesler.

On May 5, 2006, Judge Chesler granted a motion by the defendants
to dismiss the case and denied the plaintiffs' request for leave
to amend their complaint.

The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that Judge Chesler erred in
denying them leave to amend their complaint with materials
acquired during discovery.

On July 18, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the District Court's decision on the grounds
that Judge Chesler should have allowed the plaintiffs to make
use of the discovery material to try to establish demand
futility, and remanded the case for the District Court's
consideration of whether, even with the additional materials,
plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint would still be
futile.  

The plaintiffs filed their brief in support of their request for
leave to amend their complaint in November 2007.  That motion is
pending.

Various putative class actions filed in federal court under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the company and
certain current and former officers and directors have been
transferred to the Shareholder MDL and consolidated for all
purposes.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain
of the company's current and former employees who are
participants in certain of the company's retirement plans for
breach of fiduciary duty.

The lawsuits make similar allegations to the allegations
contained in the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.  On July 11, 2006,
Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the ERISA Complaint.

In October 2007, plaintiffs moved for certification of a class
of individuals who were participants in and beneficiaries of the
Company's retirement savings plans at any time between Oct. 1,
1998, and Sept. 30, 2004, and whose plan accounts included
investments in the Merck Common Stock Fund and Merck common
stock.  That motion is pending.

On April 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to
Supplement the Amended Complaint to add allegations relating to
Vytorin and seeking to add additional defendants, including
Richard T. Clark and additional members of the Board of
Directors.  That motion is also pending.

The suit is "Merck & Co., Inc., Securities Derivative and ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-01151-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Stanley R.
Chesler, presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul B. Brickfield, Esq. (pbrickfield@bricdonlaw.com)
          Brickfield & Donahue
          70 Grand Avenue
          River Edge, NJ 07661
          Phone: 201-488-7707

               - and -

          Irma Lois Bradley-Klein, Esq.
          Lemmon Law Firm, LLC
          650 Poydras St. Suite 2335
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 985-783-6789
          Fax: 985-783-1333

Representing the defendants are:

          Edward Cerasia II, Esq. (ecerasia@proskauer.com)
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          One Newark Center, 18th floor
          Newark NJ 07102-5211
          Phone: 973 274-3200

               - and -

          John N. Poulous, Esq. (poulos@hugheshubbard.com)
          Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
          101 Hudson St. Suite 3601
          Jersey City, NJ 07302-3918
          Phone: 201-536-9220


MERCK & CO: Continues to Face Fosamax Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to face product liability lawsuits
in the U.S. involving Fosamax, a bisphosphonate drug used for
osteoporosis and several other bone diseases.

As of March 31, 2008, approximately 465 cases, which include
around 940 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were pending
against Merck in either federal or state court, including three
cases which seek class action certification, as well as damages
and medical monitoring.

In these actions, the plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw, generally
subsequent to invasive dental procedures such as tooth
extraction or dental implants, and delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax.

On Aug. 16, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that the Fosamax product liability cases pending in
federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated
into one multidistrict litigation (Fosamax MDL) for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings.

The Fosamax MDL has been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

As a result of the JPML order, approximately 410 of the cases
are before Judge Keenan.  

Judge Keenan has issued a Case Management Order setting forth a
schedule governing the proceedings which focuses primarily upon
resolving the class action certification motions in 2007 and
completing fact discovery in an initial group of 25 cases by
Aug. 1, 2008.  

Briefing and argument on the plaintiffs' motions for
certification of medical monitoring classes were completed in
2007 and Judge Keenan issued an order denying the motions on
Jan. 3, 2008.

On Jan. 28, 2008, Judge Keenan issued a further order dismissing
with prejudice all class claims asserted in the first four class
actions filed against Merck that sought personal injury damages
and medical monitoring relief on a class wide basis.

Discovery is ongoing in both the Fosamax MDL litigation,
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.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global  
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The Company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.  
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.  
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., is facing a purported shareholder class
action lawsuit in Pennsylvania entitled, "Horwitz v. Merck &
Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-01603-LDD," according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On April 3, 2008, a Merck shareholder filed a putative class
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, alleging that Merck and its chairman, president
and chief executive officer, Richard T. Clark, violated the
federal securities laws.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Merck delayed releasing
unfavorable results of a clinical study regarding the efficacy
of Vytorin and that Merck made false and misleading statements
about expected earnings, knowing that once the results of the
Vytorin study were released, sales of Vytorin would decline and
Merck's earnings would suffer.

The suit is "Horwitz v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 2:08-
cv-01603-LDD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Legrome D. Davis, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, PC
          100 Penn Square East
          John Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-561-3600
          Fax: 215-561-3000


MERCK & CO: Plan Member Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit
over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, according to the company's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On April 22, 2008, a member of a Merck ERISA plan filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the company and certain of
its officers and directors, alleging that they breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA.

The plaintiff alleges that the ERISA plan's investment in
Company stock was imprudent because the company's earnings are
dependent on the commercial success of its cholesterol drug
Vytorin and that defendants knew or should have known that the
results of a scientific study would cause the medical community
to turn to less expensive drugs for cholesterol management.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global  
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The Company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.  
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.  
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Vytorin, Zetia Sale
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., is facing several purported class action
lawsuits regarding the sale and promotion of Vytorin and Zetia,
which are both cholesterol medicines, 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.

Since mid-January 2008, the company has become aware of or been
served with approximately 120 civil class action lawsuits
alleging common law and state consumer fraud claims in
connection with the Merck & Co./Schering-Plough cholesterol
partnership's (MSP Partnership) sale and promotion of Vytorin
and Zetia.

Certain of those lawsuits allege personal injuries and seek
medical monitoring.

