CAR_Public/080709.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 9, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 135
  
                            Headlines

BEAD BAZAAR: Recalls Kids' Jewelry Due to Risk of Lead Exposure
CITICORP INSURANCE: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Flight Insurance
HAYES BICYCLE: Recalls Quick-Release Devices Due to Fall Hazard
MANHATTAN TELECOMS: Faces N.Y. Suit for Billing Canceled Service
MANILA ELECTRIC: Assails Court's Ruling in PHP13-Billion Lawsuit

MATRIXX: Court Yet to Rule on Appeal of Arizona Suit Dismissal
MICHIGAN: Settles Child Welfare Suit Days Before Scheduled Trial
PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiffs Appeal Against MSA Lawsuit Dismissal
PHILIP MORRIS: Parties Seek Hold on Appeal in Ore. "Lights" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Second Circuit Decertifies Class in "Schwab" Case

PHILIP MORRIS: Mass. Court Stays Proceedings in "Aspinall" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Minn. Court Stays Proceedings in "Curtis" Lawsuit
PHILIP MORRIS: Missouri Court Stays Proceedings in "Craft" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Arkansas Court Stays Proceedings in "Watson" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Arkansas Court Stays Proceedings in "Miner" Case

PHILIP MORRIS: Ruling in N.M. Cigarette Antitrust Suit Appealed
PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Cigarette Antitrust Lawsuit in Kansas
PHILIP MORRIS: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari Bid in "Daniels"
PHILIP MORRIS: California Supreme Court Reviews "Brown" Ruling
PHILIP MORRIS: California Court Stays Proceedings in "Gurevitch"

RAP4: Recalls Paintball Gun Adapters for Impact, Laceration Risk
RICELAND FOODS: Arkansas Farmers Sue for 2006 Tainted Rice
T-MOBILE USA: Accused of Cheating on Rebates in Illinois Lawsuit
TARGET CORP: Faces California RICO Complaint Over Bottle Returns
TELECOM COMPANIES: Face Suit for Working with "Aggregators"

TRANS UNION: Approval Hearing for Privacy Case Deal is Sept. 10
TRANSNATION TITLE: Michigan Judge Won't Dismiss Refinancing Suit
TRAVEL COMPANIES: Jacksonville City Sues Online Travel Agents
TYSON FOODS: Sued by Consumers Over Deceptive Chicken Labeling
VALUECLICK: January 2009 Hearing Set for $1.5MM Settlement

WACHOVIA BANK: Ga. Court Allows Overdraft Fees Suit to Proceed
WELLPOINT INC: Settles Wrongful Rescission Suit for $11.8 Mln.

* Jon Meer Joins Seyfarth Shaw's Labor and Employment Department


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


BEAD BAZAAR: Recalls Kids' Jewelry Due to Risk of Lead Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bead Bazaar USA Inc., of Rockville, Md., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
13,000 "It's a Girl Thing" bracelets, necklaces, and phone
charms.

The company said the children's jewelry could contain high
levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves "It's a Girl Thing" metal necklaces,
bracelets, and phone charms.  The jewelry features a variety of
charms including flowers, shoes, letters and butterflies.  "It's
a Girl Thing" is printed on the packaging along with the UPC
numbers 633870018419 (bracelet), 633870018426 (necklace), and
633870018433 (phone charm).

These recalled children's jewelry were manufactured in China and
were being sold at retailers nationwide from February 2006
through June 2008 for about $6.

Pictures of the recalled children's jewelry are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08324a.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08324b.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08324c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled jewelry
away from children and return it to the place of purchase for a
full refund.

For additional information, contact Bead Bazaar USA at
800-838-1769 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.beadkit.com/


CITICORP INSURANCE: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Flight Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, City of Queens over allegations that some
companies repeatedly bills $13 for flight insurance each time a
customer changes flight details, including upgrades, new
itineraries, new flight dates, and "any transaction that
referred to 'travel,'" though the $13 is supposed to be charged
only for new flights, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The named defendants in the complaint are:

     -- Citicorp Insurance Services
     -- Citicorp VISA, Inc.
     -- Citicorp Mastercard Inc.
     -- Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.
     -- Citibank, N.A.

Named plaintiff Mark Frankel brings the class action suit for
breach of contract, fraud and violation of the Consumer
Protection Act, on behalf of all present and former credit
cardholdes who enrolled and received "flight insurance" each
time they charged an airline ticket using Citibank VISA or
Mastercard account and who were damaged as a result of defendant
unlawfully charging flight insurance premiums more than once for
the same airline ticket purchased or were unlawfully charged
when they purchased or used travel related services.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the company breached its agreement with its
         customers by charging plaintiff and the class for
         insurance on transactions which were not for purchase
         of airline flight tickets;

     (b) whether the defendants breached their fiduciary duty of
         good faith and fair dealing by charging plaintiffs and
         the class for insurance on transactions which were not
         for purchase of airline flight tickets;

     (c) whether defendant engaged in fraudulent or unfair and
         deceitful practices by charging plaintiff and the class
         for insurance for transactions which were not for
         purchase of airline flight tickets;

     (d) whether the members of the class have sustained damages
         as a result of defendant's wrongful conduct;

     (e) the appropriate measure of damages and other relief;

     (f) whether defendants have been unjustly enriched by their
         scheme of charging flight insurance on transactions
         which were not for airline ticket flights; and

     (g) whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
         their unlawful practices.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying this action as a class action
        pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of the CPLR,
        with plaintiff certified as representative of the class;

     -- compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and the
        class;

     -- punitive damages on plaintiff's fraud claim, in an
        amount not less than three times the total damages as
        determined at trial;

     -- other damages as prescribed by law, including
        triable damages not in excess of the statutory minimum
        under General Business Law Section 349;

     -- costs and disbursements incurred in connection with
        this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
        expenses;

     -- pre- and post-judgment interest; and

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

The suit is "Mark Frankel, et al. v. Citicorp Insurance
Services, Inc. et al.," filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, City of Queens.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Harry I. Katz, Esq.
          Victoria L. Weinman, Esq.
          Harry I. Katz, PC
          61-25 Utopia Parkway
          Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
          Phone: 718-463-3700


HAYES BICYCLE: Recalls Quick-Release Devices Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hayes Bicycle Group, of Mequon, Wis., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 800
SunRingl Hollow Quick Release Devices for Bicycles.

The company said the quick release devices can unexpectedly fail
or break when locked in position on the bicycle, causing the
rider to lose control, which poses a serious fall hazard.

Hayes Bicycle Group has received four reports of the quick
release device breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the SunRingl Hollow Quick Release Devices
for bicycles and includes models Hollow CroMo Front 100mm,
Hollow CroMo Rear 130mm, and Hollow CroMo Rear 135mm. These
devices have hollow skewers.  They were sold individually or
with SunRingl front and rear wheels with model names Black Flag,
Disc o Flea, Charger, STR8 Track, Accelerator R3.00C and
Accelerator T3.0C. "Ringl" is stamped on the lever.  Quick
release devices with a solid skewer are not included in this
recall.

These recalled quick release devices were manufactured in Taiwan
and were being sold at bicycle specialty stores and dealers
nationwide from June 2007 through May 2008 for about $17.

Pictures of the recalled quick release devices are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08321a.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08321b.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop riding bicycles with the recalled
quick release devices immediately, remove the quick release
device and bring it to their local bike dealer or retailer for a
free inspection and replacement.

For more information, contact Hayes Bicycle Group at
888-686-3472 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.hayesbicycle.com/


MANHATTAN TELECOMS: Faces N.Y. Suit for Billing Canceled Service
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manhattan Telecommunications Inc. -- doing business as MatTel --
is facing a class-action complaint before the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, Queens County over allegations that it
cheats customers by overcharging and billing after they cancel
services, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action against a telephone company that operates
by heaping bogus and unjustified charges upon its customers, and
then collecting these improper charges through threats and
intimidation.

The plaintiff brings this action as a class action suit pursuant
to CPLR Section 901 on behalf of all persons who had telephone
service with MatTel from whom MatTel extracted improper fees or
charges of any kind, and all persons who still have such service
and are being improperly charged or are at risk of being
improperly charged.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

    (a) whether defendant's acts injured all class members in a
        similar manner;

    (b) whether defendant should be enjoined from engaging in
        future misconduct; and

    (c) whether defendant's conduct justifies an award of
        punitive damages.

The plaintiff requests for judgment:

     -- declaring that the defendant's false, misleading, and
        deceptive practices caused injury and damages to
        plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- declaring that the defendant's practices violated New
        York Gen. Bus. Law Section 349 and the similar statutes
        of other states;

     -- declaring defendant to be in breach of contract and that
        it was unjustly enriched, and ordering it to pay damages
        to plaintiffs;

     -- preliminary and permanently enjoining defendants from
        continuing to engage in the unlawful conduct described;

     -- awarding plaintiffs damages in an amount to be
        determined at trial;

     -- granting plaintiffs the costs of suit, interest and
        reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as the court may
        deem just and proper.

