CAR_Public/080703.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, July 3, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 131
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Reaches Settlement in "Chaiet" Lawsuit
APPLE INC: Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Billions in Lost Share Value
BLUE CROSS: Faces Lawsuit in Mich. Over Refused Autism Coverage
CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery Ongoing in Iowa Managers' Lawsuit
CASEY'S GENERAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Illinois Lawsuit

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Defendants Respond to Colossus Suit Severance
DOLLAR GENERAL: Discovery Ongoing in Tennessee Merger Lawsuit
FIRST FRANKLIN: Faces Lawsuit in Wisconsin Over Undisclosed Fees
GIRLS GONE WILD: Video Co. Victimizes Underage Girls, Suit Says
MAURICE BETHEA: Lawsuit Says Dubious Scheme Targeted Minorities

NAVARRE CORP: Minn. Court Gives Final OK to Securities Suit Deal
OPNEXT INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
PNC FINANCIAL: Wants Suits Against Equipment Finance Thrown Out
PNC FINANCIAL: Second Circuit Affirms Approval of Adelphia Deal
PREMIUM STANDARD: "Herrold" Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint

QUANEX CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Gerdau Subsidiary Merger
SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Pa. Workers' Back Wages, Overtime Suit
U.S. AUTO: Settles Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit for $10MM
U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION: Sued Over Application Delays
UNITED STATES: DOJ Sued Over Job Denials Based on Ideology

UST ADVISERS: Still Faces Shareholder, Derivative Suits in Md.
WAL-MART: Violated Minn. FLSA over 2 Million Times, Judge Rules
WELLS FARGO: Faces N.J. Suit Over Vehicle "Excess Wear and Use"

* Bernstein Litowitz Gets Top Rank in Securities Class Action

* Schulte Roth Expands Securities Class Litigation Team


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIMALAC SA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
INDYMAC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
STATE STREET: Coughlin Stoia Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Reaches Settlement in "Chaiet" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
American Italian Pasta Co. reached a settlement for a purported
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

The suit was filed on Sept. 6, 2006, under the caption, "Chaiet
v. Allen, et al., Case No. 06-744-CV-W-DW."

The complaint asserts claims against certain of the company's
former and current officers and directors for breaches of their
fiduciary duties relating to the company's accounting practices
and financial reporting.  

The plaintiff also asserts claims on behalf of a putative class
against the company's current directors for failing to schedule
or hold an annual meeting for 2006.  The company is named as a
nominal defendant.  

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages on the
company's behalf and an order requiring that an annual meeting
be scheduled and held.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

On Feb. 12, 2007, the court stayed all future proceedings in the
matter until 45 days after the company issue restated financial
results, and required the company to provide monthly reports
regarding the status of its restatement process.  

On March 13, 2008, the company reached an agreement, in
principle, subject to court approval, to settle the case,
according to its June 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 29, 2006.

The suit is "Chaiet v. Allen, et al., Case No. 06-744-CV-W-DW,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Judge Ortrie D. Smith, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          John J. Miller, Esq. (jmiller@swansonmidgley.com)
          Swanson Midgley, LLC
          2420 Pershing Road, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: 816-842-6100
          Fax: 816-842-0013

Representing the defendants are:

          W. Perry Brandt, Esq. (perry.brandt@bryancave.com)
          Bryan Cave, LLP
          1200 Main Street, Suite 3500
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-374-3200
          Fax: 816-374-3300

          Michael C. Phillips, Esq.
          (michael.phillips@huschblackwell.com)
          Husch, Blackwell, Sanders, LLP
          4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-983-8000
          Fax: 816-983-8080

               - and -

          William D. Beil, Esq. (billb@rhgm.com)
          Rouse Hendricks German May PC
          One Petticoat Lane Building, Suite 400
          1010 Walnut Street
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: 816-471-7700
          Fax: 816-471-2221


APPLE INC: Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Billions in Lost Share Value
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc., Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs, former financial
officer Fred D. Anderson, former general counsel Nancy R.
Heinen, and several members of the company's board of directors
were named defendants in a securities fraud class-action lawsuit
filed on June 27, Thomas Claburn writes for InformationWeek.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court in San Jose,
California.

InformationWeek notes that plaintiffs Martin Vogel and Kenneth
Mahoney, through their attorneys, charge that Apple, the named
executives, and board members William V. Campbell, Millard S.
Drexler, Arthur D. Levinson, and Jerome B. York participated in
a scheme to file false financial statements, thereby concealing
millions of dollars in executive compensation though the
backdating of stock option grants.

The report recounts that in June 2006, Apple acknowledged that
an internal investigation had revealed irregularities in its
stock option grants between 1997 and 2001.  It also said that
one of the grants in question was to Mr. Jobs but that "it was
subsequently canceled and resulted in no financial gain to the
CEO."

According to the complaint, Apple's share price dropped 14% in
the two weeks after Apple's admission, erasing more than
$7 billion in share value.  It is this loss that the plaintiffs
hope to recover.

InformationWeek further recalls that in December 2006, Apple
said that as a result of its internal investigation, it would
restate its financial results to include "an additional non-cash
stock-based compensation expense of $84 million after tax [$105
million pretax], including $4 million and $7 million in fiscal
years 2006 and 2005, respectively."  The company said it had
found no irregular grants after Dec. 31, 2002.

The report relates that the 105-page complaint asserts that Mr.
Jobs and the other Apple executives named in the suit knew what
was going on.  "The defendants knew that options were not
granted on the dates that were disclosed to shareholders and
falsified the company's records to create the appearance of
illegality, and thus bear direct responsibility for their
actions," the complaint states.  "Here, Jobs and the Individual
Defendants clearly appreciated the fraudulent nature of their
conduct."

Mr. Jobs, the complaint further states, made an "instant paper
profit" of $20,325,000 when, on Dec. 18, 2001, he received
7.5 million Apple shares in a stock option grant dated back to
Oct. 19, 2001.  And Apple's books did not show a $20,325,000
expense.

The complaint also cites a 10-million share option grant in
January 2000 that, through backdating, resulted in "instant
paper profit" of $83,762,000 for Mr. Jobs, an amount that at the
time was not disclosed to shareholders.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment, InformationWeek
says.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Lawsuit in Mich. Over Refused Autism Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
The father of an autistic child has filed a class action lawsuit
against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and the case was set
for hearing by Judge Sean Cox in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

Chris Johns alleges that the insurer has wrongfully refused
coverage for his child's therapy and care.  The suit alleges
that Blue Cross is required to provide coverage for the care
under the terms of its policy, but that it has not done so in
bad faith and in violation of the federal ERISA statute.

The suit seeks certification of a class of people who have been
refused coverage by Blue Cross for their autistic children, as
well as damages and an injunction requiring Blue Cross to
provide coverage for the care in the future.

Blue Cross apparently takes the position that such care is
experimental even though it is provided by such prestigious
facilities as Beaumont Hospital.

The plaintiff's attorney, John J. Conway, Esq., said, "The law
is clear that this treatment is not experimental, but is
mainstream, scientifically validated, and being provided by
prestigious institutions such as Beaumont Hospital, and we look
forward to establishing this in a judicial forum through
testimony and affidavits of professionals in this arena."

Mr. Conway referenced an expert's affidavit already submitted to
the court, which states, "Intensive behavioral intervention for
children with autism is the standard of care and is appropriate
for the therapeutic management of autism."

The case was assigned to the Honorable Sean Cox, in the Eastern
District of Michigan, and Judge Cox issued an order setting the
matter for a hearing on August 21.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          John J. Conway, Esq. (john@johnjconway.com)
          John J. Conway P.C.
          645 Griswold St., Ste. 3600
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Phone: 313-961-6525
          Fax: 313-961-0754

               -  and -

          Mantese and Rossman, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Phone: 248-457-9200  
          Fax: 248-457-9201
          Web site: http://www.manteselaw.com/


CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery Ongoing in Iowa Managers' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit against
Casey's General Stores, Inc., over alleged violations of the
state wage laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint was filed against the company on May 30, 2007, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa by two
former assistant managers who claim that Casey's failed to
properly pay them and other assistant managers overtime
compensation (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2008).

Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the assistant managers
were treated as non-exempt employees entitled to overtime pay,
but that the company did not properly record all hours worked
and failed to pay the assistant managers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The action purports to be a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act brought on behalf of all "persons who are
currently or were employed during the three-year period
immediately preceding the filing of [the] complaint as
'Assistant Managers' at any Casey's General Store operated by
[the] Defendant (directly or through one of its wholly owned
subsidiaries), who worked overtime during any given week within
that period, and who have not filed a complaint to recover
overtime wages."

The complaint seeks relief in the form of back wages owed all
members of the class during the three-year period preceding the
filing of the complaint, liquidated damages, attorneys fees, and
costs.

The company filed an answer denying the claims, as well as a
motion for change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa sitting in Des Moines.  That motion
was granted on Aug. 30, 2007, and the case has been transferred
to Des Moines.  

On Oct. 31, 2007, the Court conditionally certified the
collective action as to "any employees who are or have been
employed by Casey's as an assistant manager at any time since
Nov. 1, 2004, and who have unresolved claims for unpaid
overtime," and authorized the mailing of notice of the action to
all such persons.  

Notice recipients who elected to participate in the lawsuit were
required to file a form opting in to the lawsuit.  The opt-in
period has now closed, with approximately 600 persons filing an
opt-in form.  

The company will be allowed to move to decertify the collective
action after discovery is conducted.

On Nov. 20, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their
complaint to include class claims alleging violations of the
state laws of eight states where the company operates, based on
the same general factual allegations underlying the FLSA claim.

The court allowed the amended complaint to be filed, with
modifications.

Discovery activities are now in progress, according to the
company's June 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2008.

The suit is "Jones, et al. v. Casey's General Stores Inc., Case
No. 5:07-cv-04043-MWB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa, Judge Mark W. Bennett presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jon E. Heisterkamp, Esq. (jeheisterkamp@yahoo.com)
         Peters Law Firm PC
         PO Box 1078, 233 Pearl Street
         Council Bluffs, IA 51502-1078
         Phone: 712-328-3157
         Fax: 712-328-9092


CASEY'S GENERAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Illinois Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported class action
lawsuit against Casey's General Stores, Inc., pending with the
Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois, according to the company's June 26, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2008.

The suit was filed on March 13, 2003, by a former store manager,
individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated.  It is
filed under Illinois law on behalf of all persons employed by
the company or one of its affiliates who, at any time from
February 1993 through the time of final judgment, were not paid
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The plaintiff seeks relief for herself and the class members
under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act and similar laws of other states.

The company answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss
the case on grounds that, among other things, the company's
store managers are exempt from overtime laws as executive
employees, or the equivalent, under applicable federal and state
laws.

The court issued its ruling on April 29, 2008, denying the
dismissal motion as it pertains to the plaintiff's individual
claims based on alleged violations of Illinois law, but granting
the dismissal motion as it pertains to the class claims based on
alleged violations of other states' overtime laws.

The plaintiff was granted leave to re-file the class action
claim, provided the purported class could be clearly identified
and provided the plaintiff could demonstrate that she can
adequately and fairly represent the interests of the class
members.

The Court called into question the plaintiff's ability to
represent class members residing outside Illinois, in light of
an August 2005 decision by the Supreme Court of Illinois in an
unrelated case.

The plaintiff, on June 13, 2008, filed an amended complaint in
which the class action claim is limited to persons employed as
managers of Casey's stores within the state of Illinois.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/--  
operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store
in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.  
The stores carry a selection of food (including freshly prepared
foods, such as pizza, donuts and sandwiches), beverages, tobacco
products, health and beauty aids, automotive products, and other
nonfood items.  In addition, all stores offer gasoline for sale
on a self-service basis.  


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Defendants Respond to Colossus Suit Severance
----------------------------------------------------------------
The newly severed defendants -- USAA and ANPAC Insurance
Companies -- in a class action suit filed in the Miller County
Circuit Court (Arkansas) against Computer Sciences Corp. have
filed emergency motions for the Court to reconsider and vacate
the Severance Order and to stay the case pending appellate
review, Michelle Massey writes for the Southeast Texas Record.

The suit, entitled "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp.,
et al.," was filed as a putative nationwide class action suit on
Feb. 7, 2005.  It was originally filed by plaintiff Georgia
Hensley, individually and as a class representative (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2008).

The suit claims that the defendants conspired to wrongfully use
the Colossus software products licensed by the company and the
other software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the
licensees' insureds for bodily injury claims.

The suit faults the defendants for civil conspiracy, breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unjust enrichment, and fraud.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief of less than
$75,000 for each class member, as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

On June 11, Judge Kirk Johnson granted the plaintiffs' request
for severance and then two minutes later, denied the defendants'
service and jurisdiction motions.

Within its emergency motion, defendant USAA asserts that the
judge's severance order "will only complicate everything in this
litigation for all parties and the Court."  Furthermore, USAA
argues that the severance results in the denial of its
"fundamental due process right" to stay proceedings during the
appellate review of the recently denied service motions.

Although Judge Johnson wrote that he would attempt to protect
defendant Computer Science Corporation from unreasonable
expenses and duplication of discovery, USAA argues it will not
be protected from any rulings or judgments in the original
litigation.

USAA contends that the recent orders will force it to litigate
this case on three fronts: the appellate level, the original
litigation, and the newly severed litigation.

Thus, the defendant maintains that the "severance order is
fundamentally flawed, and the resulting burden on USAA is
fundamentally unfair."

Prior to Judge Johnson's recent orders, defendant ANPAC argued
that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because, as of
the fifth amended complaint, there was not a named plaintiff
insured by ANPAC.

Within its emergency motion, defendant ANPAC argues that Judge
Johnson's recent orders "bootstrap this nullity" by allowing the
addition of new plaintiff James Basham within the severed
litigation.  ANPAC argues the orders are violating its "due
process rights under the Arkansas and U.S. Constitutions and
represent an abuse of discretion."

Arguing that the plaintiffs' are manipulating the judicial
proceedings, the defendants are asking the Circuit Court to
vacate the severance motion and the original litigation should
be stayed to permit appellate review of the denied service
motions.

The suit is "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp., et al.,
Case No. CV-2005-0059-3," filed in the Miller County Circuit
Court (Arkansas), Judge Kirk Johnson presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         John Goodson, Esq.
         Keil & Goodson, P.A.
         611 Pecan Street
         Texarkana, AR 71854
         Phone: 870-772-4113

Representing defendants are:

         Mark Burgess, Esq.
         2301 Moores Lane
         P.O. Box 6297
         Texarkana, TX 75505-6297
         Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com/

              - and -

         Jason Horton, Esq.
         Crisp, Boyd, Poff & Burgess, L.L.P.
         Moores Lane, P.O. Box 6297
         Texarkana, TX 75505-6297
         Phone: 903-838-6123
         Fax: 903-832-8489
         Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com/


DOLLAR GENERAL: Discovery Ongoing in Tennessee Merger Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated class action lawsuit
against Dollar General Corp. over its agreement and plan of
merger with Buck Holdings L.P. and Buck Acquisition Corp.

Initially, seven purported class action complaints were filed.  
The suits alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty arising
out of the proposed sale of the company to Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co., L.P., the parent of Buck Holdings and Buck
Acquisition.  

Each of the complaints alleged, among other things, that Dollar
General's directors engaged in "self-dealing" by agreeing to
recommend the transaction to the shareholders of Dollar General
and that the consideration available to Dollar General
shareholders in the proposed transaction is unfairly low.

At the plaintiffs' request, each of these cases was transferred
to the Sixth Circuit Court for Davidson County, Twentieth
Judicial District, at Nashville, Tenn.  Then by order dated
April 26, 2007, the seven lawsuits were consolidated in the
court under the caption, "In re: Dollar General, Case No.
07MD-1."

The Court then denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary
injunction to block the shareholder vote that was then held on
June 21, 2007.  

On June 22, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint
making claims substantially similar to those in the original
complaint.  

The matter is currently in discovery, according to the company's
June 16, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2008.

Dollar General Corp. -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a  
discount retailer of general merchandise at everyday low prices.  
Through its stores, the Company offers a focused assortment of
basic consumable merchandise, including health and beauty aids,
packaged food and refrigerated products, home cleaning supplies,
housewares, stationery, seasonal goods, basic clothing and
domestics.  Dollar General stores serve primarily low-, middle-
and fixed-income families.


FIRST FRANKLIN: Faces Lawsuit in Wisconsin Over Undisclosed Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Franklin Financial Corp. is facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin over allegations that it issued mortgages
loans with undisclosed fees and without disclosing riders
creating a security interest in personal property that is not
part of the real estate, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Norman J. Grandow brings the action alleging
violations of 15 USC Section 1601 et seq., which is commonly
known as the Truth in Lending Act and 12 CFR et seq., commonly
known as Regulation Z, which contains regulations promulgated by
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to
implement the Act.

TILA requires clear, fair, conspicuous and accurate disclosure
from inaccurate and unfair credit practices, and to assure a
meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumers will
be able to compare more readily the various credit terms
available to them and avoid the uninformed use of credit.

Accordingly, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System promulgated Regulation Z to implement the TILA.  A
creditor is required by Regulation Z to make certain disclosures
to the consumer, "clearly and conspicuously in writing, in a
form that the consumer may keep."

The plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of all natural persons
who signed a mortgage with FFFC, that takes a security interest
in personal property by means of a one-to-four-family rider not
limited to fixtures, on or after a date one year prior to the
filing of this action.

The plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment in his
favor and in favor of the class and against defendant for:

     -- statutory damages;

     -- attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit;
        and

     -- such other or further relief as the court deems proper.

The suit is "Norman J. Grandow et al v. First Franklin Financial
Corp., Case No. 08-C-0559," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Robert K. O'Reilly, Esq. (roreilly@ademilaw.com)
          John D. Blythin, Esq. (jblythin@ademilaw.com)
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 414-482-8000
          Fax: 414-482-8001


GIRLS GONE WILD: Video Co. Victimizes Underage Girls, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panama City lawyer D. Ross McCloy Jr., Esq., along with Chicago
attorneys Larry Selander, Esq., Wayne Mack, Esq., Thomas Dent,
Esq., Rachael Pontikes, Esq.,  and Duane Morris, Esq., amended a
lawsuit filed against "Girls Gone Wild," saying there might be
hundreds of underage girls who have been victimized by the video
company, the News Herald reports.

In March, the attorneys sued "Girls Gone Wild" on behalf of four
unnamed females, saying the girls ranged in age from 13 to 17
when they were filmed in stages of undress or performing sexual
activity.

The amended lawsuit maintains these allegations, but also places
the girls in three classes and sued the company on behalf of the
classes:

     -- Subclass 1, according to the lawsuit, is all minor girls
        in the nation "who defendants employed, used, persuaded,
        enticed or coerced into engaging in sexually explicit
        conduct for the GGW series."

     -- Subclass 2 is Florida minor girls who have been filmed
        flashing or engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

     -- Subclass 3 is Florida minor girls who "defendants and
        their agents coerced through payment to engage in
        sexually explicit conduct alone, with each other or with
        defendant (Joe) Francis."

Ms. Pontikes said Mr. Francis and his employees broke Florida
prostitution laws by soliciting "children to engage in sex acts
with each other, with defendant Francis" and paying them with T-
shirts and cash.

Ms. Pontikes also accused Mr. Francis of racketeering practices,
something he was charged with in Bay County in 2003, which were
dropped when the evidence against Mr. Francis was thrown out
because it was collected under a flawed search warrant.

Ms. Pontikes further said Francis and his companies, since the
beginning of their operation, promoted and produced videotapes
containing minor girls, which they sold and delivered through
the mail.

"Defendants are a criminal enterprise which has engaged in the
racketeering activities alleged as a matter of routine business
practice over an extended period through the actions, assets and
assistance of the defendants and has preyed upon and victimized
many children including the plaintiffs," Ms. Pontikes wrote.

The lawsuit asked for a minimum payment of $150,000 to each girl
for damages, but also said "Girls Gone Wild" is eligible for
punitive damages as well, which could significantly increase
that number.

Mr. Selander said a judge will have to decide if class action
status is appropriate in this case before they can go forward.  
If they get certification, then there might be additional
plaintiffs to investigate.

To contact the filing attorneys:

          D. Ross McCloy Jr.
          304 Magnolia Avenue, Post Office Drawer 1579
          Panama City, FL 32402
          Phone: 850-769-3434
          Fax: 850-769-6121

               - and -

          Larry Selander, Esq.
          Wayne Mack, Esq.
          Thomas Dent, Esq.
          Rachael Pontikes, Esq.
          Duane Morris, Esq.
          Duane Morris LLP
          190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-499-6700
          Fax: 312-499-6701


MAURICE BETHEA: Lawsuit Says Dubious Scheme Targeted Minorities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investors who lost millions in a complex mortgage scam filed a
class-action lawsuit on June 30 against a real estate operation
that is already the focus of an ongoing federal fraud
investigation, Ted Sherman writes for The Star-Ledger.

The suit, filed by Seton Hall Law School's Center for Social
Justice, charged that the scheme targeted minorities, the
elderly and others with little experience in purchasing and
financing real estate.  

Attorneys for the center said victims of the scheme were saddled
with fraudulently obtained loans on investment properties worth
far less than the purchase price.  Unable to sell the
residential properties, many fell into default less than a year
after buying the multifamily houses, and subsequently into
foreclosure.

The suit named Maurice Bethea, of Newark, who last month pleaded
guilty in federal court to conspiracy to commit mail fraud.  He
admitted orchestrating the sales of houses in need of serious
repairs and major renovations to so-called "straw buyers," who
quickly defaulted on their loans.

According to The Star-Ledger, also named as defendants in the
civil lawsuit were several of Bethea's companies -- Blue
Financial Group Inc., Born Asiatic, Greenfield Asset Holdings --
as well as Maplewood attorney Daniel Roy, Esq., who was accused
of closing, in a hurried manner, on the vast majority of the
real estate transactions.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of at least 75 people who
bought houses from Mr. Bethea over the past six years, said
Seton Hall law professor Linda Fisher.

The report relates that Mr. Bethea operated in Newark, East
Orange, and Irvington under several corporate entities.  As part
of his guilty plea in June, he admitted inflating the value of
houses through phony appraisals -- in some cases directing
appraisers to report that extensive renovations had been
completed on properties that actually had been gutted.  In
addition, Mr. Bethea would write checks or transfer checks to a
closing attorney who was working with him to make it appear to
lenders that buyers had made substantial deposits, when no such
deposits had actually been made.

Moreover, court documents state that potential buyers were told
that the properties they bought would have existing tenants, or
they would have help finding tenants.  The suit also charged
that the buyers were misled with promises that they would
receive rental income that would more than cover their monthly
mortgage payments.

Loan applications inflated purchasers' incomes, enabling buyers
to qualify for mortgages that exceeded their ability to pay.  In
some cases, mortgage applications were used to obtain a second
"piggyback" mortgage as well to finance the purchase of a
property.

Ms. Fisher said many have seen their credit ruined and may never
be able to repair it.  Others have filed for bankruptcy, while
some have lost their life savings.

"It's sad.  These were all moderate-income people.  They were
not people with experience in investments," Ms. Fisher added.

Mr. Bethea is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 18, the report
says.

According to The Star-Ledger, Mr. Bethea's attorney did not
return calls for comment.


NAVARRE CORP: Minn. Court Gives Final OK to Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted
final approval to a settlement in the consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit filed against Navarre Corp. and
certain of its officers and directors, according to the
company's June 16, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2008.

Several purported class-action lawsuits were commenced in 2005
by various plaintiffs against Navarre Corp. and certain of its
current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

The suits are identified as:  

      -- "AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case
         No. 05-1151 (PAM/RLE);"  

      -- "Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-01211   
         (MJD/JGL);" and  

      -- "Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-  
         1260 (DWF/JSM)."

The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sec. 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)(5), promulgated
under the Act, and as to the individual defendants only,
violation of Sec. 20(a) of the Act.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the cases as class action
lawsuits, compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly
sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs,
counsel fees and experts fees.

By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 12, 2005, the
Court appointed "The Pension Group" -- comprised of the
Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous
Pension Funds and Ms. Grace W. Lai -- as the lead plaintiff, and
appointed the Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield law firm as
liaison counsel and the Lerach, Coughlin law firm as lead
counsel.  The Court also ordered that the cases be consolidated
under the caption, "In re Navarre Corporation Securities
Litigation," and further directed that a consolidated amended
complaint be filed.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint reiterates the allegations
made in the plaintiffs' individual complaints and extends these
allegations to the company's restatements of its previously
issued financial statements that were made in November 2005.

Subsequently, at the defendants' request, the Court dismissed
the consolidated complaint, without prejudice, on June 27, 2006,
for failure to state a claim.  

Thus, on July 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint, which were again subject to the
defendants' dismissal motion on the grounds that the new
complaint had not sufficiently cured the defects present in the
first Consolidated Amended Complaint.

By Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 21, 2006, the Court granted
the defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, and
specifically removed Cary L. Deacon, Brian M.T. Burke and
Charles Cheney as individual defendants.  

The remaining defendants answered the Complaint on Jan. 26,
2007, and typical disclosure requirements and discovery
proceeded.  

The company and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the lawsuit and
a final approval hearing in connection with this settlement deal
was held on Feb. 7, 2008.

On Feb. 18, 2008, the Court issued a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal With Prejudice and associated Orders approving the
settlement in all respects.  

The suit was "In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 0:05-cv-01151-PAM-RLE," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, under Judge Judge Paul A. Magnuson.

Representing the plaintiffs were:

         Laura M. Andracchio, Esq. (lauraa@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W Broadway Ste 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-338-3829
                619-231-1058
                619-338-3858

              - and -

         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. Esq.
         (g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com)
         Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
         332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250,
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Phone: 651-287-2100

Representing the defendants was:

         David A. Davenport, Esq. (ddavenport@winthrop.com)
         Winthrop & Weinstine, PA
         225 S. 6th St., Ste. 3500,
         Mpls, MN 55402-4629
         Phone: 612-604-6716
         Fax: 612-604-6816


OPNEXT INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
Opnext, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud class
action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

On Feb. 20, 2008, a putative class action captioned, "Bixler v.
Opnext, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:08-cv-00920," was filed against
the company and certain of its directors and officers, alleging,
inter alia, that the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the company's initial public offering
contained material misrepresentations in violation of federal
securities laws.

On March 7 and 20, 2008, two additional putative class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the the
District of New Jersey, similarly alleging, inter alia, that
federal securities laws had been violated by virtue of alleged
material misrepresentations in the company's registration
statement and prospectus.

These two additional complaints, captioned, "Coleman v. Opnext,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01222," and "Johnson v. Opnext,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01451," respectively, named as
defendants the company, certain individual defendants, the
company's auditor, and the underwriters of the IPO.

Motions were filed by several of the company's present and
former shareholders seeking:

     -- to consolidate the "Bixler," "Coleman," and "Johnson"
        cases;

     -- to be appointed lead plaintiff; and

     -- to have their counsel appointed by the Court as lead
        counsel for the putative class.

On May 22, 2008, the court issued an order consolidating the
three cases under Civil Action No. 08-920 (JAP), according to
the company's June 16, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2008.

The consolidated suit is "Bixler v. Opnext, Inc., et al. Case
No. 3:08-cv-00920," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Joel A. Pisano, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
          The Rosen Law Firm, PA
          236 Tillou Road
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Phone: 973-313-1887

               - and -

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. (jsarnelli@ldgrlaw.com)
          Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: 973-632-3000
          Fax: 973-923-0858

Representing the defendants are:

          John M. Falzone, III, Esq. (john.falzone@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP
          One Newark Center, 16th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: 973-639-7099

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, Esqs.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Phone: 201-391-7000


PNC FINANCIAL: Wants Suits Against Equipment Finance Thrown Out
---------------------------------------------------------------
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of
a coordinated lawsuit pending with the U.S. District Courts for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Equipment Finance,
LLC, a commercial finance subsidiary of Sterling Financial Corp.

Several class action complaints were filed in May, June and July
2007 in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and for the Southern District of New York related
to Equipment Finance.

In October 2007, the lawsuits filed in New York were transferred
to the Pennsylvania Court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

In February 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of those who purchased Sterling common stock
during the period from April 27, 2004, through May 24, 2007.
This complaint names Sterling, Bank of Lancaster County, N.A. (a
predecessor to a bank subsidiary of Sterling), Equipment
Finance, and members of their management as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities laws,
including allegations that Sterling's public statements and
filings fraudulently omitted information and included fraudulent
misrepresentations about the improprieties at Equipment Finance
as well as about their impact on Sterling's earnings and related
matters.

The plaintiffs assert that the price for Sterling stock was
fraudulently inflated during the class period due to the alleged
omissions and misrepresentations, and seek unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

As a result of PNC Financial Services Group's acquisition of
Sterling, PNC may be responsible for indemnifying individual
defendants in connection with this lawsuit.  

PNC has filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.pnc.com/--  
is a diversified financial services companies in the U.S., with
businesses engaged in retail banking, corporate and
institutional banking, asset management and global fund
processing services.  The Company provides its products and
services nationally and others in its primary geographic markets
located in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Washington, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and Delaware.  PNC
also provides certain global fund processing services
internationally.  The Company has four businesses engaged in
providing banking, asset management and global fund processing
products and services: Retail Banking; Corporate & Institutional
Banking; BlackRock, and PFPC.  In March 2008, PNC announced that
it completed the sale of J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, a
brokerage and financial services company, to Houchens
Industries, Inc.  In April 2008, the Company acquired Sterling
Financial Corp.


PNC FINANCIAL: Second Circuit Affirms Approval of Adelphia Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed an
earlier ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York that approved the settlement in a
consolidated class action lawsuit against a number of PNC
Financial Services Group Inc. subsidiaries in relation to their
lending and securities underwriting activities with Adelphia
Communications Corp.

Certain of the company's subsidiaries are defendants (or have
potential contractual contribution obligations to other
defendants) in several pending lawsuits brought during late 2002
and 2003 arising out of the bankruptcy of Adelphia
Communications and its subsidiaries (Class Action Reporter,
March 26, 2007).

There also are threatened additional proceedings arising out of
the same matters.  One of the lawsuits was brought on Adelphia's
behalf by the unsecured creditors' committee and equity
committee in Adelphia's consolidated bankruptcy proceeding and
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by order dated Feb. 9, 2006.

The other lawsuits, one of which is a putative consolidated
class action, were brought by holders of debt and equity
securities of Adelphia and have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in that district court.

These lawsuits arise out of lending and securities underwriting
activities engaged in by these PNC subsidiaries together with
other financial services companies.  

In the aggregate, more than 400 other financial services
companies and numerous other companies and individuals have been
named as defendants in one or more of the lawsuits.

Collectively, with respect to some or all of the defendants, the
lawsuits allege federal law claims, including violations of
federal securities and other federal laws, violations of common
law duties, aiding and abetting such violations, voidable
preference payments, and fraudulent transfers, among other
matters.

The lawsuits seek unquantified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other expenses, and a return of the alleged
voidable preference and fraudulent transfer payments, among
other remedies.

The bank defendants, including the PNC defendants, have entered
into a settlement of the consolidated class action referred to
above.  That settlement was approved by the district court in
November 2006.

In December 2006, a group of class members appealed the
settlement's approval to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

In March 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the settlement approval order of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. -- http://www.pnc.com/--  
is a diversified financial services companies in the U.S., with
businesses engaged in retail banking, corporate and
institutional banking, asset management and global fund
processing services.  The Company provides its products and
services nationally and others in its primary geographic markets
located in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Washington, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and Delaware.  PNC
also provides certain global fund processing services
internationally.  The Company has four businesses engaged in
providing banking, asset management and global fund processing
products and services: Retail Banking; Corporate & Institutional
Banking; BlackRock, and PFPC.  In March 2008, PNC announced that
it completed the sale of J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, a
brokerage and financial services company, to Houchens
Industries, Inc.  In April 2008, the Company acquired Sterling
Financial Corp.


PREMIUM STANDARD: "Herrold" Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Daniel Herrold, et al. v.
ContiGroup Companies, Inc., Premium Standard Farms, Inc., and
PSF Group Holdings,Inc.," in which Premium Standard Farms, Inc.
-- an acquisition of Smithfield Foods, Inc. -- is named as a
defendant, have filed a Second Amended Petition in which they
abandoned all class-action allegations and efforts to certify
the suit as a class action.

The suit was filed in May 2004 in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Kansas City, Missouri by people living near Premium
Standard's swine farms in northern Missouri.

The action seeks to create a class of plaintiffs living within
10 miles of the company's farms in northern Missouri, including
contract grower farms, who are alleged to have suffered
interference with their right to use and enjoy their respective
properties.

On Jan. 22, 2007, the plaintiffs in the Herrold case filed a
Second Amended Petition in which they abandoned all class action
allegations and efforts to certify the action as a class action
and added an additional 193 named plaintiffs to join the seven
prior class representatives to pursue a one count claim to
recover monetary damages, both actual and punitive, for
temporary nuisance, according to Smithfield Foods, Inc.'s
June 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2008.

Smithfield Foods, Inc. -- http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/-- is    
a hog producer, and pork and beef processor.  The Company
conducts its business through six segments: Pork, Beef,
International, Hog Production (HP), Other and Corporate, each of
which comprises a number of subsidiaries.


QUANEX CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Gerdau Subsidiary Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quanex Corp. and Gerdau S.A. continue to face a putative
stockholder derivative and class action lawsuit before the state
district court in Harris County, Texas, over the spin-off of
Quanex Building Products Corp., and Quanex's merger with a
subsidiary of Gerdau.

The suit is captioned, "Momentum Partners v. Raymond A. Jean, et
al., Cause No. 2008-01592," which was filed in the 125th
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, according to
the company's June 16, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2008.

Houston, Texas-based Quanex Building Products Corp. --
http://www.quanex.com/ns/index.html-- is a manufacturer of  
engineered materials and components for the U.S. building
products market.  The Company operates in two segments:
Engineered Building Products and Aluminum Sheet Building
Products.  On April 23, 2008, Quanex Corp. completed a spin-off
of its building products segment and the subsequent merger of
the remaining Quanex Corp. with a subsidiary of Gerdau SA.


SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Pa. Workers' Back Wages, Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to face a purported
federal class action lawsuit over its alleged failure to pay
back wages and overtime to thousands of employees, including
workers at funeral homes that it owns, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 8, 2006, also names as
a defendant Alderwoods Group, Inc.  Lead plaintiffs were
identified as Deborah Prise of Shadyside and Heather Rady of
Greensburg (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2006).

The suit also named as defendants Burton L. Hirsch, H.P. Brandt
and H. Samson funeral homes, which are among the more than 1,700
North American funeral homes owned by SCI.

According to Charles H. Saul, Esq., at Margolis Edelstein, as
many as 6,000 current and former funeral service employees could
be involved in the case.  He estimates that the total amount of
back wages and overtime ranges between $40 million and
$70 million.

The suit was brought on behalf of all Alderwoods and SCI-
affiliated employees who performed work for which they were not
fully compensated, including work for which overtime pay was
owed.

The court has conditionally certified a class of claims as to
certain job positions for Alderwoods employees.

On three occasions, the court has denied without prejudice
plaintiffs' request for certification of claims against SCI, and
has dismissed such claims without prejudice.

In general, the plaintiffs allege causes of action for
violations of the FLSA, failure to maintain proper records,
breach of contract, violations of state wage and hour laws,
unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, quantum meruit, negligent
misrepresentation, and negligence.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages, liquidated,
compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

The suit is "Prise, et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-01641-JFC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Joy Flowers
Conti, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Charles H. Saul, Esq. (csaul@margolisedelstein.com)
          Margolis Edelstein
          310 Grant St., Suite 1500, Grant Bldg.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-281-4256

Representing the defendants is:

          Amy E. Dias, Esq. (aedias@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          One Mellon Center, 31st Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-391-3939


U.S. AUTO: Settles Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit for $10MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., reached a $10,000,000 settlement
in a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit filed
against it before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

On March 24, 2007, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and certain officers, directors
and underwriters.  

The complaint alleges that the company filed a false
Registration Statement in connection with the company's initial
public offering in violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  

On April 26, 2007, a second complaint containing substantially
similar allegations was filed, and also included a claim under
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.  

The complaints were consolidated on May 15, 2007.  A lead
plaintiff was appointed on Aug. 9, 2007.  

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in October 2007.  
The amended complaint is against the company and certain current
and former officers, as well as Oak Investment Partners XI, LP,
and the underwriters involved in the initial public offering.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution,
unspecified equitable relief, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on Oct. 31, 2007.

In January 2008, the parties reached a settlement in principle
to resolve the matter.  A definitive settlement agreement was
filed on May 1, 2008, which settlement is still subject to the
Court's approval (Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2008).

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness
Hearing on September 29, 2008, at 8:30 a.m., before the
Honorable George H. Wu.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objections is on August 27,
2008.  Deadline to file claims is on October 29, 2008.

The suit is "Patricia Johnson, et al. v. U.S. Auto Parts
Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02030," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
George H. Wu, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Sarah Catherine Boone, Esq.
          (sarah.boone@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-455-1400 x106
          Fax: 504-455-1498

               - and -

          Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
          Stull Stull and Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Luke A. Liss, Esq. (lliss@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300

               - and -

          Diane Lee McGimsey, Esq. (mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan And Cromwell
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-712-6600


U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION: Sued Over Application Delays
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of immigrant
rights' groups have filed a lawsuit to end what they say are
"illegal delays in processing citizenship applications," EGP
News Service reports.

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Philadelphia
against government officials responsible for the prolonged,
system-wide delays, stated that despite having satisfied the
requirements to become U.S. citizens, many immigrants have been
illegally left in limbo for years due to the slow processing of
FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) "name checks."

As a result of the lag in "name checks," hundreds or thousands
of citizenship applications have been held up well past the 180-
day window established by Congress for processing the
applications, according to the backers of the lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit, captioned "Ignatyev v. Chertoff," was
filed by Langer Grogan Diver, P.C.; HIAS Council Migration
Services of Philadelphia; ACLU; the ACLU of Pennsylvania; and
Nationalities Services Center, Inc., on behalf of Mikhail
Ignatyev and Nataliya Petrovna Demidchik, who are both from the
former Soviet republic of Ukraine.  The groups seek a halt to
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) practice
of holding citizenship applications in limbo for months or even
years because of the FBI's failure to complete a name check of
the applicants.

Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, USCIS Director
Emilio T. Gonzalez, Philadelphia Acting District Director
Evangelia Klapakis, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, are also named as defendants in
the lawsuit.

"There is no reason why anyone should have to wait so long for
citizenship after meeting all the requirements," John Grogan,
Esq., at Langer Grogan Diver, P.C., who is the lead counsel for
the plaintiffs, told EGP News Service.  "These are people who
want to pledge their allegiance to the United States and
participate fully in our society as U.S. citizens."

The report relates that while the FBI has always conducted
background checks of people applying for U.S. citizenship, since
the 9/11 incident, the USCIS has required an expanded FBI name
check, which compares applicants' names to names held in a broad
array of FBI files, including the names of innocent people like
witnesses or crime victims.  EGP News Service further explains
that when an applicant's name is similar to a name in the FBI
database, the FBI often will let the name check process stall
for months or years, because further investigation requires a
manual review of paper files that may be scattered across the
country.  Neither the USCIS nor the FBI imposes any deadlines on
the FBI name check process.

"Longtime residents who have paid their dues and are
contributing to our country deserve a timely decision as
required by law," said Cecillia Wang, Esq., senior attorney for
the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.  "Our clients are among the
hundreds or thousands of longtime residents around the country
who have been waiting patiently for years.  The time for fixing
the system is long overdue."


UNITED STATES: DOJ Sued Over Job Denials Based on Ideology
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Department of Justice is facing a class-action
complaint filed on June 30, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia over job denials based on ideology,
press reports say.

Named plaintiff Sean Gerlich alleges that top-ranked law school
graduates whom the Department of Justice refused to hire for
political reasons, as documented by the DOJ Inspector General's
recent report, demand $100,000 damages for each injured class
member, plus declaratory and injunctive relief.

According to CourtHouse News Service, the federal complaint
claims about 190 prospective attorneys and 170 prospective
interns were injured in 2006 alone.

The Blog of Legal Times points out that Mr. Gerlich's complaint
is the first suit resulting from an internal Justice report
issued last week that says two former Justice officials
illegally screened applicants to the honors and summer intern
programs.

The two officials were Esther Slater McDonald, then counsel to
the associate attorney general and now an associate at Seyfarth
Shaw, and Michael Elston, then chief of staff to Deputy Attorney
General Paul McNulty and now a partner at McGuireWoods, the DOJ
report said.

The DOJ report, issued June 24, found that hundreds of
applicants were turned down in 2002 and 2006, after officials
under Attorney General John Ashcroft put political appointees in
charge of the process.  Data analysis by the Office of Inspector
General and Office of Professional Responsibility, for example,
showed that those with liberal leanings were more than three
times more likely to be rejected than their conservative
counterparts in 2006.

The suit says the department politicized the selection process,
mishandled the applications and failed to maintain the records,
all in violation of the Privacy Act, the Civil Service Reform
Act and the Federal Records Act.  In addition, the suit claims
violations of the First and 14th Amendments.

Mr. Gerlich says he was rejected because of his liberal
affiliations, which officials dug up through Internet searches.

He claims that the class's privacy was violated on a wholesale
bases, as "the process's other principal actor, former Deputy
Associate Attorney General Esther S. McDonald, engaged in the
prohibited practice of conducting Internet searches for
information of a 'political' or 'ideological' nature to use
against the granting of applications . . . and that she actually
had gone so far as to create and maintain 'printout' records of
such Internet searches for 'attach(ment) to the candidate's
application.'"

The plaintiff asks for:

     -- damages in the amount of $100,000 for himself and for
        each member of the class as established and certified in
        this action;

     -- declaratory judgment that defendant has violated abd
        continues to violate requirements of the Federal Records
        Act and the Privacy Act of 1974;

     -- an order enjoining defendant from continuing to violate
        its legal obligations under the Federal Records Act and
        the Privacy Act of 1974;

     -- an order awarding him and his fellow class members the
        costs and reasonable attorney fees involved in bringing
        this action;

     -- such other relief that the court may deem just and
        proper.

The suit "Sean M. Gerlich, et al. v. United States Department of
Justice, Case No. 1:08-cv-01134," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel J. Metcalfe, Esq.
          4910 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 125
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Phone: 202-274-41434


UST ADVISERS: Still Faces Shareholder, Derivative Suits in Md.
--------------------------------------------------------------
UST Advisers, Inc. -- an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of,
and controlled by, Bank of America Corp. -- as well as certain
of the company's affiliates, including U.S. Trust, and certain
others, continue to face four shareholder class action lawsuits
and two derivative actions that remain pending in Maryland.

The suits allege that the defendants allowed certain parties to
engage in illegal and improper mutual fund trading practices,
which allegedly caused financial injury to the shareholders of
certain mutual funds managed by UST Advisers.

Each lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and related
equitable relief.

The class and derivative actions were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland for coordinated and
consolidated pre-trial proceedings.

In November 2005, the Maryland court dismissed many of the
plaintiffs' claims in both the class action and derivative
lawsuits.

Several affiliates of the former UST Advisers and individual
defendants have also been dismissed.  

The plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and under
Section 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, however,
have not been dismissed, according to Excelsior Venture Partners
III LLC's June 16, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2008.


WAL-MART: Violated Minn. FLSA over 2 Million Times, Judge Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota County District Court Judge Robert King, Jr., has found
that Wal-Mart violated Minnesota's Fair Labor Standards Act over
2 million times.

He also awarded over $6.5 million in damages to approximately
56,000 current and former Minnesota Wal-Mart employees who
claimed that Wal-Mart denied them the ability to take rest
breaks and meal breaks and forced them to work off the clock.

"We are very pleased that Judge King found that Wal-Mart not
only breached its own contract with its hourly workers, but
repeatedly and willfully violated numerous Minnesota wage and
hour statutes," said Justin Perl, Esq., of Maslon Edelman Borman
& Brand in Minneapolis and William Sieben, Esq., of Schwebel,
Goetz & Sieben in Minneapolis, co-lead counsel for the class.
Sieben & Perl began the lawsuit on September 10, 2001, and the
case was tried under Judge King in the fall of 2007.

"I knew that this would be a struggle when we started, but
little did I know how hard and long this was going to be," said
Nancy Braun, one of four representative plaintiffs in the case
entitled 'Braun v. Wal-Mart.'  "I was treated like so many of my
co-workers," said Ms. Braun.

"There was just too much work to do and never enough time to do
it.  There just wasn't enough time in the day to take the breaks
we were entitled to," said Braun of Rochester, Minnesota.

Judge King found that Wal-Mart repeatedly and willfully violated
Minnesota labor laws or its contract with its employees on the
issues of contractual rest breaks, statutory meal breaks,
shaving time from paid rest breaks and failure to maintain
accurate records.  He has ordered a second phase of the trial to
begin on October 20, 2008, to allow a jury to determine the
amount of punitive damages and the amount of statutory penalties
to be imposed against Wal-Mart.

Minnesota's wage and hour laws allow for a penalty of up to
$1,000 for each violation.  Judge King found there to be over 2
million violations.  If the jury awards the full $1,000 penalty,
the award could be in excess of $2 billion.

In his order, Judge King found that Wal-Mart was aware that its
employees were not receiving breaks to which they were entitled.

Judge King's Order states that, "In essence, they put their
heads in the sand."  Judge King found that Minnesota law
requires every employer to provide its employees with a
sufficient time to eat a meal.  Judge King stated, "No time to
eat a meal is not a sufficient time to eat a meal."  Judge King
further found that Wal-Mart violated the meal break law 73,864
times.

"This first award from Judge King is just the beginning," said
Mr. Sieben.  "This award only reimburses these employees for
compensation they should have already received from Wal-Mart.
The next phase of the trial will be to punish and penalize Wal-
Mart for willfully violating the rights of these 56,000 people
whose average wage was under $10 an hour."

"This case took over six years to get to trial, after more than
100 depositions across the country, 200 contested motions and a
three month trial," said Mr. Perl.  "We are thrilled that our
efforts on behalf of these employees were successful.  Not only
does this award help our individual clients, but it sends a
message to Wal-Mart that it must pay for its mistakes and that
there are consequences for willfully depriving its hourly
workers of their contractual benefits and statutory rights."

This verdict follows two other verdicts against Wal-Mart.  In
2005, a California jury awarded 175 million dollars in actual
and punitive damages.  In 2006, a Philadelphia judge and jury
awarded 140 million dollars against Wal-Mart for violations of
Pennsylvania law.

"This case stands for the proposition that the largest and most
profitable retailer in the world has to follow the same laws and
honor its contracts just the same as any other business in
America," said Mr. Sieben.

Another lawyer on the team from Maslon, Jon Parritz, stated:
"This has been nearly a seven-year struggle, but every minute
has been worth it.  We particularly look forward to the next
phase of the trial where a jury will be able to punish Wal-Mart
for its deliberate disregard of its workers rights and for Wal-
Mart's repeated misconduct."

"It's only courts of law that can make Wal-Mart live up to its
word and follow the laws," said Mr. Perl.  "Wal-Mart has spent
the nearly seven years of this case putting its head in the sand
and denying these serious violations.  It's the legal system
that keeps Wal-Mart honest and we are confident that a jury will
punish and penalize Wal-Mart accordingly."

For more information, contact:

          Justin H. Perl, Esq. (Justin.Perl@maslon.com)
          Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand, LLP
          3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
          Phone: 612-672-8372

          William R. Sieben, Esq. (bsieben@schwebel.com)
          Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, P.A.
          5120 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2246
          Phone: 612-344-0305

               - or -

          Joshua Schneck, Esq. (jschneck@cybersnow.com)
          Snow Communications, Inc.
          222 North 2nd Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-337-0748


WELLS FARGO: Faces N.J. Suit Over Vehicle "Excess Wear and Use"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc., is facing a class-action
complaint before the Superior Court of New Jersey over
allegations that it defrauds customers by charging for "excess
wear and use" of leased vehicles though it does not inspect them
upon return, but lets other people drive the cars before
inspecting them, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Steven M. Shubert brings this action on behalf
of all persons and entities who leased motor vehicles in New
Jersey under "closed end" leases that were administered or
acquired by Wells Fargo and who, from August 2002 to the
present,  were charged for excess wear and use after lease
termination.

The complaint states that Wells Fargo does not inspect leased
vehicles when they are returned.  Rather, it permits intervening
use before conducting an inspection and recording a vehicle's
condition.  It then charges lessees for EWU without any record
that EWU existed when their leased vehicles were returned.  
Under their leases with Wells Fargo, lessees are only
responsible for EQU that exists when their vehicles are
returned.  Because Wells Fargo makes no inspection and has no
record of EWU when vehicles are returned, its EWU charges are
improper.

Further, Wells Fargo's  leases do not contain the necessary
disclosures required by the New Jersey Consumer Protection
Leasing Act permitting independent appraisals for EWU.
Nevertheless, Wells Fargo pursues collection of EWU charges by
threatening lessees that it will damage their credit unless they
pay its EWU charges in full.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Wells Fargo breaches its lease agreements with
         plaintiff and the class by charging for EWU without
         inspections or records of EWU existing when leased
         vehicles are returned;

     (b) whether Wells Fargo violated the New Jersey Consumer
         Fraud Act; and

     (c) whether Wells Fargo violated NJSA 56:12-66 of the New
         Jersey Consumer Protection Leasing Act.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying the proposed class, designating
        plaintiff as the named representative of the class, and
        designating plaintiff's counsel as class counsel;

     -- an award for compensatory, exemplary and statutory
        damages, including interest, in an amount to be proven
        at trial;

     -- a declaration that defendant must disgorge, for the
        benefit of plaintiff and the class, all or part of the
        ill-gotten profits it received from EWU charges and
        make full restitution to plaintiff and the class;

     -- an award of attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

     -- grant appropriate equitable, declaratory and injunctive
        relief;

     -- leave to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence
        produced at trial; and

     -- such other or further relief as may be appropriate
        under the circumstances.

The suit is "Steven M. Shubert, et al. v. Wells Fargo Auto
Finance, Inc., Case No. L3285-08," filed in the Superior Court
of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Michael H. Landis, Esq.
          Smolow & Landis LLC
          204 Two Neshaminy Interplex
          Trevose, PA 19053
          Phone: 215-244-088
          Fax: 215-244-0425


* Bernstein Litowitz Gets Top Rank in Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP was
once again given top rankings in the field of plaintiff
securities litigation by both Chambers and Partners'
("Chambers") 2008 Guide to America's Leading Lawyers for
Business and the Legal 500 United States.

Chambers awarded the firm the highest ranking in Plaintiff
Securities Litigation and the Legal 500 gave the firm the top
ranking for both Securities Class Action Litigation and Subprime
Related Litigation.

According to Chambers, "BLB&G continues to be selected for the
most highly visible securities fraud litigations. . . . The firm
monitors the portfolios, and is retained as securities
litigation counsel, for over 75 of the country's most
significant public pension plans and institutional investors --
more than any other firm in its field," and Chambers also
accredited the firm as "client-focused" and "trial-driven."

Chambers dubbed senior founding partner, Max Berger, "among the
most formidable adversaries in his field" and co-managing
partner, Sean Coffey, "a first-class trial lawyer."  For the
third year in a row, BLB&G has received this prominent ranking.

The Legal 500 praised the firm for its "undeniable dominance" in
the field, "snatch[ing] the lead role in many of the largest
securities recoveries in US history," including the record-
setting $920 million recovery in the UnitedHealth stock options
backdating derivative action.

The Legal 500 also recognized the firm for its groundbreaking
representation of its clients in connection with the collapse of
the subprime mortgage sector, receiving the top ranking in
plaintiff-side subprime related litigation.  According to Legal
500, "best known for its stellar reputation for plaintiff-side
class-action securities work, [BLB&G] is leveraging this
reputation on sub-prime matters" and is "a strong choice for
lead counsel in many matters. . . . due partly to its ability to
prosecute the full spectrum of claims arising in the sub-prime
area."  Clients praise the efforts of partner Gerald Silk, who
heads the firms Subprime Litigation Group, stating that they are
"very pleased" with the level of representation he provides.  
Mr. Silk "regularly appears as a commentator on news bulletins
due to his experience and track record in the market."

The firm is currently representing investors in subprime related
actions against Accredited Home Lenders, American Home Mortgage,
and Countrywide Financial Corporation, among others and is
representing retirees in ERISA class actions, including State
Street Bank and State Street Global Advisors.

Earlier this year, BLB&G was again recognized as the "Class
Action Law Firm of the Year" by Global Pensions for "excellence
in service" to the pension industry.

The firm was also given this honor in 2007.  The U.K. based
international pension publication surveyed over 15,000 online
readers, and the final process included a distinguished panel of
international judges made up of key decision makers from pension
funds and pension consultants.

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has obtained over $20 billion
in recoveries for investors and achieved precedent-setting
corporate governance reforms on behalf of its institutional
investor clients.  Over the last several years, the firm has
received substantial media recognition from the many high
profile cases it has resolved and is currently prosecuting.  In
addition to obtaining unprecedented monetary recoveries, the
firm has litigated numerous seminal cases establishing
precedents which have increased market transparency, held
wrongdoers accountable, and changed corporate business practices
in groundbreaking ways.  From establishing an industry-accepted
definition of director independence and altering the makeup and
accountability of corporate boards of directors, to
comprehensively upgrading the due diligence process of
investment banks, or addressing stock options abuses by
corporate executives, the firm's cases have yielded results
which have served as models for public companies going forward.

For more information, contact:

          Alexander Coxe (alex@blbglaw.com)
          Marketing Director
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          New York, NY
          Phone: 212-554-1423


* Schulte Roth Expands Securities Class Litigation Team
-------------------------------------------------------
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP announced a major expansion of its
securities litigation practice with the addition of five leading
securities litigators and the opening of a Washington, D.C.,
office.

Joining the firm as partners are Howard Schiffman, Mark S.
Mandel and Ida Wurczinger Draim, along with Eric A. Bensky and
James M. Wines who join the firm as special counsel.  All have
extensive litigation and enforcement practices, and Mr.
Schiffman, Mr. Mandel and Ms. Draim have all worked in the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Leading the D.C. office will be prominent securities litigator
Howard Schiffman, formerly with the Washington, D.C., office of
Dickstein Shapiro.  Before entering private practice, Mr.
Schiffman was a trial attorney with the SEC's Division of
Enforcement.  He has been at the forefront of securities
litigation and regulatory developments for the past three
decades, and recently successfully represented the former CEO of
Knight Securities, the largest Nasdaq market-making firm, in
connection with a federal court action brought by the SEC.  
After a 14-day bench trial, all parties were completely cleared
of wrongdoing.  He also represents the Special Committee of the
Board of Directors of Comverse Technology, Inc. in connection
with allegations of stock option backdating and in related
derivative litigation.

Mr. Mandel, a highly-regarded securities litigator from Morgan
Lewis, will reside in the firm's New York office.  Mr. Mandel is
a former chief of the New York office of the SEC's Division of
Broker-Dealer Enforcement.  For over a decade in private
practice, he has handled many high-profile securities-related
litigation and enforcement matters, including a recent dismissal
with prejudice of a $100 million securities fraud suit arising
out of the aborted sale of an overseas telecom company on behalf
of a large financial institution.


Ms. Draim also was an attorney in the SEC's Division of
Enforcement and then served as Special Counsel to SEC Chairman
John Shad.  She has more than 22 years of experience in
securities regulatory matters and compliance counseling and
recently represented the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (SIFMA), as amicus on behalf of the
successful appellees in the first federal case in which a pre-
dispute arbitration agreement was held enforceable against the
receiver for the institutional customers who executed the
agreement.  She also was formerly with Dickstein Shapiro.
Mr. Wines and Mr. Bensky, also joining the D.C. office from
Dickstein Shapiro, bring a wealth of litigation experience,
having been involved in proceedings and investigations including
the representation of broker-dealers and mutual funds.  Mr.
Wines' experience includes representing issuers, officers and
directors, broker-dealers, and registered representatives and
other market participants in investigations and enforcement
proceedings before the SEC and FINRA and in related civil
litigation in federal, state and arbitration proceedings.  Mr.
Wines has particular expertise in litigation related to complex
transactions and market regulation on the equities and
derivatives markets.  Mr. Bensky's experience includes the
successful representation of prime brokers and clearing firms in
federal, state and arbitration proceedings brought by investors
in collapsed trading vehicles.

"Opening an office in Washington, D.C., is a natural expansion
of our securities litigation and regulatory representation
practices.  This is a major step forward in building out our
"go-to" top securities regulatory practice," said Paul N. Roth,
a founding partner of the firm and a member of the firm's
executive committee.

"We could not be more thrilled to have Howard and Ida lead our
D.C. team and to have Mark join us in New York," added Martin L.
Perschetz, co-chair of the firm's 100-lawyer litigation
practice.  "Joined by Eric and James, their experience
representing clients in investigations and enforcement
proceedings brought by the SEC and other government agencies, as
well as their handling, in both the trial and appellate courts,
of the full range of actions arising under federal and state
securities laws, will extend our already deep bench of
securities litigation talent."

Mr. Schiffman, who was head of his former firm's securities
litigation, regulatory and compliance practice and a three-time
member of its executive committee, said of his new affiliation:
"I'm very excited to spearhead the firm's expansion into D.C.
and to contribute to the growth of its litigation practice.  I
know that my clients will be well served by the firm's diverse
practice area capabilities and the consistently high level of
client service for which it is known."

Commenting on the move, Mr. Mandel said, "I am delighted to be
joining SRZ, particularly given its long history serving
financial institutions and the firm's decision to expand its
litigation practice.  It's an exciting time to be part of such a
strong securities litigation team."

                 About Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP

Founded in 1969, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP -- http:/www.srz.com/
-- has more than 450 lawyers and offices in New York,
Washington, D.C., and London. The firm offers legal counsel in
litigation, investment management, business transactions,
finance, real estate, structured products and derivatives,
business reorganization, bank regulatory, intellectual property,
employment and employee benefits, tax, environmental law,
insurance and individual client services.

Biographical Information on New Partners and Special Counsel
Howard Schiffman, a partner in the litigation practice group at
Schulte Roth & Zabel and head of the Washington, D.C., office,
joins the firm from Dickstein Shapiro, where he was a partner
and head of the firm's securities litigation, regulatory and
compliance practice.  Nationally known in the area of securities
litigation and regulatory developments, his practice ranges from
investigations and enforcement proceedings brought by various
exchanges and government agencies, including the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, and the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, to a diverse array of
civil litigations, including securities class actions, and
arbitrations.  He also has served as special internal
investigative counsel to public companies.  His clients have
included many of the leading financial institutions and
investment banks, largest Nasdaq market makers, institutional
and retail brokerage firms and their registered representatives,
trade execution and clearing firms, prime brokers, national
accounting firms, hedge funds, and numerous public and private
companies and their senior officers.  He has extensive trial
experience and a solid record of successes in the numerous SEC
enforcement actions, SRO proceedings and NASD arbitrations he
has handled.  Mr. Schiffman began his career in the Division of
Enforcement of the SEC. He received his J.D., cum laude, from
Fordham University, where he was a member of the Fordham Law
Review, and his B.A., cum laude, from Colgate University.

Mark S. Mandel, a partner in Schulte Roth & Zabel's New York
office and a member of the litigation practice group, focuses
his practice on securities, banking and finance litigation.  A
former chief of the SEC's Broker-Dealer Enforcement Branch in
New York, he presently represents investment banks,
corporations, directors and officers in securities class actions
and SEC and self-regulatory organization investigations, and has
been involved in many high-profile securities cases.  Mr. Mandel
has a J.D. from American University and a B.B.A. in finance from
Hofstra University. He joins the firm from Morgan Lewis, where
he was a litigation partner.

Ida Wurczinger Draim, a partner in Schulte Roth & Zabel's
Washington, D.C., office and a member of the litigation practice
group, focuses her practice on securities compliance counseling
and the representation of securities industry and corporate
clients in regulatory investigations and proceedings and in
civil litigation.  Her clients have included institutional and
retail brokerage firms and their registered representatives,
prime broker and clearing firms, hedge funds and their managers,
investment advisors, and public and private companies and their
senior officers and directors.  Ms. Draim joins SRZ from
Dickstein Shapiro, where she was a partner.  She has served with
the SEC, as staff attorney in the Division of Enforcement and as
Special Counsel to SEC Chairman John Shad and also served as
Chair of the Corporation, Finance and Securities Section of the
D.C. Bar.  She began her law career as a securities litigation
associate at Sullivan & Cromwell. Ms. Draim received her J.D.
from Harvard Law School and her B.A., cum laude, from Rutgers
University.

Eric A. Bensky, a special counsel in the litigation practice
group in Schulte Roth & Zabel's Washington D.C., office, focuses
his practice on securities litigation.  He has been involved in
civil, disciplinary and criminal proceedings and investigations
before federal courts, the Securities and Exchange Commission,
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the New York Stock
Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the American
Stock Exchange, and before arbitration panels of FINRA, the NYSE, the CBOE,
and the American Arbitration Association.  Prior to joining SRZ, he was a
partner at Dickstein Shapiro.  Mr. Bensky received his J.D., with honors, from
the University of Chicago Law School and has a B.A., with high honors and high
distinction, from the University of Michigan.

James M. Wines is a special counsel
in Schulte Roth & Zabel's litigation practice group in the
Washington, D.C., office, Mr. Wines' principal practice area is
securities litigation and his experience in this area includes
the successful defense of: securities class actions and
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and New York Stock
Exchange arbitrations, as well as the litigation of complex
trade disputes between market participants.  In addition, Mr.
Wines has extensive experience representing both issuers and
market participants in connection with investigations and
enforcement proceedings brought by various exchanges and
governmental agencies, such as the SEC and FINRA.  Formerly a
partner in the litigation practice of Dickstein Shapiro, Mr.
Wines received his J.D. from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill School of Law and his B.A. from the University of
North Carolina at Greensboro.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIMALAC SA: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action lawsuit on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all U.S. citizens or residents who purchased
Fimalac, S.A. (Paris:FIM.PA) (EPA:FIM) common stock during the
period between July 26, 2006 and April 20, 2008.

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

Fimalac is a France-based international financial services
company, providing financial ratings and enterprise risk
management solutions.

Fitch Ratings, Ltd., a majority owned subsidiary of Fimalac,
assigns credit ratings to structured finance transactions.

The complaint alleges that, at the start of the Class Period,
Fitch's core business practice of rating residential mortgage-
backed securities and collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
transactions was extremely profitable for Fitch, which enabled
it to report strong growth, which, in turn, drove Fimalac's
stock price to a Class Period high of EUR 80.98 per share on
May 22, 2007.

According to the complaint, however, defendants failed to
disclose to investors during the Class Period that:

    (i) the information upon which Fitch based its ratings of
        RMBS and CDOs was misleading and in many cases
        fraudulent;

   (ii) to continue to collect fees for its ratings, Fitch was
        applying lax standards or no standards at all when
        issuing its RMBS and CDO ratings; and

  (iii) Fitch was failing to monitor the credit quality of RMBS
        and CDOs after issuing its initial ratings, as Fitch was
        obligated to do, and many of these securities had
        deteriorated badly after Fitch had issued its ratings.

Fitch is now under investigation by the New York Attorney
General, the Connecticut Attorney General, the Ohio Attorney
General and the SEC as a result of its practices of rating
billions of dollars of securities without a reasonable basis for
doing so and Fimalac's stock is trading at approximately 50% of
its Class Period high.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all U.S.
citizens or residents who purchased Fimalac common stock during
the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

         Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 800-449-4900
                619-231-1058


INDYMAC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 2008, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action against
IndyMac Bancorp, Inc., and certain officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
action is on behalf of those purchasing IndyMac common stock
during the period beginning August 17, 2007, through May 11,
2008, inclusive, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
IndyMac's business and financial results and, as a result, the
price of the Company's securities were inflated during the Class
Period, thereby harming investors.

According to the complaint, defendants concealed IndyMac's
growing exposure to loans in its pay-option adjustable-rate
mortgage ("Option ARM") and homebuilder construction portfolios
and made false representations regarding the Company's capital
position in an attempt to divert investors' concerns regarding
the Company's capital erosion.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, IndyMac stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period.

On May 12, 2008, the Company stunned investors when it reported
a first quarter net loss of $184.2 million, or ($2.27) per
share.  On this news, IndyMac's stock dropped to close at $2.32
per share -- a two-day decline of $1.11 per share, or 32%. Since
October 2, 2007, the Company's battered shares have declined
from $24.55 per share, or 91%.

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          108 Norwich Avenue, P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Toll-Free: 800-404-7770
          Phone: 860-537-5537
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


STATE STREET: Coughlin Stoia Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers
of the SSgA Yield Plus Fund who purchased shares of the Fund
within the three years that preceded the filing of this lawsuit,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint charges State Street Corporation, and certain
related entities, among others, with violations of the
Securities Act.

State Street Global Advisors is the investment advisor to the
entire group of mutual funds under the State Street name.

On or about November 9, 1992, defendants began offering shares
of the Yield Plus Fund pursuant to an initial registration
statement, filed with the SEC as a Form 485BPOS.

The complaint alleges that defendants solicited investors to
purchase shares of the Yield Plus Fund by making statements in
the Registration Statement and subsequent supplemental
prospectuses that described the "investment objective" of the
SSgA Yield Plus Fund as investments "primarily in a diversified
portfolio" with "high-quality debt securities" that include
"high credit quality," "sophisticated credit analysis" and "team
based decision making by experienced investment professionals."

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because defendants did not adequately
disclose the risks associated with investing in the Fund,
including, for example, that the Fund was so heavily invested in
high-risk mortgage-related or mortgage-backed securities.

By June 11, 2007, defendants slowly began lowering the value of
the share price for the Yield Plus Fund. Since then, the value
of the Yield Plus Fund's share price has been precipitously
lowered.  By December 12, 2007, the value of the per-share price
was reduced to $8.01. The shares were trading as low as $6.60 at
the time of the filing of the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of the shares of the Fund within the three years that preceded
the filing of this lawsuit.

For more information, contact:

         Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 800-449-4900
                619-231-1058





                            *********

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  * * *