The company reported no further details and no further
developments in the cases in its regulatory filing.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global  
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The Company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.  
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.  
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: N.J. High Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Sinclair"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in an
appeal that sought a review of a ruling by an appeals court that
revived a medical-monitoring claim in the suit, "Sinclair v.
Merck."

The case was originally filed in December 2004 and sought the
creation of a medical monitoring fund.  It is a purported class
action suit against Merck & Co., Inc., the manufacturer of
Vioxx, on behalf of Vioxx users who had taken the drug for at
least six consecutive weeks (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 9,
2007).  

The plaintiffs brought claims based on negligence, the New
Jersey Product Liability Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
and breach of warranty.  

The plaintiffs did not claim that they had been injured by
taking Vioxx, but rather, alleged that as a result of "direct
and prolonged exposure to Vioxx," they "have an enhanced risk of
sustaining serious, undiagnosed and unrecognized myocardial
infarctions (UMIs) that . . . would subject them to the risk of
further, significant, long-term cardiovascular harm."

As a remedy, the plaintiffs asked that Merck be ordered to pay
for a medical-screening program to detect UMIs and other "latent
or unrecognized injuries."

Judge Carol E. Higbee of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Atlantic County, dismissed the medical-monitoring claim, finding
that although claims had been recognized in the toxic tort
context, they were not sustainable in the products liability
context.

On Sept. 28, 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate
Division, heard arguments on the plaintiffs' appeal of Judge
Higbee's dismissal of the claim.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Appellate Division reversed the decision
and remanded the case back to Judge Higbee for further factual
inquiry.

On April 4, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the
company's petition for review of the Appellate Division's
decision.

The issue was later on appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court,
which heard arguments on Oct. 22, 2007.  The company reported no
developments in the matter in its May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global  
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The Company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.  
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.  
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Reverses Certification Order in Viox Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed an earlier order
certifying a class in a Vioxx-related lawsuit filed by third-
party payors against Merck & Co., Inc., according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On July 29, 2005, a New Jersey state trial court certified a
nationwide class of third-party payors (such as unions and
health insurance plans) that paid in whole or in part for the
Vioxx used by their plan members or insureds.

The named plaintiff in that case sought recovery of certain
Vioxx purchase costs (plus penalties) based on allegations that
the purported class members paid more for Vioxx than they would
have had they known of the product's alleged risks.

On March 31, 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate
Division, affirmed the class certification order.

On Sept. 6, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the
certification of a nationwide class action of third-party
payors, finding that the suit does not meet the requirements for
a class action.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global  
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The Company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.  
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.  
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


NYMEX HOLDINGS: Capozza Wants to Amend Complaint in Del. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cataldo J. Capozza, an original member and shareholder of NYMEX
Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:NMX), who launched a class action suit on
March 17, 2008, in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of all
NYMEX shareholders, said that his attorneys have sought
permission from the Court to file a Second Consolidated and
Amended Class Action Complaint in the action which provides
substantial details of the defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

Separately, Mr. Capozza said that CME's recently announced plan
to buy back $1.1 billion of CME stock over the next 18 months
and pay a $5 per share special dividend after is wanting and
that CME's bid to buy NYMEX still falls short of the true value
of NYMEX shares.

"It won't help NYMEX shareholders for CME to pile on debt to buy
back its own stock and pay a special dividend to try to get the
price back to $119 per share. Instead of buying back $1.1
billion of CME, CME would accomplish more for NYMEX shareholders
by raising its offer for the NYMEX shares. A buy-back will not
add long-term value to the deal, and the price still undervalues
NYMEX," Mr. Capozza said.

Demand for future contracts is strong and has grown in the first
half of 2008. According to the Commodities Futures Trading
Corporation, the oil futures market has tripled since 2004.

"NYMEX has demonstrated financial strength for more than a
century and does not need a special dividend buyout from CME
that is inadequate and unfair to NYMEX shareholders. The
business of NYMEX is as strong as ever. Now is not the time to
sell out for a low price," Mr. Capozza said.

                         Case Background
                         
On March 17, 2008, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action suit in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware on behalf of shareholders of NYMEX Holdings, against
NYMEX, Richard Schaeffer, certain other directors and officers
of the company, and CME Group for breach of fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed sale of NYMEX to CME (Class Action
Reporter, March 19, 2008).

The complaint alleges that the director-defendants, aided and
abetted by NYMEX and CME, breached their fiduciary duties to
Mr. Capozza -- an original member and shareholder -- and the
other NYMEX shareholders by agreeing to sell NYMEX to CME for
grossly inadequate consideration.

The complaint also alleges that the proposed acquisition was
negotiated through a process that was fundamentally flawed.

The suit is "Capozza v. NYMEX Holdings, Inc., et al.," filed
before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. (rifkin@whafh.com)
          Rachel Poplock, Esq. (poplock@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600


PHILIP MORRIS: No Trial Date Set for "Smith" Lawsuit in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Seward County District in Kansas has yet to set a trial date
for the anti-trust class action lawsuit captioned, "Smith v.
Philip Morris Cos., Inc.," which names as defendants major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including Philip Morris International,
Inc.

The case was filed in Feb. 7, 2000, alleging that the cigarette
companies engaged in an international conspiracy to fix
wholesale prices of cigarettes.  The plaintiff sought
certification of a class comprised of all persons in Kansas who
were indirect purchasers of cigarettes from the defendants.

The plaintiff claims unspecified economic damages resulting from
the alleged price fixing, trebling of those damages under the
Kansas price-fixing statute and counsel fees.  

The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification and refused to permit the defendants to appeal.

The case is now in the discovery phase and no trial date has yet
been set, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international  
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals Pending in Brazil Smokers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeals are pending in the class action lawsuit, captioned "The
Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A.
and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A.," filed in the Nineteenth
Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary
District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, on July 25, 1995, and named a
subsidiary of Philip Morris International, Inc., as a defendant.