The suit is "Laurence Paskowitz d/b/a Manhattan
Telecommunications Inc., Case No. 15506-08," filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County.


MANILA ELECTRIC: Assails Court's Ruling in PHP13-Billion Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) has assailed the jurisdiction
of the Makati Regional Trial Court in hearing the class action
suit over the refund of PHP13 billion in alleged illegal fees
collected by the Lopez-owned utility company, Manila Standard
Today reports.

According to Manila Standard, Meralco lawyers said the lower
court had no power to review the decisions made by the Energy
Regulatory Commission on the charges imposed by the company.

"Under the Epira [Electric Power Industry Reform Act] law,
courts cannot decide on a case that requires the knowledge of
government such as this case.  [S]eeking to restrain Meralco
from collecting fees only means that they are restraining what
the law mandates," counsel Anthony Rosete said in last week's
hearing held by Branch 134 Judge Perpetua Pano.

"The ERC is the only agency that has jurisdiction over the case
and all cases under ERC's jurisdiction cannot be touched by any
court," Mr. Rosete added.

Co-counsel Jose Valles said everything was in order.  "Meralco
collect[s] charges allowed by the ERC.  These charges are
covered by the ERC guidelines, which was made under [] public
consent," he said.

But lawyers of consumer advocate Refund Energy Fees Unjustly
Debited (Refund), which filed the class suit against Meralco,
were unconvinced.  

Refund lawyer Leonard de Vera said the Epira law was still
governed by the country's charter.  "We still submit that where
there is a grave abuse of the law, the courts may intervene as
provided in the Constitution," he said.

Judge Pano asked the parties to give her time to study the
jurisdiction issue.  "I have to be very careful because this
could be a landmark case.  It is [the first time for] Makati RTC
to handle such case," she said, giving the defense panel five
days to submit a written motion seeking the dismissal of
Refund's suit.

Manila Standard recounts that Refund has asked the court to
issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
to stop Meralco from further collecting pass-on charges to the
detriment of subscribers.

"These are illegal and unjustified charges.  We are being made
to pay for something that we have not been using.  We filed this
case because we see no hope.  We don't think Meralco will do
anything about these," Mr. De Vera said in filing the 36-page
complaint the other week.

Included as defendants in the suit are the National Power Corp.
and the Energy Regulatory Commission, which the plaintiffs said
were conniving with Meralco.

"More revolting and unconscionable is defendant Meralco's added
admission that for the year 2007 alone, it passed on and
collected from herein class plaintiffs the total amount of
PHP531 million worth of electricity which it used for its own
offices and other facilities, as part of its so-called system
losses," the complaint stated.

The report says that a separate TRO against Meralco was sought
to prevent passing on "its expenses for its pension funds" while
another order was to stop Napocor and ERC from granting
Meralco's further requests for increase in electricity rates.


MATRIXX: Court Yet to Rule on Appeal of Arizona Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet
to rule on an appeal against the dismissal by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona of a consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit, captioned, "Siracusano, et al. v.
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al."

In April and May 2004, two class action complaints were filed
against the company; its president and chief executive officer,
Carl J. Johnson; and its executive vice president and chief
financial officer, William J. Hemelt, alleging violations of
federal securities laws (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12, 2008).  

On Jan. 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court
appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff.  The
consolidated case is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
Inc., et al., Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," and was filed in the
U.S. District Court for District of Arizona.

An amended complaint, filed March 4, 2005, added as defendant
the company's vice president for research and development,
Timothy L. Clarot.   

The lawsuit alleges that between October 2003 and February 2004,
the company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy product, including failing to
adequately disclose to the public the details of allegations
that the company's products caused damage to the sense of smell
and of certain of the product liability lawsuits in faces.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and on
Dec. 15, 2005, the Court granted the request and dismissed the
case without prejudice.

On April 3, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal order to
the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
July 3, 2008 form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

The suit is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
al., Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for District of Arizona, Judge Mary H. Murguia, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         401 B St., Ste 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         e-mail: LukeO@Lerachlaw.com

              - and -
       
         Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq. (fbalint@bffb.com)
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC
         2901 N Central Ave, Ste. 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
         Phone: 602-274-1100
         Fax: 602-274-1199
        
Representing the company are:  

         Maureen Beyers, Esq. (mbeyers@omlaw.com)
         Osborn Maledon, P.A.
         2929 North Central Avenue
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794
         Phone: 602-640-9305
         Fax: 602-664-2053

              - and -

         Amy J. Longo, Esq. (alongo@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers
         610 Newport Center Dr., 17th Floor
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Phone: 949-823-7175
         Fax: 949-823-6994


MICHIGAN: Settles Child Welfare Suit Days Before Scheduled Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Michigan and a New York-based advocacy group has
settled a federal class-action lawsuit over the state's child
welfare system just days before the case was scheduled to go to
trial, Robin Erb writes for the Detroit Free Press.

                         The Settlement

According to the report, Children's Rights, which forced a
change in child welfare systems in several other states, said
that the settlement mandates "top-to-bottom reform and federal
court oversight of Michigan's long-failing child welfare system"
-- changes which, according to Edward Woods III, spokesman for
the Department of Human Services, will cost about $50 million
annually for the next four years.

Mr. Woods told Detroit Free Press that the settlement money will
come from a combination of state and federal funds and will help
hire 700 new employees, 278 of whom are already in the pipeline.

Mr. Woods pointed out that the state never disagreed with the
need to change its system.  It was a matter of how to best
address the shortcomings.

In addition, the settlement requires DHS to establish a
Children's Services Administration dedicated exclusively to
providing protection, treatment, and services to children in
state custody and those who have been reported for abuse or
neglect.  The agency also must work harder to move children
toward permanent homes, improve investigations of reported child
abuse and neglect and reduce the occurrence of maltreatment in
foster care placements, according to a statement by Children's
Rights.

Moreover, the Michigan DHS must recruit and retain an adequate
group of potential foster and adoptive parents and provide
adequate medical, mental health, and dental care to children in
state custody.  The state's progress in complying with the
agreement will be overseen by a monitor who will report to the
federal court, according to the group.

                        Case Background

The suit, "D.B. et al. v. Granholm et al.," was filed on Aug. 8,
2006, against Michigan DHS by the Children's Rights.  It was
brought on behalf of six foster children identified by first
names or last initial only.  The suit was expected to affect
nearly 19,000 foster children in the state.

Detroit Free Press recounts that Children's Rights accused the
system of endangering its foster children and depriving them of
adequate physical and mental health services.  Its "depleted and
overburdened" workforce moves children from home to home rather
than finding permanent placements, the suit contended.

The suit, captioned "Dwayne B. v. Granholm," further asserted
that DHS inadequately screens caregivers and squanders federal
funds, while providers who are grossly underpaid and high staff
turnover within DHS creates "an unending churning of
inexperienced caseworkers taking on new cases, resigning, and
then turning their cases over to caseworkers with even less
experience."

However, the suit also acknowledged that the system was crippled
by a slashed budget and a chronic shortage of foster homes.  Its
"depleted and overburdened" workforce moves from home to home
rather than finding permanent placement or providing adequate
care, according to the suit.

Children's Rights also accused the department of inadequately
screening caregivers and squandering federal funds.  Foster care
providers are grossly underpaid, DHS staff's high turnover
creates "an unending churning of inexperience caseworkers taking
on new cases, resigning, and then turning their cases over to
caseworkers with even less experience."

The Class Action Reporter reported on April 20, 2007, that Judge
Nancy Edmunds of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan allowed the lawsuit, which the state had
earlier requested to dismiss.  In February 2007, Judge Edmunds
granted class-action status to the case after reviewing written
briefs and verbal arguments from lawyers for the advocacy group
and the state Attorney General's Office.

The suit is "D. B. et al. v. Granholm et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
13548-NGE-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Judge Nancy G. Edmunds presiding, with
referral to Judge Donald A. Scheer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Susan Lambiase, Esq.
          Children's Rights
          330 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: 212-683-2210

               - and -

          Richard J. Landau, Esq. (rlandau@dykema.com)
          Dykema Gossett (Ann Arbor)
          2723 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6188
          Phone: 734-214-7669

Representing the defendants is:

          William R. Morris, Esq. (morriswr@michigan.gov)
          Michigan Department of Attorney General
          P.O. Box 30758
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Phone: 517-373-7700


PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiffs Appeal Against MSA Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action suit in California
that challenges the Master Settlement Agreement reached by
Philip Morris USA, Inc. -- a subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. --
and other cigarette manufacturers, have filed a petition for
writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to the
dismissal of their case.

