CAR_Public/080710.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, July 10, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 136
  
                            Headlines

ACCREDITED HOME: Court Approves Ill. Suit Deal on Final Basis
APARTHEID LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Seek to Narrow Claims in Case
BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls Toy Chest Beds After Reported Death
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: La. Court Holds Hearing for Derailment Suit
CALIFORNIA: Prisons Fail to Properly Treat Inmates With Hepa C

DIGITEK MANUFACTURERS: Face Product Liability Suit in Michigan
DIRECTV INC: Suit Claims Consumer Legal Remedies Act Violations
ELLIOTT HOMES: Faces Calif. Suit for Building Defective Houses
ISRAEL BROADCASTING: Anti-Tobacco Lawyer to Sue IBA Officials
LIFE INVESTORS: Faces Michigan Suit Over Full Insurance Benefits  

MATSON NAVIGATION: Faces Hawaii Antitrust Suit Over Surcharges
METROPOLITAN ANTIQUES: Reaches $1.8M Settlement in Junk Fax Suit
MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART: Faces Suits Over Murakami Art Prints
NEBRASKA: State Agency Seeks Dismissal of Medicaid-Related Suit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Sued Over Changes in Employee Pension Plan

ONTARIO: Lawsuit Against Former OPP Commissioner Moves Forward
ORACLE CORP: New Judge Indicates Willingness to Impose Sanctions
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Over Unlawful SMS Charges Dismissed
PFIZER INC: Court Allows Claims in Shareholder Suit to Proceed
PHILIPPINES: Mt. Kanlaon Geothermal Project Faces Opposition

POLO RALPH: Calif. Court Certifies Labor-Related Lawsuit
REGENCE BLUECROSS: Sued for Rescinding Patients' Health Policies
SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in Illinois
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Minnesota Lawsuit Over Share Dumping
STEIN MART: Offers $10-$30 Coupons to Settle Data Theft Suit

WACHOVIA CORP: Brodsky Smith Files New York Stockholders' Suit
WANDA TECHNOLOGY: Recalls Outdoor Canopies Posing Fire Hazard


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

HEALTHWAYS INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Tenn. Securities Suit
MRV COMM: Dyer & Berens Files California Securities Fraud Suit
STATE STREET: Dyer & Berens Files Mass. Securities Fraud Lawsuit



                           *********


ACCREDITED HOME: Court Approves Ill. Suit Deal on Final Basis
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on May 1, 2008, that a
June 6, 2008 final approval hearing was scheduled for a
proposed settlement in a class action suit against Accredited
Home Lenders, Inc., over allegations of consumer fraud related
to the amount of fees it pays to third parties in connection
with residential mortgage loans.   

In an update, Steve Korris of the Madison County Record relates
that Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron approved the settlement during
the hearing.

Under the settlement, Madison County Record says that Accredited
Home will send a $10 check to anyone who submits a valid claim,
instead of setting a settlement fund.  Moreover instead of
awarding the customary $5,000 to each class representative,
Accredited awarded $5,000 for Paul and LaDonna Wratchford to
share.

The report also notes that The Lakin Law Firm will share a
$250,000 fee with three other firms representing the plaintiffs
in the lawsuit -- Freed and Weiss of Chicago; Tim Campbell of
Godfrey; and Diab and Bock of Chicago.

According to the previous CAR report, the lawsuit was filed by
the Lakins on behalf of Paul Wratchford and LaDonna Wratchford
in 2002.  The suit is captioned, "Wratchford et al. v.
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," and was brought in Madison
County, Illinois, under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, the consumer protection
statutes of the other states in which the company does business
and the common law of unjust enrichment.

The complaint alleged that the company has a practice of
misrepresenting and inflating the amount of fees it pays
to third parties in connection with the residential mortgage
loans that it funds.

Specifically, Madison County Record recounts, the Wratchfords
claimed that when they closed a home loan, Accredited charged a
$20.90 courier fee, spent less than that on a courier and
unlawfully kept the difference.

The plaintiffs claim to represent a nationwide class consisting
of others who paid the company to pay, or reimburse payments of,
third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage loans,
and never received a refund for the difference between what they
paid and what was actually paid to the third party.

The plaintiffs sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves
and the class, in addition to pre-judgment interest, post-
judgment interest, and any other relief the court may
grant.

Madison County Record further recalls that Judge Byron certified
the suit as a class action in 2005, a few days before Congress
passed the Class Action Fairness Act to curb class litigation.  

Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com  
-- is a mortgage company operating throughout the U.S. and in
Canada.  The Company originates, finances, securitizes,
services, and sells non-prime mortgage loans secured by
residential real estate.  


APARTHEID LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Seek to Narrow Claims in Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against
several dozen U.S. companies that did business in South Africa
during apartheid plan to ask the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York at a status conference scheduled
for this week to narrow down their claims in the matter, Jurist
Legal News reports.

Originally, 10 separate actions were filed in several federal
courts by millions of people who have lived in South Africa
after 1948.  The cases were combined in New York (Class Action
Reporter, May 31, 2008).

The litigation involves plaintiffs who sued the companies that
did business in South Africa during apartheid.  Some of these
companies include BP, Exxon, CitiBank, General Electric, IBM,
American Isuzu Motors Inc., Ford Motor Co., JPMorgan Chase &
Co., Honeywell International Inc., and 3M Co.

The plaintiffs are South Africans who are seeking to hold the
businesses liable under the Alien Tort Claims Act based on
alleged complicity in perpetuating the oppression of the black
majority in that country.  They also seek in excess of
$400 billion from the companies.

In 2004, Judge John Sprizzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York threw out claims brought under the
ATCA, saying he did not have jurisdiction.  That decision was
appealed to the U.S. Court or Appeals for the Second Circuit,
which heard arguments in January 2006.  In a later ruling, the
appeals court recommended that the lower court consider prior
rulings.  

Additionally, in 2007, the Second Circuit reinstated some class
action claims in the suit.  Specifically, it reinstated claims
brought under the ATCA.  Though the Second Circuit's decision
allowed the ATCA action to go forward to trial, it had, however,
dismissed additional claims filed under the Torture Victims
Protection Act.

The defendants later appealed the reinstatement to the U.S.
Supreme Court.  However, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second
Circuit's judgment in May 2008 on the grounds that it lacked a
quorum due to four recusals.  

According to a Legal News Line report, Chief Justice John
Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer recused
themselves because of stock holdings in several of the companies
listed as defendants, while some believe Justice Anthony Kennedy
may have recused himself because of his son's position at one of
the companies.

Jurist Legal News explains that the U.S. Supreme Court's
recusals were statutorily required, because several justices had
financial conflicts, but raised fairness concerns and brought
about discussion as to possible effects on future cases.

Lin Young, of Legal News Line, notes that under federal law,
judges may not participate in deciding cases if they, a spouse
or minor child own stock in a company that is a party to a case.
When the court is unable to form a quorum, a statute requires it
to affirm the judgment of the lower court, Legal News Line
further explains.

In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision returned the case
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
for further proceedings.

Both the U.S. and South African governments objected to the
reinstatement of the suit.  The U.S. contends that the court's
decision would interfere with South Africa's reconciliation and
redress efforts, and for its part, South Africa contends that
the ruling would interfere with its right to litigate such
claims itself.


BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls Toy Chest Beds After Reported Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bayside Furnishings (a division of Whalen), of San Diego,
California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 9,350 LaJolla Boat Bed and
Pirates of the Caribbean Twin Trundle Beds.

The company said the lid supports on the toy chests of the beds
fail to prevent the lid from closing too quickly, posing an
entrapment and strangulation hazard to young children.

CPSC received one report of a death involving a 22-month-old boy
in Roseville, California.  He strangled when the lid fell on the
back of his head and entrapped his neck on the edge of the chest
of a LaJolla Boat Bed.