The class action complaint alleged personal injury in relation
to smoking.  The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking
damages for smokers and former smokers, as well as injunctive
relief.

The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff in February
2004.  In April 2004, the trial court issued a decision that
clarified that the amount of "moral damages" is BRL1,000
(approximately $560) per smoker per full year of smoking plus
interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the
ruling.  Actual damages are to be assessed in a second phase of
the case.

The size of the class cannot be currently estimated.  The
defendants appealed the decision to the Sao Paulo Court of
Appeals and the case, including the judgment, is currently
stayed pending appeal.

In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Court on the basis that the consumer association
does not have standing to bring the lawsuit.  

Both appeals are pending, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international  
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Faces Personal Injury Lawsuit in Brazil
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Philip Morris International, Inc., is facing a
purported class action lawsuit in Brazil, generally alleging
personal injury in relation to smoking, 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 class action pending in Brazil is captioned, "Public
Prosecutor of Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e
Comercio Ltda," which was filed in the Civil Court of the City
of Sao Paolo, Brazil, on Aug. 6, 2007, against a subsidiary of
the company.

The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo,
is seeking:

       -- unspecified damages on behalf of all smokers
          nationwide, former smokers, and their relatives;

       -- unspecified damages on behalf of people exposed to
          environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and
          their relatives; and

       -- reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly
          incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases
          by all 27 States, approximately 5,000 Municipalities,
          and the Federal District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only.

The company's subsidiary was served with the claim in February
2008, and filed its answer to the complaint on March 10, 2008.

New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international  
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: Units Face Tar, Nicotine Yields Suit in Bulgaria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Philip Morris International, Inc., and
other members of the tobacco industry were named as defendants
in a purported class action lawsuit in Bulgaria, entitled,
"Yochkolovski v. Sofia BT AD, et al.," which was filed in the
Sofia City Court, Bulgaria, on March 12, 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.

The plaintiff brought a collective claim on behalf of a class of
smokers who were allegedly misled by the tar and nicotine yields
printed on cigarette packs and who suffered personal injuries as
a result of increasing their consumption of cigarettes.

The suit seeks damages for economic loss, pain and suffering and
medical treatment as well as withdrawal from the market of all
cigarettes that allegedly do not comply with the tar and
nicotine labeling requirements, until such time as they do
comply.

New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international  
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: Israeli High Court Dismisses Appeal in "Sasson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Israel dismissed an appeal in the purported
class action lawsuit captioned, "Sasson, et al. v. Philip Morris
International Inc., et al.," which had been thrown out by a
lower court.

The suit was filed before the District Court, in Tel Aviv,
Israel, on July 11, 2005, in which the company's subsidiary and
indemnitees -- PM USA and its distributor M. H. Eliashar
Distribution Ltd. -- were defendants.

In his suit, Sharon Sasson alleged that he became addicted to
smoking cigarettes manufactured and marketed by Altria at age
14, when he began smoking.  He asserts that despite his efforts,
he was unable to stop smoking (Class Action Reporter, July 14,
2005).  

According to Mr. Sasson, the defendants are responsible for his
addiction to cigarettes and his physical dependence on them,
because the company directly and indirectly encouraged him to
smoke at the time.

Mr. Sasson sought compensation from Altria for expenses,
damages, and suffering caused by his attempts to stop smoking
and inability to do so.  Specifically, Mr. Sasson sought
compensation for a class of approximately 500,000 smokers for
the cost of past and future smoking cessation treatment.  

Additionally, the claimant accused the defendants of seriously
and continually misleading the public about the characteristics
of the product that it produces and markets, and the risks
incurred by using it, particularly the presence of nicotine, an
addictive substance, and other poisons in cigarettes.

He also claimed that the defendants now publish the fact that
their cigarettes are addictive, compares cigarette addiction to
drug addiction, and refers and proposes various treatments for
it.

The claim was dismissed in May 2007 on statute of limitations
grounds.  

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, but failed to
deposit the bond necessary to proceed with the appeal.

Consequently, in January 2008, the Supreme Court dismissed the
appeal and the case is terminated, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international  
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Fraud Suits in Israel Over "Lights" Term
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Philip Morris International, Inc., are
facing purported class action lawsuits in Israel that were
brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs who allege
that the use of the term "lights" constitutes fraudulent and
misleading conduct, 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 first class action complaint is entitled, "El-Roy, et al. v.
Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.," which was filed with
District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, on Jan. 18, 2004,
against a subsidiary of the company, and and its indemnitees --
PM USA and its former importer Menache H. Eliachar Ltd.

The plaintiffs claim that the class members were misled by the
descriptor "lights" into believing that Lights cigarettes are
safer than full flavor cigarettes.

The claim seeks recovery of the purchase price of Lights
cigarettes and compensation for distress for each class member.

Hearings will take place in November 2008 for the court to
decide whether the case meets the legal requirements necessary
to allow it to proceed as a class action.

The second class action is entitled, "Navon, et al. v. Philip
Morris Products USA, et al.," which was filed in the District
Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, on Dec. 5, 2004.

Its claims are similar to those in "El-Roy," and thus the case
is currently stayed pending a ruling on class certification in
"El-Roy."

In general, the plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these
cases are based on various theories of recovery including
misrepresentation, deception, and breach of consumer protection
laws.  They seek various forms of relief including restitution,
and compensatory and other damages.