                 The Master Settlement Agreement

In November 1998, Philip Morris and certain other U.S. tobacco
product manufacturers entered into the Master Settlement
Agreement with 46 states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the
Northern Marianas to settle asserted and unasserted health care
cost recovery and other claims.

The MSA arose out of many separate legal actions brought by
various individual states against the tobacco industry for
Medicaid costs associated with smoking-related diseases.

The MSA was originally signed in November of 1998 by the four
largest tobacco companies: Philip Morris USA, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and Lorillard
Tobacco Company.  The agreement was later joined by over 40
other tobacco companies.  Every U.S. state and 6 U.S.
territories signed the agreement.  

The MSA ultimately exempted the companies from tort liability in
state governments and settled the lawsuits in exchange for a
combination of yearly payments to the states and voluntary
restrictions on advertising and marketing of tobacco products.

The MSA also created and currently funds the American Legacy
Foundation, an anti-smoking advocacy group that is responsible
for such campaigns as The Truth.

The agreement is meant to provide state governments with
compensation for smoking related medical costs and to help
reduce smoking in the United States.  There is no limit to the
yearly settlement payments; they are perpetual.

                     California Litigation

In June 2004, a putative class of California smokers filed a
complaint against Philip Morris USA and the MSA's other Original
Participating Manufacturers seeking damages from the OPMs for
post-MSA price increases and an injunction against their
continued compliance with the MSA's terms.

The complaint alleges that the MSA and its related legislation
protect the OPMs from competition in a manner that violates
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.

The complaint also names the California Attorney General as a
defendant and seeks to enjoin him from enforcing California's
Escrow Statute.

In March 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
case.

In September 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal.  

On Jan. 25, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Altria's
May 2008 Form 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: Parties Seek Hold on Appeal in Ore. "Lights" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA, Inc., and the plaintiffs in a purported class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of Marlboro Lights smokers in
Oregon have filed a joint motion to hold the appeal in the
matter in abeyance pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
in another case, according to Altria's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Marilyn Pearson and Laura Grandin alleged in their suit that
Philip Morris, a Richmond, Virginia unit of Altria Group Inc.,
violated state laws by misleading smokers into believing
Marlboro Lights delivered less tar and nicotine than full-tar
cigarettes when the company knew the cigarettes did not (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 18, 2005).

In 2005, Judge Janice Wilson of the Circuit Court for the County
of Multnomah in Oregon declined to grant class action status to
the lawsuit, citing a large number of individual issues that
would need to be considered in the case.  Judge Wilson said, "In
my view the scales are tipped by the fact that not only do the
individual issues predominate over the common ones, they do so
overwhelmingly."

Thus, the judge concluded that the case does not meet the
qualifications for class certification.  In addition, Judge
Wilson cited that the evidence presented to the court showed
smokers may receive different amounts of tar and nicotine from
different cigarettes in the same pack, depending upon a number
of variables.

On this regard, Judge Wilson concluded that each member of the
class would need to prove whether the Marlboro Lights he or she
smoked delivered lowered tar and nicotine.

The plaintiffs in the Oregon case failed to appeal by the
deadline, and the trial court subsequently entered judgment
against them on the ground of express preemption under the
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

In November, the plaintiffs in the case filed a notice of appeal
of the trial court's decisions with the Oregon Court of Appeals.

In February 2008, the parties filed a joint motion to hold the
appeal in abeyance pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
a related the matter, "Good et al. v. Altria Group Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00127-JAW."

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: Second Circuit Decertifies Class in "Schwab" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decertified a
class in the matter, "[Schwab] McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," which was filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York and names Philip Morris USA, Inc. (a subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc.) as a defendant.

The suit, pending in federal court in New York since 2004,
generally alleges that the use of the terms "light" and "ultra
light" in cigarettes constitutes unfair and deceptive trade
practices, among other things.  It seeks to create a nationwide
class of "light" cigarette smokers (Class Action Reporter
June 17, 2008).  

The action asserts claims under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.  The proposed class is seeking as much as
$200,000,000 in damages, which could be trebled under RICO.

In September 2005, a New York federal trial court granted in
part the defendants' motion in "Schwab" for partial summary
judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief
and denied a number of plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment.

In November 2005, the trial court ruled that the plaintiffs
would be permitted to calculate damages on an aggregate basis
and use "fluid recovery" theories to allocate them among class
members.

In September 2006, the trial court denied the defendants'
summary judgment motions and granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a nationwide class of all U.S. residents that
purchased cigarettes in the U.S. that were labeled "light" or
"lights" from the first date defendants began selling such
cigarettes until the date trial commences.

The court also declined to certify the order for interlocutory
appeal, declined to stay the case and ordered jury selection to
begin in January 2007, with trial scheduled to begin immediately
after the jury is impaneled.

In October 2006, a single judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit granted PM USA's petition for a temporary
stay of pre-trial and trial proceedings pending disposition of
the petitions for stay and interlocutory review by a three-judge
panel of the Court of Appeals.

In November 2006, the Second Circuit granted interlocutory
review of the trial court's class certification order and stayed
the case before the trial court pending the appeal.  

Oral argument was heard on July 10, 2007.  On April 3, 2008, the
Second Circuit overturned the trial court's class certification
decision, according to Altria's May 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Schwab v. Philip Morris Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York Judge Jack B. Weinstein, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. (bbrown@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
          1100 New York Avenue N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

               - and -

          William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wpb@ftllaw.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
          1050 30th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000
          Fax: 202-337-8090

Representing the defendants are:   

          Mark A. Belasic, Esq. (mabelasic@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-586-3939
          Fax: 216-579-0212
  
          Peter A. Bellacosa, Esq.
          (peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis
          Citigroup Center, 153 East 53rd Street
          New York, NY 10022-4675
          Phone: 212-446-4800
          Fax: 212-446-4900

          David M. Bernick, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis
          200 East Randolph Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312- 861-2148
    
          Judith Bernstein-Gaeta, Esq.
          (judith_bernstein-gaeta@aporter.com)
          Arnold & Porter
          555 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Phone: 202-942-5000

               - and -

          Frances Bivens, Esq.
          Davis Polk & Wardwell
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-450-4000


PHILIP MORRIS: Mass. Court Stays Proceedings in "Aspinall" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stayed all proceedings
in the "lights" case, "Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 813
N.E.2d 476," which names Philip Morris USA, Inc. -- a subsidiary
of Altria Group, Inc. -- as a defendant.

The civil action was commenced in the Superior Court Department
on Nov. 25, 1998.  The plaintiffs claim that the defendant
companies' marketing of "light" cigarettes as delivering
"lowered tar and nicotine" constituted deceptive conduct in a
trade or business (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007).

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Philip Morris knew that
smokers of Marlboro Lights could receive as much, or more, tar
and nicotine than if they had smoked regular cigarettes.  They
seek only to recover for economic loss, and not
personal injuries.

The Aspinall case was initially certified as a class action by a
Massachusetts trial court on Oct. 11, 2001.  The Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts is the first state supreme court
to certify a class action against Philip Morris for allegedly
deceiving consumers in its marketing of so-called light
cigarettes.  

The suit was later decertified by a judge of the state's
intermediate appellate court.

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
reinstated the "lights" class action, ruling that Massachusetts'
Consumer Protection laws require the trial court to allow the
case to proceed as a class action but noting that the class
certification "may be revisited" at a later time.  The ruling
was limited to Massachusetts (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 16,
2004).

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to redefine the
class to include all persons who after November 25, 1994,
purchased packs or cartons of Marlboro Lights cigarettes in
Massachusetts that displayed the legend "Lower Tar & Nicotine"
(the original class definition did not include a reference to
lower tar and nicotine).

In August 2006, the trial court denied Philip Morris' motion for
summary judgment based on the state consumer protection
statutory exemption and federal preemption.

On motion of the parties, the trial court has subsequently
reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals
court for review and the trial court proceedings are stayed
pending completion of the appellate review.

Motions for direct appellate review with the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court were granted in April 2007 and oral
arguments were heard in January 2008.

On March 6, 2008, the Supreme Judicial Court issued an order
staying the proceedings pending the resolution of a related
matter, "Good et al. v. Altria Group Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00127-JAW," which is before the U.S. Supreme Court,
according to Altria's May 2008 Form 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: Minn. Court Stays Proceedings in "Curtis" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Minnesota state court has stayed all proceedings in the
light/ultra lights case, "Curtis, et al. v. Philip Morris
Companies Inc., et al.," which names Philip Morris USA, Inc. --
a subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. -- as a defendant.

The suit was filed on Nov. 28, 2001, in the Fourth Judicial
District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota.  It, alleges, among
other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and "Ultra
Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common
law fraud, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including
restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 26, 2007).