This recall involves two styles of Bayside youth beds: the
LaJolla Boat Bed and the Pirates of the Caribbean Twin Trundle
Bed.  The preassembled toy chests are designed in the shape of a
ship or boat's "bow" and attached to the beds as a footboard.
The LaJolla Boat Bed toy chest has a hardwood top and white wood
base with a blue stripe.  The Pirates Boat Bed toy chest has a
hardwood top, wheel shape and brown wood base with decorative
carvings.

These recalled youth bed toy chests were manufactured in China
and were being sold at Costco and furniture retail stores
nationwide and Costco.com from January 2006 through May 2008 for
between $700 and $1,400.

Pictures of the recalled youth bed toy chests are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08323a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08323b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop children from using
the recalled toy chests and contact the firm for instructions on
receiving a free repair kit with replacement lid supports.

For additional information, contact Bayside at 877-494-2536
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.baysidefurnishings.com/to register online for the  
free repair kit.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: La. Court Holds Hearing for Derailment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
held a hearing on June 24, 2008, to sort out how to move forward
with a possible class action suit against Burlington Northern &
Santa Fe Railroad, stemming from a May 17, 2008 train derailment
that spilled hydrochloric acid near Lafayette, KATC reports.

In the hearing, Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr., asked the
plaintiffs' lawyers to submit applications.  According to KATC,
the judge also is requiring the attorneys to distribute a survey
to those clients with claims.

                        Case Background

According to an earlier report by CourtHouse News Service,
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad is facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana over the May 17 morning train derailment
that spilled hydrochloric acid near Lafayette, forcing the
evacuation of 3,000 people (Class Action Reporter, May 23,
2008).

A BNSF train derailed in Lafayette, Lafayette Parish, State of
Louisiana, on May 17, 2008, caused emissions of toxic chemicals
including but not limited to hydrochloric acid.  This resulted
to injuries to plaintiffs and numerous other individuals over a
large area of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana.

The wreck sent a toxic cloud over the city, putting five people
in the hospital, press reports said.  

Most of the roughly 3,000 residents who were evacuated after the
2:00 a.m. derailment were able to return home the following
night, but residents within 1,000 feet of the 10,000-gallon
spill -- mostly businesses -- are still prohibited from
returning.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all residents and
domiciliaries of the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana who
were present, had businesses or owned property in Lafayette on
May 17, 2008, and who sustained injuries and damages as a result
of the derailment of the BNSF train and the subsequent release
of toxic chemicals.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class under the appropriate
        provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23,
        and appointing complainants and their counsel to
        represent the class;

     -- a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the
        proposed class against BNSF in an amount to compensate
        each class member for all damages to which they are
        entitled to by law, but after due proceedings that
        including a trial by jury;

     -- legal interest on all damages awarded from the date
        of judicial demand until paid; and

     -- the cost of this litigation.

The suit is "Daniel Danenberg, et al. v. Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad Company, Case No. 6:08-cv-00676," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Judge
Richard T. Haik, Sr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Becnel, Esq. (dbecnel@becnellaw.com)
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. (mmoreland@becnellaw.com)
          Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
          (schristina@becnellaw.com)
          Becnel Law Firm LLC
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Phone: 985-536-1186
          Fax: 985-536-6445

Representing the defendants is:

          John E McElligott, Jr., Esq.
          (jmcelligott@davidsonmeaux.com)
          Davidson Meaux, et al.
          P.O. Drawer 2908
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Phone: 337-237-1660
          Fax: 337-237-3676


CALIFORNIA: Prisons Fail to Properly Treat Inmates With Hepa C
--------------------------------------------------------------
With Hepatitis C now an epidemic in California prisons, a class
action lawsuit was filed in Federal Court which would require
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to
provide thousands of inmates suffering from Hepatitis C with the
proper diagnostic testing and treatment that they are currently
being denied.

Filed by the downtown Los Angeles firm of Khorrami, Pollard &
Abir, the suit contends that the CDCR is wrongly excluding
thousands of inmates from liver biopsies and anti-viral
treatment and allowing their disease to progress to more
advanced stages of liver damage.  The lack of proper diagnostic
testing and treatment further spreads the disease among the
inmate population.

Hepatitis C currently infects about 40% of the approximately
190,000 inmates in California prisons.  The standard of care as
set by the Center for Disease Control, the National Institute of
Health and most medical practitioners requires that patients
with Stage II Hepatitis be offered treatment.  However, the CDCR
requires inmates to develop a more advanced stage of Hepatitis C
(compared to the general civilian population) before offering
them antiviral treatment.  At these more advanced stages,
treatment is less likely to succeed.  Moreover, many California
inmates do not receive even the liver biopsies necessary to
determine the stage of their disease.

Without treatment, a significant percentage of Hepatitis C
patients will develop cirrhosis, liver failure, and cancer of
the liver.  Hepatitis C is the principal cause of liver failure
and the main reason for liver transplantation in the United
States.

"A court already decided the appropriate punishment for these
people.  The Department of Corrections is playing judge, jury,
and executioner and doling out a punishment that no court would
allow.  This is unacceptable, inhumane and constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment
to the Constitution," says Shawn Khorrami.

The case has been filed on behalf of lead plaintiff, Kevin
Jackson, currently an inmate at the California State Prison at
Solano and names as a defendant Robin Dezember, the Director of
the Division of Correctional Health Care Services who is
responsible for establishing health care policies for the prison
system in California.

Jackson was diagnosed with Stage II Hepatitis on August 27,
2007, and although he has repeatedly requested treatment, the
CDCR has refused.

Hepatitis C is a serious viral infection of the liver, spread by
contamination with blood from infected persons such as occurs
through illicit intravenous drug use, tattoos, or contaminated
therapeutic blood products.  There are about six genetic strains
of Hepatitis C.

Fortunately, good and effective treatment is available with a
combination of two drugs, ribavirin and interferon.

"Despite an established standard of care, the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has adopted
protocols designed to exclude patients from diagnostic biopsies
and treatment.  This is in contrast to the care and treatment
provided to the general population," says Mr. Khorrami.  "This
practice not only denies inmates proper care and allows their
health to deteriorate, but also presents a health danger of
further spreading the disease not only within the prison
population but also in the general population once the infected
inmates are released from prison."

For more information, contact:

          Shawn Khorrami, Esq.
          Law Offices of Khorrami, Pollard & Abir
          444 S. Flower St., 33rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: 310-308-9423


DIGITEK MANUFACTURERS: Face Product Liability Suit in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2008, J. Douglas Peters, Esq., of Detroit's Charfoos
& Christensen, P.C., filed the first drug product liability
action in a Michigan Court since the Michigan Supreme Court
affirmed former Governor Engler's grant of immunity to drug
manufacturers.

The class action drug product liability lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, by plaintiffs Anthony Harris (Redford) and
Steven B. Love (Kentwater) against:

     -- Activis Group (formerly known as Amide Pharmaceutical),
     -- Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
     -- UDL Laboratories, Inc.,

claiming damages in excess of $75,000.00.

Digitek(R), the trade name for the drug in question, is the
brand name for digitalis, a drug given to heart patients.  
During the manufacturing process, errors were made such that the
.125 mg labeled tablet was actually .250 mg; and, the tablet
sold as .25 mg was actually .50 mg.  This manufacturing error is
not covered by the broad grant of immunity Governor Engler
intended when Michigan's drug manufacturer immunity legislation
was adopted during the Engler Administration.

Death from ventricular arrhythmia, or heart block, can result
from digitalis overdose.  Non-fatal complications can include
nausea, vomiting, severe weight loss, diarrhea, mental
confusion, vision changes and elevated blood pressure, which can
lead to cerebral strokes.

The filing of this class action lawsuit in Michigan prevents the
statute of limitations for other Michigan citizens from
expiring.  This is helpful because some, but not all recipients
of Digitek(R), received letters from their pharmacies recalling
the misbranded drugs.

According to Peters, "I sure hope that the manufacturing errors
by these major pharmaceutical companies are not given the cloak
of immunity by the conservative majority that currently controls
the Michigan Supreme Court.  To give immunity to manufacturers
who do not manufacture their products according to the FDA's
standards should be a step too far for even our Supreme Court."

For more information, contact:

          J. Douglas Peters, Esq.
          Ann K. Mandt, Esq.
          Charfoos and Christensen, P.C.,
          Hecker-Smiley Mansion
          5510 Woodward Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48202
          Phone: 313-875-8080


DIRECTV INC: Suit Claims Consumer Legal Remedies Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
DirecTV Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California over
alleged violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, and unlawful
assessment of liquidated damages, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a proposed nationwide class action arising out of the
defendants' deceptive and unlawful business acts and practices
concerning the sale of satellite television service plans and
related equipment.  These practices included failure to disclose
adequately that by purchasing DirecTV, consumers are entering
into a tw-year "programming commitment," and that canceling
DirecTV's service before the two-year commitment expires will
cause consumers to incur excessive and unreasonable cancellation
fees.

The plaintiffs bring this complaint as a class action pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
all consumers in the United States between June 4, 2004 and the
present who ordered programming from defendants, other than
through their website, and were charged an "Early Cancellation
Fee" that was not adequately disclosed to the consumer at the
time of the order.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants failed to adequately disclose
         the programming commitment and early cancellation fee;

     (b) whether the early cancellation fee is unconscionable;

     (c) whether the early cancellation fee is an illegal
         assessment of liquidated damages;

     (d) whether the defendants' actions constitute unfair or
         deceptive business practices and violations of the
         Consumer Legal Remedies Act;

     (e) the amount of restitution and any other applicable
         relief to which the class may be entitled; and

     (f) whether injunctive relief is appropriate and the
         appropriate terms of such injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order declaring this a class action;

     -- declaratory relief finding that defendants have
        engaged in unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business acts
        or practices in violation of California Business &
        Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     -- declaratory relief finding defendants' early
        cancellation fee is void under California Civil Code
        Section 1671(d);

     -- a temporary restraining order and a preliminary and
        permanent injunction enjoining defendant and its
        officers, directors, agents, distributors, servants,
        employees, attorneys, and all others in active concert
        or participation with defendants during the pendency of
        this action and permanently thereafter from four years
        ago;

     -- restitution to all persons from whom defendants
        unlawfully, unfairly, or fraudulently took money,
        including a full refund of all fees improperly charged
        and accrued interest, in addition to other unjust
        enrichment of defendants in an amount to be proven at
        trial;

     -- actual damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of
        the class;

     -- punitive damages, to be awarded to plaintiffs and
        each class members;

     -- interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

     -- costs of suit;

     -- plaintiffs to be awarded attorneys' fees and all
        litigation expenses pursuant to the California Civil
        Code Section 1780(d) and California Code of Civil
        Procedure Section 1021.5. alternatively, for all
        attorneys' fees and all litigation expenses to be
        awarded pursuant to the substantial benefit doctrine,
        the common fund doctrine, or any other provision of law;
        and

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

The suit is "Annette Kahaly, et al. v. DirecTV, Inc., et al.,
Case No. SAC V08-741 AG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Blake Muir Harper, Esq. (blake@hulettharper.com)
          Sarah P. Weber, Esq. (sweber@hulettharper.com)
          Hulett Harper Stewart LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-338-1133
          Fax: 619-338-1139


ELLIOTT HOMES: Faces Calif. Suit for Building Defective Houses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott Homes Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento,
over an allegation that it built 120 defective houses in the
Laguna West development in Elk Grove, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

According to the complaint, there is a common theory of defects
from mass production: water intrusion producing property damage,
mold growth and subsequent deterioration of building materials,
water intrusion at stucco, windows and roofs, stucco
deficiencies and other similar defects.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- damages according to proof thereof;

     -- attorney's fees and costs of suit herein;

     -- interest thereon at the maximum legal rate;

     -- prejudgment interest on all sums awarded at the
        maximum legal rate; and

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

The suit is "Mark Wilson, et al. v. Elliott Homes, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 34-2008-00015047-CU-CD-GDS," filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Luke P. Ryan, Esq.
           Megan M. Chodzko, Esq.
           Roshni V. Patel, Esq.
           Shinnick & Ryan LLP
           1810 State Street
           San Diego, CA 92 101
           Phone: 619-239-5900
           Fax: 619-239-1833


ISRAEL BROADCASTING: Anti-Tobacco Lawyer to Sue IBA Officials
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amos Hausner, chairman of the Israel Council for the Prevention
of Smoking, will file an unprecedented ILS15.9-million class
action lawsuit against the Israel Broadcasting Authority's
director-general and other top officials if they do not
immediately stop breaking the no-smoking laws in Jerusalem's
Israel TV building, The Jerusalem Post reports.

Jerusalem Post's Judy Siegel-Itzkovich writes that Mr. Amos,
Israel's leading anti-tobacco lawyer, who has won several
important lawsuits over the enforcement of laws, recently
informed IBA Director-General Moti Shklar that he and Israel
TV's director and administrative director will personally have
to pay the fine if they lose the case in court.

The report relates that a recent amendment to anti-smoking laws
puts the onus on owners and managers of premises where illegal
smoking occurs, thus Mr. Shklar and his colleagues -- rather
than the public who pay TV license fees -- will have to pay if
they lose the lawsuit.

Mr. Hausner told Jerusalem Post that he has received "many
complaints from senior people down to low-level staffers" that
no-smoking laws are being violated daily in Israel TV's
building.

When Mr. Hausner previously complained, Mr. Shklar admitted that
the "smoking corners" in the building were not, as required by
law, completely separated and enclosed or ventilated and not
used by nonsmokers, however he took no action.  

In addition, Mr. Shklar conceded that that these spots are
equipped with ashtrays, which is in itself a violation,
according to Jerusalem Post.

Mr. Hausner said that as Mr. Shklar has "ignored several" of his
letters, July 15, 2008 is the final deadline for filing the
class-action suit.

He reportedly reached the ILS15.9-million figure by multiplying
the 530 non-smoking employees in the building who work 300 days
per year by a ILS1,000 charge for each smoking violation.


LIFE INVESTORS: Faces Michigan Suit Over Full Insurance Benefits  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Investors Insurance Co. of America and Aegon USA are facing
a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan over an allegation that the
companies wrongfully refuse to pay full insurance benefits for
cancer treatments, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring the suit, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of:

     (1) all Michigan residents who were insureds or were
         beneficiaries under any cancer insurance policies
         issued, assumed, administered or sold by Life Investors
         ad the policies provide for the payment of certain
         benefits based on actual charges; the insureds or
         beneficiaries, while residents of Michigan, filed
         actual charges claims and were paid actual charged
         benefits subject to insurance discounts, other
         insurance payments, reductions or other discounts; and
         the date of service for the actual charges claims was
         after April 1 2006;

     (2) all insureds and beneficiaries in Michigan who are, or
         between April 1, 2006 until the present have been,
         insured by a cancer insurance policy issued, assumed,
         sold or administered by Life Investors Insurance
         Company of America, which provides for the payment of
         certain benefits based on actual charges.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants have systematically refused and
         failed to pay the proper amount of actual charges
         benefits as the term is properly defined;

     (b) whether defendants systematically notified plaintiffs
         and members of the class that they would refuse on a
         prospective basis to pay benefits in the amount of
         actual charges as reflected in healthcare provider
         billing statements;

     (c) whether the policies of insurance unambiguously provide
         that actual charges benefits should be based on the
         amount a healthcare provider bills, prior to any write-
         offs, reduction or payments by third parties;

     (d) whether the policies of insurance unambiguously provide
         that actual charges benefits should be based on the
         amount the healthcare providers bills, rather than the
         amount ultimately paid to said providers by third-party
         payors;

     (e) whether defendants' prior standard practice and uniform
         course of conduct, established as a matter of law and
         contract, that the term actual charges means and refers
         to the amount billed by healthcare providers;

     (f) whether defendants' unilateral change upon which they
         paid actual charges benefits is contrary to their
         contractual obligations and implied duties of good
         faith and fair dealing;

     (g) whether the class members who were denied or were
         partially denied benefit payments based on write-offs,
         reductions or payments by third parties, are entitled    
         to restitution and damages for amounts wrongfully
         denied to them;

     (h) whether class members are entitled to a declaratory
         judgment, holding as a matter of law and contract, that
         actual charges with respect to policy benefits refers
         to the amount billed for treatment before any insurance
         discounts, other insurance payments, reductions or
         discounts of any kind;

     (i) whether the class members are entitled to injunctive
         relief requiring defendants to honor and pay future
         claims based on actual charges, in the amount billed
         for treatments before any insurance discounts, other
         insurance payments, reductions or discounts of any
         kind; and

     (j) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by paying
         reduced benefits instead of actual charges as reflected
         on healthcare providers' billing statements.

The plaintiffs request:

     -- that defendants be served with a copy of this class
        action complaint, and after due proceedings, this case
        be certified as a class action;

     -- that the members of the class be awarded restitution and
        monetary damages as afforded by law;

     -- that the members of the class be awarded statutory
        penalties and interest as afforded by law;

     -- that declaratory judgment and injunctive relief be
        granted for the class;

     -- that the class be awarded the costs incurred in bringing
        this action together with reasonable attorneys' fees and
        expenses, including expert fees and interest; and

     -- for all other legal and equitable relief as the case may
        permit.

The suit is "Mary Weidman, et al. v. Life Investors Insurance
Company of America, et al., Case 2:08-cv-12870-AJT-MKM," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Dennis M. O'Bryan, Esq. (dob@obryanlaw.net)
          O'Bryan Baun Cohen Kuebler Karamanian
          401 S. Old Woodward, Ste. 450
          Birmingham , MI
          Phone: 248-258-6262
          Fax: 248-258-6047


MATSON NAVIGATION: Faces Hawaii Antitrust Suit Over Surcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matson Navigation Co. is facing a purported antitrust class
action lawsuit in Hawaii over allegations that it conspired with
Horizon Lines Inc. to fix their rate increases through fuel
surcharges and at a much higher amount than the actual increase
in the cost of the fuel, Nelson Daranciang writes for The
Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

The lawsuit was filed by Rhythm of Life Cosmetics Inc., which
does business as Maui Tropical Soaps, before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Hawaii on June 24, 2008.  It names
Horizon Lines as co-conspirator, but not as a defendant,
according to Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

The suit, entitled, "Rhythm of Life Cosmetics, Inc. v. Matson
Navigation Company et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00298-SPK-KSC,"
seeks class certification on behalf of anyone who paid Matson
for shipping from 1999 to the present.

According to the lawsuit, the prices of diesel for the newer
ships and residual fuel oil or bunker oil for the older ships
increased approximately 650% and 450%, respectively, from late
1999 to the present.

The suit, according to Honolulu Star-Bulletin, alleges that
during the same period, Matson and Horizon implemented fuel
surcharge increases in unison of about 3,800%.

The suit is "Rhythm of Life Cosmetics, Inc. v. Matson Navigation
Company et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00298-SPK-KSC," filed in the
the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, Judge Samuel
P. King, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John S. Edmunds, Esq. (jedmunds@ev-law.com)
          Edmunds & Verga
          Davies Pacific Center
          841 Bishop St., Ste. 2104
          Honolulu, HI 96813-3945
          Phone: 808-524-2000

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq. (cburke@scott-scott.com)
          Scott & Scott, LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Fax: 619-233-0508

               - and -

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq. (jhartley@rdblaw.com)
          Ross Dixon & Bell, LLP
          550 West B Street, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92101-3599
          Phone: 619-557-4315
          Fax: 619-231-8796


METROPOLITAN ANTIQUES: Reaches $1.8M Settlement in Junk Fax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Antiques, LLC, reached a $1,800,000 settlement in
the purported class action lawsuit, "Fray-Witzer v. Metropolitan
Antiques, LLC., Civil Action No. 02-5827," which alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on
unsolicited fax advertisements, according to a report by The
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

The suit was filed with the Suffolk Superior Court in Suffolk
County, Massachusetts, on Dec. 30, 2002.  It was brought by
Matthew P. McCue, Esq., and Edward A. Broderick, Esq., on behalf
of Evan Fray-Witzer, Esq., an attorney from Boston.

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly's Julia Reischel recounts that
Metropolitan Antiques sent out approximately 360,000 unsolicited
faxes between 2001 and 2003, advertising estate sales to certain
professionals residing or doing business in Massachusetts.  
Among the doctors, accountants, and lawyers who received the
faxes was Evan Fray-Witzer.

The suit is generally claiming that Metropolitan Antiques had
violated the TCPA, which prohibits telemarketing via unsolicited
faxes and allows for penalties of $500 to $1,500 per violation.
It specifically alleges that the fax advertisements were sent in
violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3) and in
violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L.
c. 93A.

According to the report, the parties in the lawsuit reached a
settlement which may entitle each class member to receive up to
$1,500 each.

A Web site containing details of the settlement in the matter is
at: http://metrojunkfaxsettlement.com/

For more details, contact:

     Metropolitan Antiques Class Action Settlement Administrator
     c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
     Post Office Box 170500
     Milwaukee, WI 53217
     Fax: 414-963-3277
     e-mail: info@metrojunkfaxsettlement.com

     Matthew P. McCue, Esq. (mmccue@massattorneys.net)
     Law Office of Matthew P. McCue
     Protecting Consumers' Rights
     179 Union Ave.
     Framingham, MA 01702
     Phone: 508-620-1166
     Fax: 508-820-3311
     Web site: http://mmccue.massattorneys.net/


MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART: Faces Suits Over Murakami Art Prints
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) and Louis Vuitton North
America are facing two purported class action lawsuits in
California over allegations that the luxury retailer did not
provide proper documentation for the works sold at its MOCA
boutique, Mike Boehm writes for The Los Angeles Times.

The suits were filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court in late
June.  LA Times notes that both complaints rely on an obscure
chapter of the California Civil Code called the Fine Prints Act.

Together, Louis Vuitton and MOCA potentially are liable for
millions of dollars, since the FPA, at Code Sections 1740-1745,
allows triple damages for each instance in which a dealer
"willfully" fails to provide documents that vouch for an art
print's authenticity, according to LA Times.

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

Charles Sherman, an artist-appraiser who visited MOCA's museum
store on June 22, 2008, stated in an affidavit filed together
with the suit that he was told art prints did not come with
certificates, and that "I would just have to trust them as far
as the authenticity goes."

Mr. Arthur, who sued Louis Vuitton on June 23, 2008, and MOCA on
June 23, 2008, told LA Times that he discovered the law on the
Internet after having misgivings about the prints he had
purchased last winter during the "Murakami" exhibition at MOCA's
Geffen Contemporary building.

Daniel Engel, Esq., one of Mr. Arthur's attorneys, shared with
LA Times that the suits were not about just one art buyer's
losses, but rather a consumer class action on behalf of all
purchasers in a similar position.

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

Louis Vuitton, a luxury-goods purveyor, entered into the art
business by partnering with Takashi Murakami to produce limited
edition prints of designs he had made for Vuitton handbags.
The prints were sold at a special boutique set up within the
"Murakami" exhibition to highlight how art and commerce
intersect in Takashi Murakamis work.

Mr. Engel and Matthew Butterick, Esq., another plaintiff's
attorney, contend that Louis Vuitton sold as many as 500 prints
during the Murakami show, for a total of $4 million.  

In addition, the plaintiffs' attorneys argue that MOCA should be
held liable for any prints it has sold without documentation
during the last four years.

For more details, contact:

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

               - and -

          Matthew James Butterick, Esq.
          Butterick Law Corp
          5419 Hollywood Blvd Ste C731
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Phone: 323-544-1435
          Fax: 866-801-1147
          e-mail: info@buttericklaw.com


NEBRASKA: State Agency Seeks Dismissal of Medicaid-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services is seeking
the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit that claims
the state improperly denied Medicaid coverage to some welfare
recipients, the Omaha World-Herald reports.

The purported class action suit was filed in the Lancaster
County District Court in May 2008 by the Nebraska Appleseed
Center for Law in the Public Interest.  It was brought on behalf
of Jennifer Davio and several hundred other parents who lost
benefits.  Ms. Davio is the single parent of two children and is
pregnant with a third.

The lawsuit is challenging the State of Nebraska's authority to
take medical assistance away from low-income families.  It also
asserted that the Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services has overstepped its bounds by removing vital Medicaid
health care coverage from struggling families who have already
received penalties from another assistance program.  Medicaid is
the state's health insurance program for low-income families.

Specifically, the suit challenges a Department of Health and
Human Services policy that removes Medicaid assistance from
families who fail to fully meet work requirements under
Nebraska's welfare-to-work program known as Employment First.

"This policy prevents parents from receiving the health care
they need to remain healthy enough to care for their children.
It can result in emergency room visits that are more costly in
the long run, and it runs contrary to state law," states Erin
Ching, Staff Attorney, citing the State Welfare Reform Act in
which the Nebraska Legislature declared that only cash
assistance should be removed as a penalty for failure to
participate in the Employment First program.

Ms. Ching adds, "The removal of health care is an important
policy decision that should only be made by the legislature, and
the legislature did not authorize Health and Human Services to
remove adult Medicaid."

Nebraska Appleseed estimates that, since 1997, there have been
several hundred parents whose Medicaid has been removed due to
an Employment First sanction.

The lawsuit seeks to stop the state from removing Medicaid from
adults in families that have received a sanction for failure to
participate in the Employment First program, and to require that
the program's regulations be modified to bring them in line with
the intent of the Nebraska Legislature and the Welfare Reform
Act (WRA).

Named as defendants in the matter are the Nebraska Department of
Health and Human Services, the state administrative agency
charged with implementing the WRA, Christine Peterson, CEO of
Health and Human Services, Todd Landry, Director of the Division
of Children and Family Services, and Vivianne Chaumont, Director
of the Division of Medicaid and Long-Term Care.

In seeking the dismissal of the litigation, the Nebraska
Department of Health and Human Services contended that state law
authorizes it to cut off both Medicaid and Aid to Dependent
Children cash assistance when recipients don't comply with the
work requirements of Nebraska's welfare-to-work program,
according to Omaha World-Herald.

Todd Landry, children and family services director of the
Department of Health and Human Services, called the lawsuit
frivolous and said the agency would fight it.

For more details, contact:

        Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest
        941 'O' Street, Suite 920
        Lincoln, NE 68508
        Phone: 402-438-8853
        Fax: 402-438-0263
        e-mail: info@neappleseed.org
        Web site: http://www.neappleseed.org/


NORTEL NETWORKS: Sued Over Changes in Employee Pension Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Ottawa law firm is leading a class action lawsuit against
Nortel Networks Corp. over major changes to employee pension
plans aimed at generating $100 million in annual savings for the
troubled company, Bert Hill and James Bagnall write for Canwest
News Service.

According to the report, Nelligan O'Brien Payne is seeking
class-action certification for employees who saw their future
pension benefits plunge in a series of cost-cutting efforts,
including layoffs, that Nortel Networks announced two years ago.

Canwest News says that the suit was filed naming veteran Ottawa
employee Kent Felske as the lead plaintiff in Ontario Superior
Court.  Mr. Felske is a long-service Nortel employee who failed
to meet one of three tests that would have left his defined
benefit pension untouched.

Nortel spokeswoman Karen Monaghan told Canwest that changes to
the pension program were designed to "bring the company in line
with many other comparable companies, while ensuring we still
offer a competitive pension plan and overall benefits program."
She said Nortel had just learned of the action and had no other
immediate comment.

Nortel said earlier that it expects to generate $400 million in
cash savings and a similar reduction in unfunded pension-plan
liabilities over four years.

The report recounts that Nortel announced plans in June 2006 to
convert the pension plan from a defined-benefits plan to a
defined-contribution plan, effective Jan. 1, 2008.  It shifted
the risk of future inflation from the company to the employee.
It is similar to registered retirement savings plans, with the
company matching some employee contributions.

Nortel, Canwest further recalls, also eliminated future
retirement health-care benefits for employees younger than 50
and with less than five years of service, effective July 2006.

The Nelligan law firm is seeking court approval to represent
Nortel employees with at least 20 years service who were not
protected by safeguards in the transition.

"We don't think that 18 months is sufficient notice to allow
long-service employees in their late 40s and early 50s to change
their retirement planning," Nelligan lawyer Steve Levitt told
Canwest.  "The value of retirement benefits typically ramps up
rapidly in later years as average incomes rise.  The new plan
won't let them recoup the lost years."

Mr. Levitt added that more than 40 Nortel employees have
indicated support for the case.  He said that the precise number
of people hit by the changes won't be determined unless the suit
is certified as a class action in court.

Canwest notes that in the first quarter under the new rules, the
unfunded liability on Nortel's pension plan fell eight per cent
to $1.02 billion.

Many older, long-service Nortel employees were protected from
the change under a complex formula, the report relates.  
However, many middle-aged workers were not.  How much they will
lose as a result of the change is not clear.

According to Canwest, employees were eligible to remain in the
more generous defined-benefit plan if they were at least 55
years old and their age and years of service totaled at least
70; at least 60 regardless of service; or had 30 years of
service regardless of age.

The report points out that it is not clear how many of Nortel's
6,000-plus Canadian employees failed to meet the conditions for
grandfathering pension benefits.  This information, the report
says, will be provided by Nortel if the court approves a motion
to qualify the suit as a class-action suit.

Nortel has 30 days to file a statement of defense, then the
plaintiff has up to 90 days to file a motion to certify the
class-action claim, Canwest says.


ONTARIO: Lawsuit Against Former OPP Commissioner Moves Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
A CDN$12-million (EUR8.4 million) lawsuit that was initiated in
2007 by 14 residents residents of Caledonia, Ontario, who claim
that police failed to intervene when their community was
occupied by Native Americans, is set to go ahead following the
failure of the Ontario government to block the legal action,
John Burke writes for The Sunday Business Post.

Gwen M. Boniface, a police officer, former lawyer, and the
former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, was named
as a defendant in the case.

According to Sunday Business Post, Ms. Boniface is the first
female commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police.  She is
also the first female president of the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police, and the first Canadian to be the Vice Chair of
the Division of State and Provincial Police of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police.  She stepped down as OPP
Commissioner in October 2006 to accept an advisory position with
Ireland's Garda Siochana Inspectorate (National Police Force).

The lawsuit alleged malfeasance by the police.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that Ms. Boniface failed to properly
enforce a court order, inadequately coordinated a police
operation and failed to protect the welfare of residents next to
a site in Caledonia which was illegally occupied by Native
Americans in February 2006.  The residents claim that Ms.
Boniface failed to ask for extra police units when officers were
overrun by protesters during an attempted eviction.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation against the Ontario
police over the alleged malfeasance, CDN$5million in damages
from the province of Ontario, and an additional CDN$2 million in
aggravated and punitive damages.

In December 2007, Justice David Crane of The Ontario Supreme
Court ruled that the court had jurisdiction to examine how
police conducted the operation, and has now ruled that the
provincial government cannot appeal his decision.


ORACLE CORP: New Judge Indicates Willingness to Impose Sanctions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The new presiding judge in the securities fraud class action
lawsuit, styled, "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 01-CV-0988," indicated that she may be willing to
impose sanctions for alleged destruction of evidence by a key
defense witness in the case, Law.Com reports.

Law.Com relates that Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California took over the case
from Judge Martin J. Jenkins, who in 2008, announced that he
would be leaving the federal bench, having been appointed by
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to the California Court of
Appeal.  

According to the report, as the new presiding judge of the case,
Judge Illston recently told both parties that she is "not
inclined" to throw the whole case to the plaintiffs over the
spoliation of evidence claim, but finds "lesser evidentiary
sanctions may be appropriate."  Judge Illston ordered both sides
to brief the question, and whether such sanctions would prevent
her from entering a partial or full summary judgment -- the
other major motion pending before her in the matter.

Law.Com points out that the dispute over electronic discovery
centers on the fate of a British author's audio files of
interviews with Oracle Chief Executive Officer Larry Ellison
done in preparation for "Softwar: An Intimate Portrait of Larry
Ellison and Oracle," which seem to have disappeared.

The interviews are critical to the plaintiffs, the report notes,
because they were done during the very time Mr. Ellison and
other top executives allegedly misled investors and falsified
software sales during the market downturn in the 2000-2001 dot-
com bust.  The suit accuses Mr. Ellison of selling $900 million
of his own stock before the bad news hit the market.

During a two-day deposition in London in March 2007, the British
author, Matthew Symonds, asserted a Fifth Amendment right not to
testify because, though he is not a party, he also is not a U.S.
citizen and claimed the protection on foreign soil.

The report says that this began a long dispute over Mr. Symonds'
right to assert the constitutional right while the case was then
pending before Judge Jenkins, who later decided that Mr. Symonds
could not be forced to testify because of potential criminal
liability.  

After Judge Jenkins heard arguments in December 2007 on the
issue of sanctions for alleged spoliation, the appointment to
the California State Court of Appeal came up and, thus the issue
was left unresolved.

Eventually, the case was assigned to Judge Illston, who ordered
both sides to complete briefing on the spoliation question by
mid-August 2008 but set no hearing date.

                         Case Background

Initially, stockholder class action suits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on and
after March 9, 2001, against Oracle Corp. and its chief
executive officer (Class Action Reporter, July 8, 2008).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Mark Solomon, Esq. (marks@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
                800-449-4900
         Fax: 619-231-7423

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

         Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. (patrick.gibbs@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins LLP
         140 Scott Drive
         Menlo Park CA 94025
         Phone: 1-650-463-4696
         Fax: 1-650-463-2600

              - and -

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


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Over Unlawful SMS Charges Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. (Nasdaq:PTNR) (TASE:PTNR), a
leading Israeli mobile communications operator, disclosed that,  
following an agreed-upon request of the plaintiffs to withdraw
their claim from the District Court of Jerusalem, the suit was
dismissed with prejudice, and a request for the certification of
the claim as a class action was dismissed without prejudice.

The suit was filed against Partner and against two other
cellular operators -- Cellcom Israel Ltd. and MIRS
Communications -- in Israel in the District Court of Jerusalem
by plaintiffs claiming to be subscribers of the Defendants
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 28, 2007).

The claim alleges that the defendants charged consumers
unlawfully, for SMS messages sent to handsets which cannot
receive such messages.  Furthermore, the claim alleges that the
Defendants misled consumers who sent such messages, as those
consumers received an alert notifying that those messages were
sent.

On July 2, 2008, the defendants agreed, without prejudice, to
maintain a high level of service, in cases of failure of receipt
of a message by an intended recipient, by:

     (i) not charging for such messages, and
    (ii) providing a network notification of such failure.

Furthermore, the defendants agreed to refund its subscribers who
had been charged for such sent but unreceived messages.

Had the lawsuit been certified as a class action, the total
amount claimed from the Defendants was estimated by the
plaintiffs to be ILS182 million (for all defendants together).  
The company says the refund agreed was an insubstantial amount.

For more information contact:

          Emanuel Avner, Chief Financial Officer
          (emanuel.avner@orange.co.il)
          Oded Degany, Carrier, Investor & Int'l Relations
          (oded.degany@orange.co.il)
          Partner Communications Company Ltd.
          Phone: +972-54-7814951
                 +972-54-7814151
          Fax: +972-54-7815961
               +972-54 -7814161
          Web site: http://www.orange.co.il/investor_site


PFIZER INC: Court Allows Claims in Shareholder Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
allowed some securities fraud claims to proceed against Pfizer,
Inc. in a consolidated shareholder lawsuit alleging
misstatements and omissions about painkillers Celebrex and
Bextra, The Dow Jones Newswires reports.

In a recently issued order obtained by Dow Jones, Judge Laura
Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York found that lead plaintiff Teachers'
Retirement System of Louisiana sufficiently alleged that Pfizer
and certain of its corporate officers were aware of medical
studies that showed increased risk of cardiovascular problems,
including heart attacks or strokes, among persons who took
Celebrex or Bextra.

The judge also found that the consolidated class-action
complaint sufficiently alleged the defendants knew or had access
to information showing that their public statements were
inaccurate.  

Judge Swain though did not rule on the merits of the claims,
just that they had been sufficiently alleged to proceed toward
trial, Dow Jones says.

According to the judge, "Given the alleged importance of
Celebrex and Bextra to Pfizer's overall economic health, as well
as the fall in Pfizer's stock performance, the (consolidated
class-action complaint's) allegations are sufficient to
plausibly state a claim."

However, Dow Jones notes, Judge Swain ruled to dismiss certain
claims of market manipulation, common-law fraud, and violations
of unspecified state securities laws.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, alleged
Pfizer concealed the results of three medical studies concerning
the drugs and made misstatements and omissions in its public
filings and statements.

The suit is "In Re: Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative & ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01688-LTS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Laura Taylor Swain, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephen Gerald Grygiel, Esq. (sgrygiel@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer, PA
          Chase Manhattan Centre
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7141
          Fax: 302-622-7100

          Eric James Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0790
          Fax: 212-883-7579

               - and -

          James R. Cummins, Esq. (jcummins@wsbclaw.com)
          Waide, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A.
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
          One West Fourth STreet
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-621-0267
          Fax: 513-381-2375

Representing the defendants is:

          Gregory Arthur Markel, Esq. (greg.markel@cwt.com)
          Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (NYC)
          One World Financial Center
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: 212-504-6112
          Fax: 212-504-6666


PHILIPPINES: Mt. Kanlaon Geothermal Project Faces Opposition
------------------------------------------------------------
Over 100 residents in Bacolod, Philippines, plan to file a class
action lawsuit before the Bacolod Regional Trial Court to stop
the proposed geothermal project in the Mt. Kanlaon Natural Park,
Inquirer.net reports.

The suit includes these government agencies as defendants:

     -- the Department of Energy,

     -- the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and

     -- the Protected Area Management Board.

Lawyer Andrea Si, member of the Save Mt. Kanlaon Coalition, told
Inquirer that they will be opposing the tapping of geothermal
power within the Mt. Kanlaon Natural Park buffer zone.

The report relates that the coalition would ask the Bacolod
regional trial court to issue a temporary retraining order and
permanent injunction against the geothermal development project
of the Philippine National Oil Corp.-Energy Development Corp.
(PNOC-EDC).

Ms. Si said the class suit would ask the court to stop the EDC
from entering the buffer zone because of questions on the
constitutionality of Republic Act 9154 (an act establishing the
MKNP as a protected area and a peripheral area as a buffer
zone).  She also said the energy firm plans to drill for
geothermal energy within the buffer zone but would actually
enter 1.5 kilometers into the MKNP's protected area through
directional drilling.

Ms. Si claimed that the EDC has no valid environment compliance
certificate.

According to the Inquirer, the EDC urged all parties "to cease
from causing further delay in fulfilling its commitment to
supply the power that Negros Occidental badly needs."

"If we are genuinely concerned for the common good, we should
help in solving the problem instead of aggravating the
situation.  We must respect the decision of the authorities and
the majority of the Negrenses," the Inquirer quotes Gino de la
Cruz, EDC resident manager for the Northern Negros Geothermal
Production Field in Barangay (village) Mailum, Bago, as saying
in a press statement.

Mr. Dela Cruz reiterated that EDC's entry into the buffer zone
has undergone several levels of review by the different
government agencies, the local government and the non-
governmental organizations, the report notes.


POLO RALPH: Calif. Court Certifies Labor-Related Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted class certification to a
California-wide employment lawsuit against Polo Ralph Lauren
Corporation.

The certified class consists of more than 5,300 former Polo
employees who worked as sales associates or cashiers in one of
Polo's California stores at any time since May 2002.  Judge
Illston also certified two subclasses of sales associates
those whom the representative plaintiffs contend Polo
misclassified as exempt from premium overtime wage requirements,
and those whose commission wages Polo debited when they did not
meet sales targets.

Representative plaintiffs Janis Keefe, Corinne Phipps and Renee
Davis contend Polo has under-compensated all class members
through prolonged and widespread violations of several
California labor laws.

The plaintiffs allege Polo routinely detained them and other
employees within Polo stores after their shifts were over so
managers could search them for stolen merchandise.  They allege
they were not paid for this off-the-clock time.

The plaintiffs also assert that Polo failed to provide them with
rest breaks, failed to pay premium overtime wages, and failed to
maintain accurate payroll records.  The plaintiffs further
contend that Polo also violated California law by misclassifying
sales associates in Polo's full price stores as exempt from
premium overtime wages and, further, that Polo committed fraud
by making false promises to them regarding their right to
receive overtime wages.

While the District Court's decision granting class certification
does not specify a date for trial, Polo and the plaintiffs
previously indicated they would be ready for trial toward the
end of 2008.  Meanwhile, according to the plaintiffs' lead
counsel Patrick Kitchin, Esq., the parties will attempt to
resolve the case through court-ordered mediation.

"The certification of this broad class of Polo employees is an
important milestone in the case and demonstrates the challenged
labor practices are wide-spread at Polo's stores throughout
California," Mr. Kitchin said.

Mr. Kitchin previously represented Polo employees in a separate
class action case that settled for $1.5 million in 2007.  In
that case, lead plaintiff Toni Young alleged Polo forced its
California employees to purchase high-priced Polo clothing to
wear as their uniform while at work.  Shortly after that lawsuit
was filed in 2002, Polo revoked its mandatory employee uniform
policy.  According to industry analysts, that lawsuit led to
dramatic changes in the employee uniform policies of other
retailers doing business in California.

Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is a  
global player in the design, marketing and distribution of
lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's
apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings.  The
Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and
Licensing.

For more information, contact:

          Patrick R. Kitchin, Esq. (prk@kitchinlegal.com)
          The Law Office of Patrick R. Kitchin
          565 Commercial Street, 4th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111    
          Phone: 415-677-9058


REGENCE BLUECROSS: Sued for Rescinding Patients' Health Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah, a subsidiary of Regence
Group, has been sued for allegedly rescinding individual health
policies after patients began to rack up big bills, Portland
Business Journal reports.

According to Business Journal, the plaintiff's attorney, Brian
King, Esq., recently filed a motion to have the case certified
as a class-action lawsuit, in order to include 197 individuals
and families whose Regence plans were retroactively rescinded in
Utah between 2003 and 2006.

The lawsuit, which Business Journal says was filed in October
2007, claims that Regence failed to scrutinize individual
insurance applications for errors or omissions when it signed
members up, but that it retroactively reviewed and canceled
applications after members began to rack up high medical bills.

The report relates that Health Net Inc., Kaiser Permanente and
PacifiCare have run into trouble with the courts and California
regulators for similar actions in that state.  Oregon's top
health insurance regulator shared with Business Journal that the
problem has not manifested here.

"It does not appear to be the issue here in Oregon that it has
been in other states, and the number of rescissions is very,
very low," said Oregon Insurance Administrator Scott Kipper.  
"We have not taken any actions against any carrier, but continue
to monitor complaints from consumers as they are presented."

Samantha Meese, a Regence spokeswoman, told Business Journal,
"Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah does not rescind policies
in order to get out of paying claims or save money.  Typically,
contracts are only rescinded when a member had made material
misstatements or significant omissions on their application.  We
are careful not to rescind policies due to an innocent mistake
or a simple misunderstanding."


SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. is facing a purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
over alleged violations of both federal and state labor laws for
failing to pay wages to employees at retail stores and failing
to compensate them for overtime work, RCR Wireless News reports.

The suit was filed on June 4, 2008, by Ilan J. Chorowsky, Esq.,
at The Progressive Law Group LLC, on behalf of Adriel Osorio.

According to a 17-page complaint obtained by RCR Wireless News'
Jeffrey Silva, "Defendants could easily and accurately record
the actual time retail store employees work as alleged, however
defendants have attempted to minimize their retail store
payroll, and to avoid overtime pay-outs, by their practices
and/or policies (and lack thereof), which effectively prevent
employees from recording overtime and wages worked and managers
from approving or paying proper compensation for it."

The five-count lawsuit, which names Sprint Nextel, Sprint/United
Management and others as defendants, is seeking back pay,
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is "Osorio v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Case
No.  1:08-cv-03228," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge John W. Darrah, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ilan J. Chorowsky, Esq. (ichorowsky@gmail.com)
          Progressive Law Group LLC
          222 W. Ontario Street, Suite 310
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Phone: 312-643-5893


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Minnesota Lawsuit Over Share Dumping
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical Inc. is facing a derivative complaint before
the Second Judicial District Court in the State of Minnesota,
County of Ramsey, over allegations that its directors dumped
shares for more than $22 million while inflating the share price
through false and misleading statements, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

St. Jude engages in the development, manufacture and
distribution of cardiovascular medical devices for the global
cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology and
atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neuromodulation devices.  In addition to other medical devices,
St. Jude's core product is an implantable carioverter
defibrillator.

According to CourtHouse News, this is a shareholder derivative
action brought by a shareholder of St. Jude on behalf of the
company against certain of its officers and directors seeking to
remedy defendants' violations of state law, including breaches
of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment that occurred between October 2005 and the present ad
that have caused substantial losses to St. Jude and other
damages, such as to its reputation and goodwill.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:

    -- directing payment of the amount of damages sustained by
       the company as a result of defendants' breaches of
       fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust
       enrichment;

    -- directing St. Jude to take all necessary actions to
       reform and improve its corporate governance and internal
       procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect
       St. Jude and its shareholders from a repeat of the
       damaging events described, including, but not limited to,
       putting forward for shareholder vote resolutions for
       amendments to the company's by-laws or Articles of
       Incorporation and taking such other action as may be
       necessary to place before shareholders for a vote the
       following Corporate Governance Policies:

       (1) a proposal to strengthen the Board's supervision of
           operations and develop and implement procedures for
           greater shareholder input into the policies and
           guidelines of the Board;

       (2) control and limit insider stock selling;

       (3) a provision to permit the shareholders of St. Jude to
           nominate at least three candidates for election to
           the Board; and

       (4) a proposal to strengthen the company's procedures for
           the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints
           received by the company regarding accounting,
           internal controls and auditing matters;

     -- granting extraordinary equitable and injunctive relief
        as permitted by law, equity and state statutory
        provisions, including attaching, impounding,
        imposing a constructive trust on or otherwise
        restricting the proceeds of defendants' trading
        activities or their other assets so as to assure that
        plaintiff on behalf of St. Jude has an effective remedy;

     -- awarding to St. Jude restitution from the defendants,
        and each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all
        profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the
        defendants;

     -- awarding to plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the
        action, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
        accountants' and experts' fees, costs and expenses; and

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

The suit is "David Stueve, et al. v. Daniel J. Starks, et al.,"
filed in the Second Judicial District Court in the State of
Minnesota, County of Ramsey.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Russell M. Spence, Jr., Esq.
          The Spence Law Firm
          700 Lumber Exchange Building
          10 South Fifth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-375-1555
          Fax: 612-375-1511


STEIN MART: Offers $10-$30 Coupons to Settle Data Theft Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Residents who paid with plastic at Stein Mart between Dec. 4,
2006, and Jan. 11, 2007, are part of a class-action lawsuit
against the clothing store chain over debit and credit card
information, WSMV Nashville reports.

The suit, filed by Jessica Clark against Stein Mart, claimed
that the store printed more than five digits of customers'
credit and debit card numbers, as well a the expiration dates on
receipts back in 2006.

In June, Stein Mart agreed to settle the suit without admitting
nor denying the allegations (Class Action Reporter, June 20,
2008).

The deal will get customers $10 off a $50 purchase, $20 off a
$100 purchase and $30 off of a $150 purchase.  The deal also
means it does not matter if a customer actually got one of the
receipts that revealed a credit card number.  Everyone can use
the coupons.

The coupons are expected to be printed in the paper sometime
between Oct. 25, 2008, and Nov. 23, 2008, Click2Houston.com
says.

According to Stein Mart's Web site, the $10 coupon will apply to
purchases of $50 or more, the $20 coupon will apply to purchases
of $100 or more and the $30 coupon will be applied to purchases
of $150 or more.

Click2Houston.com explains that a customer does not need to do
anything upon getting a notice, unless he wants to take some
other legal action against Stein Mart.  If that is the case, he
needs to "opt out" of the class.  Visit the settlement Web site
at http://www.steinmartsettlement.com/for instructions on how  
to do that.


WACHOVIA CORP: Brodsky Smith Files New York Stockholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, discloses that a class
action lawsuit alleging an expanded class period has been filed
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Wachovia Corp. (NYSE: WB) between May 8, 2006, and June 6, 2008.

The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Wachovia.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90


WANDA TECHNOLOGY: Recalls Outdoor Canopies Posing Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wanda Technology Inc., of Santa Ana, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
8,600 outdoor canopies.

The company said the canopies fail to comply with a voluntary
flammability standard could pose a fire hazard to consumers.  NO
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the outdoor canopies with "Code Number:
1020-8-WT2007."  The canopies are white, measure 10" X 20", and
have a metal frame with four corner posts that support a fabric
top which shields the user from the sun.  The code number can be
found on a label sewn into the canopy fabric.

These recalled outdoor canopies were manufactured in China and
were being sold by BJ's Wholesale Club stores nationwide from
January 2008 through May 2008 for about $200.

A picture of the recalled outdoor canopies is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08592.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the canopy and contact Wanda
Technology for instructions on how to return it for a full
refund.  Consumers with the recalled outdoor canopies are being
contacted by the firm.

For more information, contact Wanda Technology toll-free at
866-312-8799 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.bjs.com/


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

HEALTHWAYS INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Tenn. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of all purchasers
of securities of Healthways Inc. (Nasdaq: HWAY) from October 17,
2007, through February 26, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Healthways and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Healthways is a health and care support provider.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company was not meeting certain requirements,
         including the savings target, set by the Centers for
         Medicare & Medicaid Services;

     (2) that due to this fact, it would be necessary for the
         Company to reimburse CMS for fees it had received
         through the Medicare Health Support pilot program;

     (3) that the Company was vulnerable to losing two key
         existing contracts;

     (4) that due to a reduced need for the Company's services,
         it was experiencing slower enrollment in an existing
         contract;

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

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

Healthways was involved in the MHS program, which was created by
CMS to help Medicare and its beneficiaries save money, as well
as to improve the quality of care for patients.  CMS set savings
and satisfaction targets for the companies involved in the pilot
program, which would determine whether CMS expanded the program
to the second phase.  If a company did not meet the savings
targets, it would have to reimburse CMS for the fees it had
received from the program.

On February 26, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it was lowering its financial guidance for fiscal
2008.  Specifically, the Company reduced its revenue guidance to
between $720 million and $740 million (from between $782 million
and $815 million), and reduced its earnings guidance to between
$1.50 and $1.55 per share (from a previous $1.77 to $1.86 per
share).  The Company stated that the new guidance was a result
of slower-than-projected enrollment in the new MHS program, and
the fact that two previously anticipated contracts would not
likely materialize during the fiscal year.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell $13.42
per share, or 29.59 percent, to close on February 26, 2008, at
$31.93 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more information, contact:

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


MRV COMM: Dyer & Berens Files California Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP commenced a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of MRV Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq:MRVC)
common stock during the period between March 31, 2003, and
June 5, 2008.

The complaint charges MRV and certain of its current and former
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

MRV is a supplier of communications equipment and services to
carriers, governments and enterprise customers worldwide.  The
complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
employee stock option grant practices and financial results.

The Defendants allegedly caused or allowed MRV to issue
statements that failed to disclose or misstated the following:

     (i) that the Company had problems with its internal
         controls that prevented it from issuing accurate
         financial reports and projections;

    (ii) that because of improperly recorded stock-based
         compensation expenses the Company's financial results
         violated GAAP; and

   (iii) that the Company's public disclosures covering a seven-
         year period presented an inflated view of MRV's
         earnings and earnings per share, which would later have
         to be restated.

On June 5, 2008, MRV announced that it expects to restate its
2002 to 2008 financial statements, and that its previously-
issued financial statements, earnings press releases, and
similar communications should no longer be relied upon.  The
restatement relates to the previously undisclosed stock-option
backdating problems and related accounting issues.

This report came after the Company had earlier announced that a
review of its options granting practices had found no evidence
that grant dates were designed to occur on dates with lower,
more favorable exercise prices.  MRV's management now states
that it is likely that these previous conclusions were
incorrect.  Upon disclosure of this news, MRV's share price
plummeted approximately 24%.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of MRV common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764


STATE STREET: Dyer & Berens Files Mass. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
State Street Corporation (NYSE:STT) and others on behalf of
purchasers of the SSgA Yield Plus Fund (SSYPX) who purchased
shares of the Fund within the three years that preceded the
filing of the lawsuit.

The complaint seeks remedies for shareholders under the federal
Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, on or about November 9, 1992,
defendants began offering shares of the Yield Plus Fund pursuant
to an initial registration statement, filed with the SEC as a
Form 485BPOS.  The complaint alleges that defendants solicited
investors to purchase shares of the Yield Plus Fund by making
statements in the Registration Statement and subsequent
supplemental prospectuses that described the "investment
objective" of the SSgA Yield Plus Fund as investments "primarily
in a diversified portfolio" with "high-quality debt securities"
that include "high credit quality," "sophisticated credit
analysis" and "team-based decision making by experienced
investment professionals."  As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants did not adequately disclose the risks associated with
investing in the Fund, including, for example, that the Fund was
so heavily invested in high-risk mortgage-related or mortgage-
backed securities.

By June 11, 2007, the defendants slowly began lowering the value
of the share price for the Yield Plus Fund.  Since then, the
value of the Yield Plus Fund's share price has been
precipitously lowered.  By December 12, 2007, the value of the
per-share price was reduced to $8.01.  The shares were trading
as low as $6.60 at the time of the filing of the complaint on
June 30, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764




                            *********

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  * * *