New York-based Philip Morris International, Inc. --
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/-- is an international  
tobacco company.  PMI is a holding company that, through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products in markets outside
the United States.  PMI's top 10 brands by volume are Marlboro,
L&M, Philip Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Parliament, Lark,
A Mild, Morven Gold and DJI Sam Soe.  Its products are sold in
over 160 countries.  Its brand portfolio includes a variety of
blends and styles, across 150 brands and over 1,900 variants.
PMI makes A Hijau, A Mild and Dji Sam Soe in Indonesia; Diana in
Italy; Optima and Apollo-Soyuz in Russia; Morven Gold in
Pakistan; Boston in Colombia; Best and Classic in Serbia; f6 in
Germany; Delicados in Mexico; Assos in Greece, and Petra in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia.  On March 28, 2008, Altria Group,
Inc. completed the spin-off of PMI.


PHILIPPINES: Court Junks Journalists' Suit Over Peninsula Siege
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 31, 2008, that
Philippine media practitioners filed a class action suit before
the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 56 against:

     -- Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno,

     -- Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez,

     -- Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr.,

     -- Philippine National Police Director Avelino Razon,

     -- National Capital Region Police Office Chief
        Geary Barias,

     -- Southern Police District Director Luizo Ticman,

     -- PNP-Special Action Force commander C/Supt. Leocadio
        Santiago, and

     -- PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group-National
        Capital Region Director S/Supt Asher Dolina

for arresting journalists who were covering a mutiny attempt at
The Peninsula Manila hotel in Makati City in 2007.

The CAR report recounted that on Nov. 29, 2007, members of the
media were arrested by police authorities after the stand-off at
the Manila Peninsula Hotel.  About 50 journalists were arrested,
but were released later.  

The journalists asserted that their right to freedom of speech
was threatened and asked the court to compensate them for their
supposed illegal arrests during the hotel siege.

Authorities had explained that the arrest was done to separate
and identify legitimate media practitioners from members of the
mutineers who they alleged were posing as media identity to
escape authorities.

In a follow-up story on Feb. 19, 2008, the CAR reported that  
Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. has asked the Court to
dismiss the PHP10-million suit, saying the lawsuit, plus a
petition for a writ of preliminary injunction against
the government lacked merit.

In yet another update, Sun.Star Daily relates that the Makati
Court, on June 27, 2008, dismissed the class action suit.

In his decision, Makati RTC Branch 56 Judge Reynaldo Laigo
junked the complaint citing lack of evidence.  Judge Laigo said
the order of the authorities for all those inside the hotel,
including the plaintiffs-journalists, to vacate the hotel's
premises were "lawful" considering the "dangerous situation" at
the time.

"Under the given dangers, that order issued by defendant NCRPO
(National Capital Region Police Office) Director Geary Barias
was but lawful and appeared to have been disobeyed by all of
those, including some of the plaintiffs, when they intentionally
refused to leave the hotel premises for which an applicable
criminal charges under Article 151 of the Revised penal Code,"
said Judge Laigo.

The ruling further stated, "thus, the plaintiffs (Ellen
Tordesillas, Charmaine Deogracias, Ashzel Hachero, James Galvez
and Vergel Santos) having been handcuffed and brought to Camp
Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City for investigation, and
released thereafter was justified, it being in accordance with
the police procedure."

Sun.Star notes that the court also ruled that the pronouncements
of the authorities after the November 29 incident was no attempt
to curtail press freedom as alleged by the plaintiffs.

"The pronouncements made by the defendants and that advisory of
defendant Secretary Raul Gonzalez, Sr. following the Manila
Peninsula Hotel standoff, the same have not and will not in any
way curtail, much less avert plaintiffs from exercising freely
their rights as such members of the press-covering or obtaining
information on future events similar to what transpired at the
Manila Peninsula Hotel," Judge Laigo said.

Sun.Star points out that the case stemmed from the suit
specifically filed by 36 media practitioners and four media
organizations, namely, the Philippine Center for Investigative
Journalism; Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility;
National Union of Journalists of the Philippines; and Philippine
Press Institute.  Of the 36 journalists, five were actually
arrested and "processed" at Camp Bagong Diwa, namely, Ms.
Tordesillas and Ms. Hachero of the broadsheet Malaya, Ms.
Deogracias of Japanese broadcast agency NHK, Mr. Galvez of
Manila Times and Ms. Leah Flor of the Philippine Cable
Television.

The journalists have filed the case saying they were arbitrarily
arrested by the police without probable cause to believe they
were committing or had committed an offense while covering the
standoff between the Magdalo soldiers led by detained Senator
Antonio Trillanes IV and government troops.  Furthermore, they
said they were neither formally charged nor informed of their
rights by the authorities.

According to them, the respondents as shown by their public
conduct and pronouncements were "all complicit in the issuance
of the arrest and detention orders" without any formal charges.

They also complained that after the incident, the respondents
continued to make "threats" or warnings" to arrest or charge any
media practitioners who "ignore or interfere" in the conduct of
police or military operations.  They said such threats have a
"chilling effect" on the exercise of their rights accorded under
the Bill of Rights of the Constitutions.

Sought for comment, Harry Roque, lawyer for the plaintiff, told
Sun.Star that the ruling represents the "biggest blow to our
cherished civil liberties to date."  He said the ruling
dismissing the complaint that the advisory of the Department of
Justice was merely a reiteration of prevailing provisions of
law, in particular, that found in the Revised Penal Code.

"Plaintiffs respectfully disagree and point out that this is not
in accord with prevailing jurisprudence by the Supreme Court
(SC) on the subject matter," Mr. Roque said.

Despite the adverse ruling, the plaintiffs maintained that
"restricting the movement of the press in such a threatening
manner, taking into account the totality of the official acts of
the police and the DOJ, constitutes an invisible threat of state
retaliation by its police and prosecutorial forces should the
press venture into areas that the police declare as a crime
scene."

Mr. Roque said that, "The press and the plaintiffs are not
claiming special access to crime scenes or special privileges
not enjoyed by other citizens.  If a member of the press is
later arrested for disobedience to a lawful order by the police,
so be it. This entire case is not about that, despite the
attempts by the defendants to portray it as such.

