CAR_Public/080707.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 133
  
                            Headlines

40/40: Judge Paves Way for Overtime Suit vs. Nightclub and Jay-Z
ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Canadian SRAM Lawsuits Discontinued
APOLLO GROUP: No Discovery Yet in Arizona Securities Fraud Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Aug. 4 Hearing Set for Ariz. Securities Fraud Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Discovery is Ongoing in Ariz. Title VII Litigation

CHEVRON: Pipeline Endangers La Mirada Residents, Suit Says
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Shawnee Woman Leads Oklahoma Steering Gear Suit
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Bernstein Named Lead Counsel in Fla. Suit
ELECTROLYTIC ZINC: Plaintiff Appeals Superior Court Decision
ELI LILLY: Loses Appeal to Limit Damages in Canada Zyprexa Suit

G. WILLI-FOOD: Reaches Settlement in 3 Tuna Content Lawsuits
H&R BLOCK: Pa. Court Agrees to Review Order Reinstating RAL Suit
H&R BLOCK: Continues to Face Suits Over "Peace of Mind" Program
H&R BLOCK: Reaches Settlement in Pa. Electronic Filing Fees Suit
H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces California Suit Over Subframe Drain Holes
JACKSON HEWITT: Nov. 12 Hearing Set for California RAL Lawsuit
JACKSON HEWITT: 6th Circuit Considers Appeal in Credit Act Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Discovery Ongoing in W.Va. CSOA Violations Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Ill. Court Allows Filing of Amended Complaint

MICHAEL BAKER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
PERPETUAL STORAGE: Faces Lawsuit in Utah Over Data Theft
QUAKER FABRIC: Displaced Workers Win WARN Act Violations Suit
SAVIENT PHARMA: Third Circuit Affirms N.J. Suit Dismissal
SULPICIO LINES: Romblon Execs. Mull Suit Over Capsized Ferry

TEXAS: Immigration Hold Policy in Nacogdoches County Challenged
TOYOTA CANADA: Quebec's OPC Issues Favorable Ruling in Fees Suit
WALGREEN CO: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

APPLE INC: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California
FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Lawsuit
FIFTH THIRD: Brualdi Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio
FIRST AMERICAN: Brualdi Law Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Schiffrin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

HEALTHWAYS INC: Brualdi Files Tennessee Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NEXCEN BRANDS: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********

40/40: Judge Paves Way for Overtime Suit vs. Nightclub and Jay-Z
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York City judge has paved the way for a class-action suit
against rapper Jay-Z and his nightclub 40/40, FOX News says,
citing an earlier New York Post report.

According to FOX News, the suit was filed by Celeste Williams, a
former employee who claims that the club did not pay overtime or
minimum wage.

The report relates that a judge recently ordered the club's
management to turn over the names of all employees over the past
three years.

Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq., Ms. Williams' lawyer, told the Post
that "this is a good day for restaurant workers all over the
city," and now plans to reach out to other club workers to see
if they want to be a part of the suit.

Mr. Kirschenbaum said he did not know how much money each worker
might be entitled to as he had not been able to access 40/40's
complete records, but between 10 and 20 past and present
bartenders, waiters and other workers are already on board.


ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Canadian SRAM Lawsuits Discontinued
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Semiconductor Corp. has reached an agreement that
discontinues several purported antitrust class action lawsuits
filed in Canada in connection with static random access memory
(SRAM), according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

In late 2006, the company and other firms in the semiconductor
industry were named as defendants in a number of purported
antitrust class action suits filed in Canada.  The lawsuits
purport to state claims on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of SRAM products based on an alleged conspiracy
between manufacturers of SRAM devices to fix or control the
price of SRAM during the period Jan. 1, 1998, through Dec. 31,
2005.

Based on an agreement to toll the statute of limitations until
Jan. 10, 2009, the lawsuits pending in Ontario and British
Columbia, Canada, have been discontinued without prejudice.

The company anticipates that the litigation pending in Quebec,
Canada, will also be discontinued in accordance with the tolling
agreement.

Alliance Semiconductor Corp. -- http://www.alsc.com/-- is a  
provider of analog and mixed-signal products, high-performance
memory products and connectivity and networking solutions for
the communications computing, embedded, industrial and consumer
markets.  It operated in two segments: Memory and Non-Memory.


APOLLO GROUP: No Discovery Yet in Arizona Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has yet to begin in a securities fraud class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona against Apollo Group, Inc.

The class-action complaint, captioned, "Teamsters Local 617
Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-02674-RCB," was filed on Nov. 2, 2006, and purported to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's
stock between Nov. 28, 2001, and Oct. 28, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly failing to
disclose alleged deficiencies in the Company's stock option
granting policies and practices.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and other relief.  

On Jan. 3, 2007, other shareholders, through their separate
attorneys, filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff
and approval of their designated counsel as lead counsel to
pursue the action.  The court later appointed The Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and approved the
lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.

On Nov. 23, 2007, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that the defendants made misrepresentations concerning
the company's stock option granting policies and practices,
traded while in possession of material non-public information,
violated duties of care, candor and loyalty, and engaged in
self-dealing.

The Lead Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and
civil conspiracy to commit fraud, and seeks unstated
compensatory and punitive damages and other relief on behalf of
the purported class.

Aside from the company, other named defendants are:

      -- John G. Sperling,
      -- Todd S. Nelson,
      -- Kenda B. Gonzales,
      -- Daniel E. Bachus,
      -- John M. Blair,
      -- Hedy F. Govenar,
      -- Brian E. Mueller,
      -- Dino J. DeConcini,
      -- Peter V. Sperling, and
      -- Laura Palmer Noone.

All defendants filed motions to dismiss the case, which requests
are now pending before the Court.

There is no further development in the matter and discovery has
not yet begun, according to the company's July 1, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 31, 2008.

The suit is "Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v.
Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02674-RCB," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge
Robert C. Broomfield, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

              - and -

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. (pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         1 N La Salle St., Ste. 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-377-1181
         Fax: 312-377-1184

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael J. Farrell, Esq. (mfarrell@jsslaw.com)
         Jennings Strouss & Salmon PLC
         Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington, Ste. 1100
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2385
         Phone: 602-262-5900
         Fax: 602-495-2618

              - and -

         Joseph E. Floren, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         101 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10178-0060
         Phone: 212-309-6000


APOLLO GROUP: Aug. 4 Hearing Set for Ariz. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 4, 2008 hearing is scheduled for a consolidated suit
against Apollo Group, Inc., captioned, "In re Apollo Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT."

In October 2004, three class action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  The Court
consolidated the three pending class action complaints under the
caption, "In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT," and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed on May 16, 2005, by the lead plaintiff.

The Lead Plaintiff represents a class of the company's
shareholders who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004,
and Sept. 14, 2004.  

The consolidated complaint specifically named the company, Todd
S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales, and Daniel E. Bachus, as
defendants.  

On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel
E. Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from the case.  

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Act by the company for defendants' allegedly material
false and misleading statements in connection with its failure
to publicly disclose the contents of a preliminary U.S.
Department of Education program review report.

The case proceeded to trial on Nov. 14, 2007.  

On Jan. 16, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs awarding damages of up to $5.55 for each share of
common stock in the class suit, plus pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest.  

The class shares are those purchased after Feb. 27, 2004, and
still owned on Sept. 14, 2004.  

The judgment was entered on Jan. 30, 2008, subject to an
automatic stay until Feb. 13, 2008.  

On Feb. 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to stay
execution of the judgment pending resolution of our motions for
post-trial relief, which were also filed on Feb. 13, 2008,
provided that we post a bond in the amount of $95.0 million.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the company posted the $95-million bond with
the Court.  

Oral arguments have been scheduled for Aug. 4, 2008, on the
company's post-trial motions, according to the company's July 1,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008.

The consolidated action is "In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-02147," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Judge James A. Teilborg,
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert D. Mitchell, Esq.
         (robertmitchell@mitchelllaw.com)
         Mitchell & Forest
         2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 618
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Phone: 602-468-1411
         Fax: 602-468-1311

              - and

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the company is:

          Wayne W. Smith, Esq.
          Orange County Office
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: 949-451-4108
          Fax: 949-475-4709


APOLLO GROUP: Discovery is Ongoing in Ariz. Title VII Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit against
the University of Phoenix, Inc. (UPX), a unit of Apollo Group,
Inc., captioned, "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
University of Phoenix, Inc., Case No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM."

The suit was filed on Sept. 25, 2006, by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission as a Title VII action against UPX.  It
was filed on behalf of four identified former employees and a
proposed class of unidentified former and current employees who
were allegedly discriminated against because they were not
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The complaint also alleges that some of the employees were
retaliated against after complaining about the alleged
discrimination.  

The EEOC did not serve its Complaint on UPX until Nov. 21, 2006.
UPX answered the Complaint on Dec. 8, 2006, denying the material
allegations asserted.  

An initial Scheduling Conference was held on Feb. 15, 2007.

During the course of discovery, the EEOC identified
approximately 45 additional class members on whose behalf it was
seeking relief.

UPX filed motions to strike almost all of these additional class
members on the basis that they failed to timely exhaust their
administrative remedies and meet other statutory prerequisites
to filing suit under Title VII.

The Court denied UPX's motions to strike on May 2, 2008, and UPX
subsequently filed a motion for certification to file an
interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit.  

The Court later granted UPX's motion for certification and
stayed discovery regarding the additional class members pending
the Ninth Circuit's ruling.  

The parties are currently engaged in discovery regarding the
four identified former employees and several of the class
members whose status in the lawsuit is not affected by the
interlocutory appeal, according to the company's July 1, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008.

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
University of Phoenix, Inc., Case No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge
Mary H. Murguia, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Katherine J. Kruse, Esq. (katherine.kruse@eeoc.gov)
          EEOC
          3300 N. Central Ave., Ste. 690
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848
          Phone: 602-640-5029
          Fax: 602-640-5009

Representing the defendants is:

          William R. Hayden, Esq. (bhayden@swlaw.com)
          Snell & Wilmer LLP
          1 Arizona Ctr, 400 E. Van Buren
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-0001
          Phone: 602-382-6000
          Fax: 602-382-6070


CHEVRON: Pipeline Endangers La Mirada Residents, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Chevron Corporation is facing a class-action complaint before
the Superior Court in Los Angeles for allegedly violating laws
on transportation of hazardous oil products through pipelines in
La Mirada, CourtHouse News Service reports.

San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron Corp. operates as an energy
company worldwide.  Its petroleum operations consist of
exploring for, developing, and  producing crude oil and natural
gas; refining crude oil into finished petroleum products;
marketing crude oil, natural gas, and various products derived
from petroleum; and transporting crude oil, natural gas, and
petroleum products by pipeline, marine vessel, motor equipment,
and rail car.

La Mirada homeowners claim Chevron has concealed the dangers of
the pipeline and "has been operating on a 'don't ask, don't
tell' mentality."

According to the complaint, the Chevron pipeline runs for miles,
borders on numerous private homes, puts people at serious risk,
but "Chevron willfully and knowingly fails to comply with the
myriad of regulations concerning the notification of and
education regarding hazardous liquid pipelines, so as not to
alert the residential homeowners of their existence on their
property and 'awake the sleeping giant."

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Patrick McNicholas, Esq.
          McNicholas & McNicholas LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-474-1582
          Fax: 310-475-7871
          Web site: http://www.mcnicholaslaw.com/


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Shawnee Woman Leads Oklahoma Steering Gear Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawnee resident Rhonda Masquat was appointed lead plaintiff in
a class-action lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler Corp., Janice
Francis-Smith writes for The Journal Record.

Moreover, according to the report, the Oklahoma Supreme Court
affirmed on July 1, 2008, a ruling of the District Court of
Pottawatomie County that granted class certification in
Oklahoma, allowing the case against DaimlerChrysler to proceed.

Journal Record recounts that Ms. Masquat had experienced some
problems with the steering of her car a few times.  However, she
did not realize the cause or the extent of the problem until she
saw an ad run by the West Law Firm, which is handling the case.

Terry West, Esq., of the West Law Firm, told Journal Record that
the case has gone smoothly because the plaintiffs have the law
on their side.  "We just followed the law as it exists in
Oklahoma," he said.

DaimlerChrysler had earlier argued that the plaintiffs' claims
were barred by the statute of limitations.  However, the report
notes, Ms. Masquat countered that the statute was tolled based
on the company's "active concealment" of the alleged defect.

Mr. West recounts to Journal Record that a Kansas City attorney
had contacted him with information collected from possible
clients in the region that would indicate a defect in the
steering mechanism of a number of vehicles manufactured by
DaimlerChrysler between 1993 and 2001.  Vehicles containing the
alleged defect in the power rack and pinion steering system
include the Dodge Intrepid, Eagle Vision, Chrysler New Yorker,
Chrysler LHS, Chrysler Concord and the Chrysler 300M.

According to the report, DaimlerChrysler introduced a newly
designed bolt for the rack and pinion steering gear in late
2000.  However, the class action complaint argues that consumers
who already owned the vehicles in question were not notified the
fix was available.  

A kit to replace the bolt costs about $310 and the trial court
approved the class with a $400 cap on the amount of compensation
paid to class members.

Journal Record says that the court found the issue all members
of the class have in common is the question of whether
DaimlerChrysler engaged in fraudulent concealment of the
steering problem.  The certified class includes the current and
past owners of more than 2 million vehicles.

The class seeks repayment for the cost of the repair.  The
report notes that none of the class members suffered physical
injury due to the alleged defect.

Journal Record points out that West Law Firm's attorneys have
settled or successfully litigated hundreds of cases, involving
personal injury, product liability, defective drugs, and more.
Among the firm's successes is an $18-million class benefit for a
nationwide class of homeowners who were underpaid on property
damage claims, and settlement in a lawsuit against Bayer for
injuries attributed to its drug Baycol.  Mr. West is a two-time
president of the Oklahoma Trial Lawyers Association and a past
governor of the state Bar Association.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Bernstein Named Lead Counsel in Fla. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On July 1, 2008, Chief Judge Patricia C. Fawsett of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
appointed Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP to act as sole lead
counsel in the securities class action lawsuit captioned,
"Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund v. Darden
Restaurants, Inc., Civ. No. 08-388 (M.D. Fla.)."

Bernstein Liebhard represents the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund
for Northern California and the Carpenters Annuity Trust Fund
for Northern California, which the Court appointed as lead
plaintiffs.

The lawsuit alleges that the company and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false and misleading statements
during the period June 19, 2007, through December 18, 2007,
concerning rising food costs, negative trends in same-store
sales at company restaurants, the underperformance of company
restaurants, and the company's financial well-being.

The Court ordered the filing of a consolidated class action
complaint no later than September 2, 2008.

Mel E. Lifshitz, Esq., a partner at the firm, stated: "We look
forward to working with these Funds as they lead the fight to
recover the losses suffered by the company's shareholders."

For more information, contact:

          Mel Lifshitz, Esq. (lifshitz@bernlieb.com)
          Steve Peitler, Esq. (peitler@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414
          Fax: 212-779-3218
          Toll Free: 877-779-1414


ELECTROLYTIC ZINC: Plaintiff Appeals Superior Court Decision
------------------------------------------------------------
The Noranda Income Fund has confirmed that the plaintiff has
appealed the June 4, 2008 decision of the Honourable Judge
Helene Poulin of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec
that dismissed the plaintiff's motion to institute a class
action against its' manager, Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited
(CEZinc), following the release of sulphur trioxide (SO3) from
the refinery in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield on August 9, 2004.

The Superior Court's judgment confirms the position held by
CEZinc since the beginning, that the class action suit was
unfounded (Class Action Reporter, June 24, 2008).

The class representative had sought authorization to file a
class action suit in the days following the incident, on behalf
of the individuals who were inconvenienced by the accidental
release of sulphur trioxide.  CEZinc management is satisfied
with the judgment and hopes this will put an end to the
proceedings.  The class representative has 30 days to appeal the
decision.

Since 2004, CEZinc management has reviewed and improved its
communications protocol, and has invested $1.1 million to
improve the control systems at the acid plants and to increase
the number of electronic sulphur surveillance posts.  In 2005,
CEZinc obtained ISO 14 001 certification for environmental
management.

The staff and management at CEZinc are committed to ethical
values by adhering to the strictest norms.  CEZinc remains a
responsible corporate citizen, dedicated to protecting the
environment and respecting its laws. It works closely with
Environment Canada, Quebec's Ministere du Developpement durable,
de l'Environnement et des Parcs and is an involved partner in
sustainable development within the community.

While CEZinc awaits the final outcome of this appeal, it
continues to maintain that the class action suit is unfounded.

Noranda Income Fund is an income trust whose units trade on the
Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "NIF.UN".  The Noranda
Income Fund owns the CEZinc processing facility and ancillary
assets (the CEZinc processing facility) located in Salaberry-de-
Valleyfield, Quebec.

The CEZinc processing facility is the second-largest zinc
processing facility in North America and the largest zinc
processing facility in eastern North America, where the majority
of its customers are located.  It produces refined zinc metal
and various by-products from zinc concentrates purchased from
mining operations.  The Processing Facility is operated and
managed by Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Xstrata Canada Corporation.


ELI LILLY: Loses Appeal to Limit Damages in Canada Zyprexa Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co. lost an appeal to limit potential damages in a
lawsuit filed by Canadian patients who claimed that they
developed diabetes after using the company's Zyprexa
schizophrenia drug, Joe Schneider writes for Bloomberg News.

According to Bloomberg, an Ontario appeal court affirmed on
July 2, 2008, a lower court's decision that said plaintiffs in a
group or class-action suit may try to recover money that Lilly
made from sales rather than get damages.  

The plaintiffs sought CDN$900 million in damages in their
initial claim, the report recounts.

Bloomberg relates that Lilly, the world's biggest maker of
psychiatric medicines, is accused of failing to warn consumers
that the Zyprexa schizophrenia treatment may cause diabetes.  
Zyprexa has been prescribed to almost 24 million patients in 84
countries since being approved in 1996 and Lilly had said it is
confident the drug is safe.

The report adds that Zyprexa is approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration and Canadian regulators to treat
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.  In 2007, sales of the drug
rose 9% to US$4.76 billion, about a quarter of Lilly's revenue.

Opting to go after a company's sales is unprecedented in court,
Toronto-based class action lawyer Paul Bates, who is not
involved in the Zyprexa suit, told Bloomberg.

That has "the power to make defendants liable for truly enormous
amounts of money," Judge Sidney Lederman wrote on July 10, 2007,
upon granting Lilly permission to appeal.  "The ramifications of
exposure to this type of liability will extend beyond the
parties to affect not just the pharmaceutical industry as a
whole, but also the securities market."

Laurel Swartz, a Lilly spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed
statement to Bloomberg that they are "disappointed in [the]
decision of the Ontario Divisional Court to not correct certain
aspects of the initial certification decision."  She did not
say, however, whether the company planned to appeal to the Court
of Appeal for Ontario, the province's highest court.

The decision from a three-member panel shows that the U.S. and
Canadian cases "are developing somewhat along different paths,"
Michael Eizenga, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a
telephone interview with Bloomberg.  "You don't very often have
drug cases certified any longer down there," he added, referring
to certification of cases as class action.

Bloomberg notes that Lilly, in March, agreed to pay Alaska
US$15 million to settle a similar lawsuit before it went to a
jury.

Bloomberg recalls that studies linking Zyprexa and similar
medications, including Astrazeneca Plc's Seroquel and Risperdal,
made by a Johnson & Johnson unit, to weight gain and diabetes
prompted the Federal Drug Administration to require warnings to
doctors in 2003 and 2004.

Lilly has paid about $1.2 billion to settle 31,000 claims
brought by U.S. patients who said they were not adequately
warned that the medicine can cause diabetes, weight gain and
pancreas inflammation, the report further recounts.  About 1,200
similar lawsuits remain in the U.S., spokeswoman Tarra Ryker
said earlier this year.

The case is "Andrea Heward vs. Eli Lilly & Co., 181/07," filed
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court
(Toronto).


G. WILLI-FOOD: Reaches Settlement in 3 Tuna Content Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd., one of Israel's largest food
importers and a single-source supplier of one of the world's
most extensive range of quality kosher food products, had signed
a settlement agreement pertaining to three lawsuits and the
demand to approve them as class actions, which were filed
against the company by three plaintiffs regarding the matter of
reduced contents of the company's tuna containers.

The complaints allege that the company misled its customers by
reducing the content in its tuna containers, and then charging
its customers the same price as before (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 27, 2007)

Under the Settlement Agreement, the company has denied all
wrongdoing and will carry out a special discount sale (the
"Sale") of 480,000 cans of tuna that will all contain roughly an
additional one-third of an ounce of tuna, or approximately 7%
more tuna, than usually marketed.  These larger cans of tuna
will have the same price as the usual cans of tuna, but will be
labeled as discounted.  The company will be entitled to
advertise the sale at its own discretion.

According to the Settlement Agreement, the company agreed to pay
the plaintiffs and their attorneys approximately $15,000 for
their legal costs.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to the approval of the
District Court of Tel-Aviv.

The remaining two lawsuits and the demand to approve them as
class action suits filed against the company by two plaintiffs
and described in the company's press release from January 2,
2007, have been dismissed.

Based in Yavne, Israel, G. Willi-Food International Ltd. --
http://www.willi-food.co.il/.-- directly and through  
subsidiaries, imports, markets and distributes more than 400
food products manufactured by some 100 top-tier suppliers
throughout the world to its more than 1,000 customers.


H&R BLOCK: Pa. Court Agrees to Review Order Reinstating RAL Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review an appellate
court's decision reversing a decertification of the suit,
"Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term
1992 Civil Action No. 3246," which filed against H&R Block, Inc.

The Basile matter was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, First
Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County,
instituted on April 23, 1993.

The case is in connection with the company's refund anticipation
loan (RAL) programs.  In general, plaintiffs in the Basile
matter and in similar cases have alleged, among other things:

     (1) that disclosures in the RAL applications were  
         inadequate, misleading and untimely;  

     (2) that the RAL interest rates were usurious and  
         unconscionable;  

     (3) that the company did not disclose that it would receive  
         part of the finance charges paid by the customer for  
         such loans;  

     (4) that company breached state laws on credit service  
         organizations;  

     (5) that the company committed a breach of contract, unjust
         enrichment, unfair and deceptive acts or practices and  
         violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt  
         Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices  
         Act; and  

     (6) that the company owed, and breached, a fiduciary duty  
         to its customers in connection with the RAL program.  

The court decertified the class in the Basile case on Dec. 31,
2003.  The Pennsylvania appellate court subsequently reversed
the trial court's decertification decision.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the
appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decision to
decertify the class.  

On June 4, 2007, the appellate court affirmed its earlier
decision to reverse the trial court's decertification decision.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted the company's request
to review the appellate court ruling, according to the company's
June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial  
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.  

    
H&R BLOCK: Continues to Face Suits Over "Peace of Mind" Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., a unit of H&R Block, Inc., still
faces purported class action lawsuits in Illinois and Texas in
relation to the its Peace of Mind Program, according to the
company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2008.

                      Illinois Litigation

One of the cases is the purported class action suit "Lorie J.
Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil
Action 2003L000004," filed in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Illinois.

The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2002, and was granted class-
action status on Aug. 27, 2003.  The plaintiffs' claims consist
of five counts relating to the POM Program under which the
applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability
for additional tax assessments attributable to tax return
preparation error.

The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees
constitutes:

      -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license;

      -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it); and

      -- a breach of fiduciary duty.

In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes
consisting of all persons who, from Jan. 1, 1997, to final
judgment:

      -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant H&R Block class member;

      -- reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R
         Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and

      -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block
Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded
from the plaintiff class.  

The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any
entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are
otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product.  

The defendants filed a motion to decertify the classes, which is
set to be heard in July 2008.  Discovery is proceeding.  No
trial date has been set.

                       Texas Litigation

There is one other putative class action suit pending against
the company in Texas that involves the POM guarantee.

This case involves the same plaintiffs' attorneys that are
involved in the Marshall litigation, and contains similar
allegations.  No class has been certified in this case.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial  
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.  


H&R BLOCK: Reaches Settlement in Pa. Electronic Filing Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc., reached a settlement in the matter, "Erin M.
McNulty and Brian J. Erzar v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No.
02-CIV-4654," which was filed in the Court of Common Please of
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, according to the company's
June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008.

The suit, filed on Aug. 30, 2002, contains allegations that the
defendants deceptively portray electronic filing fees as a
necessary and required component of standard tax preparation
services and do not inform tax preparation clients that they
may:

       -- file tax returns free of charge by mailing the
          returns,
    
       -- electronically file tax returns from personal
          computers either free of charge are at significantly
          lower fees, and

       -- be eligible to electronically file tax returns free of
          charge via telephone.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and disgorgement of all
electronic filing, tax preparation and related fees collected
during the applicable class period.  

Class certification was granted in the case on Sept. 5, 2007.

In March 2008, the company reached a tentative agreement to
settle the suit for an amount not to exceed $2.5 million and
have accrued $1.7 million, representing the company's best
estimate of ultimate loss.  

The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on
June 27, 2008, with a final fairness hearing scheduled for
September 2008.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial  
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.  


H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "In re H&R Block Securities
Litigation," are appealing the dismissal of their case against
H&R Block Inc.

On April 6, 2007, a putative class action styled, "In re H&R
Block Securities Litigation," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company
and certain of its officers.

The complaint alleged, among other things, deceptive, material
and misleading financial statements, failure to prepare
financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and concealment of the potential for
lawsuits stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the
company's operations.  It sought unspecified damages and
equitable relief.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint and granted
the plaintiffs leave to re-file the portion of the complaint
pertaining to the Company's financial statements.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed the complaint,
alleging, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading
financial statements and failure to prepare financial statements
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

At the defendant's behest, the court dismissed the re-filed
complaint on Feb. 19, 2008.  On March 11, 2008, the plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal, according to the company's June 30, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-
0236-CV-W-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles F. Speer, Esq. (cspeer@speerlawfirm.com)
          Speer Law Firm
          104 West 9th Street, Suite 305
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-472-3560
          Fax: 816-421-2150
          
               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714

Representing the defendants are:

          Sameer Advani, Esq. (sadvani@willkie.com)
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 7thAvenue
          New York, NY 10019-6099
          Phone: 212-728-8000
          Fax: 212-728-8111

               - and -

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-320-4858
          Fax: 650-565-5100


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces California Suit Over Subframe Drain Holes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Motor America, a subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Co., is
facing a consumer class-action complaint in Orange County Court,
California, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges that Hyundai's failure to engineer proper
drain holes in the subframe of its Sonata vehicle causes
structural deterioration and wrecks the suspension.

                   About Hyundai Motor America

Hyundai Motor America, headquartered in Fountain Valley, Calif.,
is a subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Co. of Korea.  Hyundai vehicles
are distributed throughout the United States by Hyundai Motor
America and are sold and serviced through almost 800 dealerships
nationwide.

                      About Hyundai Motor

Headquartered in Seoul, South Korea, Hyundai Motor Company
-- http://www.hyundai-motor.com/-- has been selling cars in the
US since 1986, but it only started selling its heavy trucks
stateside in 1998.  Hyundai produces 14 models of cars, SUVs,
and minivans, as well as trucks, buses, and other commercial
vehicles.  The company reestablished itself as South Korea's
leading carmaker in 1998 by acquiring a 51% stake in Kia Motors
(since reduced to about 43%).  Hyundai's models for the North
American market include the Accent and Sonata; models sold
elsewhere include the GRD and Equus.  The company also
manufactures machine tools for factory automation and material-
handling equipment.


JACKSON HEWITT: Nov. 12 Hearing Set for California RAL Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 12, 2008 class certification hearing was set for a
lawsuit against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., Santa Barbara
Bank & Trust, and Cendant Corp. in connection with Refund
Anticipation Loans.

On March 18, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California
Seniors brought the purported class action suit before the
Superior Court of California in San Francisco.  It subsequently
added Cendant in the case, which was transferred to the Superior
Court of California in Santa Barbara.

The suit seeks declaratory relief in connection with the
provision of RALs, as to the lawfulness of the practice of
cross-lender debt collection, as to the validity of Santa
Barbara's cross-lender debt collection provision and as to
whether the method of disclosure to customers with respect to
the provision is unlawful or fraudulent.

The suit is also seeking injunctive relief, restitution,
disgorgement, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses.

Jackson Hewitt is a party in the action for allegedly
collaborating, and aiding and abetting, in the actions of SBB&T.

The trial court granted a motion by Santa Barbara and third-
party bank defendants on federal preemption grounds, and stayed
all other proceedings pending appeal.  

The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's
preemption decision.  The California Supreme Court denied
review.

SBB&T and third-party banks asked the California Court of Appeal
to stay remittitur pending certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 4, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, and
the purported class action suit is proceeding in the trial
court.

A class certification hearing has been scheduled for Nov. 12,
2008, according to Jackson Hewitt's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2008.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.  


JACKSON HEWITT: 6th Circuit Considers Appeal in Credit Act Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal by Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., in connection
with an earlier court decision denying the company's bid to
reverse an order remanding the purported class action, "Brown v.
Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-02632-PAG" to the Ohio
Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County.

Initially, on Sept. 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported
class action complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, over an alleged failure to comply
with Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and alleged unfair
and deceptive acts in violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales
Practices Act.  The suit seeks damages and injunctive relief.

On Oct. 30, 2006, the company filed a notice removing the
complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case
and a motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration.  On
Dec. 8, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, which the
company opposed.

In February 2007, the Court entered an order remanding the case
to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, without ruling on
the other pending motions.  The company then filed for
permission to appeal the remand decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  In September 2007, the Court
denied the company's request.

On Sept. 21, 2007 the company filed a petition before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit requesting a rehearing by
the Court panel that denied the petition and to request that the
full Court hear the matter.  A decision by the Court is
currently pending.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008.

The suit is "Brown v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-
02632-PAG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Judge Patricia A. Gaughan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
         (RonF@ClevelandConsumerLaw.com)
         The Law Office of Ronald I. Frederick
         Ste. 1300, 55 Public Square
         Cleveland, OH 44113
         Phone: 216-502-1055
         Fax: 216-781-1749

              - and -

         Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. (pperotti@dworkenlaw.com)
         Dworken & Bernstein
         Painesville, 60 South Park Place
         Painesville, OH 44077
         Phone: 440-352-3391
         Fax: 440-352-3469

Representing the defendant is:
         
         G. Karl Fanter, Esq. (kfanter@bakerlaw.com)
         Baker & Hostetler
         3200 National City Center, 1900 East Ninth Street
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 216-861-7918
         Fax: 216-696-0740


JACKSON HEWITT: Discovery Ongoing in W.Va. CSOA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit
filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia over
alleged violations of West Virginia's Credit Service
Organization Act.

On Oct. 30, 2006, Linda Hunter brought a purported class action
complaint against the company for an alleged breach of fiduciary
duty, for breach of West Virginia's Credit Service Organization
Act, for breach of contract, and for unfair or deceptive acts or
practices, and seeking damages.

On Nov. 22, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
suit.  On Nov. 6, 2007, the Court only partially granted the
company's dismissal request.  On Nov. 21, 2007, the company
answered the complaint.

On March 13, 2008, the Court granted a motion by the company for
partial summary judgment on the plaintiff's breach of contract
claim.  The case is in its discovery and pretrial stage,
according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2008.

The suit is "Hunter v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00919," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Judge Robert C. Chambers, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         John W. Barrett, Esq. (jbarrett@baileyglasser.com)
         Bailey & Glasser
         227 Capitol Street
         Charleston, WV 25301-1386
         Phone: 304-345-6555
         Fax: 304-342-1110

Representing the defendants are:

         Michael P. Kelly, Esq. (mikelly@skadden.com)
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
         1440 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-371-7000
         Fax: 202-393-5760
      
              - and -

         Debra Lee Hovatter, Esq. (dhovatter@spilmanlaw.com)
         Spilman Thomas & Battle
         P.O. Box 615
         Morgantown, WV 26504-0615
         Phone: 304-291-7935
         Fax: 304-291-7979


JACKSON HEWITT: Ill. Court Allows Filing of Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
allowed the plaintiffs in the matter, "Wooley v. Jackson Hewitt
Tax Service Inc. et al.,Case No. 1:07-cv-02201," to file a
fourth amended complaint in the case, which was brought against
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., in connection with the
company's tax return preparation services.

On April 20, 2007, Brent Wooley brought the purported class
action complaint against the company and certain unknown
franchisees on behalf of customers who obtained tax return
preparation services that allegedly included false deductions
without support by the customer.  The practice allegedly
resulted in penalties being assessed by the IRS against the
taxpayer.  

The suit was brought for alleged violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and the Racketeer
and Corrupt Organizations Act.  It sought compensatory and
punitive damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

The alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act relate to representations regarding tax
return preparation and Gold Guarantee coverage and denial of
Gold Guarantee claims.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case,
which motion was later denied without prejudice to the
plaintiff's right to further amend the complaint.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
to add additional parties.  On Nov. 20, 2007, the company filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  

On March 25, 2008, the Court favored the company and dismissed
all claims against it.  On April 11, 2008, the plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.  The company
opposed that motion.  

On June 19, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiff's request and
permitted him to file a fourth amended complaint consistent with
the Court's March 25, 2008 decision, according to the company's
June 30, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008.

The suit is "Wooley v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-02201," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Ruben Castillo,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. (clint@krislovlaw.com)
         Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
         20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-606-0500

Representing the defendants is:

         Christina M. Tchen, Esq. (ttchen@skadden.com)
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-407-0700
         Fax: 312-407-0411


MICHAEL BAKER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Baker Corp. is facing a consolidated securities fraud
class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

Initially, four separate complaints were filed by holders of the
company's common stock against the company, as well as certain
of its current and former officers.

The complaints in these lawsuits purport to have been made on
behalf of a class of plaintiffs consisting of purchasers of the
company's common stock between March 19, 2007, and Feb. 22,
2008.

The suits alleged that the company and certain of its current
and former officers made materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, and other fees and costs.

In June 2008, all of the cases were consolidated into a single
action, according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Michael Baker Corp. -- http://www.mbakercorp.com/-- provides  
engineering and energy services to public and private sector
clients worldwide through its operating subsidiaries.  The
Company operates through two segments: Engineering and Energy.  
The Company's Engineering segment provides a variety of design
and related consulting services, principally in the U.S.  The
Energy segment provides a range of services to operating energy
production facilities worldwide.  Contracts with various
branches of the U.S. government accounted for 27% of its total
contract revenues for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.  The
Company's contracts with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) accounted for approximately 15% of its revenues in 2006.
In April 2006, the Company acquired Buck Engineering, P.C., of
Cary, North Carolina.


PERPETUAL STORAGE: Faces Lawsuit in Utah Over Data Theft
--------------------------------------------------------
Perpetual Storage, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint in
the Third Judicial District of Salt Lake County, State of Utah,
over allegations that it negligently allowed computer records to
be stolen, which records contain medical information on 2.2
million patients of the University of Utah hospital, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Thelma Keachie brings the action pursuant to
Rule 23, Utah R. Civ. P. on behalf of at least 1.3. million
persons who have suffered theft of their social security
numbers. The class consists additionally of at least 900,000
other persons who have suffered theft of medical and financial
information related to medical care, but who have not suffered
theft of Social Security numbers.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- general damages for all class members in a
        reasonable sum;

     -- special damages for the cost in time and money of
        monitoring and repairing class members' credit reports
        for the lifetime of individuals who have suffered theft
        of their Social Security numbers and for five years for
        all other living individuals, with an estimated total of
        no less than $4 million;

     -- special damages to establish a facility to monitor
        the use of any information pertaining to individuals who
        are deceased and are represented in the class by their
        heirs, with an estimated cost of $1 million;

     -- special damages to aid persons who are eligible to
        change their Social Security numbers, with an estimated
        cost of $1 million;

     -- special damages for the cost of monitoring the use
        of other private personal identifying information such
        as medical information, information about employment and
        insurance carriers and information about diagnoses and
        procedures for the lifetime of all class members, with
        an estimated cost of $4 million;

     -- such other special damages as may be determined by the
        court;

     -- costs and expenses incurred in this proceeding;

     -- interest on all special damages, and for such other
        and further relief as the court deems just and proper
        under the circumstances; and

     -- if further discovery reveals evidence of grossly
        negligent or intentionally wrongful conduct of
        defendants, punitive damages against defendants in an
        amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $1
        million.

The suit is "Thelma Keachie et al. v. Perpetual Storage, Inc.,
Case No. 080911417," filed in the Third Judicial District of
Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Clark Newhall, Esq.
          Law Offices of Clark Newhall MD JD
          57 West 200 South, Suite 101
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Phone: 801-363-8888
          Fax: 801-596-8888


QUAKER FABRIC: Displaced Workers Win WARN Act Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Fabric Corp. (NASDAQ: QFAB) has reached a tentative
settlement of approximately $1 million in a class action lawsuit
alleging that the company violated the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining, or WARN, Act, Michael Holtzman of The Herald News
reports.

The report recounts that the suit was a response to the 62-year-
old Quaker manufacturing company shutting its doors a year ago
this week without providing 60 days notice to workers, as
required under the WARN.

About 700 former workers signed onto the suit, filed on behalf
of the final workforce, which at one time numbered 3,000, when
it was the city's largest employer.

Rene S. Roupinian, Esq., of Outten & Golden, said that the
preliminary agreement, reached in U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Delaware, gives the Quaker plaintiffs the first $100,000 for
administrative expenses and $200,000 of available cash as
priority creditors.  They also receive one-third of the
remaining funds, about $700,000, Ms. Roupinian said.

It's Ms. Roupinian's understanding the other two-thirds of
Quaker's estate would go mostly to Quaker vendors, Herald News
says.

While the amount sought was considerably more -- approximately
$7 million based upon 60 days of wages and benefits to workers
Ms. Roupinian further said the expected payout reflects the
"limited assets" in the Quaker estate.  She indicated that
assets are in the $2.5 million range.

"The parties in bankruptcy thought enough of the claim to
ascribe it $1 million of the dwindling remaining assets of what
was once Quaker Fabric," she said.

Attorneys fees and expenses will lower the approximately $1,000
per person the award would provide, Ms. Roupinian said.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 11 before U.S.
Bankruptcy Court Judge Kevin Gross to finalize the settlement.

                       About Quaker Fabric

Based in Fall River, Mass., Quaker Fabric Corp. (NASDAQ: QFAB)
-- http://www.quakerfabric.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets woven upholstery fabrics primarily for residential
furniture manufacturers and jobbers.  It also develops and
manufactures specialty yarns, including chenille, taslan, and
spun products for use in the production of its fabrics, as well
as for sale to distributors of craft yarns, and manufacturers of
homefurnishings and other products.  The company is one of the
largest producers of Jacquard upholstery fabrics.

Quaker Fabric sells its products through sales representatives
andindependent commissioned sales agents in the United States,
Canada, Mexico, and internationally.

The company and its affiliate, Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall
River, filed for chapter 11 protection on Aug. 16, 2007 (Bankr.
D. Del. Case No. 07-11146).  John D. Sigel, Esq. at Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP and Joel A. Waite, Esq. at
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP are co-counsels to the
Debtors.  Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions is the Debtors' claims
agent.  The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has
selected Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, as its bankruptcy
counsel and Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, as co-
counsel.

The Debtors' schedules reflect total assets of US$41,375,191 and
total liabilities of US$54,435,354.


SAVIENT PHARMA: Third Circuit Affirms N.J. Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissing, with prejudice, the second
consolidated amended complaint in a class action lawsuit
originally filed on December 20, 2002, against Savient
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and three of its former officers.

The District Court's decision was based on the plaintiff's
failure to set forth particularized facts, through direct or
circumstantial evidence, which give rise to a strong inference
that the defendants acted with intent to defraud, recklessness
or a conscious disregard of the truth.

                        Case Background

The original class-action complaints were filed in December 2002
and January 2003 against Bio-Technology General Corp., now known
as Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  They were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of investors who had
purchased shares of Bio-Technology General during an alleged
Class Period of April 19, 1999, through Aug. 2, 2002.  The
complaints alleged that the investors had been defrauded
because, on Sept. 25, 2002, the company filed restated year-end
and quarterly reports of its earnings and related financial
statements for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, which the company
had previously announced would be forthcoming in its Form 8-K
and accompanying press release issued Aug. 2, 2002.

In September 2003, the actions were consolidated and co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel were appointed in accordance with
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation which
provided for the lead plaintiff to file an amended consolidated
complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action
complaint on Sept. 25, 2003.  

On August 10, 2005, citing the failure of the amended complaint
to set forth particularized facts that give rise to a strong
inference that the defendants acted with the required state of
mind, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
action without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint.

On Oct. 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, again seeking unspecified compensatory damages,
purporting to set forth particularized facts to support their
allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by us and our former
officers.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  

On Oct. 26, 2006, the District Court sided with the company and
dismissed, with prejudice, the second amended complaint.  The
District Court declined to allow the plaintiffs to file another
amended complaint.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit (Class Action Reporter, June 2,
2008).

The suit is "In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-6048," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Harold A. Ackerman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. (jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com)
          Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rives, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5003
          Phone: 973-623-3000

Representing the company is:

          Roger B. Kaplan, Esq. (kaplanr@gtlaw.com)
          Greenberg Traurig, LLP
          200 Campus Drive, P.O. Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Phone: 973-360-7957
          Fax: 973-301-8410


SULPICIO LINES: Romblon Execs. Mull Suit Over Capsized Ferry
------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Nanette Tansingco of San Fernando, Sibuyan Island, in the
Philippines, said the province of Romblon, where many of the
victims of the sinking of the ferry Princess of the Stars have
washed ashore, has been "looking seriously" at filing a class
suit against Sulpicio Lines Inc., Inquirer.net reports.

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

As pointed out in various press reports, San Fernando covers the
coastal area where the Princess of the Stars sank, bringing down
with it -- aside from the hundreds of passengers and crew -- the
highly toxic pesticide endosulfan in its cargo hold.

"There's the direct and indirect cost to us: the direct cost
include the actual cost of rescue and retrieval and the indirect
cost is the fear of the people and their lost livelihood.  And
we are already consulting with our lawyers how to do that.  We
are also balancing our actions right now because of course, we
are also on the edge," Mayor Tansingco said.

The mayor echoed a previous statement by Romblon congressman  
Rep. Eleandro Jesus Madrona who, according to Inquirer, said
that they are mulling the filing a class suit against Sulpicio
Lines because of the tremendous and disastrous aftermath of the
tragedy.

A Philippine Star report says that the local government intends
to seek damages from the shipping operator, which was involved
in at least four previous sea tragedies, including the December
1987 sinking of the M/V Dona Paz that left more than 4,000
people dead.

Rep. Madrona expressed dismay over the delays in the recovery
operation because of Sulpicio Lines' failure to fully disclose
the dangerous cargo the ship was carrying.

"I was really depressed when I heard that there's endosulfan
inside the ship because with [contamination] remains a threat to
our waters for as long as the ship is there," Mayor Tansingco
told the Inquirer.

The mayor added that Sulpicio Lines promised to pay back the
town's expenses in the past weeks' search, rescue and retrieval
operations.


TEXAS: Immigration Hold Policy in Nacogdoches County Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nacogdoches County (Texas) is facing a class-action complaint
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
over allegations that it unconstitutionally imprisons foreign-
born people through its "immigration hold" policy, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The suit is for equitable relief and damages arising out of the
plaintiff's unlawful detention in the Nacogdoches County
Jail in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Constitution
and laws of the United States.

Named plaintiff Adan Arturo Hernandez says he was jailed for six
days after paying $270 bond for a Class C misdemeanor punishable
only by a fine.

The plaintiff commences this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, which provides in relevant part for redress for
every person within the jurisdiction of the United States for
the deprivation, under color of state law, of any rights,
privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of
the United States.

The plaintiff seeks an order declaring unlawful and enjoining
defendant's policy of holding foreign-born persons, like the
plaintiff, in the Nacogdoches County Jail due to "immigration
detainers" or "immigration holds" after such persons would
otherwise have been released, compensatory damages, and a
reasonable attorney's fee and his costs and expenses herein as
authorized by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988.

The plaintiff seeks identical relief on behalf of all members of
the class he seeks to represent.

In this action, the plaintiff seeks certification pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 as the representative of a class consisting
of all foreign-born persons who have been, are being or will be
held in the Nacogdoches County Jail after they would otherwise
have been released, based on "immigration detainers" or
"immigration holds."

The plaintiff asks the Court to:

     -- certify the proposed class;

     -- enter a declaratory judgment declaring that defendant's
        practice of holding foreign-born persons in the
        Nacogdoches County Jail based on immigration detainers
        or immigration holds is unlawful and violates the
        constitutional and statutory rights of the members of
        the class;

     -- enter a permanent injunction in behalf of the class
        against the defendant, enjoining the continuance of the
        acts, omissions and policies complained in the suit;

     -- enter judgment in favor of the class who has been
        subjected to the policies, practices and procedures
        challenged herein, against the defendant for
        compensatory damages;

     -- grant the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fee and his
        costs and expenses herein as authorized by 42 U.S.C.
        Section 1988 against the defendant; and

     -- grant the class members pre-judgment and post-judgment
        interest, and any and all additional relief to which
        they may appear to be entitled.

The suit is "Adan Arturo Hernandez, et al. v. Nacogdoches
County, Texas, Case No. 9:08cv119," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Richard S. Fischer, Esq.
          The Law Offices of Richard S. Fischer
          114 South Pecan Street
          Nacogdoches, TX 75961
          Phone: 936-564-2222
          Fax: 936-564-1346


TOYOTA CANADA: Quebec's OPC Issues Favorable Ruling in Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec's Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC) and the
Automobile Protection Association announced a favorable ruling
in a class action over fees charged by Toyota Canada to transfer
extended warranties.

Toyota charged from $25 to $200 to transfer its Extra-Care
extended warranty to second and subsequent owners. The decision
by Quebec's Court of Appeal is now final, since Toyota did not
request permission to appeal within the permitted 60 day delay.

The APA and the OPC argued that warranty transfer fees are
prohibited under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, which
requires the warranty to follow the automobile automatically.
The Court of Appeal panel of three judges unanimously upheld
that position, reversing an earlier decision in favour of Toyota
by the Superior Court.

"This decision confirms the principle that auto warranties are
attached to the vehicle and follow it automatically when the
vehicle is resold or transferred," said APA President George
Iny. Marc Migneault, a lawyer with Quebec's OPC added that "the
Court of Appeal recognized that, not just automakers, but all
types of manufacturers and businesses cannot offer less coverage
in their warranties than required by law in Quebec."

The decision affects consumers who paid to transfer a Toyota
vehicle warranty between March 31, 1996 and February 29, 2000.
(Subsequently, Toyota dropped its warranty transfer fees across
Canada.) Toyota estimates 6,000 consumers in Quebec are
affected, and are owed a total of about $300,000.

The Court of Appeal has sent the case back to Superior Court to
determine the actual number of claims and amounts owed to
consumers.

APA President George Iny said it is too early for consumers to
send a claim to Toyota, as the case is still before the courts.
The APA recommends consumers who believe they are entitled to a
refund and have not already contacted the Association, should do
so via the APA Web site: http://www.apa.ca


WALGREEN CO: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
Walgreen Co. is facing a purported securities fraud class action
lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, according to the company's July 1, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 31, 2008.

The suit was filed on April 16, 2008, by the Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local No. 7 Pension Fund against the company and
its chief executive officer and chief operating officer.  It was
brought on behalf of purchasers of company common stock during
the period between June 25, 2007, and Nov. 29, 2007.   

The plaintiff charges the company, its CEO and its COO with
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, claiming that they misled investors by failing to
disclose declining rates of growth in generic drug sales and a
contract dispute with a pharmacy benefits manager that allegedly
had a negative impact on earnings.

The suit is "Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7 Pension Fund
v. Walgreen Co. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-02162," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge
Joan B. Gottschall, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Lori Ann Fanning, Esq. (LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com)
          Miller Law LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-332-3400
          Fax: 312-676-2676

Representing the defendants is:

          Alan Norris Salpeter, Esq. (asalpeter@dl.com)
          Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
          180 North Stetson Avenue, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-784-8088


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

APPLE INC: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. has commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Apple, Inc.'s common stock during the
period between June 29, 2003, and June 29, 2006.

The Complaint alleges as follows: Apple's share price dropped
14% in the two weeks after Apple's admission of backdating,
erasing more than $7 billion in share value.  It is this loss
that the plaintiffs hope to recover.

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.

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

For more information, contact:

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


FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers
of the Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond Fund who purchased the fund
between June 6, 2005, and June 5, 2008.

The complaint charges Fidelity Management & Research Company,
among others, with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that on or about August 23, 2002, the
Defendants began offering shares of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund
pursuant to an initial registration statement, filed with the
SEC as a Form 485BPOS.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants solicited investors to
purchase shares of the Ultra-Short Bond Fund by making
statements that described the Fund as a fund that:

     (i) "Seeks a high level of current income consistent with
         the preservation of capital";

    (ii) "allocates its assets across different market sectors
         and maturities";

   (iii) has a "similar overall interest rate risk to the Lehman
         Brothers(R) 6 Month Swap Index"; and

    (iv) is geared toward the "preservation of capital".

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because the Defendants did not adequately
disclose the risks associated with investing in the Fund,
including, for example, that the Fund was:

     (i) failing to compete with the Lehman Brothers(R) 6 Month
         Swap Index; and

    (ii) so heavily invested in high-risk mortgage-back
         securities.

As alleged in the complaint, by June 11, 2007, the Defendants
slowly began lowering the value of the share price for the Fund.
By November 15, 2007, the value of the per-share price was
reduced below $9. Since then the shares were trading as low as
$8.25.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 4,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq. (bronstein@bgandg.com)
          Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com)
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          New York City Office (Main Office)
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-697-6484
          Fax: 212-697-7296


FIFTH THIRD: Brualdi Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on
behalf of purchasers of Fifth Third Bancorp. (NYSE:FTB-PA)
(NYSE:FTB-PC) common stock during the period between October 19,
2007, and June 17, 2008.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
July 3, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


FIRST AMERICAN: Brualdi Law Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. disclosed that a lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of First American
Corporation. and certain of its officers and directors on behalf
of purchasers of First American common stock, who purchased
between April 26, 2006, and November 6, 2007, inclusive.

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

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

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
July 3, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Schiffrin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Gildan Activewear Inc. from August 2, 2007,
through April 29, 2008, inclusive.

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

Gildan is a supplier of activewear for the wholesale imprinted
sportswear market in the United States, Canada and Europe.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company's Dominican Republic textile facility
         was underperforming;

     (2) that as a result, sales of the Company's activewear
         were performing below expectations;

     (3) that the Company had materially overstated its
         financial results by failing to timely write-down an
         impairment in the value of its inventories;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On April 29, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it was reducing its second quarter 2008 earnings
guidance from $0.42 per share to $0.35 per share, and reducing
its fiscal 2008 earnings guidance from $1.85-$1.90 to $1.45-
$1.50 per share.  The Company stated that this was due to lower
than projected unit sales growth in activewear (as a result of a
shortfall in production for the Dominican Republic textile
facility), a write-down of inventories of discontinued retail
product-lines, and additional costs incurred to service mass-
market retailers during the integration of retail information
systems.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell $10.99
per share, or 30.6 percent, to close on April 29, 2008 at $24.93
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members and is represented by Schiffrin Barroway, which
prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts
throughout the country.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
                 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


HEALTHWAYS INC: Brualdi Files Tennessee Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on
behalf of purchasers of Healthways, Inc. common stock during the
period between October 17, 2007, and February 26, 2008.

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


The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects.
Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
June 5, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


NEXCEN BRANDS: Cohen Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of NexCen Brands, Inc., common stock from May 10,
2007, through May 19, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint asserts claims against defendants NexCen, David S.
Oros, Robert W. D'Loren and David B. Meister for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the statements made during the Class
Period by NexCen and its executives were materially false and
misleading - specifically including, but not limited to, the
omission of critical information regarding the existence of an
accelerated-redemption feature in the loan the Company used to
finance its acquisition of the Great American Cookie Company,
which resulted in a lack of liquidity so extreme as to cause
questions about the Company's ability to continue to operate.

This information, along with other critical information
regarding the financial state of the Company that had been
undisclosed to the public during the Class Period, was released
by the Company on May 19, 2008, and NexCen shares closed that
day after a drop of 77.08% - from $1.95 to $0.58.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 28,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. (dbunch@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: 888-240-0775
                 202-408-4600





                            *********

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  * * *