The case was brought against Philip Morris and, in certain
instances, Altria or its subsidiaries, 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 January 2004, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and the defendants' motions for summary
judgment.  In November 2004, the trial court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and ordered the
certification of a class.

In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for interlocutory review.  In July 2005,
the trial court granted the defendants' motion to stay
proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal of the dismissal of
the lights case, "Dahl. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company."

In September 2005, PM USA removed "Curtis" to federal court
based on the Eighth Circuit's decision in "Watson v. Philip
Morris, Case No. 05-1284" in Arkansas, which upheld the removal
of a Lights case to federal court based on the federal officer
jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission.

In February 2006, the federal court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to remand the case to state court.  

The case was stayed pending the outcome of "Dahl v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.," which was argued before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in December 2006.

In February 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit issued its ruling in "Dahl," and reversed the
federal district court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion to
remand that case to the state trial court.

On Oct. 17, 2007, the district court remanded the Curtis case to
state court.

In December 2007, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court's determination in "Dahl" that the plaintiffs'
claims in that case were subject to express preemption and
defendant in that case has petitioned the Minnesota Supreme
Court for review.

The Curtis matter has been stayed pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in a related case, "Good et al. v. Altria Group
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00127-JAW," according to Altria's
May 2008 Form 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: Missouri Court Stays Proceedings in "Craft" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Missouri state court stayed all proceedings in the lights
suit, "Craft v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. ED85142, 2005 WL
1944333," which names Philip Morris USA, Inc. -- a subsidiary of
Altria Group, Inc. -- as a defendant, according to Altria's May
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit, filed in 2000, alleged that Missouri consumers did not
receive "the qualities and economic value of low-tar, low-
nicotine cigarettes" (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 26, 2007).

The suit alleges that light cigarettes, when used normally,
actually deliver higher levels of tar and nicotine than
demonstrated in machine testing conditions.

Judge Michael David of the St. Louis Circuit Court certified a
class of plaintiffs consisting of state "residents who had
purchased [Philip Morris brand] lights in Missouri since 1971
but who do not have a claim for personal injury relating to
smoking."

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order.  In September 2005, PM USA removed "Craft"
to federal court based on the U.S. Court of Appeals of the
Eighth Circuit's decision in another lights suit "Watson v.
Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284" in Arkansas state.  

In March 2006, the federal trial court granted plaintiffs'
motion and remanded the case to the Missouri state trial court.

In May 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review the
trial court's class certification decision.  Trial has been set
for January 2009.

The case has been stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in a related case, "Good et al. v. Altria Group Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00127-JAW."

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: Arkansas Court Stays Proceedings in "Watson" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas state court stayed all proceedings in the purported
lights class action lawsuit, "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No.
05-1284," which names Philip Morris USA, Inc. -- a subsidiary of
Altria Group, Inc. -- as a defendant.

The suit was filed by two Little Rock residents, Lisa Watson and
Loretta Lawson, in 2003 before the Pulaski County Circuit Court
in Arkansas (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 26, 2007).  

In June 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed rulings by lower
federal courts in the case and remanded it to Arkansas state
court (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2007).  

The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' contention that the
case must be tried in federal court under the "federal officer"
statute.  

In considering the issue of federal jurisdiction in the Watson
case, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit earlier had ruled that because Philip Morris
tested and marketed its "Lights" cigarettes under the Federal
Trade Commission's "direct and comprehensive control," a federal
court should hear the case.  

On June 11, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision,
holding that the company's compliance with federal regulations
did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on federal courts.

Specifically, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings
in the Watson case that denied the plaintiffs' motion to have
the case heard in a state, as opposed to federal, trial court.

In addition, the Supreme Court rejected the defendants'
contention that the case must be tried in federal court under
the "federal officer" statute.

The case has been remanded to the state trial court in Arkansas.

In March 2008, the case was stayed pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in a related case, "Good et al. v. Altria Group
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00127-JAW," according to Altria's
May 2008 Form 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: Arkansas Court Stays Proceedings in "Miner" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas state court stayed all proceedings in the purported
lights class action lawsuit, "Miner v. Altria Group, Inc, et
al," which names Philip Morris USA, Inc. -- a subsidiary of
Altria Group, Inc. -- as a defendant, according to Altria's May  
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The case was filed by Wayne Miner in an Arkansas state court.  
It was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas.

In December 2005, the plaintiffs moved for certification of a
class composed of individuals who purchased Marlboro Lights or
Cambridge Lights brands in Arkansas, California, Colorado, and
Michigan.

PM USA's motion for summary judgment based on preemption and the
Arkansas statutory exemption is pending.  

Following the filing of this motion, the plaintiffs moved to
voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice, which PM USA
opposed.

In July 2007, the case was remanded to a state trial court in
Arkansas.  In August 2007, the plaintiffs renewed their motion
for class certification.

In October 2007, the court denied a motion by PM USA to dismiss
the case on procedural grounds and the court entered a case
management order.

The case was stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
a related the case, "Good et al. v. Altria Group Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00127-JAW."

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: Ruling in N.M. Cigarette Antitrust Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit filed in New
Mexico against Philip Morris USA, Inc. -- a subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc. -- alleging that the defendants conspired to fix
cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws, is appealing a
decision that granted a motion for summary judgment in the case.

The plaintiffs' motions for class certification have been
granted.  In February 2005, the New Mexico Court of Appeals
affirmed the class certification decision.  

In June 2006, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was
granted.  The plaintiffs in the New Mexico case have appealed
the Court's order, according to Altria's May 2008 Form 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: Faces Cigarette Antitrust Lawsuit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA, Inc., ans its parent Altria Group, Inc., are
facing a purported class action lawsuit in Kansas, alleging that
the defendants conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of
antitrust laws, according to Altria's May 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

The plaintiffs' motions for class certification have been
granted.  The case had been stayed pending the Kansas Supreme
Court's decision on the defendants' appeal against certain
discovery rulings by the trial court.  The Kansas Supreme Court
denied this appeal in April 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: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari Bid in "Daniels"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari
by the plaintiffs in the case, "Daniels v. Philip Morris,
Incorporated, et al.," which names Philip Morris USA, Inc. -- a
subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. -- as a defendant.

The suit generally alleges that domestic cigarette
manufacturers, including PM USA and others, have violated
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and
17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
practices.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court, San Diego County,
California on Aug. 2, 1998 (Class Action Reporter, March 7,
2008).

Class certification was granted in both cases as to the
plaintiffs' claims that class members are entitled to
reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the
class periods and injunctive relief.

The certified class was composed of California residents who,
while minors, smoked at least one cigarette between April 1994
and Dec. 31, 1999, and were exposed to the defendants' marketing
and advertising activities in California.

In September 2002, the court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to all claims in one of the cases, and the
plaintiffs appealed this ruling.

In October 2004, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal
affirmed the trial court's ruling, and also denied the
plaintiffs' motion for rehearing.

In February 2005, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear
the plaintiffs' appeal.

In August 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the
dismissal of "Daniels" on federal preemption grounds.

In March 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs'
petition for writ of certiorari, according to Altria's May 2008
Form 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: California Supreme Court Reviews "Brown" Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court is reviewing an appellate court's
decision to decertify the class in the matter, "Brown v. The
American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al.," which names Philip
Morris USA, Inc. -- a subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. -- as a
defendant.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court, San Diego County,
California on June 10, 1997.  It generally alleges that domestic
cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA and others, have
violated California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200
and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
practices.

Class certification was granted in the case as to the
plaintiffs' claims that class members are entitled to
reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the
class periods and injunctive relief.

The class certified in "Brown" was composed of residents of
California who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes
between June 10, 1993, and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed
to the defendants' marketing and advertising activities in
California.

In September 2004, the trial court in the Brown case granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs'
claims attacking the defendants' cigarette advertising and
promotion and denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment
on the plaintiffs' claims based on allegedly false affirmative
statements.  The plaintiffs' motion for rehearing was denied.  

In March 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
decertify the class based on a recent change in California law,
which, in two July 2006 opinions, the California Supreme Court
ruled applicable to pending cases.

The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the order that
decertified the class was denied, and the plaintiffs have
appealed the matter.

In September 2006, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the
trial court's order decertifying the class in Brown.  

In November 2006, the California Supreme Court accepted review
of the appellate court's decision, according to Altria's May  
2008 Form 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: California Court Stays Proceedings in "Gurevitch"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court stayed all proceedings in the purported class
action, "Gurevitch, et al. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al.,"
which names Philip Morris USA, Inc. -- a subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc. -- as a defendant, according to Altria's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit was filed before with the Superior Court, Los Angeles
County, California on May 20, 2004.  It was brought on behalf of
a purported class of all California residents who purchased the
Merit brand of cigarettes since July 2000 to the present
alleging that defendants, including PM USA, violated
California's Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and
17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
practices, including false and misleading advertising.  