"This case is about the brutal and oppressive police and DOJ
response to media coverage of a political event.  The illegal
warrantless arrests, rough treatment, detention and the DOJ
advisory written in capital letters, all constitute a threat,
creating a chilling effect that is unconstitutional, and must be
struck down again as it has been before by the Supreme Court,"
he added.


REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS: Faces Investor Suit in New South Wales
--------------------------------------------------------------
Real estate developers Landillo and Auscorp are facing a class-
action complaint in the Federal Court over allegations that they
mislead investors on the New South Wales central coast, ABC via
Yahoo!7 News reports.

Investors say they were told by real estate agents that their
investment would give a guaranteed return of 7% or 8% for 10
years.  They say the guarantee was crucial because they borrowed
money to pay for the units about eight years ago.

According to the complaint, 46 investors signed agreements with
developers Landillo and Auscorp to buy units in the Pacific
International Resort at The Entrance.

Investors are arguing the contracts have a concealed clause that
guarantees rent return for only 12-months, and they want
compensation for their financial loss.


SPORT CHALET: Faces Purchasers' Suit Over Zip Code Requests
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sport Chalet, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the California Civil Code and Business &
Professions Code, as well as invasion of privacy, according to
the company's June 24, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 30, 2008.

The suit was filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Diego on April 10, 2008.  It is entitled, "Cole v.
Sport Chalet, Inc., Case No. 37-2008-00081675-CU-BT-CTL."

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf
of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in
California using credit cards and were requested to provide
their zip codes.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making
purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in
California were improperly requested to provide their zip code
at the time of such purchases.

The suit seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory
penalties, actual damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief to require the company to discontinue
the allegedly improper conduct, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Sport Chalet, Inc. -- http://www.sportchalet.com/-- is an  
operator of 45 full-service, specialty sporting goods stores in
California, Nevada and Arizona.  As of fiscal year ended
April 1, 2007, the Company had 32 locations in Southern
California, seven in Northern California, one in Central
California, two in Nevada and three in Arizona.  These stores
average approximately 40,000 square feet in size.  In addition,
it operates a retail e-commerce store through GSI Commerce, Inc.
at http://www.sportchalet.com/ Sport Chalet's prototype store  
is 42,000 square feet in size and showcases each product
category with the feel of a specialty shop all contained under
one roof.  The stores include traditional sporting goods
merchandise, such as footwear, apparel and other general
athletic products and core specialty merchandise such as
snowboarding, mountaineering and self-contained underwater
breathing apparatus.


TEAMSTERS INTL: Calif. Suit Accuses Conspiracy Against Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California accuses union officials of
conspiring with Marin County, Calif., to deprive hundreds of
current and retired deputy probation officers out of more than
$10 million in overtime pay and benefits, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This case is a class action suit against the Teamsters
International Union and its Local 856 for their unconscionable
conduct in secretly depriving plaintiffs and proposed class
members of over $10 million in overtime pay and benefits over a
period of time that expands for more than a decade.

This case is brought on behalf of all current, retired and
former Deputy Probation Officers that worked at the Marin County
Probation Department, a department within the County of Marin.

The officers accuse Teamsters International Union, Teamsters
Local 856 and its leadership of striking a secret deal with
Marin County to refuse to negotiate any overtime pay, despite
knowing that the plaintiffs are not exempt under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and were working well over 40 hours a week.

Union leaders allegedly told the plaintiffs, falsely, that
probation officers were "professionals" exempt from overtime
requirements and consistently lied to them about the union's
negotiations with the county.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants' engaged in a fraudulent scheme
         and artifice to defraud plaintiffs' of their FLSA
         statutory entitlement to overtime compensation by
         entering into a secret agreement entitled "Professional
         Hours" with plaintiffs' employer;

     (b) whether defendants have engaged in a fraudulent scheme
         towards  plaintiffs by concealing their rights to
         overtime compensation;

     (c) whether defendants breached their duty of fair
         representation by bargaining away plaintiffs' statutory
         rights to overtime compensation without any disclosure,
         explanation, participation by the membership, or vote;

     (d) whether defendants breached their duty of fair
         representation in depriving plaintiffs' of overtime
         compensation through the use of arbitrary,
         discriminatory, or bad faith conduct;

     (e) whether defendants engaged in false representations
         regarding overtime compensation and "Profession Hours"
         in an attempt to induce plaintiffs into entering into
         collective bargaining agreements from 1995 to the
         present;

     (f) whether defendants breached their duties to make honest
         disclosures to plaintiffs regarding the entitlement to
         overtime compensation;

     (g) whether defendants violated the Labor Management
         Reporting and Disclosure Act during contract
         negotiations and contract administration relating to
         plaintiffs' overtime compensation;

     (h) whether defendants violated their common law duties to
         plaintiffs, including defendants' fiduciary duties,
         disclosure obligations, and duty to act reasonably
         towards plaintiffs, independent and separate of the
         interpretation of any collective bargaining agreement
         or contract negotiations, when defendants engaged in a
         pattern of fraudulent concealment towards plaintiffs
         regarding their entitlement to overtime compensation;

     (i) whether defendants violated the federal labor statutes
         by engaging in a scheme or artifice to defraud
         plaintiffs of money or property by illegal predicate
         acts, including wire fraud, mail fraud, or other
         violations of federal law that occurred at least twice
         over the past 10 years;

     (j) whether defendants entered into a secret-deal or
         agreement without plaintiffs' knowledge or consent,
         known as "Professional Hours," to not negotiate or
         bargain for any overtime compensation on behalf of the
         DPOs;

     (k) whether defendants aided and abetted the County of
         Marin in depriving plaintiffs of statutory overtime
         compensation in violation of the FLSA; and

