CAR_Public/080702.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 2, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 130
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Claims Processing for $25MM Suit Deal Complete
ATMEL CORP: Judge Drops Some Claims in Calif. Derivative Lawsuit
CANADIAN BANKS: Face Dollar-Exchange Lawsuit in California
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Awaits Dismissal of N.Y. Stockholder Lawsuit
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Ohio

CHILDREN'S PLACE: New Jersey Court Dismisses Stockholder Lawsuit
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Still Faces Suit by Ex-Disney Store Manager
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Court Mulls Approval of $1.6MM Suit Settlement
CITIGROUP: N.Y. Judge Consolidates Auction Rate-Related Lawsuits
DEL MONTE: NV State Court Mulls Motion in Pet Food, Snacks Suit

DEL MONTE: Oct. 14 Hearing Set for $24MM Settlement in N.J. Suit
DEL MONTE: Discovery Ongoing in Florida "Blaszkowski" Lawsuit
DOLLAR TREE: Court Yet to Give Labor Suit Settlement Final Okay
DOLLAR TREE: 2008 Trial Expected for Oregon Labor Lawsuit
DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Ongoing in Labor Code Violations Lawsuit

DOLLAR TREE: Court Yet to Give Final OK to Labor Suit Settlement
DOLLAR TREE: Court Denies Class Certification in Wage Lawsuit
DOLLAR TREE: Still Faces Consolidated Store Managers' Lawsuit
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: USWA Ratifies Laid-Off Workers' Suit Deal
GIANT FOOD: Recalls Garlic Products Containing Undeclared Milk

HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Court Wants Discovery Done by Jan. 2009
ISRAELI BANKS: Face ILS3-Billion Tel Aviv Suit for Fixing Fees
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Shareholders Sue CEO Fertitta in Delaware
LEXISNEXIS: Ga. Illegal Electronic Filing System Suit Refiled
MODINE MANUFACTURING: Judge Weighs "Gates" Lawsuit Settlement

PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Suit
PALMER REIFLER: Accused of Running Collection Mill in RICO Suit
STOP & SHOP: Recalls Garlic Products Containing Undeclared Milk
STRYKA BOTANICS: Sued by Manufacturer for Selling Fake Hoodia
WYETH-AYERST: B.C. Court Allows Suit by Breast Cancer Victims

* Baron & Budd Named Leading U.S. Mass Tort/Class Action Firm


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIFTH THIRD: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit in Ohio
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Pension Fund Sues On Behalf of Investors
HEALTHWAYS INC: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in Tennessee
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in S.C.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Claims Processing for $25MM Suit Deal Complete
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Counsel Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
disclosed the completion of claims processing for the previously
approved partial settlement in "In re American Italian Pasta
Corp. Securities Litigation," which was brought on behalf of
investors in American Italian Pasta Corp. (Pink Sheets:AITP) for
the period January 22, 2002, through August 17, 2005, pursuant
to which the claims against the AITP-related defendants were
released in exchange for cash and stock.

Shareholders have filed lawsuits against American Italian since
August 2005 when the firm started reviewing its accounting
practices.
   
The suits accuse the company of improper inventory,
underreporting marketing allowances paid to distributors and
improperly capitalizing costs that should have been listed as
expenses.

American Italian then said it is withdrawing financial results
for the last three years because they contained errors in
accounting for product promotion and overhead costs.

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

In October 2007, American Italian entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with the lead plaintiffs in the securities class
action (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2007).

The settlement resolves federal securities law claims asserted
in the consolidated class action pending in federal court in
Kansas City, styled, "In re American Italian Pasta Company
Securities Litigation (Case No. 05-CV-0725-W-ODS)."  The federal
securities law claims will be settled for approximately
$25 million, comprised of $11 million in cash -- all of which
will be contributed by the Company's insurers -- and $14 million
in the Company's common shares.

The Stipulation applies to a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the Company's common shares on or after Jan. 23,
2002, and who continued to hold such shares on Aug. 9, 2005, and
all persons who purchased the Company's common shares on or
after Aug. 10, 2005, who continued to hold such shares as of
Aug. 17, 2005.  Under the settlement, the Company's common
shares will be part of both the proposed fee award to
plaintiff's counsel and consideration to be distributed to the
class.

On Feb. 12, 2008, Judge Ortrie D. Smith of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri granted final
approval to the $25-million settlement (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 15, 2008).

Claims processing has recently been completed.  The precise
number of shares issued pursuant to the settlement will depend
upon the average price of AITP shares during the 10 trading days
prior to entry of the Order of Distribution.

Depending on such price, 930,000 common shares of AITP could be
distributed in the near future to claimants on the Settlement
Fund.  The cash portion of the settlement will also be
distributed to claimants in the near future.  These amounts were
paid by the Company's insurance carriers.

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

The plaintiffs' lead counsel is:

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


ATMEL CORP: Judge Drops Some Claims in Calif. Derivative Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has dismissed some claims and refused to
toss others in a derivative lawsuit alleging that directors and
officers of Atmel Corp. backdated stock options, Shannon Henson
writes for Securities Law 360.

Shareholder James Juengling filed the suit against the directors
and officers of the semiconductor company in July 2006, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty, violation of securities laws and
unjust enrichment.

From July through September 2006, six stockholder derivative
lawsuits were filed (three in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and three in Santa Clara County
Superior Court) by persons claiming to be Company stockholders
and purporting to act on the Company's behalf, naming the
Company as a nominal defendant and some of its current and
former officers and directors as defendants.

The federal cases were consolidated and an amended complaint was
filed on Nov. 3, 2006.

The Company and the individual defendants have each moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on various grounds.

On July 16, 2007, the Court issued an order dismissing the
complaint but granting the plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint.

The Court's order did not set a deadline for the plaintiffs to
file an amended complaint.

The state derivative cases have also been consolidated.

In April 2007, a consolidated derivative complaint was filed in
the state court action and the Company moved to stay it.

In July 2007, the court dismissed the consolidated complaint but
told the plaintiffs they could amend it.  At that time, the
judge said that the plaintiffs had not pled some of the claims
with the particularity required, namely that the complaint did
not identify the alleged role that each defendant played in the
scheme or allege facts with a strong inference of scienter.

The court granted the Company's stay motion on June 14, 2007.
(Corporate Litigation Reporter, Sept. 28, 2007)

In a ruling handed down earlier, Judge Fogel allowed most of the
contested parts of the amended complaint to stand, but dismissed
a securities violation claim against former Executive Vice
President Gust Perlegos and said some claims were time-barred.

The court also ruled at the time that some claims were untimely
because they were based on allegedly false statements made more
than three years before the original complaint was filed, among
other things. The plaintiffs amended the complaint soon after.

Based in San Jose, Calif., Atmel Corp. designs, develops,
manufactures, and sells a range of integrated circuits products,
including microcontrollers, advanced logic, mixed-signal,
nonvolatile memory and radio frequency components.


CANADIAN BANKS: Face Dollar-Exchange Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada, Visa
Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. are facing a possible class action
lawsuit over allegations that they improperly cashed in on the
rising dollar, Tara Terkins writes for Globe and Mail.

The suit, filed in California, is launched on behalf of
retailers in the United States that accept Visa credit cards and
allege that banks take too much money when they reverse payments
on fraudulent purchases, Globe and Mail relates.  

According to the report, the suit was filed in June and has not
been certified, or approved by a judge.

The lead plaintiff, Texas resident Robert Smith, runs Hill
Country Custom Cycles.  On April 18, 2007, his company sold
US$9,759 of motorcycle engines online to someone who paid using
a CIBC Visa card.  He shipped the engines to Singapore, as
requested.

However, the person whose Visa was used denied making the
purchase.  In June, Mr. Smith was notified that the payment
would be reversed, leaving him on the hook for US$10,361.81.
That's because the chargeback was done at the exchange rate as
of June rather than that of April 18.  Similar reversals
involving excessive foreign exchange charges occurred during the
summer on three different purchases paid for using CIBC and RBC
cards, Mr. Smith alleges.

According to Mr. Smith, similar scenarios have happened to other
retailers that he hopes to have included in a class-action suit.
They were "not even aware they were dealing in foreign
currencies at the time of the transaction," the suit alleges.
"Unfortunately, fraud is a widespread problem in online
transactions, costing U.S. merchants billions in sales.
Defendants' practice of excessive chargebacks is illegal,
improper, and is deleterious to U.S. interests in maintaining
its market share in the global economy."