The complaint also alleges violations of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
disgorgement, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

In July 2005, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted;
however, the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint
was also granted, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
September 2005.

In October 2005, the court stayed this action pending the
California Supreme Court's rulings on two cases not involving PM
USA.

In July 2006, the California Supreme Court issued rulings in the
two cases and held that a recent change in California law known
as Proposition 64, which limits the ability to bring a lawsuit
to only those plaintiffs who have "suffered injury in fact" and
"lost money or property" as a result of th defendant's alleged
statutory violations, properly applies to pending cases.

In September 2006, the stay was lifted and the defendants filed
their demurrer to the plaintiffs' amended complaint.  

In March 2007, the court, without ruling on the demurrer, again
stayed the action pending rulings from the California Supreme
Court in another case involving Proposition 64 that is relevant
to PM USA's demurrer.

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.


RAP4: Recalls Paintball Gun Adapters for Impact, Laceration Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAP4 (Real Action Paintball Inc.), of San Jose, Calif., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 2,000 Paintball Gun Remote Line Adapters.

The company said the remote line adapter can burst when over
tightened, posing serious impact and laceration hazards to
consumers.

RAP4 has received two reports of incidents involving the
recalled remote line adapters, including one that scratched a
consumer when it burst.

The remote line adapter is used to connect a paintball gun to a
pressurized CO2 tank.  The adapter is a black cylinder and is
attached to a black remote line cord.  "RAP4" and the "SN"
(serial number) are printed on the adapters.

These recalled paintball gun adapters were manufactured in China
and were being sold online at http://www.RAP4.com/from October  
2006 through April 2008 for about $40.

Pictures of the recalled paintball gun adapters are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08320a.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08320b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the paintball
gun adapter and contact the firm for a free replacement adapter.

For additional information, contact RAP4 at 800-404-9029 from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. PT Saturdays, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rap4.com/


RICELAND FOODS: Arkansas Farmers Sue for 2006 Tainted 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, John Henry writes for Arkansas
Business Online.

Mr. Henry points out 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 at the Hare Wynn Newell & Newton Law Firm, in
Arkansas.

"Essentially," Mr. Byrd said in a news release, "our case today
is based on our 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."

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

According to Mr. Byrd, the European Union, in 2005, 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.


T-MOBILE USA: Accused of Cheating on Rebates in Illinois Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA and Young America Corp. are facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois over allegations that the companies defraud
customers by offering rebates on purchases of cell phones and
service plans, but delivering only a VISA rebate card with less
than cash value and "numerous use restrictions," CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is a consumer class action based on deceptive and
misleading advertising practices relating to the rebated
programs and practices of T-Mobile and Young America directed at
Illinois citizens.

Specifically, the rebate program offered by T-Mobile and
processed by Young American represents that customers can
quickly and easily receive a rebate after purchasing cellular
phones and services, CourtHouse News relates.  In reality
customers are improperly denied their rebates, or instead of
receiving cash or check, receive a VISA rebate card with
numerous use restrictions attached, making their values less
than that of cash.

One plaintiff claims he never got his promised $50 rebate until
he complained to the Illinois Attorney General, and even then
the defendants did not deliver the rebate as promised.

The plaintiffs bring this action for violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS
505/1 et seq. and for unjust enrichment.

Pursuant to 28 USC Section 1332 and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs bring this action on behalf
of all consumers in Illinois who were improperly denied rebates
by T-Mobile and Young America who were eligible for and
participated in the rebate program after July 3, 2005, resulting
in costs in excess of the discounted price they would have
ultimately paid for their cellular phones and service had they
received the rebate as promised from T-Mobile and Young America.

The plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- enter judgment against T-Mobile and Young America for
        plaintiffs and the class in an amount equal to the total
        that defendants have improperly denied in promised
        rebates;

     -- assess punitive damages against defendants;

     -- award plaintiffs and the class reasonable costs and
        attorney fees; and

     -- grant such additional relief as the court finds proper
        and just.

The suit is "Loring Rocke, et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case
No. 08CV3828," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Arthur S. Gold, Esq.
          Gold & Coulson
          A Partnership of Professional and Limited Liability
          Corporations
          11 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2402
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-372-0777
          Fax: 312-372-0778


TARGET CORP: Faces California RICO Complaint Over Bottle Returns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corp. is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California over
allegations that it illegally advertises bottled drinks without
mentioning the cost of the bottle deposit (Cash Refund Value),
and illegally refuses to inform customers that they can redeem
the empty containers at a Target store if there is no recycling
center within one-half mile, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action arises under the laws of the United States of
America, specifically under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act of 1970.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the following classes:

     -- California beverage consumers who purchased beverages
        manufactured, bottled and distributed by Coca-Cola
        and any affiliated bottling or distribution companies,
        subject to cash refund value requirements, sold by
        Target at all stores located within the state of
        California, from July 1, 2004 to Feb. 4, 2007;

     -- California beverage consumers who purchased Coca-Cola at
        all Target stores located in the State of California
        during the week of July 11, 2004;

     -- California beverage consumers who purchased Cocal-Cola
        at the Target store located at either 3535 S. La Cinega
        Boulevard, in Los Angeles, California, or at 7100 Santa
        Monica Boulevard, in West Hollywood, California, during
        the week of July 11, 2004; and

     -- California beverage consumers who purchased Coca-Cola at
        the Target Store located at either 3535 S. La Cinega
        Boulevard or 7100 Santa Monica Boulevard during the week
        of July 11, 2004 to Feb. 4, 2007.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants were employed by or were associated
         with an enterprise which was engaged in identical
         pattern of Racketeering activity affecting plaintiff
         and the class in violation of the RICO Act, 18 USC
         Section 1962(c), arising from the identical, material
         non-disclosure in its advertising of the full, true,
         complete and correct price of Coca-Cola sold at Target
         stores in California during the week of July 11, 2004;

     (b) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages
         against defendants as a direct and proximate result of
         its pattern of unlawful racketeering activity in
         violation of the RICO Act, 18 USC Section 1962(c),
         arising from the identical material, non-disclosure in
         its advertising of the full, true, complete and correct
         price of Coca-Cola sold at Target Stores in California
         during the week of July 11, 2004;

     (c) whether defendants violated Ca. Bus. & Prof. Code
         Section 17200 by engaging in unlawful, unfair or
         fraudulent business acts and practices, and by unfair,
         deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, arising
         from failure to comply with the requirements of Pub.
         Res. Code Section 14560.5 (c)(1) by making the
         identical price nondisclosures to plaintiff and the
         class in its advertising through failure to reveal and
         disclose the full, true, complete and correct price of
         Coca-Cola sold at all Target stores in California
         during the week of July 11, 2004;

     (d) whether defendants violated Title 15 USC Section 45,
         52, and 55 by making identical non-disclosures in
         its advertising as to the price of Coca-Cola to
         plaintiff and the class through failure to reveal the
         full, true, correct and complete price of Coca-Cola
         sold at all Target stores in California during the
         week of July 11, 2004;

     (e) whether defendant failed to post signs at each public
         entrance of each California store advising beverage
         consumers of the nearest recycling center within the
         convenience zone, and failed to provide a toll-free
         telephone number to call for recycling information,
         thereby failing to comply with the requirements of Pub.
         Res. Code Section 14570;

     (f) whether plaintiff and the class sustained financial
         monetary losses arising from defendants identical
         advertising and signage violations; and

     (g) whether plaintiff and the class is entitled to
         equitable relief, including restitution and
         disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, declaratory
         relief, an accounting, and imposition of a constructive
         trust, as a result of defendants' violations of Cal.
         Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 and 17500.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

      -- an order certifying the plaintiff and the class,
         and appointing plaintiff and her counsel to represent
         the class;

      -- compensatory damages to plaintiff and the class,
         according to proof at trial, arising from contravention
         of RICO Sections 1962(c), and (d) of the RICO Act of
         1970, trebled pursuant to RICO section 1964(c);

      -- recovery of attorney's fees and costs arising from
         contravention of RICO Section 1962 of the RICO Act of
         1970;

      -- prejudgment interest arising from violation of RICO
         Section 1962 of the RICO Act of 1970;

      -- entry of a permanent injunction pursuant to RICO
         Section 1964(a)-(b) of the RICO Act of 1970;

      -- an adjudication of declaratory relief pursuant to
         Section 2201-2202 of the Federal Declaratory Judgment
         Act of 1964;

      -- recovery under federal supplemental claims
         jurisdiction;

      -- an order that defendant disgorge and restore to
         plaintiff and the class all monies found by the court
         to have been acquired by any unlawful, fraudulent,
         unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the
         California Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. C.
         Section 17200 et seq. or the California False
         Advertising Law, CA. Bus. & Prof. C. Section 17500 et
         seq;

      -- a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining
         defendant and its agents, servants, employees and
         affiliates from all acts, practices, and conduct in
         violation of the UCL and FAL and compelling its
         compliance therewith;

      -- an order that defendant disgorge and restore to
         plaintiff and the class all monies, including but not
         limited to CRV money and profits acquired by means of
         any act or practice found and declared by the court to
         be unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business act or
         practice, or unfair, untrue, deceptive or misleading
         advertising, or pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
         Section 17203;

      -- an order that defendant disgorge and restore to
         plaintiff and the class all monies including but not
         limited to any and all profits wrongfully obtained by
         them any or each of them as a result of their unlawful,
         unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices, or
         untrue, unfair, deceptive or misleading advertising, or
         false advertising, as alleged, pursuant to Cal. Bus. &
         Prof. Code Section 17203 and Section 17535;

      -- a permanent injunction commanding defendant to
         identify any redemption payment to be imposed on a
         beverage container in all print media and internet
         advertising and i-store shelf and aisle displays with
         appropriate descriptive language, as required by Pub.
         Res. Code Section 14560.5;

      -- a permanent injunction commanding defendant to post
         signs at each public entrance to their respective
         places of business which specifies the name and address
         of the nearest certified recycling center within each
         store location's convenience zone which redeems all
         types of recyclable empty beverage containers and the
         toll-free telephone number established by CA. Dept. of
         Conservations for consumers to call for information
         regarding recycling opportunities, or in the
         alternative specifying that beverages containers may be
         redeemed at all open cash registers or at a specified
         location on the store's premises which is specified on
         the sign, as required by Pub. Res. Code Section 14570;

      -- an order that any and all monies and profits
         ordered to be restored or disgorged be paid on the
         basis of individual class member claims presented, and
         to the extent class members do not present such claims,
         on such basis as the court may deem appropriate, either
         by:

         (1) price reductions, issuance of coupons, discounts,
             or similar monetary relief which would benefit the
             class, by defendant to California consumers, usable
             at any retail grocery outlet; or

         (2) depositing such sum with the State of California or
             a unit thereof, or otherwise, for the limited
             purpose of being applied to eleemosynary purposes
             benefiting the consuming public throughout the
             State of California;

      -- reasonable attorney's fees and costs against
         defendant pursuant to California Code of Civil
         Procedure Section 1021.5;

      -- an accounting of all CRV monies received from
         California beverage consumers by Target from July 30,
         2004 to Feb. 4, 2007 and any amounts paid to consumers
         during that period for redemption of used containers;

      -- imposition of a constructive trust on all
         unredeemed and unrefunded CRV proceeds in Target's
         possession, control;

      -- costs of suit; and

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

The suit is "Mali Chagby, et al. v. Target Corp. et al., Case
No. CV08-04425," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Arnold G. Regardie, Esq. (arnold@regardie.com)
          Pyam Tav Akoli, Esq.
          Regardie and Associates LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1960
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-557-3599


TELECOM COMPANIES: Face Suit for Working with "Aggregators"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nextel Partners Operating Corporation, Sprint Spectrum LP, and
Nextel West Corp. are facing a class-action complaint before the
Tenth Judicial District Court in the State of Minnesota over
allegations that these telecommunication companies cheat
customers by working with aggregators who bill for services the
customers never ordered and do not want, such as weather and
traffic reports, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint claims that because Nextel and Sprint share in the
ill-gotten gains, they construct their billing systems without
safeguards.

Named plaintiff Tara Haas brings this action on behalf of all of
Sprint's wireless telephone subscribers in the nation who
suffered losses or damages as a result of Sprint billing for
mobile content products and services not authorized by the
subscriber and alternatively, a subclass of all class members
who reside in Minnesota.

The plaintiff asks the court to:

     -- certify this case as a class action on behalf of the
        class and subclass, appoint her as class representative
        and appoint her counsel as lead and class counsel;

     -- declare that the actions of Sprint constitute a breach
        of contract and violate Minnesota law;

     -- enter judgment against Sprint for all actual monetary,
        economic, consequential, statutory, and compensatory
        damages caused by its conduct;

     -- order injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief as
        necessary against Sprint to protect the interests of the
        class, including an injunction against continuing the
        alleged acts, as well as disgorgment, restitution,
        constructive trust, and an accounting;

     -- award her and the classes reasonable costs and
        attorneys' fees; and

     -- award any further relief as equity and justice may
        require.

The suit is "Tara Haas, et al. v. Nextel Partners Operating
Corp. et al, Case No. CV-08-3552," filed in the Tenth Judicial
District Court in the State of Minnesota.

Representing the plaintiff are:

         Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
         Constance Hartel, Esq.
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Phone: 612-339-6900


TRANS UNION: Approval Hearing for Privacy Case Deal is Sept. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has set a Sept. 10, 2008 hearing to consider final
approval of a settlement in the class action lawsuit "In re
Trans Union Corporation Privacy Litigation, No. 00-CV-4729, MDL
1350."

According to a MyFox Dallas report, if the settlement is
approved, anyone who has had an open credit account in the last
20 years will be eligible for up to nine months of free credit
monitoring from Trans Union.

The plaintiffs have until Sept. 24, 2008, to register for
benefits.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated state laws and
the Fair Credit Reporting Act when they sold lists containing
personal and financial consumer information to third parties for
marketing purposes.

The lawsuit also claims that the defendants provided more
information than was allowed under the FCRA to credit grantors
or insurance companies who used the lists to make pre-approved
offers of credit or insurance.  The defendants deny the
plaintiffs' allegations and maintain that they did nothing
wrong.

The Court decided that the class includes all consumers who had
an open credit account or an open line of credit from a credit
grantor (including, for instance automobile loans, bank credit
cards, department store credit cards, other retail store credit
cards, finance company loans, mortgage loans, and student loans)
located in the United States anytime from January 1, 1987, to
May 28, 2008.

Notices informing members of the settlement class about their
legal rights are scheduled to appear nationwide on television
and in newspapers and magazines (Class Action Reporter, June 18,
2008).

The case is "In re Trans Union Corporation Privacy Litigation,
No. 00-CV-4729, MDL 1350," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and is
being presided over by Judge Robert W. Gettleman and Magistrate
Judge Michael T. Mason.

The Court has appointed as class counsel:

          The Law Offices of Dawn Wheelahan
          650 Poydras St., Suite 1550
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Fax: 504-581-1624

          Caddell & Chapman, PC
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010
          Phone: 713-751-0400
          Fax: 713-751-0906
          e-mail: firm@caddelchapman.com

          Righetti Law Firm, P.C.;
          456 Montgomery St Ste 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-983-0900

               - and -

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
                 800-449-4900


TRANSNATION TITLE: Michigan Judge Won't Dismiss Refinancing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a
homeowner who alleged that, when he refinanced his mortgage, he
was overcharged for "title insurance" by Transnation Title
Insurance Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of LandAmerica.

Although title insurance companies are required by law to impose
set premium rates for title insurance policies, they routinely
charge customers well in excess of these rates when homeowners
refinance their mortgages, the suit alleges.

The Transnation lawsuit is identical to similar class action
lawsuits that Freed & Weiss has brought or is investigating
against other title insurance companies, including:

     -- First American,
     -- Fidelity, LandAmerica,
     -- Lawyers Title,
     -- Chicago Title,
     -- Commonwealth and
     -- Ticor Title.

The suit is "Hoving v. Transnation Title Insurance Company, Case
Number: 2:2007cv15322," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Sean F. Cox, presiding, with
referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.


TRAVEL COMPANIES: Jacksonville City Sues Online Travel Agents
-------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Jacksonville, Florida initiated a lawsuit on July 1,
2008, against nearly 20 online travel companies -- which include
Hotels.com and Hotwire Inc. -- alleging that the firms are
underpaying taxes to Florida counties for brokering hotel rooms,
the Jacksonville Business Journal reports.

The report notes that the goal of the complaint is to get the
court to interpret the law that requires travel companies' sales
to be taxed, Currently, the online hotel companies pay the taxes
on the purchase they make from the hotel, not the end sale to
the consumer.

Michael Freed, Esq., the attorney representing the city, told
Business Journal that Jacksonville will ultimately seek owed
taxes for the last five years, which will likely be in the
millions of dollars.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in other states, including    
California, North Carolina and Ohio (Class Action Reporter,  
April 4, 2006).

To contact Mr. Freed:

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015


TYSON FOODS: Sued by Consumers Over Deceptive Chicken Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after Tyson Foods Inc. was barred from advertising that
its chicken products do not contain antibiotics, consumers are
filing class action lawsuits claiming that the poultry company
used deceptive marketing, Michelle Massey writes for Southeast
Texas Record.