     (l) the proper formula for calculating restitution, damages
         and penalties owed to plaintiffs and the class as
         alleged.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- special damages in an amount according to proof;

     -- general damages for emotional distress, mental
        suffering and physical injury in an amount according to
        proof;

     -- consequential damages legally caused by defendants'
        conduct in an amount according to proof;

     -- equitable relief, including restitution of monies;

     -- exemplary and punitive damages, and civil penalties;

     -- attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred;

     -- prejudgment interest;

     -- an order certifying this action as a class action on
        behalf of the Civil Rights violations subclass under
        Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as alleged, appointing plaintiff as
        class representative, and plaintiff's attorneys as class
        counsel;

     -- preliminary, permanent and mandatory injunctive
        relief prohibiting defendant, its officers, agents and
        all those acting in concert with defendant, from
        committing in the future violations of law alleged;

     -- an equitable accounting to identify, locate and
        restore to all current and former employees the wages
        they are due, with interest thereon; and

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

The suit is "Kathleen Paulsen, et al. v. Local No. 856 of
International Bortherhood of Teamsters, et al., Case No. CV 08
3109," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David M. Poore, Esq. (dpoore@kahnbrownlaw.com)
          Scott A. Brown, Esq. (sbrown@kahnbrownlaw.com)
          Deborah K. Wong, Esq. (dwong@kahnbrownlaw.com)
          Kahn Brown & Poore LLP
          755 Baywood Drive, Suite 185
          Petaluma, CA 94954
          Phone: 707-763-7100
          Fax: 707-763-7180


TRINITY GLASS: Faces Ala. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Glass International is facing a class-action complaint
before the Alabama Federal Court accusing it of making employees
work off the clock and failing to pay overtime wages, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Ethel Meneely claims her supervisor said her job
relied on her having sex with him, then fired her after an
investigation concluded that their sex had been consensual.

Trinity Glass International is a major manufacturer of
Decorative Glass Door Lites, Interior Decorative Doors
(SIGNAMARK), and Fiberglass Entry Systems (TGI), based in Tacoma
Washington.


U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION: Sued Over Wrongful Visa Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reeves & Associates, a professional law corporation, filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (Case No. SACV08-688 JVX [SHx])
on behalf of tens of thousands of immigrant families whose adult
children have been wrongfully denied visas, Sun.Star Daily
reports.

According to Sun.Star, Reeves & Associates has been actively
pursuing Child Status Protection Act relief for families with
aged-out children.  

The report relates that in some cases, the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Service agreed with Reeves &
Associates' interpretation of the statute and has granted visa
petitions, giving the original priority date of the parent to
the child who had aged-out.

However, USCIS failed to fully embrace important sections of
CSPA as a matter of policy, the report notes.  On some
occasions, the agency has granted relief to one family member
while denying it to other siblings.  Consequently, many families
were wrongly denied relief under CSPA.  Many more requests were
simply ignored.

As such, Reeves & Associates filed the class action lawsuit on
June 20, 2008, challenging the USCIS' failure to comply with the
provisions of CSPA on behalf of immigrant families.

Specifically, Reeves & Associates is seeking to compel USCIS to
properly adjudicate all cases filed under Section 3 of CSPA and
comply with the requirements of retaining the parent's original
priority date in subsequent petitions filed by the parent.

Sun.Star explains that the U.S. Congress passed CSPA on Aug. 6,
2002, to protect the children of immigrants who turn 21 years
old (those who have "aged-out") while they wait for immigrant
visas.  Under Section 203(h)(1) of CSPA, the child may use a
formula that allows for the amount of time an immigrant visa was
processing to be subtracted from the child's age on the date the
green card application was filed.  Congress enacted this section
as a remedy against protracted delays in adjudicating visa
petitions.

However, many children would still age-out despite this formula,
the report says.

Sun.Star notes that under Section 3 of CSPA, codified at Section
203(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, children who
age-out -- even after applying the formula -- can convert to the
appropriate immigrant category and retain the priority date
under which the parent immigrated.  Specifically, Section
203(h)(3) states that "the alien's petition shall automatically
be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall
retain the original priority date upon receipt of the original
petition."

So under this provision of the law, a child who aged-out retains
the original priority date and, in most cases, can reunite with
his or her family.  Moreover, if the child who aged-out is in
the United States, he or she should be able to apply for a green
card if otherwise eligible.  In short, an aged-out child, who is
a derivative beneficiary of the visa petition of his parent,
will be able to reunite with his family faster by utilizing his
parent's earlier priority date.

Unfortunately, the suit claims that USCIS failed to comply with
INA Section 203(h)(3).  Moreover, USCIS also failed to
promulgate federal regulations or even issue policy memorandum
regarding this provision of law, leaving adjudicators with
little guidance.  This failure resulted in decisions that were
arbitrary and inconsistent.

Reeves & Associates' lawsuit presents two different classes of
individuals, Sun.Star says.  Members of the first class consist
of those who filed petitions with requests for retention of the
parents' original priority date and their petitions were denied.
Members of the second class consist of those who have received
no response at all to their requests for retention of the
original priority date.  In both cases, parents remain separated
from their children.

Parents whose children have aged-out or the children themselves
are advised to seek the advice of competent legal counsel to
determine if this section of CSPA applies to them and whether
they will be affected by this lawsuit, according to Sun.Star.


UST INC: Class Member Appeals Final Approval of Calif. Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class member in the lawsuit captioned, "In Smokeless Tobacco
Cases I-IV, (J.C.C.P. Nos 4250, 4258, 4259 and 4262)," is
appealing the final approval of a settlement reached in the
matter, which names UST, Inc., as a defendant, according to
UST'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 pending with the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco.  It generally claims that
U.S. Tobacco (UST) engaged in "extensive restrictive and
exclusionary acts" to eliminate competition for smokeless
tobacco products.

On March 12, 2008, the court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement, entering judgment and dismissing the
settling defendants with prejudice.  The court also granted the
plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 9, 2008, an individual class member filed a Notice of
Appeal from the judgment and order granting final approval of
settlement, and order granting attorneys' fees.

UST, Inc. -- http://www.ustinc.com/-- a holding company for its  
wholly owned subsidiaries: U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company and
International Wine & Spirits Ltd.  The company is engaged in the
manufacturing and marketing of consumer products in three
operating segments: Smokeless Tobacco Products, Wine and All
Other Operations.  The Smokeless Tobacco Products segment
manufactures and markets smokeless tobacco products. The Wine
segment produces and markets varietal and blended wines, and
imports and distributes wines from Italy.   UST Inc.'s
international operations, which market moist smokeless tobacco,
are included in the All Other Operations segment.


UST INC: Parties Asked to Submit Amended Agreement in Mass. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, has asked
parties in the class action lawsuit, captioned "In re
Massachusetts Smokeless Tobacco Litigation, Case No. 03-5038
BLS," to submit an amended settlement agreement in the matter,
which names UST, Inc., as a defendant.

The plaintiffs in this action are a certified class of consumers
residing in Massachusetts who indirectly purchased from the
defendants United States Tobacco Co., and its affiliates
(collectively, UST) for their own use moist snuff tobacco
products, more commonly referred to as smokeless tobacco,
between Jan. 1, 1990, and the present.  UST's oldest and most
well-known brands of smokeless tobacco are Copenhagen and Skoal.  

According to the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, UST, which
controlled 70% of the U.S. market for smokeless tobacco, engaged
in various allegedly unfair acts and practices to consolidate
and extend its near-monopoly position, including entering into
agreements with retailers to exclude competitors' smokeless
tobacco from its sales racks and encouraging them not to sell or
display competitors' brands.

After various rounds of mediation, the parties, on Jan. 31,
2008, entered into a Settlement Agreement, which all parties now
ask the court to preliminarily approve.

On April 7, 2008, the court entered a memorandum and order
denying the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of
the proposed class action settlement.  

The court invited the parties to submit an amended settlement
agreement to the court for preliminary approval, 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.

UST, Inc. -- http://www.ustinc.com/-- a holding company for its  
wholly owned subsidiaries: U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company and
International Wine & Spirits Ltd.  The company is engaged in the
manufacturing and marketing of consumer products in three
operating segments: Smokeless Tobacco Products, Wine and All
Other Operations.  The Smokeless Tobacco Products segment
manufactures and markets smokeless tobacco products. The Wine
segment produces and markets varietal and blended wines, and
imports and distributes wines from Italy.   UST Inc.'s
international operations, which market moist smokeless tobacco,
are included in the All Other Operations segment.


VERIZON: Workers Seek Pay from Contractors and Subcontractors
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of 45 workers who say they have not been paid for
digging ditches across Maryland and Virginia for Verizon
Communications' fiber-optic network rallied outside the
company's D.C. headquarters to protest what they claim are labor
abuses by the company's contractors and subcontractors, Kara
Rowland writes for The Washington Times.

According to the report, lawyers representing seven workers
filed a class-action lawsuit last month in the U.S. District
Court in Maryland against several contractors and subcontractors
over claims that the workers were not paid the minimum wage and
overtime wages.

Specifically, the lawsuit names these defendants: NTI LLC;
MTXCELL LLC; Tomas Veiga; XTEL Construction Group LLC; Mike
Bahmani; PAS-COM Inc. and Adrian Pascu.

The report notes that, according to advocates, the majority of
the plaintiffs are immigrants from Africa and Central and South
America who speak little English and are not aware of their
rights under state and federal labor laws.

"The subcontractors will go and get workers, and they will work,
and when the job is done, they will just say, 'Goodbye, thank
you very much' and will not do anything to pay them," Mario
Quiroz, spokesman for Casa of Maryland Inc., an immigrant
advocacy group collaborating on the case with the Washington
Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, told
Washington Times.

Washington Times recounts that in two previous instances,
workers have obtained legal judgments finding Verizon
subcontractors at fault and ordering payment -- amounting to
more than $200,000 with interest -- but one year later, only
$3,000 has been collected.

The report further recalls that the recently filed lawsuit comes
more than a year after a judge in February 2007 entered a
judgment of $125,944 on behalf of 12 workers represented by the
Legal Aid Justice Center who dug ditches for Vision Tech
Services LLC -- a subcontractor of Verizon FiOS contractor Ivy
H. Smith -- without being paid.  That judgment has not been
collected.

Separately, Washington Times points out, in March 2007, workers
represented by the Legal Aid Justice Center were awarded a
$40,000 judgment against Anthony Maxwell, a subcontractor of
Verizon contractor S&N Communications Inc.  A total of only
$3,000 has been collected.

Although Verizon is not a defendant in the suit, organizers of
the workers' rally say that the New York-based
telecommunications firm should assume responsibility for the
actions of contractors and subcontractors.

"We're asking Verizon to take responsibility for ensuring that
workers on Verizon's projects are properly compensated," said
Tim Freilich, legal director of the Legal Aid Justice Center.
"We're asking for three things specifically: One, that Verizon
arrange for the payments of the outstanding judgments; two, that
Verizon meet with the workers and their advocates regarding the
other claims for unpaid wages; and third, we're asking Verizon
to put a meaningful monitoring system in place to ensure that
Verizon's subcontractors stop exploiting and abusing workers."

Washington Times relates that Verizon, for its, part, said it is
investigating the allegations and has requested information from
Casa of Maryland.

"We hope to schedule a meeting with the prime contractors
involved, Casa de Maryland and other interested parties,"
Verizon spokesman Alberto Canal said.

If Verizon determines that workers are not being paid, Mr. Canal
told Washington Times that the company will take "the proper
course of action," which could include withholding work from,
suspending or firing the prime contractor.

Mr. Freilich said his organization requested a meeting with
Verizon in May about the unpaid judgments and was turned down.


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Woman Sues, Saying Bras Caused Rashes
--------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Ritter of Parma filed a class action lawsuit against
Victoria's Secret, saying that the intimate-apparel merchant
sold her bras manufactured with chemicals that caused itchy
rashes and painful burns on her breasts, James F. McCarty writes
for the The Plain Dealer.

Ms. Ritter filed the lawsuit in May against Victoria's Secret
and its Columbus-based parent -- the Limited Brands Inc. -- in
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.  A judge has yet to decide
whether to grant the suit class-action status.

In court papers, Ms. Ritter's lawyer, John Climaco, Esq.,  
accused Victoria's Secret of peddling dangerous and defective
products, of failing to warn customers about unhealthy potential
side effects and of fraud and negligence for selling unfit
merchandise.

A spokeswoman for Victoria's Secret told The Plain Dealer that
the company is taking the complaints seriously and has launched
an internal review.  "We will do everything we can to ensure our
customers' continued confidence in and satisfaction with our
products," Tammy Roberts Myers said in an e-mail.

Ms. Myers also said she believes the company will prevail in the
lawsuit.

The report recounts that Ms. Ritter bought two bras in January
-- a black satin Angels Secret Embrace and a pink satin Very
Sexy push-up model -- for $42 apiece from the Victoria's Secret
store at the Parmatown Mall.


WESTMINSTER INC: Recalls RC Helicopter Toys Due to Fire Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Westminster Inc., of Atlanta, Ga., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 102,000
"Thunder Wolf" remote controlled indoor helicopters.

The company said the rechargeable battery inside the helicopter
can overheat.  This can result in the helicopter's body melting,
as well as a risk of fire or burns to consumers.

Westminster Inc. has received seven reports of overheating and
melting of the helicopter, including one report of flames and
two reports of minor property damage.  No injuries have been
reported.

The "Thunder Wolf" remote-controlled indoor helicopter is made
of foam and plastic, and measures about 7 inches by 3 inches.
"TW0996" is printed on the tail of the helicopter and was sold
in multiple accent colors.  The helicopter comes with a
controller and a separate charger.  Only helicopters that do not
have "Made in China" stamped on the underside of the helicopter
are subject to the recall.

These recalled RC helicopters were manufactured in China and
were being sold at retail stores nationwide from June 2007
through December 2007 for about $20.

Pictures of the recalled RC helicopters are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08315a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08315b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop playing with the
recalled helicopters and contact Westminster Inc. for a refund.
Retailers will not accept returns or provide a refund.

For additional information, contact Westminster Inc. at
800-618-0023 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Thursday and from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET Friday; visit the
company's Web site: http://www.thunderwolfhelicopter.com/or  
send an e-mail at info@thunderwolfhelicopter.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Holzer & Fistel Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder derivative lawsuit has been filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against
certain officers and directors of American Express Company,
asserting violations of relevant state laws.

According to the complaint, American Express and certain of its
officers, directors and employees engaged in knowing, repeated,
and systemic violations of criminal and regulatory laws,
including laws governing bank secrecy and money laundering
activities.

The complaint further alleges that after federal and state law
enforcement authorities uncovered the serious and knowing
control failures of the Company, American Express entered into
settlement agreements with authorities that included the filing
of deferred criminal charges against the Company and the payment
of tens of millions of dollars in fines.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 888-508-6832


FIRST AMERICAN: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against First American Corporation and certain of its officers
and directors on behalf of purchasers of First American common
stock, who purchased between April 26, 2006 and November 6,
2007, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements to the
public in its press releases and in its Securities Exchange
Commission filings.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, First American and certain of the Company's officers and
directors engaged in an illegal scheme with Washington Mutual,
Inc. ("WaMu") to artificially inflate appraisals of homes for
use in connection with mortgages issued by WaMu.

The complaint also alleges that, during the Class Period, the
Company's management wrongfully reported increased earnings from
appraisal fees and inaccurately reassured investors that
internal controls were adequate.

For more information, contact:


          Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 888-508-6832


INDYMAC BANCORP: Brualdi Files Securities Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. disclosed that a lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of IndyMac Bancorp. Inc.  
common stock during the period between August 16, 2007, and
May 12, 2008.

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

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants downplayed and concealed IndyMac's growing exposure
to non-performing assets, particularly loans in its pay-option
adjustable-rate mortgages and homebuilder construction
portfolios, and made numerous positive representations regarding
the Company's capital position to alleviate investors' fears
concerning the Company's capital erosion.

As a result of defendants' false statements, IndyMac stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a Class Period high of $24.55 per share in October
2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
June 27, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006  
          Phone: 212-952-0602
                 877-495-1877


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Brualdi Files S.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina on
behalf of purchasers of Sonoco Products Co. common stock during
the period between September 7, 2007, and September 18, 2007.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading because defendants failed to
disclose and misrepresented:

     (i) that the Company was losing market share to its
         competitors;

    (ii) that the Company was having operational difficulties in
         implementing its next generation of products;

   (iii) that the Company was experiencing weaker sales in its
         Engineered Carriers and Paper and Consumer Packaging
         segments, especially in North America;

    (iv) that the Company was distracted by the loss of a bid on
         a large contract, which resulted in decreased sales and
         price concessions on current contracts;

     (v) that the Company was having a difficult time in moving
         its old inventory; and

    (vi) that as a result of the forgoing, the Company had no
         reasonable basis for its 2007 earnings guidance.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
June 27, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006  
          Phone: 212-952-0602
                 877-495-1877




                            *********

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  * * *