The suit also names Calabasas, Calif.-based Innovative Merchant
Solutions, which processes bank cards for merchants.

Globe and Mail notes that, according to the lawsuit, such
chargebacks cause a loss of revenue to merchants, "but may cause
even more financially devastating effects where merchants have
already shipped goods in good faith . . . to complete a
transaction that turns out to be allegedly fraudulent."  The
suit adds, "This is particularly true for the multitude of
businesses that engage in online sales, where neither the
cardholder nor his or her card is present for the merchant to
verify identity."

CIBC and RBC declined to comment, Globe and Mail says.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Awaits Dismissal of N.Y. Stockholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated stockholder lawsuit filed against The Children's
Place Retail Stores, Inc.

                      September Litigation

On Sept. 21, 2007, a stockholder class action complaint was
filed against the company and certain current and former senior
executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

This complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
company's current and former officers made statements to the
investing public which misrepresented material facts about the
company's business and operations, or omitted to state material
facts required in order for the statements not to be misleading,
causing the price of the company's stock to be artificially
inflated in violation of provisions of the Exchange Act, as
amended.

The suit alleges that more recent disclosures establish the
misleading nature of these earlier disclosures.

The complaint seeks money damages plus interest as well as costs
and disbursements of the lawsuit.

                       October Litigation

On Oct. 10, 2007, a stockholder class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of its current and former senior
executives.  

This complaint asserts similar allegations as the September
suit.  It seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, compensatory damages plus interest, and costs and
expenses of the lawsuit, including counsel and expert fees.

                       Recent Developments

These two cases have been consolidated and the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended class action complaint on Feb. 28, 2008.
The company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated suit
and is waiting for the court's ruling on this dismissal request,
according to the company's June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2008.

The suit is "Hall, et al. v. The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-08252," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610-668-7987
          Fax: 610-660-0450
          e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., is still facing a
purported class action suit before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio over alleged violations of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On or about Sept. 28, 2007, Meghan Ruggiero filed a complaint
against the company and its subsidiary, Hoop Retail Stores, LLC,
on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act and seeks class certification, an award of
statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive relief.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Jan. 25, 2008,
according to the company's June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2008.

Effective as of March 26, 2008, the prosecution of this lawsuit
against Hoop was stayed under the automatic stay provisions of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by reason of Hoop's petition for relief
filed that same day.

The suit is "Ruggiero v. The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02966-CAB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York, Judge
Christopher A. Boyko, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Phillip A. Ciano, Esq. (pac@cianogoldwasser.com)
          Ciano & Goldwasser
          460 MK Ferguson Plaza, 1500 West Third Street
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-658-9900
          Fax: 216-658-9920

               - and -

          Daniel P. Goetz, Esq. (dgoetz@weismanlaw.com)
          Weisman, Kennedy & Berris
          1600 Midland Bldg., 101 Prospect Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Phone: 216-781-1111
          Fax: 216-781-6747

Representing the defendants is:

          Michele Kryszak Abraham, Esq.
          (michele.abraham@thompsonhine.com)
          Thompson Hine
          3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-566-5642
          Fax: 216-566-5800


CHILDREN'S PLACE: New Jersey Court Dismisses Stockholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Hudson
County dismissed a stockholder class action lawsuit filed
against the company and all of the members of the company's
board of directors.  

The suit was filed on or about Feb. 21, 2008.  It was dismissed
in May 2008, according to the company's June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2008.

Secaucus, NJ-based The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. --
http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of  
children's merchandise under its own The Children's Place and
licensed Disney Store brand names.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company owned and operated 904 The Children's Place stores and
335 Disney Stores across North America and operated Internet
stores at http://www.childrensplace.com/and  
http://www.disneystore.com/ The Children's Place is a specialty  
retailer of apparel and accessories for children from newborn to
10 years of age.  During the fiscal year ended
Feb. 2, 2008 (fiscal 2007), the Company opened 54 The Children's
Place stores.  It also opened 15 Disney Stores in fiscal 2007.  
On March 26, 2008, Hoop Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of the
Company, along with its subsidiaries, doing business as Disney
Store North America, filed a voluntarily petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Still Faces Suit by Ex-Disney Store Manager
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., is still facing a
purported class action lawsuit filed by a former Disney Store
manager before the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, according to the company's June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2008.

On or about July 12, 2006, Joy Fong, a former Disney Store
manager in the San Francisco district, filed the lawsuit against
the company and its subsidiary, Hoop Retail Stores, LLC,
alleging violations of the California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code.

The suit seeks class action status on behalf of Ms. Fong and
other individuals similarly situated.

The company filed its answer on Aug. 11, 2006, denying any and
all liability, and on Jan. 14, 2007, Ms. Fong filed an amended
complaint, adding a subsidiary of Disney as a defendant.   

Effective as of March 26, 2008, the prosecution of the lawsuit
against Hoop was stayed under the automatic stay provisions of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by reason of Hoop's petition for relief
filed that same day.

Secaucus, NJ-based The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. --
http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of  
children's merchandise under its own The Children's Place and
licensed Disney Store brand names.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company owned and operated 904 The Children's Place stores and
335 Disney Stores across North America and operated Internet
stores at http://www.childrensplace.com/and  
http://www.disneystore.com/ The Children's Place is a specialty  
retailer of apparel and accessories for children from newborn to
10 years of age.  During the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008
(fiscal 2007), the Company opened 54 The Children's Place
stores. It also opened 15 Disney Stores in fiscal 2007.  On
March 26, 2008, Hoop Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company,
along with its subsidiaries, doing business as Disney Store
North America, filed a voluntarily petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.

    
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Court Mulls Approval of $1.6MM Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, has yet
to grant final approval to a proposed $1.6-million settlement in
a purported class action lawsuit filed by a former co-sales
manager of The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc.

On or about Feb. 15, 2005, Michael Scott Smith, a former co-
sales manager for The Children's Place in the San Diego
district, filed the lawsuit against the company in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code and seeks class action
on behalf of Mr. Smith and other individuals similarly situated.

On Oct. 19, 2007, the company entered into a class action
settlement with the plaintiff's counsel and signed a memorandum
of understanding providing for, among other things, a maximum
total payment of $2.1 million, inclusive of attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses, service payments to the class representative
and administration costs, in exchange for a full release of all
claims and dismissal of the lawsuit.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
Nov. 29, 2007, in the amount of $1.6 million and set a hearing
for final approval of the settlement on March 28, 2008.  The
Court has yet to enter an order approving the deal on a final
basis, according to the company's June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2008.

Secaucus, NJ-based The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. --
http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of  
children's merchandise under its own The Children's Place and
licensed Disney Store brand names.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company owned and operated 904 The Children's Place stores and
335 Disney Stores across North America and operated Internet
stores at http://www.childrensplace.com/and  
http://www.disneystore.com/ The Children's Place is a specialty  
retailer of apparel and accessories for children from newborn to
10 years of age.  During the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008
(fiscal 2007), the Company opened 54 The Children's Place
stores. It also opened 15 Disney Stores in fiscal 2007.  On
March 26, 2008, Hoop Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company,
along with its subsidiaries, doing business as Disney Store
North America, filed a voluntarily petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.


CITIGROUP: N.Y. Judge Consolidates Auction Rate-Related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York consolidated five proposed class
action lawsuits brought against Citigroup Inc. on behalf of
purchasers of auction rate securities, Amanda Ernst of
Securities Law 360 reports.

Despite arguments that consolidating all the claims -- including
those that do not fall under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act -- would delay recovery for the class members, Judge
Swain consolidated four cases that asserted violations of
federal securities laws against Citigroup with one case that
only asserted claims under the Investment Advisor Act, which is
not subject to the PSLRA.

Judge Swain noted that one of the four cases that asserted
claims that are subject to the PSLRA also claimed violations of
the Investment Advisor Act.

Samuel Sporn, Esq., an attorney for the lead plaintiffs in the
Investment Advisor Act case "Stockhamer et al. v. Citigroup Inc.
et al.," claimed that the progress of his case would be slowed
by the consolidation, but Judge Swain ruled that other class
members would be prejudiced if the Stockhamer case was not
combined with the other cases.