According to the report, the class action suits allege that
Tyson "labeled its chicken as antibiotic free, when it knew it
used antibiotics in raising chicken."

SE Texas Record relates that Arkansas residents Rosalyn Mize and
Linda Latimer filed the latest class action complaint against
Tyson Foods on June 30, 2008, in the Texarkana federal court of
the Western District of Arkansas.

According to the complaint, Tyson began an extensive marketing
campaign in June 2007 to promote products labeled "raised
without antibiotics" and "100 percent all natural," in an effort
to meet the public's growing demand for healthier products.

Tyson voluntarily removed its chicken that was labeled "raised
without antibiotics" after a U.S. Department of Agriculture
investigation reversed the originally approved application which
included the feed ingredient ionophores, a commonly-used
antimicrobial.  Ionophores are not believed to raise human
health concerns.

The report says that, further complicating the labeling issue,
the plaintiffs allege that Tyson Foods failed to disclose that
it administers the antibiotics Gentamicin and Ceftiofur into the
eggs of the chickens.  According to the complaint, Tyson uses
these antibiotics as a vaccination against Marek's disease, to
prevent illness and death in chicks.  The antibiotics are given
in Tyson's hatchery two or three days before the eggs hatch.

The Food and Safety Inspection Service gave Tyson until July 9
to stop using the label.

"Tyson's defense is that it defines the word 'raised' for its
labels differently than it is commonly understood to mean by
customers," the complaint alleges.  By the company's definition,
"raised" means from the time of hatch to slaughter.

The report notes that questions common to the proposed class of
plaintiffs include whether Tyson used antibiotics in raising
chickens, whether the marketing campaign and promotions were
deceptive, whether Tyson was unjustly enriched from the
promotions, and whether the company violated the Lanham Act or
other consumer protections laws.

Ms. Mize and Ms. Latimer's complaint is seeking more than
$5 million in damages and a refund of all amounts received from
the purchase of Tyson chicken that was labeled free from
antibiotics.

In June, Tyson Foods fired back at the USDA with a lawsuit over
the ruling.  Believing it to be the victim of flawed labeling
procedures, Tyson accuses the USDA's ruling of being made
"arbitrarily and capriciously."

Texarkana attorneys James C. Wyly, Esq., and Sean F. Rommel,
Esq., of the Patton Roberts LLC law firm and Little Rock
attorneys Jeremy V. Hutchinson, Esq., and Jack T. Patterson,
Esq., are representing the proposed class.

U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes is assigned to the case,
which carries case number 08-4051.


VALUECLICK: January 2009 Hearing Set for $1.5MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
3P http://affiliatetip.com/news/article002092.php

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has set a court date of January 2009 to consider final approval
of a $1.5-million settlement in a consolidated class action suit
against ValueClick, Inc., according to a report by
AffiliateTip.com's Shawn Collins.

The report recounts that on April 20, 2007, two putative class
action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California by Mireille Carrier, and
Settlement Recovery Center.

The suits allege that defendants ValueClick, Inc.;
Commission Junction; and Be Free engaged in unfair business
practices resulting in harm to affiliates and merchants on their
affiliate networks.

According to the complaints, ValueClick has failed to take
reasonable steps to address malicious adware and adware users on
its networks (Class Action Reporter, June 28, 2007).

The following are a few examples identified in the complaints of
how adware may result in harm to ValueClick's affiliates and
merchants:

       -- unlawfully diverting earned commissions from
          legitimate affiliates;

       -- fraudulently causing merchants to pay commissions
          and fees for traffic that was not generated by
          legitimate affiliate activity;

       -- threatening the integrity of merchant affiliate
          programs; and

       -- exposing merchants to liability for breach of their
          contracts with affiliates.

The lawsuits also allege that ValueClick has a motive to allow
unlawful adware activity on its networks because adware results
in increased revenues to ValueClick.

The lawsuits seek payment of monetary damages to affiliates and
merchants as well as changes in ValueClick's corporate practices
related to adware and compliance.

The complaints have been consolidated into one action.  A formal
mediation in this matter occurred on Feb. 25, 2008, where the
mediator proposed to settle the case for a one-time payment of
$1.5 million (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2008).

According to AffiliateTip.com the proposed settlement has been
preliminarily approved in the class action lawsuits on behalf of
publishers and advertisers against ValueClick.

The suit "Settlement Recovery Center LLC v. Valueclick Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02638-FMC-CT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Florence-Marie Cooper presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. (jefff@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: 510-725-3000

               - and -

          Kassra Powell Nassiri, Esq.
          (knassiri@nassiri-jung.com)
          Nassiri and Jung
          251 Kearny Street, Suite 501
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-373-5699

Representing the defendants is:

          S. Ashlie Beringer, Esq. (aberinger@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-298-5718


WACHOVIA BANK: Ga. Court Allows Overdraft Fees Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beverly Martin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia allowed a putative class action lawsuit
against Wachovia Bank, N.A., over overdraft fees to proceed, the
Winston-Salem Journal reports.

The lawsuit was originally filed against Wachovia by Casey and
Emily White in the Superior Court of Fulton County on Feb. 8,
2008.  Wachovia removed it to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) on March 14,
2008, under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Sections
1332(d)(2) and 1453(b) of 28 U.S.C.

The Whites opened a joint checking account with Wachovia on
April 5, 2007, after having maintained at least one other
checking account with the Bank for several years.  They executed
a standard Deposit Agreement that provides that Wachovia may pay
checks or other items drawn upon the Whites' account in any
order it determines, even if (1) paying a particular check or
item results in an insufficient balance in the Whites' account
to pay one or more other checks or other items that otherwise
could have been paid out of their account; or (2) using a
particular order results in the payment of fewer checks or other
items or the imposition of additional fees.  The Deposit
Agreement further states that Wachovia may choose not to honor a
transaction that would overdraw the account, or alternatively,
may honor the transaction and create an overdraft and impose a
service charge for paying the overdraft.

According to Winston-Salem Journal, Wachovia charged the Whites
almost $250 in overdraft fees on seven transactions in their
account "even though some would not have overdrawn the account."

The Whites generally claim that Wachovia delays, reorders, or
otherwise manipulates posting transactions to an account and
imposes overdraft fees even where the account contains
sufficient funds to pay a draft.  According to the Whites,
Wachovia "routinely enforces a policy whereby charges incurred
are posted to consumers' accounts in order of largest to
smallest amounts, even where larger charges are received days
after smaller charges."  The Whites contend that as a result,
overdraft fees are imposed even where there are sufficient funds
in the account to cover the transaction.

In their complaint, the Whites allege that Wachovia has engaged
in unfair or deceptive business practices with the potential to
harm the consumer public in violation of the Georgia Fair
Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. Sections 10-1-390 et seq.  They
seek individual relief for FBPA violations, in the form of an
injunction and treble damages.  The Whites also raise several
claims on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated.

First, they allege that Wachovia has breached its contract
with its accountholders by failing to perform its contractual
duties in good faith in violation of the common law and O.C.G.A.
Section 13-4-20.  Second, they contend that the Deposit
Agreement is unconscionable under O.C.G.A. Section 11-2-302.   
Third, they assert a claim of trover and conversion.  Finally,
they assert a claim for unjust enrichment and money had and
received.

Wachovia, on March 20, 2008, moved to dismiss all claims
asserted by the Whites.

In an order dated July 2, 2008, Judge Martin granted Wachovia's
dismissal motion as it pertains to the unconscionability claim
and the unjust enrichment claim only, but denied it as it
pertains to all other claims.  Judge Martin also directs the
parties to begin a four-month discovery period on the remaining
claims, which will end on November 3, 2008.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Wachovia Corporation
(NYSE:WB) -- http://www.wachovia.com/-- is one of the nation's
diversified financial services companies, with assets of
$808.9 billion and market capitalization of $53.8 billion at
March 31, 2008.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         G. Franklin Lemond Jr., Esq.
         Webb, Klase & Lemond, L.L.C.
         1900 The Exchange, N.E., Suite 480
         Atlanta, GA 30339
         Phone: 770-444-9325
         Fax: 770-444-0271
         e-mail: contact@webbllc.com


WELLPOINT INC: Settles Wrongful Rescission Suit for $11.8 Mln.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of the California Hospital Association and all
California hospitals, Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, Inc., has
negotiated a landmark $11.8-million settlement with Blue Cross
of California, Blue Cross Life and Health and their parent
company, Wellpoint, Inc., in a class action suit relating to
rescission of patients' policies.

In Oct. 2006, the national health law firm of Hooper Lundy  
filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, seeking to expand protection of hospitals statewide from
the practice by:

     -- Blue Cross of California,  
     -- Blue Cross Life and Health, and  
     -- their parent company, Wellpoint, Inc., of  

retroactively rescinding insurance policy coverage for numerous  
patients after the health care services have been provided by  
the hospitals (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2006).

The complaint explains that California law prohibits Blue Cross  
from retroactively denying payment after the services have been  
provided in good faith.  

The class action complaint comes on the heels of the California  
Department of Managed Health Care's $200,000 fine recently  
levied against Blue Cross in response to a case of coverage for  
a patient that was improperly rescinded.  

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding approved by
the court:

     -- Blue Cross will establish a Facility Compensation Fund
        to reimburse hospitals for the services they provided to
        rescinded members.

     -- Blue Cross will establish a Patient Reimbursement Fund
        to reimburse patients for payments they made to
        hospitals after their policies were rescinded.

     -- Hospitals will cease collection activities against
        rescinded Blue Cross members for claims that were not
        paid by Blue Cross due to policy rescissions.

"The practice of rescinding patients' policies after the patient
has received medically necessary services causes a great deal of
financial stress to both the patients and the hospitals who
provide those services.  This settlement goes a long way towards
compensating the hospitals for those services and providing
closure to the patients for these debts," said Hooper Lundy
attorney and co-plaintiff counsel, Glenn Solomon, Esq.

"We are very pleased to have come to an agreement with Blue
Cross that fairly reimburses hospitals for the services they
provided to Blue Cross members and protects the patients from
being liable to pay for those services," said Hooper Lundy
attorney and co-plaintiff counsel, Daron Tooch, Esq.

Blue Cross has been the subject of dozens of lawsuits by
patients alleging that Blue Cross routinely looks for after-the-
fact reasons to cancel policies by reviewing previously approved
applications. But the rescissions also directly impacted the
hospitals, because they were the ones not being paid for their
services, and instead were being directed and forced by Blue
Cross to try to collect from their patients.  

The case is BC360235 (CCW).

For more information, contact:

          Glenn Solomon, Principal (Cell: 310-503-2553)
          Daron Tooch, Principal (Cell: 310-702-8192)
          Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc.
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-551-8179 or 310-551-8192


* Jon Meer Joins Seyfarth Shaw's Labor and Employment Department
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, one of America's leading full-service law
firms, disclosed that Jon D. Meer, Esq., has joined its Los
Angeles office as a partner in the firm's Labor and Employment
law Department.  Mr. Meer joins Seyfarth Shaw from DLA Piper
where we was a partner.

Mr. Meer, who was chair of his former firm's Los Angeles Labor
and Employment practice, represents employers and management in
all aspects of labor and employment law.  He has extensive
experience in litigation and client counseling of employers in
the areas of class action litigation, wage and hour litigation
and compliance, wrongful discharge, discharge in violation of
public policy, sexual and other harassment and employment
discrimination, among a host of areas.  In addition, Mr. Meer
has a record of defeating class certification in wage and hour
cases, as well as discrimination and civil rights cases.

"Jon's contagious enthusiasm for his work along with his passion
for providing first-class counsel to his clients are the very
qualities that propel clients to refer to ours as among 'the go-
to' firms for labor and employment matters in California and
nationally," said Jeremy P. Sherman, Esq., Chair of the firm's
Labor and Employment Department.  "His practice, specializing in
complex and high profile employment litigation, is a natural fit
with the fastest growing practice group in our department."

Seyfarth Shaw has one of the largest labor and employment
departments in California, with 100 labor and employment lawyers
practicing in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento.

Seyfarth Shaw was the first national firm to open California
offices over 30 years ago.  Today, the firm's California
attorneys constitute approximately one-third of its labor and
employment attorneys nationwide.

"We're very pleased to welcome Jon to our Los Angeles office,
where he'll bring additional depth of experience to our robust
team of labor and employment litigators and counselors," said
Kenwood C. Youmans, Esq., Office Managing Partner of the firm's
Los Angeles office.  "We have every expectation that he’ll
greatly contribute to the ongoing success of both our office's
and the firm's national labor and employment practice.  Equally
important, Jon will be a wonderful colleague who will add much
to our social fabric."

Mr. Meer graduated with honors from Cornell University and later
earned his J.D. from Boston University School of Law where he
was Honorable Paul J. Liacos Scholar in the Law and Law Journal
Executive Editor for Publication.  He is a member of the Labor
and Employment Law Section of the American Bar Association, a
member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and has served
as a lecturer in the Lawyer in the Classroom program sponsored
by the Constitutional Rights Foundation.

"I'm very happy to join my team of talented colleagues in
Seyfarth’s Labor and Employment Department both nationally and
here in Los Angeles," said Mr. Meer.  "The firm is regarded as
preeminent in this field, and I look forward to drawing on this
collective brain trust—both nationally and locally—to assist me
in my work on behalf of my clients."

Seyfarth Shaw -- http://www.seyfarth.com/-- has over 750  
attorneys located in nine offices throughout the United States
including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Washington
D.C., Atlanta, Houston, San Francisco and Sacramento, as well as
Brussels, Belgium.  The firm provides a broad range of legal
services in the areas of real estate, labor and employment,
employee benefits, litigation and business services.

Seyfarth Shaw's practice reflects virtually every industry and
segment of the country's business and social fabric.  Clients
include over 300 of the Fortune 500 companies, financial
institutions, newspapers and other media, hotels, health care
organizations, airlines and railroads.  The firm also represents
a number of federal, state, and local governmental and
educational entities.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

July 28-29, 2008
  MEALEY'S BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Ritz-Carlton Marina del Ray, California
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

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

September 22-24, 2008
  MEALEY'S NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION SUPERCONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, Arizona
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

September 23-24, 2008
  DEFENDING CONSUMER FRAUD ECONOMIC INJURY CLAIMS
    American Conference Institute
      Union League, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
        Phone: 888-224-2480

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

October 27-28, 2008
  POSITIONING THE CLASS ACTION DEFENSE FOR EARLY SUCCESS
    American Conference Institute
      FireSky Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, Arizona
        Phone: 888-224-2480

October 29-30, 2008
  AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT LIABILITY
    American Conference Institute
      Sutton Place Hotel, Chicago, Illinois
        Phone: 888-224-2480

November 7, 2008
  NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
    American Bar Association
      New York
        Phone: 800-285-2221

December 9-11, 2008
  DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Millennium Broadway Hotel, New York
        Phone: 888-224-2480

July 9-10, 2009
  CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND
    DEFENSE STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
July 1-31, 2008
  CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL
    CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2008
  DEBT ELIMINATION SCAMS AND THE INTERNET
    (TOGETHER WITH THE HBA COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMER LAW SECTION)
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: ACCORD AND SATISFACTION, NOVATION, RELEASES
    AND OTHER CONTRACTS ISSUES
     CLEOnline.Com
       Phone: 512-778-5665
         e-mail: info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: BUSINESS TORTS
    CLEOnline.Com
      Phone: 512-778-5665
        e-mail: info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS HOT TOPICS FOR CIVIL LAW
    ATTORNEYS IN TEXAS
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2008
  HBA PRESENTS: EVALUATING CAR WRECK CASES
    CLEOnline.Com
      Phone: 512-778-5665
        e-mail: info@cleonline.com

July 1-31, 2008
  LITIGATING POST-SALE HOUSE CASES IN TEXAS: CLAIMS AGAINST
    SELLERS, REALTORS AND INSPECTORS
      CLEOnline.Com
        Phone: 512-778-5665
          e-mail: info@cleonline.com

July 16, 2008
  SUBPRIME MORTGAGE: COVERAGE & BANKRUPTCY ISSUES ARISING
    FROM SUBPRIME LENDING
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 1-888-287-8258; 503-291-7963

July 23, 2008
  ASBESTOS INSURANCE: EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND ITS
    IMPACT ON COVERAGE
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 1-888-287-8258; 503-291-7963

July 30, 2008
  ASBESTOS SERIES: BANKRUPTCY TRUST UPDATES, CLAIMS FILING CRIB
    SHEET, AND NEW CARRIER STRATEGIES
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 1-888-287-8258; 503-291-7963

August 5, 2008
  ASBESTOS SERIES: DATA ANALYSIS, VENUE UPDATE, AND
    STRATEGY REVIEW
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 1-888-287-8258; 503-291-7963

August 12, 2008
  NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES: QUANTIFYING AND DEFENDING
    DAMAGES AND OTHER SETTLEMENT TECHNIQUES
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 1-888-287-8258; 503-291-7963

July 17, 2008
  EXXON: SUPREME COURT RULES ON PREEMPTION & PUNITIVE DAMAGES
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

December 4-5, 2008
  ASBESTOS LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

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

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

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

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS  
  (2007)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 26TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS  
  (2008)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

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

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

GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT
  DEVELOPMENTS
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *