CAR_Public/080708.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 8, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 134
  
                            Headlines

ALTRIA GROUP: U.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari Bid in "Good"
ATTITUDE DRINKS: Officers Dismissed From Bravo! Securities Suits
BANK OF CYPRUS: Oncology Center Sued Over Claims of Negligence
BLACK CAT FIREWORKS: Recalls Fireworks Due to Injury Hazard
COCA-COLA: Agrees to Settle Georgia Suit Over Inflated Revenues

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Delaware Lawsuit Over BofA Merger Settled
FIREWORKS OVER AMERICA: Recalls Fireworks Due to Shock Hazard
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sept. 9 Hearing Set for $20MM Settlement
JACK DISTRIBUTION: Supplements Recalled for Undeclared Content
LOUIS VUITTON: Sued Over Murakami Limited-Edition Prints

MATTERHORN GROUP: Recalls Novelty Pops Due to Safety Hazard
ORACLE CORP: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review of "Scott" Ruling
PHILIP MORRIS: N.Y. Court Mulls Class Certification of "Caronia"
PHILIP MORRIS: Mass. Court Yet to Rule on "Donovan" Suit Motions

PHILIP MORRIS: Class Certification Denied; Reversed in 57 Cases
PHILIPPINES: Court Ruling in Peninsula Siege Lawsuit Appealed
QUIZNOS SUB: Franchisees Sue Over Deceptive Business Practices
R&G FINANCIAL: Sept. 16 Hearing Set for $51-Mln. N.Y. Suit Deal
RICELAND FOODS: Ark. Farmers Sue Over Genetically Modified Rice

STATE STREET: Faces Suit in Massachusetts Over Subprime Losses
[REDACTED July 8, 2008]
WINTERS BROTHERS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Antitrust Laws Violations


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIRST AMERICAN: Bronstein Files Securities Lawsuit in New York



                           *********


ALTRIA GROUP: U.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari Bid in "Good"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the matter, "Good et al. v. Altria Group Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00127-JAW," names Altria Group, Inc., and
its subsidiary, Philip Morris USA, Inc., as defendants.

The plaintiffs in the purported class action suit allege, among
other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and "Ultra
Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common
law fraud, or RICO violations, and seek injunctive and equitable
relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive
damages.

The suit was brought on behalf of individuals who purchased and
consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro
Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights.

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class
action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and dismissed
the case.

In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
vacated the district court's grant of PM USA's motion for
summary judgment on federal preemption grounds and remanded the
case to district court.

The district court stayed the case pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's ruling on defendants' petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on Jan. 18, 2008,
according to Altria's Form May 9, 2008 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Good et al. v. Altria Group Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00127-JAW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine, Judge John A. Woodcock, JR, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. (gmantese@aol.com)
          Mantese and Associates, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Phone: 248-457-9200

               - and -

          Samuel W. Lanham, Jr., Esq.
          (slanham@lanhamblackwell.com)
          Lanham Blackwell, P.A.
          470 Evergreen Woods
          Bangor, ME 04401
          Phone: 207-942-2898

Representing the defendants are:

          Judith Bernstein-Gaeta, Esq.
          (judith.bernstein-gaeta@aporter.com)
          Arnold & Porter, LLP
          555 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-1206
          Phone: 202-942-5497

               - and -

          Frances E. Bivens, Esq. (frances.bivens@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk & Wardwell
          450 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-450-4000


ATTITUDE DRINKS: Officers Dismissed From Bravo! Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain officers of Attitude Drinks Inc. who previously served  
as officers in Bravo! Brands, Inc., were dismissed from several
purported class action lawsuits filed against Bravo! Brands,
according to Attitude Drinks' July 2, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2008.

Roy Warren, Attitude Drinks' chairman, chief executive officer,
and president; Tommy Kee, the company's chief financial officer;
and Michael Edwards, a company director, all previously served
as executive officers of Bravo! Brands.

On Sept. 21, 2007, Bravo! Brands reported that it filed a
voluntary petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of Florida pursuant to Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the
United States Code, Case No. 07-17840-PGH.  The filing occurred
after Mr. Warren, Mr. Kee and Mr. Edwards ended their
relationship with Bravo!.  

In October 2007, five separate law firms announced the filing of
a class action suit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Bravo! between Nov. 20, 2005, and May 15, 2007.

These filings related to alleged violations of provisions of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, and allege that the Company issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of Bravo! common stock.

Certain of these complaints allege violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Mr. Warren and Mr. Kee, who
served as CEO and Chief Accounting Officer, respectively, of
Bravo!.

Subsequent to March 31, 2008, the class action suits against
Mr. Warren and Mr. Kee were dismissed.  However, the bankruptcy
trustee has named Mr. Warren and Mr. Kee as defendants in an
Adversary Complaint for Damages based upon allegations similar
to the dismissed class actions.

The proceeding does not involve Attitude and is pending with the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida as
part of the Chapter 7 proceedings of Bravo!.


BANK OF CYPRUS: Oncology Center Sued Over Claims of Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three cancer patients and three relatives of patients who died
from the disease have filed a class action lawsuit against the
Cyprus Republic and Bank of Cyprus Oncology Center over claims
of negligence, Jacqueline Theodoulou of the Cyprus Mail reports.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants made their or their
relatives' health condition worse and causing death due to
negligence.  They request damages of:

     -- EUR500,000 claiming the BoC Center was responsible for
        making their health deteriorate; and

     -- EUR22 million claiming the center, and consequently the
        state, was responsible for their relatives' deaths.

According to an announcement by Nicosia General Hospital's
Cancer Patients and Relatives Association, a formal complaint is
being prepared for the EU to report all that is going on in the
cancer treatment sector of Cyprus.

The plaintiffs maintain that they or their relatives were not
provided with the necessary therapy in time; something they say
was taking place in the full knowledge of the state.

The announcement added that while the Supreme Court had issued a
decision in June 2005 for the restoration and modernization of
the state Oncology Center in Nicosia in order to accept more
patients, nothing has been done about it.