"Consolidation of the Stockhamer case with the other actions is
warranted," Judge Swain concluded.  "These cases deal with
substantially the same claims, substantially the same defendants
and substantially the same discovery."

After determining that the cases were to be consolidated, Judge
Swain set about ruling on the lead plaintiff and lead counsel
motions.

Headquartered on New York City, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) --
http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/-- is a diversified global   
financial services holding company whose businesses provide a
range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers.  
The company is a bank holding company.


DEL MONTE: NV State Court Mulls Motion in Pet Food, Snacks Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A state court in Las Vegas, Nevada, has yet to rule on a motion
to deny certification of a class in a purported class action
lawsuit over Del Monte Foods Co.'s and other defendants'
recalled pet foods and snacks, according to the company's
June 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2008.

The suit, "Picus v. Del Monte," was filed on April 30, 2007, and
generally alleges that the plaintiffs' pets suffered injury or
death as a result of ingesting the company's and other
defendants' contaminated pet food and pet snack products.  

The suit also contains allegations of false and misleading
advertising by the company.  The plaintiffs in the matter are
seeking class certification as well as unspecified damages and
injunctive relief against further distribution of the allegedly
defective products.

On Oct. 12, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Picus case.  The state court granted the company's motion in
part and denied the motion in part.

On Dec. 14, 2007, other defendants in the case filed a motion to
deny class certification.  The Court has not issued a ruling on
that motion.

Del Monte Foods Co. -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a  
producer, distributor and marketer of branded food and pet
products for the U.S. retail market.  The segments in which the
Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The
Pet Products segment.


DEL MONTE: Oct. 14 Hearing Set for $24MM Settlement in N.J. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey set an
Oct. 14, 2008 hearing to consider approval of the proposed
$24,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Pet Food Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1850," which names Del Monte Foods
Co. as one of the defendants, according to the company's
June 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2008.

The plaintiffs and defendants in the multi-district litigation
cases, including the five consolidated cases in which the
company is a defendant, have tentatively agreed to a settlement
to resolve their dispute.

Beginning with the pet food recall announced by Menu Foods,
Inc., in March 2007, many major pet food manufacturers,
including Del Monte, announced recalls of their own select
products.  The company currently believes there are over 90
purported class action suits relating to these pet food recalls.

The company is currently a defendant in these specific cases,
related to its pet food and pet snack recall:

       -- "Carver v. Del Monte," filed on April 4, 2007, in the
          U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
          California;

       -- "Ford v. Del Monte," filed on April 7, 2007, in the
          U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
          California;

       -- "Hart v. Del Monte," filed on April 10, 2007, before
          the state court in Los Angeles, California;

       -- "Schwinger v. Del Monte," filed on May 15, 2007, in
          the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
          Missouri; and

       -- "Tompkins v. Del Monte," filed on July 13, 2007, in
          the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The named plaintiffs in these cases allege that their pets
suffered injury or death as a result of ingesting the company's
and the other defendants' allegedly contaminated pet food and
pet snack products.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Hart, Schwinger,
and Tompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
purported pet food class action suits under the federal rules
for multi-district litigation (In re Pet Food Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1850").

The plaintiffs and the defendants in the multi-district
litigation cases, including the five consolidated cases in which
the company is a defendant, have tentatively agreed to a
settlement which was submitted for approval to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on May 22, 2008.

On May 30, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.  Pursuant to the Court's order, notice of the
settlement was disseminated to the public by mail and
publication beginning June 16, 2008.  

Members of the class will be allowed to opt-out of the
settlement until Aug. 5, 2008.  A hearing on a final settlement
approval and class certification has been scheduled for Oct. 14,
2008.

If approved, the class will be certified and the total
settlement will aggregate $24 million.  The portion of the
company's contribution to this settlement, if approved, would be
$0.25 million.

Del Monte Foods Co. -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a  
producer, distributor and marketer of branded food and pet
products for the U.S. retail market.  The segments in which the
Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The
Pet Products segment.


DEL MONTE: Discovery Ongoing in Florida "Blaszkowski" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action suit
captioned, "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21221-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and named Del Monte Foods Co. as
one of the defendants.

The suit was filed against companies having a combined
approximate 70% of the market share in the $16-billion-a-year
pet food industry (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2008).

Aside from Del Monte, the defendants in the suit are:

          -- Mars Inc.
          -- Proctor and Gamble Co.
          -- Colgate Palmolive Company
          -- Nestle U.S.A. Inc.
          -- Nurto Procucts Inc.
          -- Menu Foods, Inc.
          -- Menu Foods Income Fund
          -- Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
          -- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
          -- Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.
          -- Pet Supermarket, Inc.
          -- Petsmart Inc.
          -- Target Corp.
          -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The plaintiffs -- Renee Blaszkowski, Amy Hollub and Patricia
Davis -- allege that the defendant-companies have spent
$300 million a year in making false and misleading marketing
statements regarding the contents of their pet food to the dog
and cat loving American public.

While these defendants tout their pet food products as choice
cuts of prime beef, chunks of chicken, fish, fresh wholesome
vegetables and whole grains to induce consumers to buy them,
plaintiffs contend the food is actually made from "inedible"
slaughterhouse waste products of the human food chain such as
spines, heads, tails, hooves, hair, and blood.

The lawsuit alleges rendering companies who process this waste
have also added other inedible "waste" such as euthanized cats
and dogs from veterinarian offices and animal shelters, road
kill, zoo animals, rancid restaurant grease, toxic chemicals and
additives.  Additionally, dead animals and those declared unfit
for human consumption due to disease and illness are also placed
in the mix, the plaintiffs contend.

The lawsuit further alleges that pet food companies market their
products as wholesome, choice cuts of meat, natural and complete
and balanced diets even though they are fully aware that this
food is largely carbohydrates and sugars combined with toxic
preservatives and additives with very little to no meat at all.

The class includes all persons in the U.S. who purchase, or have
purchased, pet food produced, manufactured, advertised,
marketed, distributed and sold by any of the defendants which
lead consumers to believe that they were purchasing, including,
but not limited to, "wholesome," "gourmet," premium," "natural,"
"balanced" and "complete," pet food that was marketed as having
certain ingredients when in fact the pet food contained
ingredients that were not represented in the defendants'
marketing of the pet food and which the defendants never
disclosed to the plaintiffs or class representatives or the
class prior to purchase.

Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:

     (a) whether defendants advertised, marketed and sold pet
         food as healthy, human-like and nutritionally balanced
         when it contained, including but not limited to, toxic
         and dangerous ingredients and chemicals, including but
         not limited to, animal bones, blood, pus, intestines,
         ligaments, tongues, esophagi, cancerous meat,
         euthanized dogs and cats, sodium barbital, and
         penthobarbital and failed to fully disclose such facts
         in advertising;

     (b) whether the defendants knowingly sold pet food that
         contained toxic, dangerous and adulterated ingredients
         and chemicals and failed to disclose such facts;

     (c) whether the defendants advertised, represented or held
         itself out as producing or manufacturing pet food
         products that were, including but not limited to, safe,
         healthy balanced and complete for pets of the
         plaintiffs and class members when in fact such pet food
         was not safe, healthy, balanced or complete;

     (d) whether defendants expressly warranted these pet food
         products;

     (e) whether defendants expressly purported to disclaim any
         express warranty on these pet food products;

     (f) whether defendants purported to disclaim any implied
         warranty on these pet food products;

     (g) whether any limitation on any warranty failed to meet
         its essential purpose;

     (h) whether defendants' intended that the products be
         purchased by the plaintiffs and the class members or
         others;

     (i) whether defendants' intended that the class would feed
         the products to their pets;

     (k) whether defendants' were negligent in manufacturing or
         processing the pet food products;

     (l) whether the purchase and use of pet food to feed
         cats and dogs resulted in loss, injury, or damages to
         the plaintiffs and the class;

     (m) whether the defendants' negligence proximately caused
         loss or injury or damage to the plaintiffs and the
         class;

     (n) whether the plaintiffs and the class suffered damages;

     (o) whether the defendants were unjustly enriched be
         selling consumers pet food that was adulterated, did
         not comport with their own marketing, contained toxic
         substances, and was not nutritionally complete as
         advertised;

     (p) whether the defendants marketing and advertising was
         false and deceptive under applicable state laws; and

     (q) whether the defendants violated applicable consumer
         statutes requiring that the defendants not to commit
         deceptive or unfair trade practices to the detriment of
         the consumer.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, ask the court:

     -- for an order awarding actual consequential damages;

     -- pursuant to Section 501.2075, $10,000 for each violation
        of willfully using a method, act, or practice declared
        unlawful under Section 501.204;

     -- for pre- and post-judgment interest to the class, as
        allowed by law;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- the return of wrongful, revenue, and benefits, to the
        extent, and in the amount deemed appropriate by the
        court and such other relief the court deems just and
        proper to remedy defendants' unjust enrichment;

     -- for an order awarding punitive damages; and

     -- for an order granting such other and further relief as
        allowed by law.

The company has filed various motions to dismiss the Blaszkowski
case.  On April 8, 2008, the Court denied the company's
dismissal motion.  

On April 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
complaint.  The company has filed an answer to the fourth
amended complaint and is now involved in discovery, according to
the company's June 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 27, 2008.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

                http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f36

The suit is "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21221-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Catherine J. MacIvor, Esq. (cmacivor@mflegal.com)
          Maltzman Foreman PA
          2 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2300
          One Biscayne Tower
          Miami, FL 33131-1803
          Phone: 305-358-6555
          Fax: 374-9077


DOLLAR TREE: Court Yet to Give Labor Suit Settlement Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California state court has yet to grant final approval to a
settlement reached by Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., and the
plaintiffs in a purported labor class action suit.

In 2003, the company was served with the lawsuit, which was
filed by a former employee who alleged that Dollar Tree
employees did not properly receive sufficient meal breaks and
paid rest periods, along with other alleged wage and hourly
violations.

The suit requested that the California state court certify the
case as a class action.  

The parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement, which
were presented to the Court for acceptance and certification of
a class.  

Notices have been mailed to the class members and the final
fairness hearing occurred on May 22, 2008.  The Court's final
order approving the deal has yet to be entered, according to the
company's June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2008.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.


DOLLAR TREE: 2008 Trial Expected for Oregon Labor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., is expecting a 2008 trial for a
purported class action lawsuit filed against it by former
employees in Oregon.

The company was served with the lawsuit in 2005 by former
employees in Oregon who allege that they did not properly
receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods, and that
terminated employees were not paid in a timely manner.  

The trial court certified three classes, two for alleged
violations of the state's labor laws concerning rest breaks and
one related to untimely payments upon termination.  

However, in a similar rest break class action case, the Oregon
Supreme Court ruled that one of the rest break allegations does
not give rise to a wage claim under the applicable Oregon
statute.  

It is thus anticipated that the trial court will eliminate this
class of plaintiffs from the first case.  

Discovery is now on-going and no trial is anticipated before the
latter part of 2008, according to the company's June 11, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2008.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.


DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Ongoing in Labor Code Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit filed
in an Alabama federal court, which suit accuses Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc., of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In 2006, the company was served with the lawsuit filed in
federal court in the state of Alabama by a former store manager.  
The former store manager claims that she should have been
classified as a non-exempt employee under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and, therefore, should have received overtime
compensation and other benefits.

She filed the case as a collective action on behalf of herself
and all other employees or store managers similarly situated.  
The plaintiff sought and received from the Court an order
allowing nationwide -- except for the state of California --
notice to be sent to all store managers employed by the company
now or within the past three years.  

Such notice was mailed and less than 15% of those eligible to
opt-in as a plaintiff did so.  Each involved person will
determine whether he or she wishes to opt-in to the class as a
plaintiff.  

The company will challenge the anticipated effort by the opt-in
plaintiffs to be certified as a class following discovery, which
is ongoing, according to the company's June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2008.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.


DOLLAR TREE: Court Yet to Give Final OK to Labor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California state court has yet to give final approval to a
tentative settlement reached in a purported class action lawsuit
filed against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., over alleged violations
of the state's labor code.

In 2006, the company was served with the lawsuit filed by a
former employee, specifically alleging:

      -- that she was paid for wages with a check drawn on a
         bank which did not have any branches in the state, an
         alleged violation of the state's labor code;

      -- that she was paid less for her work than other similar
         employees with the same job title based on her gender;
         and

      -- that the company did not pay her final wages in a
         timely manner, also an alleged violation of the labor
         code.

The plaintiff requested the court to certify the case as a class
action.  

The parties have reached a settlement and executed an agreement
by which the named plaintiff individually settled her Equal Pay
Act and late payment claims.  The Court accepted the proposed
settlement and certified a class for the check claim.  

Notices have been mailed to class members and a hearing for
final approval of the settlement was held on April 22, 2008.  
The company still awaits for a final approval order to be
entered by the Court, according to the company's June 11, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2008.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.


DOLLAR TREE: Court Denies Class Certification in Wage Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California federal court denied a motion seeking the
certification of a class in a purported class action lawsuit
filed against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., by two former employees.

In 2007, the company was served with the lawsuit filed in
federal court in California by two former employees who allege
they were not paid all wages due and owing for time worked, that
they were not paid in a timely manner upon termination of their
employment and that they did not receive accurate itemized wage
statements.

The plaintiffs filed the suit as a class action and seek to
include in the class all of the company's former employees in
the state of California.  

The company responded with a motion to dismiss the case, which
request was denied by the Court.  The company thereafter
answered and opposed the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  

The Court denied certification on the grounds that the
plaintiffs' counsel failed to demonstrate he would adequately
represent the class as required by the applicable federal rule,
according to the company's June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2008.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.

    
DOLLAR TREE: Still Faces Consolidated Store Managers' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., continues to face a consolidated class
action lawsuit filed by either a present or a former store
manager in a California federal court.

                        Federal Action

The suit was served on the company in 2007.  In it, the
plaintiffs claim that they should have been classified as non-
exempt employees under both the California Labor Code and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  

The plaintiffs filed the case as a class action on behalf of
California-based store managers.  

The company responded with a motion to dismiss the case, which
request the court granted with respect to allegations of fraud.

The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint.

                      State Court Action

The company was thereafter served with a second suit filed
before the California state court over essentially the same
allegations and claims as those contained in the federal action.
The suit likewise seeks class certification of all California
store managers.  

The company has removed the case to the same federal court as
the first suit, answered it, and the two cases have been
consolidated.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its  
June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2008.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/--  
operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the
fixed price of one dollar.


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: USWA Ratifies Laid-Off Workers' Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
FreightCar America, Inc., disclosed that the pending global
settlement relating to its Johnstown, Pennsylvania manufacturing
facility had been ratified by the local union members.

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

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

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

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

In June, FreightCar reached a tentative settlement with
representatives of the United Steelworkers of America and the
plaintiffs in the Sowers/Hayden class action litigation (Class
Action Reporter, June 26, 2008).

The settlement would provide special pension benefits to over
200 workers at the Johnstown facility and deferred vested
benefits for other workers, as well as health-care benefits,
severance pay, and settlement bonus payments to workers
depending on their years of service at the facility.

Members of the United Steelworkers of America approved the
settlement on June 26.  The settlement remains subject to court
approval.

If approved by the court, the settlement would resolve all legal
disputes relating to the facility and its workforce, including
the current Sowers/Hayden class action litigation, a contested
grievance arbitration award, and other pending grievance
proceedings. The collective bargaining agreement between the
Company and the USWA would be terminated effective from May 15,
2008, and the Johnstown manufacturing facility would be closed.

Thomas P. McCarthy, the Company's Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, commented, "FreightCar America believes that the
terms of this settlement are fair for all parties.  We will be
pleased to put these disputes behind us and focus on the
important strategic initiatives that will maximize value for our
shareholders as we move forward."

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


GIANT FOOD: Recalls Garlic Products Containing Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Giant Food disclosed a voluntary recall of Giant brand garlic
bread and garlic spread products sold in its Bakeshop as the
items contain milk products which are not declared on the
labels.

Giant removed from its shelves all 16 ounce packages of Giant
brand garlic bread and all 16 ounce packages of Giant brand
garlic spread products.  

The following products are affected by this recall:

     * 16 oz. Giant Garlic Bread: UPC #21476670000
     * 16 oz. Giant Garlic Spread: UPC #20173310000

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to dairy
products run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.  No illnesses have been
reported.

Customers who have purchased the affected products may return
them to Giant for a full refund. Customers looking for
additional information may call Giant Customer Service at
888-469-4426 for more information.

Customers can also visit the Giant Web site at:
http://www.giantfood.com/


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Court Wants Discovery Done by Jan. 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
lifted the stay placed on a consolidated securities fraud
lawsuit against Herley Industries, Inc., and certain other
defendants, according to the company's June 12, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 4, 2008.

In June and July 2006, the company and certain of its officers
were named as defendants in and served with several class-action
complaints before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  

The suits assert claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  
All defendants in the class-action complaints filed motions to
dismiss in April 2007.

On July 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying Herley
Industries' and former Herley Chairman Lee N. Blatt's dismissal
motions and granted, in part, the other defendants' request.  
Specifically, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim
against the other defendants and denied the motion to dismiss
the Section 20(a) claim against them.

On July 18, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
stay the actions.

On Feb. 8, 2008, the Court issued an order allowing for certain
document discovery to commence.  On May 9, 2008, the Court
lifted the stay.  A  Scheduling Order has then been entered
requiring the parties to complete discovery by January 2009.

The suit is "In re Herley Industries Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02596-JS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Juan R. Sanchez,
presiding.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Stanley P. Kops, Esq. (Stankops@aol.com)
          102 Bala Avenue
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 610-949-9999

               - and -

          Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing defendants are:

          Joel L. Frank, Esq. (jfrank@chescolaw.com)
          Thomas P. Hogan, Jr., Esq. (thogan@chescolaw.com)
          Lamb McErlane PC
          24 East Market Street, P.O. Box 565
          West Chester, PA 19381-0565
          Phone: 610-430-8000
          Fax: 610-692-6210

               - and -

          Timothy D. Katsiff, Esq. (katsiff@blankrome.com)
          Blank Rome LLP
          One Logan Square, 18th & Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
          Phone: 215-569-5500
          Fax: 215-569-5555


ISRAELI BANKS: Face ILS3-Billion Tel Aviv Suit for Fixing Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
A request has been filed before the Tel Aviv District Court for
a ILS3-billion (US$896.56-million) class-action lawsuit against:

     -- Bank Hapoalim (TASE: POLI; LSE:80OA),
     -- Bank Leumi (TASE: LUMI), and
     -- Israel Discount Bank (TASE: DSCT)

for fixing fees, Noam Sharvit of the Globes reports.

The statement of claim states, "The banks have apparently
operated as a cartel from the late 1990s (and possibly even
earlier) through today."

The petitioners include Oggen - The Association for Ethics and
for the Eradication of Corruption in Israel and two private
individuals.

The petitioners want to add the Antitrust Authority and the
government as respondents.

A similar lawsuit was filed against Mizrahi Tefahot Bank
(TASE:MZTF) and First International Bank of Israel (TASE:
FTIN1;FTIN5) in March.


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Shareholders Sue CEO Fertitta in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Landry's Restaurants lodged a class-action
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against the company's CEO, Tilman Fertitta, accusing her of
using inside information to try to buy up all outstanding shares
for $21 apiece, or $1.3 billion, which is too cheap, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff David Barfield brings this action on behalf of
all owners of Landry common stock and their successors in
interest, except defendants and their affiliates.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

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

     (b) whether the individual defendants, in connection with
         the proposed transaction, are pursuing a course of
         conduct that does not maximize Landry's value in
         violation of their fiduciary duties; and

     (c) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief or
         damages as a result of defendants' wrongful conduct.

The plaintiff asks the court for an order:

     -- declaring the action to be a class action and
        certifying plaintiff as the class representative and
        their counsel as class counsel;

     -- enjoining, preliminary and permanently, the proposed
        transaction;

     -- in the event that the transaction is consummated prior
        to the entry of this court's final judgment, rescinding
        it or awarding plaintiff and the class rescissory
        damages;

     -- directing that defendants account to plaintiff and the
        other members of the class for all damages caused by
        them and account for all profits and any special
        benefits obtained as a result of their breaches of their
        fiduciary duties;

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

     -- granting plaintiff and the other members of the class
        such further relief as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "David Barfield, et al. v. Landry's Restaurants,
Inc., Case No. 3860," filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Norman M. Monhait, Esq.
          Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, PA
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Phone: 302-656-4433


LEXISNEXIS: Ga. Illegal Electronic Filing System Suit Refiled
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit that claims LexisNexis Courtlink, Inc.,
and Fulton County State and Superior Courts officials are
running an illegal, mandatory, electronic filing system has been
refiled in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is an action aiming to enjoin LexisNexis, acting
independently and as part of a joint enterprise and on direction
and authorization from the Government defendants, from
continuing to operate a system through which defendants have
been charging fees or costs to litigants or their counsel in
Fulton County Superior Court and Fulton County State Court for
filing documents and pleadings using their Electronic Filing
System (e-file of EFS) in excess of those authorized by Georgia
statute and in violation of other Georgia statutes.

In addition to LexisNexis Courtlink, the defendants are:

     -- Mark Harper, chief clerk of the Fulton County State
        Court;

     -- A.L. Thompson, Fulton County State Court chief judge;

     -- Doris L. Downs, Fulton County Superior Court chief
        judge;

     -- Cathlene "Tina" Robinson, clerk of the Fulton County
        Superior Court, and

     -- Fulton County, Ga.

In December 2007, Steven J. Newton, Esq., filed the original
lawsuit.  In March, he filed for a voluntary dismissal without
prejudice, and now says he has more evidence.

In an interview, Mr. Newton said that publicity surrounding the
case has caused his telephone to "blow up."

From this onslaught of support, he said, he was able to find
three additional plaintiffs, including Jeffrey Banks, Esq., a
metro Atlanta attorney, who said LexisNexis Courtlink prevented
him from using the public access terminal in Fulton County State
Court to file paperwork because the company contended that his
account was delinquent.

When the original lawsuit was filed, attorneys representing the
defendants contended their clients had not violated the
Constitution, as Newton asserted.

"Payment of the filing fees cannot run afoul of the Constitution
because they are purely voluntary as the State Court has a
public access terminal whereby a party may file a document for
free," the defendants said.

Kenneth Clowdus, of Alabama, also has been added to the list of
plaintiffs.  According to the complaint, Mr. Clowdus, who is the
administrator for the estate of his late father, believes his
father was charged excessive fees while prosecuting an asbestos
claim in Fulton County Superior Court.

According to the complaint, "by virtue of being from another
state, the e-file system violates Kenneth Clowdus' rights under
the Privilege and Immunities Clause."

Mr. Newton contends that filings in Fulton County State and
Superior Courts, filed through the LexisNexis File & Serve
system, can cost up to $11 per filing in cases where electronic
filing is mandated by orders from Fulton County State and
Superior Courts and authorized by the Fulton County Board of
Commissioners.

LexisNexis File & Serve is used in many court systems throughout
the country.  The system is used statewide in Colorado district
and county courts, excluding Denver County Courts, according to
the LexisNexis Web site.

The plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all past,
current and future litigants who have been or will be charged
for the costs of their mandatory electronic filings in violation
of law.

The plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- assume jurisdiction over this action;

     -- determine by order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure that this action be maintained
        as a class action;

     -- order trial by 12 Person jury on all claims so triable;

     -- issue to defendants summons, process and a second
        original of the complaint as required by law;

     -- allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint as needed;

     -- enter a preliminary injunction and thereafter a
        permanent injunction preventing LexisNexis from the
        imposition and collection of any fees that are in excess
        of the fees expressly authorized by Georgia law;

     -- enter a preliminary injunction and thereafter a
        permanent injunction preventing the government
        defendants from refusing paper filing and mandating that
        litigants use the Lexis products at issue and the
        accompanying costs;

     -- order an accounting such that LexisNexis returns all
        monies taken from plaintiffs under the EFSS and EFS
        schemes in violation of law pursuant to, inter alia, the
        orders issued by the State Court of Fulton County and
        the Superior Court of Fulton County, as compensatory
        damages or other just relief;

     -- enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 USC Section
        2202:

        (1) declaring that defendants are operating the EFS and
            EFSS in violation of Georgia law;

        (2) directing defendants to bring their e-file system
            into compliance with applicable state statutes;

        (3) establishing that defendants are liable to
            plaintiffs for the unlawful fees and assessments
            charged;

     -- enter a declaratory judgment stating that the imposition
        of mandatory fees in excess of the filing fees
        authorized under Georgia law being imposed by LexisNexis
        infringes upon plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights of
        Equal Protection, Due Process, Access to Courts, and
        violates Georgia law;

     -- enter judgment against defendants in such an amount as
        to willfully and adequately compensate plaintiffs and
        the class members;

     -- award enhanced or punitive damages as permitted by law
        and in an amount to be proven at trial;

     -- award attorney's fees, costs and interest associated
        with this action as a result of defendants' conduct;

     -- grant leave to the plaintiffs to amend their complaint
        as needed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 so that
        plaintiffs may allege State claims against the
        Government defendants named at the expiration of notice
        required under Georgia law, (said notice has already
        been served according to law);

     -- compensate plaintiff for merely viewing public records
        at the Fulton Superior Clerk's so-called "PAT" on or
        about Oct. 22, 2007, in violation of USCR 21.1 and other
        Georgia law;

     -- accept plaintiffs' pleadings in the alternative,
        particularly to jurisdiction such that the court finds
        that it has jurisdiction under CAFA and adjudicates the
        claims against LexisNexis;

     -- allow plaintiffs leave (if necessary or appropriate) to
        substitute a party for the John Doe named for an out-of-
        state resident whose rights guaranteed under the
        Privileges and Immunity Clause have been violated; and

     -- order such other and further relief as the court may
        deem just and proper, and that the court grant such
        other and further relief as it deems just and proper
        under the circumstances.

The suit is "W. Phillip McCurdy, III, et al. v. Mark N. Harper,
et al., Case No. 1 08-CV-2145," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steven J. Newton, Esq.
         Law Offices of Steven J. Newton, PC
         215 14th Street, NW
         Atlanta, GA 30318
         Phone: 404-874-5006
         Fax: 404-521-4477
         e-mail: sjn@sjnlaw.com


MODINE MANUFACTURING: Judge Weighs "Gates" Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on June 4, 2008, that Modine
Manufacturing Co. reached a settlement in a purported class
action suit filed against the company, as well as against
Rohm & Haas Co., Morton International, and Huntsman Corp., in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The case, "Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Co., et al., Case No.
06-1743," involves allegations of personal injury from exposure
to solvents that were allegedly released to groundwater and air
for an undetermined period of time.  Specifically, the lawsuit
alleges that a disposal pit on Modine's Ringwood plant
contaminated groundwater with a solvent called
trichloroethylene, which also broke down in water and air into
vinyl chloride, a recognized carcinogen that the lawsuit claims
caused brain cancer risk in McCullom Lake.

Modine dumped wastes into its pit between 1968 and 1982,
according to the lawsuits and research commissioned by the
company.  It moved into its 4400 W. Ringwood Road location in
1961 and manufactures cooling modules, condensers and oil
coolers.

The suit seeks damages for medical monitoring and property value
diminution for a putative class of residents of a community that
are allegedly at risk for personal injuries as a result of
exposure to this same allegedly contaminated groundwater and
air.  

In an update, Kevin P. Craver of Northwest Herald relates that
U.S. District Court Judge Gene Pratter decided to rule at a
later date whether to approve a $2-million offer by Modine
Manufacturing to end its involvement in the class-action
lawsuit.

According to the report, Judge Pratter did not rule from the
bench of her Philadelphia courtroom on June 24 after a hearing
involving legal counsel for Modine and Aaron Freiwald, Esq., who
filed the lawsuit in 2006 against Modine and neighboring
manufacturer Rohm and Haas.

Mr. Freiwald, Northwest Herald says, declined to comment pending
a ruling.  

If Judge Pratter approves the settlement, which was tentatively
reached in January, Modine will pay $1.4 million toward
establishing a medical monitoring fund for village residents
wanting an MRI.  Another $100,000 would go to eligible village
landowners for property damage relief.  The remaining $500,000
would cover court-approved legal fees and the cost of
implementing the settlement.  

According to Northwest Herald, the medical-monitoring class
includes anyone who lived in village limits for a cumulative
year between Jan. 1, 1968, and Dec. 31, 2002.  The property
damage class includes anyone who owned property in the village
between April 25, 2006, and Jan. 18, 2008.  Eligible residents
have until 30 days after Judge Pratter approves the settlement
to apply.

The company continues to deny any connection between pollution
from its Ringwood facility and any illnesses.

The report notes that Mr. Freiwald recognizes in the settlement
that Modine was a minimal contributor to contamination.  He
alleges that most of the pollution in question came from the 8-
acre unlined landfill on Rohm and Haas' property.

Northwest Herald points out that the Philadelphia-based Rohm and
Haas would be the sole remaining defendant in the case if Judge
Pratter approves the Modine settlement.  Rohm and Haas is
fighting the lawsuits in court, and Judge Pratter will rule
later this summer whether the lawsuit against the company can
proceed to a civil jury trial.


PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been proposed in a consolidated securities
class action filed against Paincare Holdings, Inc.

On March 21, 2006, Roy Thomas Mould filed a complaint under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the company, as well as the company's chief
executive officer and chief financial officer.  

Mr. Mould alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with the company's financial statements, which appear
to relate principally to the Paincare Holdings' previously
announced intention to restate certain past financial
statements.

Ten additional complaints were filed shortly afterward before
the same court, which recite similar allegations.  

Subsequently, a lead counsel was selected, a consolidated
complaint was filed, the company moved to dismiss, and an oral
argument on the motion was held on Jan. 17, 2007, before the
Magistrate Judge.

In the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages and purports to represent a class of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock from
March 24, 2003 and March 15, 2006.

On March 26, 2007, the Federal Magistrate recommended that the
District Court dismiss all outstanding claims with leave to
amend.

On April 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order adopting
the Magistrate's report and dismissed the Securities Litigation,
with leave to amend.

An amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on
May 23, 2007.  By motion filed June 7, 2007, the Company again
moved to dismiss the action.

The defendants, the corporate issuer, and its two top
executives, moved to dismiss on the ground that, among other
things, the complaint failed to adequately allege scienter.

The court held a hearing regarding the Company's dismissal
motion.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken
under submission by the court on Aug. 15, 2007.

In 2008, the motion to dismiss was denied (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 22, 2008).  In denying the defendants' motion,
the Court held that a plaintiff alleging fraud in a Section
10(b) action must plead facts rendering an inference of scienter
at least as likely as any plausible opposing inference,
according to an article by Alan Friedman & Jean Chung at
http://www.mondaq.com/  

Under the proposed settlement, it will provide a settlement fund
of $2,000,000 for the benefit of investors who purchased
PainCare common stock during the Class Period.

These funds will be distributed to eligible members of the Class
who send in valid claim forms, after the payment of court-
approved legal fees and Lead Counsel's expenses and the costs of
claims administration, including the costs of printing and
mailing the Notice and the cost of publishing the newspaper
notice.

Assuming that all purchasers of PainCare common stock during the
Class Period who suffered damages participate in this
settlement, Lead Counsel estimates that the average distribution
per share of PainCare common stock will be approximately $.048
before the deduction of court-approved fees and expenses.

Deadline to file claims is on October 14, 2008.

The Court will hold a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on September 15,
2008, at the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

The suit is "In re PainCare Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 6:06-cv-362-Orl-28DAB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge
John Antoon II, with referral to Judge David A. Baker.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale, LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-4750, ext. 107
          Fax: 561-392-4775
          e-mail: e-file@vianalelaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Bruce J. Berman, Esq. (bberman@mwe.com)
          McDermott, Will & Emery
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33131-4336
          Phone: 305-358-3500
          Fax: 305-347-6500


PALMER REIFLER: Accused of Running Collection Mill in RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando law office Palmer, Reifler & Associates is facing a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida accusing if of running a
"collection mill," CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a case brought on behalf of innocent persons across the
country against the Palmer Law Firm to stop them from sending
millions of deceptive, unfair and oppressive form civil recovery
demand letters and to recoup the tens of millions of dollars
they have extorted for themselves and their retail clients.