"There is an available area in the basement of the new Nicosia
General Hospital for the creation of a Radiotherapy Department
at a cost of only EUR5 million, however they are pleading
ignorance," the Association said.


BLACK CAT FIREWORKS: Recalls Fireworks Due to Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Black Cat Fireworks, of Prairie Village, Kansas, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 20,000 Screech and Scream Fountain Fireworks.

The company said the firework can produce a loud bang and
unexpectedly scatter debris, posing an injury hazard to the user
and bystanders.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Screech and Scream Fountain is a firework item with
a yellow and red cylinder with red balls.  The model name is
printed on the front of the tube.

These recalled fireworks were manufactured in China, imported by
Shiu Fung Fireworks, of China and were being sold at various
fireworks stores nationwide from October 2006 through June 2008
for about $7.

A picture of the recalled fireworks is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08325.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product and
return it to either the place of purchase or Black Cat Fireworks
for a full refund.

For additional information, call Black Cat Fireworks collect at
913-649-0537 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.blackcatfireworks.com/


COCA-COLA: Agrees to Settle Georgia Suit Over Inflated Revenues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Co. agreed to settle a class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
against the company, which suit alleges that Coca-Cola
improperly inflated revenues to boost stock prices, Betsy McKay
of The Wall Street Journal reports.

The $137.5-million settlement ends an eight-year battle between
the Atlanta company and plaintiffs led by Carpenters Health &
Welfare Fund, an institutional investor based in Philadelphia,
the report said.

The company said it settled without admitting wrongdoing.  "We
maintain these allegations are without merit and no admittance
of wrongdoing is a part of the settlement," the company said in
a statement e-mailed by its spokesman to to the WSJ.  "At this
time, we have determined that it is in the best interest of our
business to close this matter and put this distraction behind
us."

                       Case Background

On Oct. 27, 2000, a class action suit, "Carpenters Health &
Welfare Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity v. The Coca-Cola Co., et
al.," was filed against the company, alleging that the company,
M. Douglas Ivester, Jack L. Stahl and James E. Chestnut violated
anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making
misrepresentations or material omissions relating to the
company's financial condition and prospects in late 1999 and
early 2000.

A second, largely identical lawsuit, "Gaetan LaValla v. The
Coca-Cola Co., et al.," was also filed in the same court on
Nov. 9, 2000.

The complaint, which was brought seeking an unspecified amount
of damages, alleges that the company and the individual named
officers:

      -- forced certain Coca-Cola system bottlers to accept
         "excessive, unwanted and unneeded" sales of concentrate
         during the third and fourth quarters of 1999, thus
         creating a misleading sense of improvement in the
         company's performance in those quarters (the practice
         is called "channel stuffing");

      -- failed to write down the value of impaired assets in
         Russia, Japan and elsewhere on a timely basis, again
         resulting in the presentation of misleading interim
         financial results in the third and fourth quarters of
         1999; and

      -- misrepresented the reasons for Mr. Ivester's departure
         from the company and then misleadingly reassured the
         financial community that there would be no changes in
         the company's core business strategy or financial
         outlook following that departure.

On Jan. 8, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia entered an order consolidating the two cases
for all purposes as, "Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of
Philadelphia & Vicinity v. The Coca-Cola Co., et al."  

On July 25, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which largely repeated the allegations made in the
original complaints and added Douglas N. Daft as an additional
defendant.

On Sept. 25, 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
counts of the consolidated amended complaint.  On Aug. 20, 2002,
the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss.  

The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
the complaint.  On Sept. 4, 2002, the defendants filed a motion
for partial reconsideration of the court's Aug. 20, 2002 ruling.  
The court denied the motion on April 15, 2003.

On June 2, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.  The defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on June 30, 2003.

On March 31, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  In its
order, the court dismissed a number of the plaintiffs'
allegations, including the claim that the company made knowingly
false statements to financial analysts.  The court permitted the
remainder of the allegations to proceed to discovery.

In 2007, a report made by a financial expert retained by
shareholders suing Coca-Cola Co. concludes that investors
sustained damages exceeding $1.3 billion when the company
improperly inflated revenues to boost stock prices (Class Action
Reporter, July 17, 2007).

The shareholders damage report was authored by Steven P.
Feinstein, a chartered financial analyst and associate professor
of finance at Babson College in Wellesley, Mass.  It was
submitted to a federal judge as part of shareholders' efforts to
have the case certified as a class action.

                    Mr. Feinstein's Report

Mr. McDonald said in his article that other court pleadings in
the case stated Mr. Daft was fully aware of "channel stuffing"
practices at Coke Japan where he was president of Coke's Middle
East and Far East Group.  The practice artificially boosted
stock prices by nearly $12 a share, Mr. Feinstein concluded.

Total damages to stockholders, not including prejudgment
interest, amounted to $1.33 billion, Mr. Feinstein stated in his
report.  Interest on those anticipated damages has, so far,
boosted the total by another $500 million, he said.

Mr. Feinstein's report cites a sworn testimony from Mr. Ivester
confirming that "channel stuffing" had been a company practice
under Mr. Ivester's tenure as far back as 1997.  Mr. Ivester
admitted in the testimony that he was fired in 1999.  Coke
spokespeople had insisted publicly that Mr. Ivester had elected
to retire.

The report said the investors affected are those who bought Coke
stock between Oct. 21, 1999, and March 6, 2000.  

The suit is "Carpenters Health &, et al. v. Coca-Cola Co., et
al., Case No. 1:00-cv-02838-WBH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Willis B.
Hunt, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David Andrew, Esq. (dab@classlaw.com)
         Bain of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
         1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II,
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900
         
              - and -

         Mary K. Blasy, Esq. (maryb@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-4297
         Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the company are:

         Robert L. Dell Angelo, Esq.
         Munger Tolles & Olson, 355
         South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-683-9100

              - and -

         Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. (jcashdan@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
         Phone: 404-572-4600


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Delaware Lawsuit Over BofA Merger Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Financial Corp., its directors, and Bank of America
have settled a class action lawsuit relating to Countrywide's
proposed merger with BofA, Peg Brickley of The Wall Street
Journal reports.

In April, Countrywide Financial, its directors, and BofA, faced
various class action suits relating to Countrywide's proposed
merger with BofA (Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2008).  The
suits have been filed in the state courts of California and
Delaware on behalf of a proposed class of Countrywide
shareholders.

These lawsuits allege that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by entering
into the merger agreement with BofA and that BofA allegedly
aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

Recently, a corporate-law judge granted preliminary approval to
a settlement that ends the lawsuit.

The settlement at issue is between Countrywide and individual
shareholders who sued in Delaware's corporate-law court,
challenging the price of the company's sale to BofA.

The terms of the settlement say Countrywide cured the problems
with the deal by making additional disclosures to shareholders.
The settlement also stipulates that the class-action lawsuit
should be dropped.

Vice Chancellor John Noble set an October 2008 hearing to weigh
final approval of the settlement, after hearing from
institutional shareholders who said it was designed to block
valid lawsuits against the Company.

Countrywide attorneys said shareholders voted to approve the
BofA deal, even after being told what they were giving up in
terms of the right to sue for damages.

BofA closed its $2.5 billion acquisition of the Calabasas,
Calif., mortgage lender.

A Bank of America spokeswoman said, "The parties have already
agreed to the settlement of this suit, the hearing concerned the
preliminary approval of that settlement, and the judge approved
it."

Countrywide Financial Corp. -- http://my.countrywide.com/-- is   
a holding company, which through its subsidiaries, is engaged in
mortgage lending and other real estate finance-related
businesses, including mortgage banking, banking and mortgage
warehouse lending, dealing in securities and insurance
underwriting.  The Company operates through five business
segments: Mortgage Banking, which originates, purchases, sells
and services non-commercial mortgage loans nationwide; Banking,
which takes deposits and invest in mortgage loans and home
equity lines of credit; Capital Markets, which operates an
institutional broker-dealer that primarily specializes in
trading and underwriting mortgage-backed securities (MBS);
Insurance, which offers property, casualty, life and disability
insurance as an underwriter and as an insurance agency, and
Global Operations, which licenses and supports technology to
mortgage lenders in the U.K.


FIREWORKS OVER AMERICA: Recalls Fireworks Due to Shock Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fireworks Over America, of Springfield, Mo., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
84,250 Oh Chute Parachute with Streamer Fireworks.

The company said the parachutes can become entangled in overhead
power lines causing a shock hazard to users and bystanders.

Fireworks Over America has received one report of entanglement,
in which a consumer's hand was burned and shocked.

The recalled Oh Chute Parachute with streamers is a firework
item with a light blue cylinder with white clouds.  The model
name is printed in triplicate on the front of the tube and FOA
#2085 is on the lower back of the tube.  This item is sold
separately or in a box of four.

These recalled fireworks were manufactured in China and were
being sold by various fireworks stores nationwide from April
2007 through June 2008 for about $2.50 each and $8 a box.

Pictures of the recalled fireworks are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08322a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08322b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product and
return it to either the place of purchase or Fireworks Over
America for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Fireworks Over America at
800-345-3957 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m, CT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.fireworksoveramerica.com/


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sept. 9 Hearing Set for $20MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 9, 2008, at 3:00 p.m., to
consider final approval of the proposed $20,000,000 settlement
in the matter, "In Re: International Business Machines Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-06279-AKH."

The hearing will be held before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein at
Courtroom 14D of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse,
in 500 Pearl St., New York.

The deadline for the submission of a claim form and filing of an
objection or an exclusion to and from the settlement is on
Aug. 26, 2008.

                         Case Background

In July 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York in relation to
International Business Machines Corp.'s disclosures concerning
first-quarter 2005 earnings and the expensing of equity
compensation (Class Action Reporter, March 12, 2007).

One lawsuit named as defendants IBM and IBM's senior vice
president and chief financial officer.  The other lawsuit  named
as defendants IBM, its senior vice president and CFO, as well as
its chairman and chief executive officer.  

Both complaints alleged that the defendants made certain
misrepresentations in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that members of the class
were damaged by misrepresentations and omissions in IBM's
April 5, 2005 announcement that it would begin stock option
expensing in the first quarter of 2005.  They alleged that IBM
misled investors as to the company's expected financial results
and the anticipated size of its stock option expense for the
quarter.

On Sept. 6, 2005, the counsel in one of these lawsuits filed a
motion seeking to have the lawsuits consolidated, and for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  

On March 28, 2006, the two lawsuits were officially consolidated
into a single action captioned, "In Re: International Business
Machines Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-06279-
AKH."  

For more details, contact:

          IBM Securities Litigation
          c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
          Notice Administrator
          Post Office Box 170500
          Milwaukee, WI 53217
          Phone: 866-963-9975
          Web site: http://ibmsecuritieslit.com/

The suit is "In Re: International Business Machines Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-06279-AKH," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Alvin K. Hellerstein, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0853
          Fax: 212-883-7053

               - and -

          Jeffrey Alan Klafter, Esq. (jak@klafterolsen.com)
          Klafter & Olsen LLP
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
          White Plains, NY 10602
          Phone: 914-997-5656
          Fax: 914-997-5656

Representing the defendant is:

          Elizabeth L. Grayer, Esq. (egrayer@cravath.com)
          Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-474-1000
          Fax: 212-474-3700


JACK DISTRIBUTION: Supplements Recalled for Undeclared Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Distribution, LLC, 1501 Green Road Unit C Pompano Beach,
Florida 33064 and its wholesale distributors G & N works, Inc.,
and Devine Distribution, Inc., are conducting a voluntary
nationwide recall of the following lot numbers of the company's
supplement products sold under the brand names Rize 2 The
Occasion and Rose 4 Her.  (Rize 2 lot numbers CG-84 expires
11/10, GD-98 expires 08/10, CC-06 expires 06/10, 709 expires
09/10, CG-79 expires 11/10) (Rose 4 Her lot number CG-78 expires
11/10).

Jack Distribution, LLC, is conducting this recall after being
informed by representatives of the Food and Drug Administration
that lab analysis by FDA of Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her samples from
lots manufactured and packaged in 2007 found the product
contains potentially harmful, undeclared ingredients.

FDA asserts that its chemical analysis revealed that these lots
of Rize 2 The Occasion and Rose 4 Her contain
thiomethisosildenafil, an analog of sildenafil, the active
ingredient of a FDA-approved drug used for Erectile Dysfunction.
FDA maintains that this ingredient is close in structure to
sildenafil and is expected to possess a similar pharmacological
and adverse event profile.

This undeclared chemical poses a potential threat to consumers
because it may interact with nitrates found in some prescription
drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to
dangerous levels.

Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol,
or heart disease often take nitrates.  ED is a common problem in
men with these conditions, and consumers may seek these types of
products to enhance sexual performance.

Customers who have this product in their possession should stop
using it immediately and contact their physician if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to taking this
product.

Any adverse events that may be related to the use of this
product should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by
phone at 1-800-FDA-1088 or by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178 or by mail
to MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-
9787.

The company advises that any unused portions from these lot
numbers be returned to the place of purchase for a full refund
of purchase price.  G & N Works and Devine Distribution are not
shipping any Rize 2 or Rose 4 Her that is in stock while
additional samples are being tested, they expect to begin
shipping again in 2-4 weeks.

Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her are sold in adult stores, vitamin &
nutrition shops, convenience stores, and via the internet
nationwide.  The Rize 2 product is sold as a (single blister
pack, three count bottles, twelve count bottles, and thirty
count bottles.  Rose 4 Her is only available in single blister
packs and three count bottles.

The Company is taking this voluntary action because it is
committed and is always concerned with the health of persons who
have consumed this product.  The Company is reviewing the
procedures and policies of all firms involved with the
manufacture of the product to ensure that there will be no
future issues with regard to Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her pills
composition.  The Company is working closely with the FDA in the
recall process and is committed to the quality and integrity of
its products.  It sincerely regrets any inconvenience to
consumers and its other customers.


LOUIS VUITTON: Sued Over Murakami Limited-Edition Prints
--------------------------------------------------------
Louis Vuitton North America is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that the luxury
retailer did not provide proper documentation for the works sold
at its Museum of Contemporary Art boutique, the Los Angeles
Times reports.

Named plaintiff Clint Arthur alleges that Louis Vuitton failed
to take the law into account when selling limited-edition prints
by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami at his show at the
museum's Geffen Contemporary.

He says two limited-edition prints he bought for $6,000 each
were signed by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami but not also
numbered by the artist as promised in an accompanying
certificate.  MOCA, he says, provided no documentation at all
for two $855 Murakami prints.

The Los Angeles Times recounts that since 1970, California law
has required dealers who sell limited-edition prints of artists'
work to disclose an array of information supporting the prints'
authenticity.

Mr. Arthur says that because Louis Vuitton North America failed
to provide sufficient information, 500 Murakami prints that were
on sale for an average of $8,000 lacked the ironclad
certification required, making them less valuable for resale.
The show -- Vuitton store included -- is now at the Brooklyn
Museum in New York.

The California law allows triple damages for violations,
exposing Louis Vuitton to a potential multimillion-dollar
liability.

Mr. Arthur, who sued Louis Vuitton on June 23, said he
discovered the law on the Internet after having misgivings about
the prints he had purchased last winter during the "Murakami"
exhibition at MOCA's Geffen Contemporary building.

According to the report, the law on fine art prints apparently
has been enforced rarely, if ever, since it went on the books in
1970, but on paper it carries considerable clout: It
specifically authorizes the state attorney general, district
attorneys and city attorneys to bring civil charges carrying
fines of up to $1,000 for each violation.

A museum spokeswoman told the Los Angeles Times that officials
would reserve comment while reviewing the suit.

Meanwhile, Louis Vuitton said in a statement that Arthur's suit
is "baseless litigation," and that he refused the company's
offer of a refund plus interest.

Louis Vuitton, a luxury-goods purveyor whose parent company
reported a $5.4 billion profit last year, stuck its toe into the
art business by partnering with Murakami to produce limited
edition prints of designs he had made for Vuitton handbags.  The
prints were sold at a special boutique set up within the
"Murakami" exhibition to highlight how art and commerce
intersect in Murakami's work.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Daniel E. Engel, Esq.
          Daniel E. Engel, Attorney at Law
          18150 Archwood Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91335-5502
          Phone: 818-345-2634
          Fax: 866-535-1248


MATTERHORN GROUP: Recalls Novelty Pops Due to Safety Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matterhorn Group Inc is recalling certain date coded product of
their Rainbow Glacier "Astro Pops" water ice frozen novelty
pops, Cherry Pineapple Swirl 3.5 oz size 12 count bag pack, with
tag closure "Best by JUN 03-09", "Best by JUN 04-09" and "Best
by JUN 05-09" sold through the Wal-Mart stores located in
California and Arizona, Sunnyside Farms "Missile Pops" Cherry
Pineapple in 3.5 oz. size 12 count bag packages, with tag
closure of "Best By JUN 02-09", "Best by JUN 03-09", and "Best
by JUN 04-09" sold through the California stores of grocery
retailers Save Mart and Raley’s, and Vitafreze Frozen Astronot
Pops 3.5 oz size 12 count bag packages, with tag closure of
"Best By JUN 02-09" sold in California.

The products are being recalled because they may contain pieces
of hard plastic.  Only the noted product date codes listed are
affected.

The small pieces of non-toxic hard plastic were from a part of
the processing equipment which broke during the manufacturing
process.  The majority of the possibly affected product was
retrieved from the distribution system before any release to
retail stores.  However, there were a small number of cases
which were shipped to above mentioned locations.

There have been no reports of injury.  People who bite into or
swallow a fragment could possibly be injured, prompting this
precautionary recall.  Young children are particularly at risk
of a choking hazard.  Although the company believes the problem
is very isolated, we are taking this measure to ensure the
safety of our consumers.

Consumers in AZ and CA who have purchased the above indicated
products should return them to their retailer where purchased
for a full refund.  For questions and inquiries, consumers may
contact us at 1-888-264-0898.


ORACLE CORP: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date was set for a purported securities fraud class
action lawsuit filed against Oracle Corp. in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Initially, stockholder class action suits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the company and its chief executive officer on and after
March 9, 2001.

Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and
a revised second amended complaint.  The last dismissal was with
prejudice.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

The revised second amended complaint named the company's chief
executive officer, its then chief financial officer (who
currently is chairman of the company's board of directors) and a
former executive vice president as defendants.

This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000, through
March 1, 2001.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's actual and expected
financial performance and the performance of certain of the
company's applications products, while certain individual
defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal
securities laws.

The plaintiffs further alleged that certain individual
defendants sold Oracle stock while in possession of material
non-public information.  In addition, they also allege that the
defendants engaged in accounting violations.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On July 26, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment against all defendants and a motion for summary
judgment against the company's CEO.

In August 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of these
motions.  The parties' summary judgment motions are fully
briefed.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default
judgment against the defendants or various other sanctions
because of the defendants' alleged destruction of evidence.  
This motion is fully briefed.  

A hearing on all these motions was held on Dec. 20, 2007.  The
court has not yet ruled on any of these motions.

On April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who
has scheduled a status conference for July 18, 2008.  

On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the
plaintiffs' sanctions motion.  

Currently, no date has been set for trial, according to the
company's July 2, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-CV-0988," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. (jennie@libertylawoffice.com)
         Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
         1438 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Phone: 415-896-1000
         Fax: 415-896-2249

Representing the defendants is:

         Dorian Daley, Esq.
         500 Oracle Parkway
         Redwood City, CA 94065
         Phone: 650-506-5200
         Fax: 650-506-7114


PHILIP MORRIS: Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review of "Scott" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA, Inc., a subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc.,
along with several others, filed a petition for writ of
certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a
decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court in the matter, "Gloria
Scott, et al. v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al., Case No.
96-8461."

The case is a statewide class action suit certified in Louisiana
state court.  The plaintiffs asked that the defendants pay
billions of dollars to fund a 25-year medical monitoring program
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2007).

In July 2003, following the first phase of the trial in the
Scott class action, in which the plaintiffs sought the creation
of a fund to pay for medical monitoring and smoking cessation
programs, a Louisiana jury returned a verdict in favor of the
defendants, including PM USA, in connection with the plaintiffs'
medical monitoring claims, but also found that the plaintiffs
could benefit from smoking cessation assistance.

The jury also found that cigarettes, as designed, are not
defective but that the defendants failed to disclose all they
knew about smoking and diseases and marketed their products to
minors.

In May 2004, in the second phase of the trial, the jury awarded
the plaintiffs approximately $590 million and directed all
defendants jointly and severally, to fund a 10-year smoking
cessation program.

In June 2004, the court entered judgment, which awarded the
plaintiffs the approximately $590 million jury award plus
prejudgment interest accruing from the date the suit commenced.

As of Feb. 15, 2007, the amount of prejudgment interest was
approximately $444 million.  PM USA's share of the jury award
and prejudgment interest has not been allocated.  The
defendants, including PM USA, appealed.

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the trial court
entered an order setting the amount of the bond at $50 million
for all defendants in accordance with an article of the
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and a Louisiana statute (Bond
Cap Law), fixing the amount of security in civil cases.

Under the terms of the stipulation, the plaintiffs reserved the
right to contest, at a later date, the sufficiency or amount of
the bond on any grounds including the applicability or
constitutionality of the bond cap law.

In September 2004, the defendants collectively posted a bond in
the amount of $50 million.

In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal issued a ruling
on the defendants' appeal that, among other things:

   -- affirmed class certification but limited the scope of the
      class;

   -- struck certain of the categories of damages that comprised
      the judgment, reducing the amount of the award by
      approximately $312 million;

   -- vacated the award of prejudgment interest, which totaled
      approximately $444 million as of Feb. 15, 2007; and

   -- ruled that the only class members who are eligible to
      participate in the smoking cessation program are those who
      began smoking before, and whose claims accrued by
      Sept. 1, 1988.

As a result, the Louisiana Court of Appeal remanded for
proceedings consistent with its opinion, including further
reduction of the amount of the award based on the size of the
new class.

In March 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal rejected the
defendants' motion for rehearing and clarification.  

In January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs' and defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari.

Following the Louisiana Supreme Court's denial of the
defendants' petition for writ of certiorari, PM USA recorded a
provision of $26 million in connection with the case.  

In March 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to execute the
approximately $279 million judgment plus post-judgment interest
or, in the alternative, for an order to the parties to submit
revised damages figures.

The defendants filed a motion to have judgment entered in their
favor based on accrual of all class member claims after Sept. 1,
1988 or, in the alternative, for the entry of a case management
order.  

In April 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the
defendants' motion to stay proceedings and the defendants filed
a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court,
according to Altria's Form May 2008 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding  
company of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and John Middleton,
Inc., which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital
Corp. (PMCC), another wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a
portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases.  The Company's
segments are U.S. tobacco; European Union; Eastern Europe,
Middle East and Africa; Asia; Latin America, and Financial
Services.


PHILIP MORRIS: N.Y. Court Mulls Class Certification of "Caronia"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
yet to rule on a motion that sought for the certification of a
class in the matter, "Caronia et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00224-JBW-SMG," which names Philip Morris USA,
Inc., a subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., as a defendant.

The purported class action lawsuit was filed by a group of heavy
Marlboro smokers demanding tests for early detection of lung
cancer.  It was brought on behalf of current and former Marlboro
smokers over 50 years old who smoked a pack or more a day for 20
years.  

The plaintiffs want an annual low-dose CT scan of the chest,
which is used to minimize cancer-causing side effects of an
actual CT scan.  Studies indicate that a low-dose CT scan can
help in the early detection of cancer, although this finding
remains to be firmly established (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 23, 2006).

Annual scans cost about $500 each, according to Jerome Block,
Esq., a New York attorney representing the plaintiffs.  The
class size, meanwhile, is about "tens of thousands."  The
plaintiffs, from New York, are not seeking compensatory or
punitive damages, Reuters reports.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending,
according to Altria's Form May 2008 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Caronia et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Case No.
1:06-cv-00224-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Judge Jack B. Weinstein,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Steven J. Phillips, Esq. (sphillips@lpklaw.com)
          Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP
          800 Third Ave., 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-605-6200


PHILIP MORRIS: Mass. Court Yet to Rule on "Donovan" Suit Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on motions for summary judgment and judgment on the
pleadings in the matter, "Donovan et al. v. Philip Morris USA,
Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-12234-NG," which names Philip Morris USA,
Inc., a subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., as a defendant.

The purported class action suit was filed by Marlboro smokers
who want the cigarette maker to pay for their screenings that
may detect the early stages of lung cancer (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 26, 2006).

The suit, filed on Dec. 14, 2006, identified these smokers as
plaintiffs, all represented by attorneys at Thornton & Naumes
and Todd & Weld:
  
      -- James Teague,
      -- Kathleen Donovan, and  
      -- Patricia Cawley.

The class action suit was filed on behalf of current and former
Marlboro smokers over 50 years old who smoked a pack or more a
day for 20 years, and have not been diagnosed with lung cancer.   

Attorneys for Thornton & Naumes estimated that as many as 80,000
at-risk Massachusetts residents may become part of the
litigation.

The suit demands that the tobacco company pay for their annual
computerized X-ray chest scan.  The low-dose and non-invasive
scans cost about $500, but are rarely covered by health
insurance.  The plaintiffs do not demand any monetary damages.

The plaintiffs said they targeted Philip Morris since the
cigarette maker accounts for half of all tobacco product sales.

According to Neil Leifer, Esq., at Thornton & Naumes, Philip
Morris could have manufactured a safer cigarette with fewer
carcinogens.   

Mr. Leifer explains that their clients have smoked those
cigarettes that have carcinogens in them for years and now they
are at great risk for lung cancer because of the Philip Morris
product.  He adds that because of that fact, it seems reasonable
to the plaintiffs that Philip Morris provide this sort of early
detection measure that might save their lives.

The defendants' motions for summary judgment and judgment on the
pleadings are still waiting for court rulings, according to
Altria's Form May 2008 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Donovan, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Case
No. 1:06-cv-12234-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Judge Judge Nancy Gertner, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Neil T. Leifer, Esq. (nleifer@tenlaw.com)
          Michael A. Lesser, Esq. (mlesser@tenlaw.com)
          David C. Strouss, Esq. (dstrouss@tenlaw.com)
          Thornton & Naumes, LLP
          30th Floor, 100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-720-1333
          Fax: 617-720-2445

               - and -

          Kevin T. Peters, Esq. (kpeters@toddweld.com)
          Christopher Weld, Jr., Esq. (cweld@toddweld.com)
          Todd & Weld
          31 Floor, 28 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-720-2626
          Fax: 617-227-5777


PHILIP MORRIS: Class Certification Denied; Reversed in 57 Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification has either been denied or reversed by courts
in 57 smoking and health class action lawsuits involving Philip
Morris USA, Inc., a subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., according
to Altria's Form May 2008 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action suit brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers,
plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class
action suits in various state and federal courts.

In general, these cases purport to be brought on behalf of
residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases
purport to be nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims
and, in many cases, claims of physical injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 57
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in:

       -- Arkansas (1),
       -- the District of Columbia (2),
       -- Florida (2),
       -- Illinois (2),
       -- Iowa (1),
       -- Kansas (1),
       -- Louisiana (1),
       -- Maryland (1),
       -- Michigan (1),
       -- Minnesota (1),
       -- Nevada (29),
       -- New Jersey (6),
       -- New York (2),
       -- Ohio (1),
       -- Oklahoma (1),
       -- Pennsylvania (1),
       -- Puerto Rico (1),
       -- South Carolina (1),
       -- Texas (1), and
       -- Wisconsin (1).

The plaintiffs' allegations of liability in smoking and health
cases are based on various theories of recovery, including
negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud,
misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, nuisance,
breach of express and implied warranties, breach of special
duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violations of deceptive
trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes, and claims
under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes.

The plaintiffs in the smoking and health actions seek various
forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,
treble or multiple damages and other statutory damages and
penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation
funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable
relief.

Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate cause,
assumption of the risk, comparative fault and contributory
negligence, statutes of limitations and preemption by the
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding  
company of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and John Middleton,
Inc., which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital
Corp. (PMCC), another wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a
portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases.   The
Company's segments are U.S. tobacco; European Union; Eastern
Europe, Middle East and Africa; Asia; Latin America, and
Financial Services.


PHILIPPINES: Court Ruling in Peninsula Siege Lawsuit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philippine media practitioners who filed a class action suit for
their arrest while covering last year's stand-off at the Manila
Peninsula Hotel are set to go to higher courts or even to the
United Nations Organization to seek the reversal of a lower
court ruling that junked their lawsuit, the McClatchy-Tribune
Information Services reports.

The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 31, 2008, that
Philippine media practitioners filed a class action suit before
the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 56 against:

     -- Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno,

     -- Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez,

     -- Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr.,

     -- Philippine National Police Director Avelino Razon,

     -- National Capital Region Police Office Chief
        Geary Barias,

     -- Southern Police District Director Luizo Ticman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his decision, Makati RTC Branch 56 Judge Reynaldo Laigo
junked the complaint citing lack of evidence (Class Action
Reporter, July 1, 2008).  Judge Laigo said the order of the
authorities for all those inside the hotel, including the
plaintiffs-journalists, to vacate the hotel's premises were
"lawful" considering the "dangerous situation" at the time.

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

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

"We are willing to go to the higher courts or even to the United
Nations to seek the reversal of a lower court ruling on our
case," a united statement of print and broadcast journalists
said, which they issued during a round-table discussion at the
Fort in Taguig City.

The McClatchy-Tribune Information Services recounts that at this
roundtable discussion, journalists tackled the recent court
decision junking their PHP-10 million class suit against high-
ranking government officials and military and police officers.

"Definitely we will appeal to the higher courts the unjust
ruling of the Makati court.  We will go to the Court of Appeals
or we can file a motion for certiorari at the Supreme Court,"
lawyer Harry Roque said.

Mr. Roque said what made the lower court ruling more damaging to
press freedom is it gave the police the authority to bar
journalists from covering similar events by invoking the concept
of "dangerous situation or crime scene."  Yet, he cautioned the
authorities against using the ruling to prevent the media from
covering similar events, adding that the decision is not "final
and executory."

"The ruling has no jurisprudence since that is only reserved to
decisions of the Supreme Court," he said.


QUIZNOS SUB: Franchisees Sue Over Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of shuttered local Quiznos Sub stores sue the company
before the U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh (Penna.), accusing
the company of engaging in deceptive business practices to lure
people into buying franchises -- practices that invariably cause
the store to fail, Bill Vidonic of the Beaver County Times
reports.

Rene and Gwen Vela of Enon Valley -- the owners of the former
Chippewa Township Quiznos store -- and Andrew Schry of Ellport,
who owned the sub sandwich shop along Wagner Road in Center
Township, claim that the company:

     -- "engages in a policy of fraudulently and
        deceptively inducing franchisees to purchase Quiznos
        franchises" as it intentionally misrepresents terms of
        the franchise contract, changes policies with no
        warning, and also misrepresents financial predictions
        and the likelihood a franchise will succeed;

     -- oversaturates a geographical area with more franchises
        than the market can support and doesn't conduct research
        into whether an area can support even a single
        franchise;

     -- forces stores to buy food and supplies at a high price
        from company-mandated suppliers and won't allow stores
        to get cheaper products from other suppliers;

     -- forces stores to accept coupons for free or discounted
        food but doesn't reimburse the stores, cutting into the
        stores' profits; and

     -- once a store fails and closes, threatens to make
        year agreement.
        franchises liable for royalty payments laid out in a 15-

According to the complaint, the Velas were promised by Quiznos
representatives in 2005 that they could expect annual profits of
"over $100,000" from the store, and could pay off their mortgage
in three years.

In the lawsuit, an attorney wrote that in the spring of 2007,
the Velas were concerned about the lower-than-expected business
at their store, but were told by a local Quiznos representative
to "sit tight," that sales would improve in the summer, and that
the company would do what it could to help.

The lawsuit says that Quiznos engaged in racketeering and seeks
relief.

Attorneys for the local franchisees also seek to have the
lawsuit declared a class-action suit, meaning they can join
groups of others who have already sued Quiznos.

Denver-based Quiznos has more than 4,900 locations in 15
countries and 425 in Canada, where it boasts it is growing
fastest among quick-service restaurant chains.


R&G FINANCIAL: Sept. 16 Hearing Set for $51-Mln. N.Y. Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 16, 2008, at 3:00 p.m., to
consider final approval of the combined $51,000,000 settlement
by R&G Financial Corp. ($39,000,000) and PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP ($12,000,000) of the matter, "In re R&G Financial
Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-04186-JES."

The hearing will be held before Judge John E. Sprizzo, at the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in
500 Pearl St., New York.

Any objection or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
submitted by Sept. 2, 2008.  Deadline for the submission of a
claim form is on Sept. 26, 2008.

                         Case Background

On May 26, 2005, investors sued R&G Financial, claiming that the
financial holding company issued false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public (Class Action Reporter,
March 4, 2008).

The class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York seeking damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
purchased R&G common stock from April 21, 2003, through and
including April 25, 2005.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.

According to the complaint, R&G's financial statements were
materially false and misleading when made because the defendants
failed to disclose:  

     -- that the company's earnings quality had been  
        significantly weakened by the company's use of more  
        aggressive assumptions to generate gain on sale income,  
        as well as to the value it retained in its interest only  
        residuals in securitization transactions;  

     -- that R&G's methodology used to calculate the fair value  
        of its IO residual interests was incorrect and caused  
        the company to overstate its financial results by at  
        least $50 million;  

     -- that the company's financial statements were not  
        prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted  
        Accounting Principles;  

     -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and  
        was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial  
        condition of the company; and  

     -- that as a result, the value of the company's net income  
        and financial results were materially overstated at all  
        relevant times.

On April 25, 2005, after the close of trading, R&G shocked the
investing public when it announced that it would restate its
earnings for 2003 and 2004.

On this news, R&G stock fell $8.14 per share, or 35 percent, to
close at $15.04 on April 26, 2005, a two-year low.

On June 27, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed in court.  Judge John
Sprizzo heard oral arguments on July 25-26, 2005, signed an
order consolidating all related cases into one class action, as
"In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," and appointing lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2006).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Alan Barrack, Esq. (jbarrack@barrack.com)
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          Fax: 215-963-0838

               - and -

          Eric Todd Kanefsky, Esq. (erick@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1467
          Fax: 212-554-1444

Representing the defendants are:

          Maite Aquino, Esq. (aquinom@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-558-4000

               - and -

          Diana L. Weiss, Esq. (dweiss@orrick.com)
          Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
          Columbia Center
          1152 15th Street, N.W.,
          Washington, DC 20005-1706
          Phone: 202-339-8984
          Fax: 202-339-8500


RICELAND FOODS: Ark. Farmers Sue Over Genetically Modified Rice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas rice farmers filed a class-action lawsuit against
Riceland Foods Inc. in Lonoke County Circuit Court, seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for the tainted rice that
entered the 2006 rice crop, press reports say.

Arkansas News Bureau's Jason Wiest writes that Riceland Foods in
Stuttgart subjected the state's rice farmers to an
"ultrahazardous risk" when it experimented with genetically
modified rice that contaminated the commercial supply.

John Henry of the Arkansas Business Online says that the
contaminated, genetically engineered rice that got into the crop
could not be exported to numerous countries and the price fell.

"While Riceland Foods is a very important corporation in
Arkansas, they breached the trust of their farmer members - and
that of all rice farmers -- by failing to act in a timely and
proper manner regarding the tainted rice," said Paul Byrd, Esq.,
managing counsel of the Arkansas office of the Hare Wynn Newell
& Newton Law Firm.

According to Mr. Byrd, their case is based on their belief:

    -- that Riceland is responsible for the LL62 contamination
       of non-genetically engineered long-grain rice in Arkansas
       in 2006;

    -- that Riceland, in collaboration with Aventis (previously
       known as Bayer), tested LL62 rice in such a way as to
       permit cross-pollination with non-GE long-grain rice;

    -- that Riceland, in its collaboration with Aventis, and in
       its 2000-2001 testing, planting, growing, harvesting,
       storing, transporting and disposal of LL62 rice,
       permitted the commingling of LL62 rice with non-GE rice
       such as to contaminate the 2006 Arkansas long-grain rice
       crop; and

    -- that Riceland was negligent or otherwise legally
       responsible in its handling of LL62 rice such that the
       U.S. long-grain rice crop was contaminated by LL62 and GE
       rice in 2006.

"Riceland Foods knew that that (European) market would not
accept it, and they knew that there was a risk of contamination,
but they still engaged in the collaboration," Mr. Byrd said,
"obviously hoping that there would be customer acceptance by the
time it ultimately was found that it was going to be
contaminated."

The Arkansas News Bureau recounts that Riceland was alerted to
the contamination in January 2006 when the genetically modified
rice from Arkansas was detected in Europe.  The company did not
disclose the contamination publicly until August, when rice
planted in April and May that year was being harvested.

If the contamination had been made public earlier, farmers could
have planted alternate varieties or different crops, or there
could have been an industry-wide approach to segregating the
rice, Mr. Byrd said.

According to Mr. Byrd, rice sales are about $2 billion each
year, and about 50% of the rice grown is exported. Arkansas is
the leading rice-producing state in the nation and grows about
60% of the long-grain variety.

Mr. Byrd said that in 2005 the European Union, bought about $800
million worth of U.S. long-grain rice.  With the contamination,
the plaintiffs were unable to sell all their long-grain crop for
the higher price it would have brought if it had not been
tainted.

The Arkansas News Bureau says that Riceland Vice President Bill
Reed declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the company had
not yet been served papers.

Riceland Foods, located in Stuttgart, Arkansas, U.S.A., is an
agricultural marketing cooperative and the world's largest
miller and marketer of rice.


STATE STREET: Faces Suit in Massachusetts Over Subprime Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 2008, a shareholder has filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against State Street Corporation and State Street
Global Advisors over subprime losses, PR-inside.com reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of all shareholders who bought
shares of the SSgA Yield Plus Fund.

The suit accuses defendants of making false statements and
material omissions in communications pertaining to the sale of
shares in one of their funds.  The complaint also alleges that
defendants solicited investors to purchase shares of the SSgA
Yield Plus Fund by making statements in the Registration
Statement and subsequent supplemental prospectuses.

Shareholders accuse state Street 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", while these statements were
materially false and misleading because State Street Corp. did
not adequately disclose the risks associated with investing in
the Fund and because the Fund was so heavily invested in high-
risk mortgage-related or mortgage-backed securities.

The State Street Corporation manages $2 trillion for pension
funds and other institutions. State Street Global Advisors is
the investment advisor to the entire group of mutual funds under
the State Street name.

The suit is "Yu v. State Street Corporation et al., Case Number:  
1:2008cv11108," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph L. Taur, presiding.


[REDACTED July 8, 2008]


WINTERS BROTHERS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Antitrust Laws Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Winters Brothers Waste Systems Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Central Islip (New
York), accusing the Westbury-based garbage company and its
affiliates of violating antitrust laws, which forbid a business
from monopolizing the market or restraining free trade, the
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services reports.

In the lawsuit, three Suffolk business owners said Winters
Brothers engaged in a "relentless campaign to restrain and
coerce" customers from switching to competitors who offer lower
prices.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are:

     -- All Star Carts and Vehicles Inc., a manufacturer of food
        and beverage carts based in Bay Shore;

     -- Kussmaul Electronics Co. Inc. of West Sayville; and

     -- H.B. Millwork Inc. of Yaphank.

According to the complaint filed on May 5, "Defendants conduct
has caused and will continue to cause injury to the competition
in [Long Island and New York] in the form of higher prices,
reduced competition, innovation and consumer choice."

The business owners alleged certain provisions Winters Brothers
included in contracts are illegal:

     -- A provision giving Winters Brothers exclusive rights to
        collect and dispose of all customers' solid waste and
        recylables.

     -- A lengthy initial term of, in many instances, between
        seven and 10 years.

     -- A provision that automatically renews the contract,
        typically for an additional seven to 10 years, unless
        the customer sends Winters Brothers a written notice of
        cancellation by certified mail 90 days before the end of
        contract.

     -- A provision requiring a customer who terminates a
        contract to pay Winters Brothers a sum equal to the
        remainder of the contract plus another 50 percent.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

Winters Bros. Waste Systems provides the same scope and
diversity of professional waste removal services that the large
national conglomerates offer, but with the individualized
attention and reliability none of their competitors can match.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIRST AMERICAN: Bronstein Files Securities Lawsuit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against First American Corporation and
various individuals on behalf of purchasers of First American
securities who purchased between April 26, 2006 and November 6,
2007.

The complaint alleges First American and certain of its 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.

As a result of the foregoing, and in ignorance of the falsity of
First American's statements concerning the operating results
along with the performance of the Company, the market price of
First American was artificially inflated during the Class
Period.  As the market became aware of First American's wrongful
acts, First American stock price declined from a Class Period
high of $55.11 per share on June 1, 2007 to a low of $30.07 per
share on November 7, 2007, a decline of 45%, wiping out over $2
billion in market capitalization.

For more information, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-697-6484




                            *********

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  * * *