The RICO class action accuses the law firm of extorting money
through a computerized system that sends more than 1 million
threats of lawsuits a year to people suspected of shoplifting.

The law office allegedly signs names of attorneys' throughout
the country to its intimidating letters, falsely claiming that
the local attorneys have reviewed the case, falsely threatens to
sue, and it profits from this "illegal scheme" by working with
major retailers, including Wal-Mart, KMart, JC Penny and
Walgreens, the complaint states.

The defendants are accused of abusing "civil recovery statues,"
which legislatures across the country adopted in the 1980s after
lobbying from retailers.  The laws allow retailers to seek civil
damages and penalties from consumers accused of retail theft.
All 50 states have enacted such laws.

"The Palmer Law Firm has abused this legislation, however, by
creating a massive collection mill whereby hundreds of thousands
of letters are generated each and every month and sent to
consumers across the nation without any attorney review," the
complaint states.

The complaint further states, "These generic form letters are
meant to harass, intimidate and coerce consumers into paying a
large fine by threatening civil action (which they have no
intention of filing) by a local attorney (that has no
involvement in the case) and a visit from the 'sheriff' (which
they know won't happen)."

The Palmer firm alleged has constructed a sophisticated computer
system that spits out the demand letters after getting
electronic files from their retail clients each month, "with the
names of consumers detained in the store and a minimal amount of
data, including their age, the date of their detention, their
address and the amount of the merchandise allegedly at issue. .
. . The Palmer Law Firm uses the software to automatically
generate a form demand letter based on that information that
automatically calculates the demand amount and electronically
affixes a local attorney's signature to the letter. . . .
Palmer's Orlando office generates and mails between 80,000 and
120,000 form demand letters each month and over a million
letters each year."

The defendants allegedly pay attorneys around the country,
usually sole practitioners, retainers of "a few hundred dollars
a month," for the use of their names.  "These attorneys do not
review the letters before they are sent and have no meaningful
interaction with the consumer.  Instead, they simply lend their
names and bar licenses in exchange for a monthly fee," the
complaint states.

"The Palmer Law Firm has sold this scheme to over fifty (50)
retail clients, the largest of which include major retailers
Wal-Mart, JC Penney, KMart and Walgreens," and the law office
gets 18% to 30% of the money it collects, the complaint states.

"Like all collection mills, the Palmer Law Firm has created a
Web site for consumers to pay these exorbitant, unsubstantiated
amounts online at 'Palmer Pay.com' using credit and debit cards
and banking accounts."

The plaintiffs claim the law office tries to duck the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by claiming that its scheme is not debt
collection but "settlement of a tort offense."

In fact, the plaintiffs say, this is a common abuse of the
FDCPA, and the FTC has sued numerous law offices for just this
abuse.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant has participated in a scheme to
         defraud or obtain money by means of false pretenses,
         representations or promises, in violation of 18 USC
         Section 1341 and 18 USC Section 1343;

     (b) whether the PLFE constitutes an enterprise under RICO;

     (c) whether the PLFE has committed a pattern of
         racketeering activity under RICO;

     (d) whether defendant's form demand letter and practice in
         sending it is a deceptive, unfair and unconscionable
         scheme in violation of FDUTPA;

     (e) whether due to defendant's uniform acts, as alleged,
         defendant was unjustly enriched or received payments
         and amount that under principles of equity they
         cannot retain; and

     (f) the amount of damages the monetary class has sustained
         as a result of the defendant's wrongful conduct, and
         the proper measure of such damages.

The plaintiffs demand judgment for compensatory damages, pre and
post judgment interest, attorney's fees, injunctive relief,
costs incurred in bringing this action, and any other relief as
the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Veronica Kelly, et al. v. Palmer, Reifler &
Associates, PA, Case No.  1:08-cv-21843-FAM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lance A. Harke, Esq. (lharke@harkeclasby.com)
          Alison C. Harke, Esq. (aharke@harkeclasby.com)
          Harke & Clasby LLP
          Miami, Florida 33130
          155 S. Miami Ave., Suite 600
          Phone: 305-536-8220
          Fax: 305-536-8229


STOP & SHOP: Recalls Garlic Products Containing Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company declared a voluntary recall
of Stop & Shop brand garlic bread and garlic spread products
sold in its Bakeshop as the items contain milk products which
are not declared on the labels.

Stop & Shop removed from its shelves all 16 ounce and 9 ounce
packages of Stop & Shop brand garlic bread and all 16 ounce
packages of Stop & Shop brand garlic spread products.  

The following products are affected by this recall:

     * 16 oz. Stop & Shop Garlic Bread: UPC #20540880000
     * 9 oz. Stop & Shop Garlic Bread: UPC #20540900000
     * 16 oz. Stop & Shop Garlic Spread: UPC #20549280000

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to dairy
products run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.  No illnesses have been
reported.

Customers who have purchased the affected products may return
them to Stop & Shop for a full refund or call Stop & Shop
Customer Service at 800-767-7772 Monday through Friday from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for more information.

Customers can also visit the Stop & Shop Web site at
http://www.stopandshop.com/


STRYKA BOTANICS: Sued by Manufacturer for Selling Fake Hoodia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas-based contract manufacturer Certified Natural
Laboratories is suing one of its suppliers, Stryka Botanics, for
selling fake hoodia, Shane Starling writes for NutraIngredients-
usa.com.

According to the report, CNL is seeking $75,000 in losses and
other damages after it determined that a $40,000 shipment from
Stryka was not in fact hoodia but some other material.

NutraIngredients-usa.com says that CNL is also considering
expanding the suit to include all Stryka customers in a class-
action lawsuit.

Stryka President Brian McNally told NutraIngredients-USA.com
that his company would fight the lawsuit "all the way to the
bitter end."  He said that, "We stand by our products 100 per
cent and while we haven't seen the details of the law suit, we
will thoroughly investigate it and defend ourselves
appropriately."

The report relates that Stryka sources its hoodia from China and
South Africa and continues to supply the appetite suppressant to
more than 10 customers.

"We were shocked by this suit," Mr. McNally added.  "We have
never been sued before and have more than 1400 clients."

CNL said it had been supplied with hoodia extracts and powders
by Stryka since 2004, but was alarmed in August 2006 when the
$40,000 shipment arrived without accompanying third-party
authentication paperwork.

CNL related that it requested the paperwork several times from
Stryka and was eventually sent documents claiming the material
was indeed hoodia, but verified by Stryka's own in-house
laboratory, not a third-party tester.

CNL then had the material tested and found it was fraudulent.

NutraIngredients-usa.com notes that Stryka disputes CNL's claims
and Mr. McNally pointed out that the paperwork for the disputed
batch was no different to that which preceded it.

The report says that, as obesity rates have spiraled across both
the developed and developing world, weight management has risen
as a concern and weight management products are estimated to be
worth $7 billion globally.  Hoodia has risen to prominence on
the back of scientifically backed satiety benefits and has
attracted the interest of major food players such as Unilever.
The food giant has signed a deal with U.K.-based supplier
Phytopharm and hopes to have a hoodia product on-market,
probably under its $500-million Slimfast brand by 2011.

However, according to the report, the rise of the ingredient has
led to an influx of new suppliers, some of them less than
scrupulous, and leading to a situation where sightings of fake
hoodia have become commonplace.


WYETH-AYERST: B.C. Court Allows Suit by Breast Cancer Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
An international maker of a hormone replacement drug has lost
its bid to block a Brtish Columbia lawsuit, paving the way for a
possible class-action on behalf of breast cancer survivors, The
Canadian Press reports.

According to Canadian Press, hundreds of B.C. women who claim
they got breast cancer after taking the drugs Premarin and
Premplus -- produced by Wyeth-Ayerst International -- have
contacted the law firm involved in the B.C. Supreme Court
lawsuit.

David Klein, the women's lawyer, told Canadian Press that if the
Wyeth-Ayerst is found at fault, it means the company would be
held accountable in a Canadian court.

"Now we can put the case back on track toward getting it
certified as a class action," Mr. Klein said.

The report relates that, officially, the lawsuit has one
plaintiff so far.  Dianna Stanway is the representative
plaintiff in the suit, which must first be certified by the
court as a class action, allowing the other women to join.

Wyeth-Ayerst previously asked the court to dismiss the legal
action, contending that the Canadian women did not have
jurisdiction to sue the American firm.

However, Justice Miriam Gropper refused to release Wyeth-Ayerst
from responsibility.

"I find that the U.S. defendants' admitted engagement in
activities in relation to the Canadian companies and to
consumers in Canada is sufficient to establish a real and
substantial connection," Justice Gropper said in a written
ruling released on June 30.

Mr. Klein said it was important to keep the U.S. defendants
involved in the action because of the larger asset pool if there
is a judgment against the company, and because it would mean
more witnesses to testify as to what the company knew about the
drugs and what it was telling doctors and the public.  "If we
had just the Canadian defendants we felt that we would only be
seeing a small part of the total picture," he said.

Canadian Press explains that hormone replace therapy was widely
prescribed to women across North America to ease symptoms of
menopause such as hot flashes and night sweats.

According to the report, although a major study published in
2002 linked the drugs to higher rates of heart attack, stroke
and cancer in some cases, the drugs still remain on the market.

The plaintiffs claim that long-term use led to their development
of breast cancer.  Their allegations, however, have not been
proven in a court.

Canadian Press notes that Wyeth-Ayerst is also facing thousands
of similar lawsuits in the United States and, in 2007, was
ordered to pay $134.5 million by a jury in Reno, Nevada, to
three women who said the drugs caused their breast cancer.

"There have been 10 trials so far in the United States; eight of
them have resulted in verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs," Mr.
Klein stated.  He said that if their own class-action lawsuit is
approved by the court, women in British Columbia will be able to
join the lawsuit if they fit the category.  He added that women
across Canada may also join the lawsuit, with the court's
approval.


* Baron & Budd Named Leading U.S. Mass Tort/Class Action Firm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas-based Baron & Budd, P.C. has again been selected by The
Legal 500 as one of the country's premier law firms in mass tort
claims and class action litigation for the firm's work on toxic
tort claims.  The directory describes mass tort firms as those
who "have the gall to take on corporate America."

Toxic tort cases involve injuries caused by exposure to toxic
substances -- like asbestos-related mesothelioma.  These
exposures are often occupational, but they may also be
environmental exposures in the community or exposures to toxic
substances in consumer products.

Many thousands of workers in the United States have been injured
or killed by exposure to asbestos, benzene and a variety of
dangerous substances used or produced by industry, even when the
companies knew the harm they could cause.  Baron & Budd has
represented injured workers since 1977.

The Legal 500 describes its United States legal directory as
"the guide to the pre-eminent firms in the world's strongest and
most competitive legal market."  According to its editors, The
Legal 500 uses independent researchers interviewing thousands of
clients in 90 counties worldwide to select "the best of the
best" and provides commentaries on its recommended law firms
based on feedback from clients, judges and other attorneys.
Based on this extensive research, The Legal 500 selected Baron &
Budd as one of the top two law firms in the nation for toxic
tort claims.  The directory specifically noted the company's
"strong water contamination practice" and continuing success in
litigating serious asbestos cases.

Russell Budd, managing shareholder of Baron & Budd and called "a
major force in the toxic-tort practice," expressed pleasure at
the recognition.  "The firm has continued to grow and evolve in
ways that have just made us stronger," said Mr. Budd, "and it is
gratifying to see our hard work recognized once again by this
respected publication."

                    About Baron & Budd, P.C.

Since 1977, the law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has championed
the rights of people and communities harmed by corporate
misconduct.  With 49 attorneys and offices in Texas, California
and Louisiana, Baron & Budd enjoys a national reputation as a
leader of the plaintiffs' bar.  The firm represents individuals
with mesothelioma and other diseases caused by asbestos;
leukemia caused by benzene; injuries caused by other toxic
substances and unsafe pharmaceuticals; water authorities seeking
clean-up costs for drinking water contamination; securities
investors defrauded by corporate wrongdoing; and consumers in
class actions.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIFTH THIRD: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a securities class action
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bancorp (Nasdaq:FITB) (NYSE:FTB-PA)
(NYSE:FTB-PC) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

On June 18, 2008, Fifth Third's share price plummeted 27% on
unusually heavy trading volume, closing at $9.26 per share after
trading as high as $28.58 on February 4, 2008.  The drop in
share price occurred one day after Fifth Third announced plans
to raise $2 billion in capital in response to losses from the
downturn in the mortgage and real estate markets.

Specifically, the class action alleges that Fifth Third issued
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
quality and sufficiency of the Company's "tier 1 capital" and
its need to shore up capital in response to an expected increase
in the Company's loan charge-off levels and exposure to the
poorly-performing real estate market in the Mid-West.

The complaint alleges that as a result of these false and
misleading statements and omissions, the price of Fifth Third's
stock was artificially inflated during the class period, between
October 19, 2007, and June 17, 2008.

For more information, contact:

         Finkelstein Thompson LLP
         The Duvall Foundry
         1050 30th Street, N.W.
         Washington, DC 20007
         Phone: 877-337-1050
         e-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com


GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Pension Fund Sues On Behalf of Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit has
filed a class action lawsuit against Gildan Activewear, Inc. in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of investors who purchased Gildan stock between August 2,
2007, and April 29, 2008, inclusive, for violations of the U.S.
securities laws.

The complaint alleges that Gildan and certain insiders made
false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding
the company's financial performance and prospects and, as a
result, that the price of the company's securities was inflated.

The U.S. securities laws were enacted to protect the integrity
of the country's financial markets and to ensure the accuracy
and timeliness of financial information disseminated to the
domestic and foreign investing public.  Unfortunately, external
and internal pressures facing corporate insiders and board
members lead many companies to engage in business practices that
violate the securities laws and mislead investors.

The securities laws envision pension funds and other
institutional investors having a vital role in enforcing
investor rights.  The benefits of the direct involvement of
institutional investors in securities class action litigation
has been reinforced in the past few years. Empirical evidence
demonstrates that institutional plaintiff involvement adds value
in increased settlements and larger recoveries.

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          29 West 57th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 800-404-7770
                 860-537-5537
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


HEALTHWAYS INC: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, has filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Healthways, Inc. (Nasdaq:HWAY) between Oct. 17,
2007, and Feb. 26, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Healthways and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and prospects.  As alleged in
the Complaint, Healthways became involved in the Medicare Health
Support pilot program launched by the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.  The MHS program was designed to improve
quality of care and life for people with multiple chronic
conditions, and to help the Medicare program and its
beneficiaries save money.  Under the plan's first three-year
phase, patients were tracked to evaluate care, satisfaction and
whether the plan achieved savings targets.  Based on those
results, CMS would decide whether to expand the program to a
second phase.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Healthways failed to
disclose that:

       (i) Healthways was not meeting the savings targets, among
           other requirements, set by CMS.  As a result of
           Healthways' failure, CMS would not expand the MHS
           program to a second phase and the Company would be
           required to reimburse CMS for the fees they had
           already received through the program;

      (ii) Healthways was in danger of losing at least two
           existing contracts and was experiencing slower
           enrollment in an existing contract due to a decline
           in the need for the Company's services; and

     (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company had no
           reasonable basis for its revenues and earnings
           guidance for fiscal 2008.

Interested members of the class may, no later than Aug. 4, 2008,
request for Court appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more information, contact:

          Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
          Toll-free: 800-797-5499
          e-mail: firm@snilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.snilaw.com/


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, disclosed that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of South Carolina on behalf of all those who
purchased the common stock of Sonoco Products Co. between
February 7, 2007, and September 18, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Sonoco and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose the following facts:

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

    (ii) that Sonoco 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 Sonoco 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, Sonoco had no
         reasonable basis for its 2007 earnings guidance.

On July 20, 2007, Sonoco announced its financial results for the
second quarter of 2007, the period ended July 1, 2007.  For the
quarter, the Company reported earnings of $0.41 per diluted
share, below analysts' expectations.  In response to this
announcement, shares of the Company's common stock fell $6.30
per share, or over 14%, to close at $38.00 per share.  Then on
September 18, 2007, Sonoco announced that it was reducing its
third quarter 2007 base earnings estimate to a range of $0.55 to
$0.58 per diluted share.  On this news, shares of Sonoco's stock
fell $2.42 per share, or over 7%, to close at $30.78 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 25,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *