CAR_Public/080715.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, July 15, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 139

                            Headlines

ANB FINANCIAL: Ex-Directors Face Mismanagement Suit in Arkansas
BANK OF AMERICA: Calif. Auction Rate Suit Awaits Certification
BAYER AG: Sept. 26 Hearing Set for $18.5MM N.Y. Suit Settlement
CHAMPION PARTS: Faces Insurance Claim Lawsuit by Employees
CHIRON CORP: Oct. 2 Hearing Set for $30MM Calif. Suit Settlement

EDSCHA AG: Faces Lawsuit Over Lifetime Retiree Medical Insurance
EQUITABLE PRODUCTION: Faces Royalties Lawsuit in Kentucky
FIRST DATABANK: Reaches $1M Settlement in Massachusetts AWP Suit
FRANKLIN BANK: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Aug. 5
FREDDIE MAC: Initial Distribution of $410MM Settlement Begins

ILLINOIS CENTRAL: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Land Payments
INDIANA: Elected Township Assessor Files Lawsuit Over Abolition
INDIANA: Judge Says State Law vs. Sex Offenders Unconstitutional
INDYMAC BANCORP: Federal Seizure Will Not Impede Investor Suit
INTEGRATED SILICON: Settles 2006 Derivative Suit in California

JP MORGAN: Ill. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
NEXCEN BRANDS: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is July 28
OHIO: Lawyers Seeks Class Certification for Suit Over Trash Fees
OIL COMPANIES: Lawsuit in Ontario Over Gas Pumps Looms
PARMALAT: Court Clarifies Settlement Class in Securities Suit

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles R&G-Related Suit for $12 Million
SPRINT NEXTEL: Awaits Ruling in Early-Termination Fees Suit
SUFFOLK CORRECTION HOUSE: Toilet Access Suit Allowed to Proceed
SUN LIFE: Judge Awards $4,000 to Plaintiff in Insurance Case
VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles Early-Termination Fees Suits for $21MM


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIMALAC SA: Howard Smith Files New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Brualdi Law Files California Securities Suit
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
SSGA YIELD: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.

WACHOVIA CORP: Howard Smith Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit



                           *********


ANB FINANCIAL: Ex-Directors Face Mismanagement Suit in Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seven former directors of ANB Financial NA are facing a
purported class action lawsuit before the Benton County Circuit
Court in Arkansas, Worth Sparkman writes for Arkansas Business
Online.

The suit, which is seeking class action status, was filed by
Benton County resident Ralph Clift on July 10, 2008.  Mr. Clift
is represented in the matter by Paul Byrd, Esq., of Hare Wynn
Newell & Newton LLP.

The suit claims that ANB was closed by regulators on May 9,
2008, due to negligent mismanagement by the directors.  The
directors named in the suit are:

       -- Charles Brannan,
       -- Eric Brown,
       -- Harry Brown,
       -- Dan Dykema,
       -- Blake Evans,
       -- Vick Evans, and
       -- Deborah Jackson.

Arkansas Business notes that in a statement issued by the firm,
Mr. Byrd wrote "[The] filing is based on our belief that the
defendants negligently managed the bank's assets, including
monies on deposit from bank customers.  By failing to properly
manage ANB's deposits, monies and assets, the defendants did not
exercise prudence in their banking practices."

Mr. Byrd further wrote, "It is our belief that as many as 75
percent of ANB's loans were in construction and development,
which is an unreasonably high percentage of their loan portfolio
to be committed to those types of projects.  It appears that
most of the financial problems that led to ANB's closure are the
result of loans in commercial real estate and construction loans
made in Arkansas, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming."

He adds, "This type of negligence and mismanagement of the
bank's monies, deposits, investments, and assets by ANB's
leadership has directly resulted in an incredible monetary loss
to the people we are representing in this case."

For more details, contact:

          Paul Byrd, Esq.
          Metropolitan National Plaza
          4220 N. Rodney Parham Rd., Suite 250
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Phone: 501-225-5500
                 877-225-6312
          Fax: 501-225-5501
          Web site: http://www.hwnn.com/


BANK OF AMERICA: Calif. Auction Rate Suit Awaits Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits filed against Bank of America, Banc of
American Investment Services, and Banc of America Securities are
awaiting class certification by the federal court.

The cases are "Bondar v. Bank of America Corporation, No. 08-CV-
2599, No. 08-2599 (N.D. Calif.)" and "Bearnman v. Bank of
America Corporation, No. 08-CV-115 (S.D. Calif.)."

Both of the class action complaints allege that Bank of America
deceived investors about the suitability, safety and liquidity
of auction rate securities.  If certified by the courts, members
of the two class actions could include any Bank of America
customer who purchased and continued to hold auction rate
securities.  The two class actions cover ARS purchases made
between May 2003 and February 2008.

For millions of consumers, participating in a class action is an
almost effortless process.  Class members are seldom required to
do much more than submit a proof of claim and wait for their
share of the recovery.  The primary disadvantage is that, even
though class action settlements can be considerable, they must
be distributed to a large class of customers.  As a result,
individual recoveries are relatively small.

Another option that is frequently overlooked is "opting out" of
the class action and pursuing an independent claim.  Customers
who decide to opt out of a class action usually have a very
short window of time in which to notify the court of their
election to opt out.

"Customers that have suffered substantial investment losses
could recover significantly more by pursuing their own private
claim," says Brett Alcala, Esq., a San Mateo, California
attorney who specializes in representing investors in securities
arbitration claims.

For example, Mr. Alcala obtained a $60,000 arbitration award for
a SmithBarney customer who elected to "opt out" of a class
action settlement that involved SmithBarney's Guided Portfolio
Management services.  According to Mr. Alcala, "had his client
simply participated in the class action, she would have
recovered only a small fraction of her actual damages."

Mr. Alcala cautions, however, that only customers that can prove
that their financial advisor put them in inappropriate
investments given the customer's age or risk tolerance will fare
better in arbitration.

Mr. Alcala is representing a customer who is pursuing an
arbitration claim against Bank of America Investment Services in
connection with the sale of auction-rate securities to finance
student loans.

To contact Mr. Alcala:

          Brett A. Alcala, Esq.
          Alcala Law Firm
          177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
          San Mateo, CA 94402
          Phone: 650-343-4424


BAYER AG: Sept. 26 Hearing Set for $18.5MM N.Y. Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 26, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., to
consider final approval of the proposed $18,500,000 settlement
by Bayer AG in the matter "In re Bayer AG Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03 CV 1546 (WHP)."

The hearing will be held before Judge William H. Pauley, III, at
Courtroom 11D of the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in New
York, New York.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Aug. 20, 2008.  Deadline for the submission of a claim
form is on Nov. 25, 2008.

                         Case Background

The class includes all persons or entities who or which from
Aug. 4, 2000, through and including Feb. 21, 2003:

     (a) purchased or otherwise acquired ordinary shares of
         Bayer AG on the U.S. over-the-counter market or
         Purchased American Depository Receipts of Bayer AG on
         the New York Stock Exchange, regardless of the
         purchaser's country of residence at the time of
         purchase; or

     (b) purchased or otherwise acquired ordinary shares or ADRs
         of Bayer AG on any other stock exchange and the
         purchaser, or beneficial owner, was a resident or
         citizen of the United States at the time of purchase.

The second amended complaint in this case alleged that from
Aug. 4, 2000, to Aug. 8, 2001, the defendants publicly
misrepresented the prospects for Bayer's cholesterol-lowering
drug, Baycol, while failing to disclose serious health risks,
which led Bayer to withdraw Baycol on Aug. 8, 2001.

The lead plaintiff also alleged that from Aug. 8, 2001, to
Feb. 21, 2003, Bayer misrepresented its prior knowledge of
Baycol's dangers and understated its potential liability for
claims from users and purchasers of Baycol.

The lead plaintiff claimed that as a result of these alleged
material misrepresentations and omissions, the market price of
Bayer securities was artificially inflated during the Class
Period.  The lead plaintiff further alleged that the market
price for Bayer securities fell following publication of an
article in the New York Times concerning Baycol on Feb. 22,
2003, causing investors to incur losses due to violations of the
federal securities laws.

The parties eventually agreed to settle the suit.

For more details, contact:

          Bayer AG Securities Litigation Settlement
          c/o Analytics, Incorporated Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 2003
          Chanhassen, MN 55317-2003
          Phone: 1-877-797-5732
          Web site: http://www.bayeragsecuritieslitigation.com


CHAMPION PARTS: Faces Insurance Claim Lawsuit by Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Texarkana for
recovery of insurance benefits from the former owners of
Champion Parts, Inc., and the company's insurance claims
service, Ken McLemore writes for Hope Star Online.

The lawsuit names two corporate defendants: Champion Parts,
Inc., and its predecessors, and Ceridian Corp. -- doing business
as Ceridian Benefits Services.  The defendant-companies have
been served with a notice of the lawsuit through registered
agents.

The suit also names as individual defendants Raymond G.
Perelman, W. Jason Guzek, and Barry L. Katz, who have each
waived the legal requirement for service notice.

According to Hope Star, the plaintiffs were required by the
court to file affidavit of service of lawsuit notices to the
defendants within 120 days of the filing of the original
complaint for the lawsuit to remain before the court without
otherwise showing good cause for dismissal under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  Each defendant was also required to
file an original answer to the complaint.

The lawsuit, filed by four Champion Parts employees in April,
seeks federal class action status in its claim against Messrs.
Perelman, Guzek, and Katz for failing to have insurance premium
payments forwarded to Ceridian.  The suit also alleges that both
the owners and Ceridian failed to warn or notify Champion
employees of the fact in violation of federal fiduciary
responsibilities under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1986.

Mr. Perelman, was chairman of Champion's board of directors, and
beneficially owned about 35.5% of Champion's stock through his
control of RGP Holding, Inc., which had control of the
1.29 million shares of stock that it represents, Hope Star
notes, citing Champion's Dec. 31, 2006 Form 10-K filing before
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. Guzek became chief executive officer of Champion on June 13,
2007, and at that time was a vice president of RGP Holding, and
had served as a director of Champion at Mr. Perelman's request
since 2003, the company's June 13, 2007 Form 8-K filing before
the SEC stated.

Meanwhile, Mr. Katz was senior vice president of Champion from
Dec. 16, 1992, to Jan. 19, 1993, and he became president and
general counsel for RGP Holding in 1993, and served as a
director of Champion at Mr. Perelman's request, according to the
2006 SEC filing.

Alleging that none of the plaintiffs or other such class members
were warned or informed of the changes, the lawsuit seeks
certification of all affected Champion employees as an eligible
class to recover the insurance benefits, the report says.

The lawsuit further alleges a liability of the company and its
owners of $110 per day to each class member since the violations
allegedly occurred in August 2007.  It also asserts a liability
of the company and its owners for medical bills incurred that
would have been paid under COBRA, as well as future medical
bills that would have been paid under COBRA.

Aside from class status, the complaint asks the court to appoint
plaintiffs Gene Leslie, James Shepard, and Buckley and Tammy
Nichols as representatives of the class.  It also seeks an order
of payment for medical expenses incurred in the past, that will
be incurred in the future, and all other benefits under the
health care benefit program to which the class is entitled, as
well as benefits due the COBRA subclass and an order finding
that the company and its owners breached fiduciary duties under
ERISA and are liable to the plan, its participants and
beneficiaries.

Moreover, the suit wants the court to order restitution of all
damages suffered by the Plan and its participants, to award
prejudgment interest, and to award attorneys' fees, civil
penalties, costs and other appropriate relief.

The report relates that Champion declared bankruptcy under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in 2007, and in later
converted that filing to Chapter 7.  The company's assets were
sold to a California-based holding company, which has since
sought to restructure Champion under the new ownership.


CHIRON CORP: Oct. 2 Hearing Set for $30MM Calif. Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 2, 2008, at 100:00 a.m., to
consider final approval of the proposed $30,000,000 settlement
by Chiron Corp, now known as Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics,
Inc., in the matter, "Richard Gregory, et al. v. Chiron
Corporation, et al., Case No. 04-CV-04293."

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Aug. 18, 2008.  Deadline for the submission of a claim
form is on Nov. 1, 2008.

Between October 2004 and December 2004, five securities class
action complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of Chiron
securities for class periods ranging from July 23, 2003, through
Oct. 13, 2004.  The suits named the company and certain of its
officers as defendants (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2008).

Four of the suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  One complaint was originally
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, but was later transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to join the other
suits.

In March 2005, the Court named a lead counsel and lead
plaintiff, who, in April 2005, filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated certain provisions of the federal securities
laws by making false and misleading statements from July 23,
2003, through Oct. 5, 2004, concerning the amount of FLUVIRIN
vaccine that the company projected to produce and its historical
and forecasted financial results.  The consolidated complaint
sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief from all
defendants.

The parties subsequently agreed to resolve the case and reached
a settlement deal.

For more details, contact:

         In re Chiron Securities Litigation
         c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator
         Post Office Box 8040
         San Rafael, CA 94912-8040
         Phone: 800-447-7657
         Web site: http://www.chironlitigation.com/

The suit is "Richard Gregory, et al. v. Chiron Corporation, et
al., Case No. 04-CV-04293," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Vaughn R. Walker,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. (jwesterman@milberg.com)
         Milberg Weiss LLP
         One California Plaza
         300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-617-1200
         Fax: 213-617-1975

              - and -

         Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534

Representing the defendants is:

         Amy S. Park, Esq. (apark@skadden.com)
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
         525 University Avenue, Suite 1100
         Palo Alto, California 94301
         Phone: 650-470-4500
         Fax: 650-470-4570


EDSCHA AG: Faces Lawsuit Over Lifetime Retiree Medical Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pitt McGehee Palmer Rivers & Golden has filed a
class action lawsuit in a District Court in Michigan alleging
the company used deception and other unlawful tactics to keep
eligible employees at the Jackson plant from receiving their
lifetime retiree medical insurance, The Flint Journal-MLive.com
reports.

The firm filed the suit on behalf of 27 former long-time
employees at the company, which made automotive door hinges,
convertible roof systems and driver controls.

"Some had been there since the 70s and this is what they were
counting on," Beth Rivers, Esq., a partner at the law firm,
said.

Edscha AG -- http://www.edscha.com/-- is engaged in products
and components for vehicle manufacturers.  The company primarily
operates in Germany and has a presence in Asia, Europe and the
US. It is headquartered in Remscheid, Germany and employs about
6,460 people.


EQUITABLE PRODUCTION: Faces Royalties Lawsuit in Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Production Co. is facing a purported class action
lawsuit in Kentucky over claims that the company has underpaid
royalties to landowners by more than $5 million, Russ Cassady of
The Appalachian News-Express reports.

The lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky by Appalachian Land Co. on July 8,
2008.  It specifically claims that the natural gas producer has
been incorrectly paying the required royalties to landowners
from which it leases.

According to the lawsuit, Equitable is obligated, under lease,
to pay royalties of one-eighth of the market price at the well
of all gas produced on the lessor's land, and are allowed to
include severance taxes in the market price.

However, the lawsuit pointed out that neither marketing or
production costs nor the severance taxes are permitted to be
subtracted from the market price before calculating the
royalties.

The lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by Appalachian News-
Express, states, "Equitable has breached its obligations under
the Oil and Gas Leases, because in calculating and paying
royalties to (Appalachian Land Company and the others involved
in the class action), it has deducted from the market price at
the well, severance taxes and, moreover, it has subtracted from
the market price at the well, costs of producing and marketing
gas."

Due to those subtractions, Equitable has used an "artificially
low price" and it failed to pay Appalachian Land Co., and the
others the royalties to which they were entitled, according to
the suit.

The suit further states that the amount of royalties owed
exceeds $5 million, and that there are at least 150 entities
that have not been paid full royalties because of Equitable's
actions.

Appalachian News-Express notes that the lawsuit is asking for
damages and prejudgment interest.

The suit is "Appalachian Land Company v. Equitable Production
Company, Case No. 7:08-cv-00139-KKC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. (abarnett20@hotmail.com)
          144 W. 72nd Street, #3D
          New York, NY 10023
          Phone: 212-362-6174
          Fax: 917-591-5227

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq. (gmason@masonlawdc.com)
          The Mason Law Firm
          1225 19th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-429-2290
          Fax: 202-429-2294


FIRST DATABANK: Reaches $1M Settlement in Massachusetts AWP Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
First DataBank has agreed to pay $1 million to settle a
purported class action lawsuit over allegations that it
conspired with McKesson Corp. to manipulate the average
wholesale price (AWP) of drugs, according to FDAnews Drug Daily
Bulletin.

On June 2, 2005, a civil class action complaint was filed
against FDB and McKesson Corp. before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  The named plaintiffs were
several health benefit plans (Class Action Reporter, June 26,
2008).

The complaint alleges that in late 2001 and early 2002, McKesson
and co-defendant FDB conspired to improperly raise the published
AWP of certain prescription drugs, and that this alleged conduct
resulted in higher drug reimbursement payments by plaintiffs and
others similarly situated.

The plaintiffs purported to represent a class of third party
payors who paid any portion of the price of certain prescription
drugs based upon the AWPs published by FDB during the period
Jan. 1, 2002, to March 15, 2005.

The complaint also asserts claims against the company based on
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
18 U.S.C. section 1962(c); California's Business and Professions
Code sections 17200 and 17500, and common law civil conspiracy,
and seeks injunctive relief, as well as actual, punitive and
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs, in an unspecified
amount.

The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al.
v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Patti B. Saris, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         George E. Barrett, Esq. (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com)
         Barret Johnston & Parsley
         217 Second Avenue, N.
         Nashville, TN 37201-1601
         Phone: 615-244-2202

              - and -

         Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101-1090
         Phone: 206-623-7292
         Fax: 206-623-0594

Representing the defendants are:

         Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. (sbirnbaum@skadden.com)
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036-6522
         Phone: 212-735-3000
         Fax: 212-735-2000

              - and -

         James P. Bennett, Esq. (jbennett@mofo.com)
         Morrison & Foerster LLP
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94107-2406
         Phone: 415-268-7000
         Fax: 415-268-7522


FRANKLIN BANK: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Aug. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced an August 5, 2008
deadline for interested parties to move to be a lead plaintiff
in the securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common or
preferred stock of Franklin Bank Corp. between April 26, 2007,
and May 1, 2008.

The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Franklin Bank's business and financial
performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Franklin Bank stock.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847
          Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


FREDDIE MAC: Initial Distribution of $410MM Settlement Begins
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered an initial distribution of the $410,000,000 settlement
in the matter, "Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and
State Teachers Retirement System Of Ohio, et al. v. Freddie Mac
f.k.a. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Leland C.
Brendsel, Vaughn A. Clarke, David W. Glenn, and Gregory J.
Parseghian, MDL-1584, Lead Case No. 03-CV-4261 (JES)."

The case covers all persons and entities that purchased shares
of common stock of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation during
the period from July 15, 1999, through and including Nov. 20,
2003.

Freddie Mac announced on Jan. 22, 2003, that it would need to
restate certain of its previously issued financial statements.
The Securities Action stems from:

      -- Freddie Mac's announcement on June 9, 2003, reporting
         the retirement, resignation or termination of Freddie
         Mac's three top executive officers, and

      -- alleged misapplications of generally accepted
         accounting principles (GAAP) and employee misconduct.

On June 9, 2003, the price of Freddie Mac's common stock dropped
to $50.26 per share, from a class period high of $70.79 per
share.  On Nov. 21, 2003, Freddie Mac announced the final
results of the restatement of its financial statements for
2000, 2001 and 2002, revealing, among other things, that Freddie
Mac had overstated its net income for 2001 by approximately
$1.4 billion, and that the net cumulative effect of the
restatement through December 31, 2002, was an increase to the
company's net income of $5 billion.

Multiple securities class action complaints were filed against
Freddie Mac and certain of its officers alleging that the
Securities Defendants knowingly or recklessly made misstatements
concerning Freddie Mac's reported financial results in order to
artificially inflate the price of its common stock.  Several
shareholder derivative actions were also filed alleging that
Derivative Defendants had breached their fiduciary duties,
engaged in corporate waste and were unjustly enriched.

On Jan. 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint for violation of the Federal Securities Laws alleging
that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by knowingly or recklessly making materially false
and misleading statements regarding Freddie Mac's financial
results in press releases, analysts' conference calls and public
financial reports during the Class period to artificially
inflate the value of Freddie Mac common stock, thus causing
damages to Lead Securities Plaintiffs and the other Class
Members who purchased Freddie Mac common stock during the Class
period.

By Order dated March 17, 2004, the court consolidated the
securities cases into the Securities Action, appointed Ohio
Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio as lead plaintiffs, and approved Waite,
Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. as lead counsel and
Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann LLP, and Barrett &
Weber, L.P.A. as co-lead counsel.

On April 1, 2004, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
of the claims asserted against them in the Securities Action.
The Lead Securities Plaintiffs opposed that motion.  Oral
Argument was held on July 19, 2004, and, by Order dated July 19,
2004, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The lead securities plaintiffs then conducted extensive
discovery in the Securities Action.  The lead securities counsel
requested or subpoenaed documents from 47 persons or entities,
including all defendants, the previous and current auditors of
Freddie Mac, and numerous counter-parties to transactions with
Freddie Mac.

The Lead Securities Plaintiffs moved for class certification on
June 15, 2005, and oral argument was heard on March 31, 2006.

By order dated April 4, 2006, the court granted the Lead
Securities Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, but
adopted the position as to class definition advanced by Freddie
Mac in its papers in response to the motion, and certified the
Securities Action to proceed as a class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased Freddie Mac common stock during the period
from July 15, 1999, through and including November 20, 2003, and
who allegedly were damaged thereby (excluding the Securities
Defendants and certain other persons), and certifying the Lead
Securities Plaintiffs as the class representatives.

In Oct. 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York scheduled an Oct. 26, 2006 fairness hearing for
the proposed $410,000,000 settlement (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 16, 2006).

Pursuant to the Court's Order dated May 23, 2008, an initial
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund in the Freddie Mac
securities litigation class action recently has been made to all
Class Members who qualified as Authorized Claimants.

The suit is "Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and State
Teachers Retirement System Of Ohio, et al. v. Freddie Mac f.k.a.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Leland C. Brendsel,
Vaughn A. Clarke, David W. Glenn, and Gregory J. Parseghian,
MDL-1584, Lead Case No. 03-CV-4261 (JES)," filed in the  U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John
E. Sprizzo, presiding.

For more details, contact:

          Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. (schesley@wsbclaw.com)
          James R. Cummins, Esq. (jcummins@wsbclaw.com)
          Melanie S. Corwin, Esq. (mcorwin@wsbclaw.com)
          Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A.
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
          One West Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-621-0267
          Fax: 513-621-0262

          Max W. Berger, Esq. (max@blbglaw.com)
          Darnley D. Stewart, Esq. (darnley@blbglaw.com)
          Jeffrey N. Leibell, Esq. (jeffl@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1400
          Fax: 212-554-1444

          - and -

          Freddie Mac Securities Litigation Settlement
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 9078
          Dublin, OH 43017-0978
          Phone: 1-800-460-3971
          e-mail: http://www.gardencitygroup.com


ILLINOIS CENTRAL: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Land Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Central Railroad, now part of Canadian National Railway
Co., settled a 16-year-old class-action lawsuit over payments it
received from land it did not own, Janeen Burkholder of The
Clinton Daily Journal reports.

The suit was filed in 1992 by Darrell A. Woolums, Esq., of
Decatur, Illinois, who represented some 400 claimants including
individuals, agencies and municipalities along the ICC line from
Freeport to Centralia who paid the railroad for land it didn't
own.  The railroad had received the land free through a federal
land grant, according to The Clinton Daily Journal.

Specifically, the case stemmed from a discrepancy that Mr.
Woolums discovered while serving as attorney for the city of
Maroa.

Mr. Woolums said that the claimants will share a total of
$5,805,000.  He added that each claimant will receive all the
money originally paid the railroad, plus interest.

The Clinton Daily Journal relates that one beneficiary of the
settlement is the DeWitt County Friendship Center, which will
receive more than $4,000.  Another is The City of Wapella, which
will receive a check for nearly $13,000.

Mr. Woolums pointed out that there are other individuals in
DeWitt County who will benefit.

For more details, contact:

          Darrell A. Woolums, Esq.
          Samuels, Miller, Schroeder, Jackson & Sly, LLP
          225 North Water Street, Suite 301
          P.O. Box 1400
          Decatur, IL 62525-1400
          Phone: 217-429-4325
          Fax: 217-425-6313
          e-mail: law@smsjslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.smsjslaw.com/


INDIANA: Elected Township Assessor Files Lawsuit Over Abolition
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed in the Circuit Court of Huntington
County, Indiana over state law enacted this year to phase out
elected township assessors, The Associated Press reports.

The suit which claims that the new law is unconstitutional, was
filed Joan Stoffel, the elected assessor for Huntington Township
in northeastern Indiana's Huntington County.  Ms. Stoffel is
represented in the case by Indianapolis attorney John R. Price.

It names several county officials and some state agencies as
defendants, and seeks class-action status on behalf of 139
township assessors across the state, according to The Associated
Press.

The suit argues that when voters elected their township
assessors, a contract was agreed to that the officials would
serve four-year terms, performing statutory duties and getting
paid for doing so.

According to the lawsuit, some township assessors already have
been told they have no job, or will not be paid any salary or
other compensation for the rest of 2008.

For more details, contact:

          John R. Price, Esq.
          9000 Keystone Crossing
          Indianapolis, IN 46240-2118
          Phone: (317) 844-8822
          Fax: (317) 844-7766


INDIANA: Judge Says State Law vs. Sex Offenders Unconstitutional
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton in Indianapolis has
ruled that a recently passed state law to monitor the computer
habits of sex offenders long after they have served their
sentences is unconstitutional, Evansville Courier & Press
reports.

According to Evansville Courier, Judge Hamilton ruled in favor
of the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit that was brought
on April 3, 2008, by the American Civil Liberties Union of
Indiana.

The ACLU had challenged as unconstitutional a law the
Legislature passed this year, Senate Enrolled Act 258.  It was
supposed to take effect on July 1 and would have required
convicted sex offenders, who already have to sign Indiana's sex-
offender registry, to also provide authorities with their e-mail
addresses and Internet usernames.

Offenders also would have had to sign a consent form allowing
police to search their computers or other Web-ready devices at
any time, and to install software that monitored such activity,
the state law said.

Evansville Courier says that the ACLU sued on behalf of two
convicted sex offenders, one in Marion County and one in Scott
County.  The suit named all 92 county prosecutors as defendants.

Then in a recent 52-page ruling, Judge Hamilton wrote, "The new
law forces an unconstitutional choice upon these plaintiffs.
They must choose now between committing a new crime by refusing
to consent and giving up their Fourth Amendment rights to
privacy and security in their homes, their 'papers,' and their
effects."

"The unprecedented new law, however well-intentioned it may be,
violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class, who
have completed their sentences and are no longer on probation,
parole, or any other kind of court supervision," the judge
added.

Judge Hamilton issued a declaratory judgment stating the consent
to search requirements may not be applied to convicted sex
offenders.

The state could appeal the ruling to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court
of Appeals, the report notes.


INDYMAC BANCORP: Federal Seizure Will Not Impede Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In what federal regulators are calling the second-largest U.S.
bank failure in history, mortgage lender IndyMac Bancorp, Inc.'s
operations have been taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp., the regulator that oversees the retail bank.

The Office of Thrift Supervision said it shut down IndyMac on
July 12, 2008, and that a successor institution, IndyMac Federal
Bank, opened on July 14.

After IndyMac's stock price closed on July 12 at $.28 per share
-- down over 99% from IndyMac's share price of over $36 just one
year ago -- the OTS said in a statement, "The OTS has determined
that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be
able to meet continued depositors' demands in the normal course
of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound
condition."

On June 30, 2008, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action lawsuit
against IndyMac on behalf of those purchasing IndyMac common
stock between Aug. 17, 2007, and May 11, 2008, inclusive, for
violations of the U.S. securities laws (Class Action Reporter,
July 11, 2008).

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 11,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


INTEGRATED SILICON: Settles 2006 Derivative Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder of Integrated Silicon Solutions Inc. has agreed to
settle a derivative lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the company and
several executives and directors accused of falsifying financial
statements in an options backdating scheme, the Stanford Law
School Securities Class Action ClearingHouse reports.

On July 18, 2006, shareholder Rick Tope filed the derivative
suit, alleging defendants backdated dozens of stock options for
the company's executives, including CEO Jimmy S.M. Lee, without
properly accounting for them.

According to the complaint, the executives and directors
illegally took tax deductions on backdated stocks and falsified
financial records for shareholders to conceal the improper
backdating.

"As a result of the individual defendants' egregious
misconduct," the complaint said, "ISSI has sustained millions of
dollars of damages, and Mr. Lee and the other recipients of the
backdated stock options have garnered millions of dollars in
unlawful profits."

The suit asked for damages, attorneys' fees and other expenses.
It also demanded that defendants relinquish the backdated stocks
they received and the profits they had already made from those
options.

"The officer defendants were unjustly enriched by their receipt
and retention of backdated stock option grants, and it would be
unconscionable to allow them to retain the benefits thereof,"
the complaint said.

The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the defendants violated the
terms of the shareholder-approved stock-option plans, which
stipulated that stocks can't be less than the fair-market value
on the day the stock is granted.

The complaint further alleged that executives also violated
generally accepted accounting principles by failing to record
the costs incurred by the company when it issued backdated stock
options.

Recently, Mr. Tope, agreed to settle the suit, which was for an
undisclosed amount of money.

The court will hear the settlement on July 25.

Attorneys for both the defendants and plaintiff could not
immediately be reached for comment, the report says.

The suit is "In re: Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.
Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case Number: 5:2006cv04387,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Hon. Ronald M. Whyte, presiding, with referral to
Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.


JP MORGAN: Ill. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the suit "In
re JP Morgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, Master Docket
No. 06 C 4674 (N.D. Ill.)."

The named defendants in the suit are:

     -- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. ("JPMC"),
     -- J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,
     -- James L. Dimon,
     -- William B. Harrison, Jr.,
     -- Hans W. Becherer,
     -- Riley P. Bechtel,
     -- Frank A. Bennack, Jr.,
     -- John H. Biggs,
     -- Lawrence A. Bossidy,
     -- M. Anthony Burns,
     -- Ellen V. Futter,
     -- William H. Gray, III,
     -- Helene Kaplan,
     -- Lee R. Raymond, and
     -- John R. Stafford.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act for defendants' negligent failure to
disclose material facts in the proxy statement soliciting votes
for the merger.

Specifically, the complaints allege that the defendants
negligently failed to disclose that, during the merger
negotiations, William B. Harrison, the then-CEO of JPMC,
rejected an offer from Mr. Dimon, the then-CEO of Bank One, to
merge the companies for no premium if Mr. Dimon could become the
CEO of the combined company immediately upon completion of the
merger.

The consolidated complaint in "Hyland v. Harrison" and "Hyland
v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc." also asserts similar claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and state
law.

The defendants deny the allegation that Mr. Dimon made any such
offer and maintain that all material facts regarding the merger
were disclosed in the proxy statement.

The settlement contemplates that JPMC's corporate governance
principles will provide that the:

    (1) CEO of JPMC will inform the presiding director of
        discussions involving a clear expression of interest in
        a proposed corporate transaction requiring shareholder
        approval under applicable law and listing standards,

    (2) the presiding director and the CEO will review with
        JPMC's Board of Directors the process for the CEO to
        communicate with the Board about such discussions, and

    (3) JPMC's Board of Directors will review the "background of
        the merger" section of any proxy statement issued in
        connection therewith.

The measures that will be adopted are intended to provide early
and meaningful oversight by the Board of Directors. The
settlement provides that the corporate governance measures will
be kept in place for four years, subject to certain exceptions.
The settlement does not include payments to members of the
settlement class.

The settlement class consists of all holders of JPMC stock at
the close of business on April 2, 2004, the record date for
voting on the merger of JPMC and Bank One Corporation, which was
consummated on July 1, 2004.

A final settlement hearing will be held before Judge Coar on
October 30, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to determine
whether the settlement should be approved by the Court, and to
consider the applications of plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys'
fees not to exceed $11.1 million and reimbursement of expenses
up to $435,000, and the application of a lead plaintiff for an
award of $2,695 to recover costs and expenses, to be paid by
JPMC.

Deadline to file for objections is on October 1, 2008.

The suit is "In re JP Morgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation,
Master Docket No. 06 C 4674," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Illinois, Judge Coar, presiding.

Lead counsel is:

          Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq. (Smith@whafh.com)
          Demet Basar, Esq. (Basar@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY  10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600


NEXCEN BRANDS: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is July 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors of the July 28, 2008 lead
plaintiff application deadline in the class action lawsuit filed
on behalf of purchasers of NexCen Brands Inc. common stock and
call options during the period between May 10, 2007, and May 19,
2008.

The complaint asserts:

     -- that NexCen and certain of its officers and directors
        failed to adequately disclose details of an accelerated-
        redemption feature on financing it obtained in
        connection with its acquisition of Great American
        Cookies, which required the Company to pay half of its
        borrowing by a date certain;

     -- that the Company was unable to comply with the
        accelerated-redemption; that the Company had no
        reasonable basis for its earnings guidance for fiscal
        2008; and,

     -- the Company's ability to continue as a going concern was
        in serious doubt.

On May 19, 2008, these adverse facts and misstatements were
disclosed causing the price of NexCen securities to plummet,
damaging investors.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
          Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060
                 1-866-767-3653
          Weekends: 917-797-4425
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


OHIO: Lawyers Seeks Class Certification for Suit Over Trash Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys behind a class action lawsuit against the city of
Toledo, Ohio, over garbage-collection fee have filed a motion
seeking class-action status on behalf of city property owners
from whom the fee has been collected, The Toledo Blade reports.

Karen Shanahan, a former city council candidate, had sued the
city on Feb. 28, 2008, in Lucas County Common Pleas Court,
claiming that the $5.50 monthly fee that the administration of
Mayor Carty Finkbeiner imposed last year was improper since
neither city council nor Toledo voters approved it.

Toledo Blade says that Ms. Shanahan's lawyers contend in a
motion that there are approximately 100,000 potential plaintiffs
in the case, "so that joinder of all members of the class in the
action is impracticable."  Additionally, the motion states, the
trash fee affects all who pay it in similar fashion, so class-
action is appropriate for adjudicating the matter.

The lawsuit, which is pending before Judge Charles J. Doneghy,
seeks an injunction against the fee and reimbursement of all
payments associated with it, Toledo Blade notes.


OIL COMPANIES: Lawsuit in Ontario Over Gas Pumps Looms
------------------------------------------------------
A request has been filed in Quebec Superior Court for a class-
action lawsuit against eight big oil companies, David Cohen
writes for CJAD.

The request was filed on behalf of anyone who has bought gas
since 1999.  It is based on a study done over the last eight
years that found that about 5% of the nearly 200,000 pumps
tested gave less gas than it said on the pump, according to
CJAD.

The errors, according to reports, amounted to only 30 to 60
cents on a full tank of gas, but multiply that by an entire
country filling up, and it comes to an estimated $8-million a
year.

CJAD relates that the request is hoping for $50 for every
driver, and another $50 in punitive damages.


PARMALAT: Court Clarifies Settlement Class in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has clarified the terms of the
$40 million settlement reached in the securities class action
against Parmalat S.p.A., defining a settlement class and
scheduling a settlement hearing, the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action ClearingHouse reports.

Shareholders initially filed the suit in 2004, and later refiled
the complaint after Parmalat emerged from bankruptcy protection
in 2006.

The plaintiffs received permission in June 2006 to file a class
action complaint against the company's executives, underwriters
and auditors following Parmalat's emergence from bankruptcy
protection, and filed it the following month.

In 2007, Judge Kaplan preliminary certified all persons and
entities who purchased Parmalat securities through and including
Jan. 5, 1999, to Dec. 18, 2003 -- the Settlement Class -- for
settlement purposes under Civil Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) in the
Action (Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2007).

Judge Kaplan appointed Hilsoft Notifications and Poorman Douglas
Corp. as notice and claims administrators to supervise and
administer the notice procedure and processing of claims.

In May, Parmalat disclosed the $40 million settlement.

The company said in a statement that as part of the settlement
with investors who filed the class action, it will issue 10.5
million shares of stock, worth about $36 million.

The company said it would also pay up to $1.55 million to notify
class members that a settlement had been reached.

The settlement must still receive court approval. The settlement
is in the best interests of both shareholders and the company
itself, Parmalat said.

In an order handed down on July 2, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
certified a settlement class composed of shareholders who
purchased Parmalat stock between Jan. 5, 1999, and Dec. 18,
2003.

Judge Kaplan stipulated that the settlement class excludes
Parmalat; all defendants named in the case; any officers and
directors of Parmalat or its subsidiaries; and banks and
insurance companies employed by Parmalat.

The judge also scheduled a settlement hearing for Sept. 24, when
he will determine whether the proposed settlement on the terms
and conditions provided for in the stipulation is fair,
reasonable and adequate to the class.

Headquartered in Milan, Italy, Parmalat S.p.A.
-- http://www.parmalat.net/-- sells nameplate milk products
that can be stored at room temperature for months.  It also has
about 40 brand product lines, which include yogurt, cheese,
butter, cakes and cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and
vegetable sauces, soups and juices.

The company's U.S. operations filed for chapter 11 protection on
Feb. 24, 2004 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-11139).  Gary
Holtzer, Esq., and Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, represent the Debtors.  When the U.S. Debtors filed
for bankruptcy protection, they reported more than US$200
million in assets and debts.  The U.S. Debtors emerged from
bankruptcy on April 13, 2005.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles R&G-Related Suit for $12 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has agreed to pay $12 million to
bring an end to allegations that it failed to identify a series
of accounting improprieties at financial holding company R&G
Financial Corp, the Standford Law School Securities Class Action
ClearingHouse reports.

In a settlement disclosed on July 2, counsel for the lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action said that PwC would
pay $12 million to resolve the shareholder claims filed against
the auditor as part of a suit that also named R&G and several of
its executives as defendants.

The settlement must still be approved by the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, which has scheduled a
hearing on the matter for Sept. 16.

According to the report, news of PwC's settlement comes just a
few months after R&G agreed to pay $39 million to resolve claims
against the company and its officers and directors.

                          Case Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An amended complaint filed by the lead plaintiffs -- the
Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement and the Detroit
General Retirement System -- alleges that the company did not
sell mortgages to banks, as it had told the public.  Rather, the
sales were loans that the company was obliged to repay.

R&G sold more than $1 billion of loans a year, more than half of
which were "nonconforming loans," between 2002 to 2004, the
amended complaint says.

The suit is "In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Awaits Ruling in Early-Termination Fees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. is awaiting a decision by a California court
in a purported class action lawsuit over whether it violated
state law with its early-termination fees, Roger Cheng and Fawn
Johnson write for the Wall Street Journal.

Typically, early-termination fees are charged when a wireless
subscriber breaks a contract before it ends, WSJ explains.
Wireless carriers have long enforced such penalties on
subscribers who leave their one-year or two-year service
contracts early.  The carriers argue that the fees are a
necessary measure because the companies pay for a part of the
initial cost of the cellphone, and need to recoup those
expenses.

Even if the judge rules that Sprint is violating state law, the
company predicted it won't have to pay any damages, Sprint
spokesman Matthew Sullivan said, because a jury ruling in June
2008 found that Sprint customers had paid $73.8 million in
early-termination fees, while the company had lost
$225.7 million due to breaches of contracts.  "Our feeling is
that we won't owe any damages," according to Mr. Sullivan

However, WSJ notes, Scott Bursor, Esq., attorney for the
plaintiffs in the case, has argued that the fees were too high
and said he expects Sprint to pay damages.

The suit was originally filed in 2006 and went to trial in June
2008.  It is directed at hefty cancellation fees, which is also
known as early-termination fees that cellular phone users in
California had to pay for quitting a service before a contract
ends (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2006).

Generally, the suit contends that the cancellation fees violate
California contract law, and dampen competition because they
temporarily lock consumers into one service.


SUFFOLK CORRECTION HOUSE: Toilet Access Suit Allowed to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 4,000 current and former inmates can proceed with a
lawsuit against the Suffolk House of Correction for failing to
provide timely access to bathrooms, the Associated Press
reports.

According to the AP, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton has
allowed the class action suit to move forward.  He ruled that
anyone held in Building Four of the jail since August 2003 could
be a plaintiff.

The report recounts that the lawsuit was filed in August 2006 by
three former inmates.  It alleges that the jail housed prisoners
in cells without toilets or sinks and required them to ask
guards for permission to use the bathroom.

The suit says the practice amounted to cruel and unusual
punishment.  It says that some prisoners were forced to rely on
plastic bags and empty shampoo bottles when they were unable to
use the bathroom.


SUN LIFE: Judge Awards $4,000 to Plaintiff in Insurance Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carol Baird Ellan of the Provincial Court of British
Columbia ordered North Vancouver law firm Poyner Baxter LLP to
pay a former client $4,000 for the work he put into a class-
action lawsuit, Bethany Lindsay writes for North Shore News.

John David Romanchuk was the representative plaintiff in the
B.C. portion of a suit against Sun Life Insurance over so-called
"vanishing premium" life insurance plans.  According to North
Shore, Mr. Romanchuk was represented by Kenneth Baxter of Poyner
Baxter.

The report recounts that Sun Life settled with its policyholders
in 1997, paying out a total of $65 million.  However, under the
settlement's formula for calculating damages, Mr. Romanchuk was
not eligible for any compensation.

However, after discussion with an Ontario lawyer also involved
in the case, Mr. Romanchuk learned that he could be reimbursed
for the time and money he put into the lawsuit.

Mr. Baxter argued that he was not aware of any deal to
compensate Mr. Romanchuk for his help, although the court saw e-
mails written by Mr. Baxter saying he would be, "pleased to cut
(Mr. Romanchuk) a cheque for your time and expenses," North
Shore relates.  Mr. Baxter, however, qualified that offer by
requesting that Mr. Romanchuk submit documentation of hours
worked and expense receipts.  The firm never received those
records.

North Shore notes that originally, Mr. Romanchuk, who is now
representing himself, had argued for $8,000 in damages, based on
200 hours of work.  However, Judge Baird Ellan wrote in the
recent decision that "Mr. Romanchuk's documentation is, with all
due respect, non-existent."

Thus, the judge calculated Mr. Romanchuk's compensation based on
100 hours of work, valued at $40 per hour, which totaled to
$4,000.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles Early-Termination Fees Suits for $21MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Wireless, Inc., agreed to pay $21 million to settle
several class-action lawsuits over early-termination fees in
cellphone contracts, Roger Cheng and Fawn Johnson write for The
Wall Street Journal.

WSJ explains that, typically, early-termination fees are charged
when a wireless subscriber breaks a contract before it ends.
Wireless carriers have long enforced such penalties on
subscribers who leave their one-year or two-year service
contracts early.  The carriers argue that the fees are a
necessary measure because the companies pay for a part of the
initial cost of the cellphone, and need to recoup those
expenses.

The company, which is jointly owned by Verizon Communications
Inc. and Vodafone Group PLC, said that the settlement resolves
multiple claims by wireless customers who alleged the company
was unfairly charging fees for customers who had broken their
contracts early, WSJ notes.

The settlement, which effectively ends a trial that began
recently, covers all of the lawsuits throughout the nation,
according to Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace, who had
described the litigation as "a distraction."  He explains that
the settlement "was a quick way to resolve it."

The $21 million will be doled out to plaintiffs and will cover
the attorneys' fees, and represents a cap on what the company
will have to pay, according to Mr. Gerace.

Verizon Wireless, Inc. -- http://www.verizonwireless.com/-- is
a wireless communications provider with 27.9 million
subscribers, as of June 30, 2001.  The company provides service
in 49 of the 50 most populated U.S. metropolitan areas and 97 of
the most populated 100 United States metropolitan areas.  It is
owned by Verizon Communications, a provider of wireline voice
and data services with 125 million access line equivalents, and
Vodafone, a global wireless telecommunications company.  The
Company offers wireless services and pricing packages for both
wireless voice and data communications.  Verizon Wireless offers
basic voice services, as well as enhanced services and features,
including caller ID, call waiting, call forwarding, three-way
calling, no answer/busy transfer and basic voice mail and data
services.  The Company designs its service packages to target
young adults, households, mobile professionals, small to medium-
sized businesses and national accounts.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIMALAC SA: Howard Smith Files New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of all U.S. citizens or residents who
purchased the common stock of Fimalac, S.A. (Paris: FIM:PA)
between July 26, 2006, and April 20, 2008, inclusive.

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 material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the business and operations of Fitch Group,
Inc. -- a majority-owned subsidiary of Fimalac -- thereby
artificially inflating the price of Fimalac stock.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847
          Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Brualdi Law Files California Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of MRV Communications Inc. common stock
during the period between March 31, 2003, through June 5, 2008.

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.

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.

Upon this news, the Company's share price plummeted
approximately 24%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
July 8, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-952-0602
                 877-495-1187


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of MRV Communications, Inc. 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.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, MRV made
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
employee stock option grant practices and financial results.
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.

Upon this news, the Company's share price plummeted
approximately 24%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 8,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Holzer & Holzer, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 770-392-0090
          Fax: 770-392-0029
          Toll-Free: 888-508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of
California, against MRV Communications Inc. and certain officers
of the company for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the Company between July 24, 2003, and June 5, 2008.

MRV Communications is a Delaware corporation which maintains its
principal executive office in Chatsworth, California.  The
company supplies communications equipment and services to
carriers, governments and enterprise customers worldwide.

The complaint alleges that unbeknownst to investors and contrary
to its public representations, MRV issued stock options that
were deliberately backdated in order to provide improper
windfalls to the individual defendants.  Moreover, defendants
compounded the fraud by improperly accounting for the backdated
options, thereby, inflating reported results.  Finally, the
Company belatedly admitted that such misconduct had taken place.
The complaint specifically alleges that:

     (1) the Company backdated the actual grants of its stock
         options grants and improperly recognized stock-based
         compensation expenses related to its stock options
         grants;

     (2) the Company failed to disclose that the stock option
         grants had not been accounted for in accordance with
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (3) the Company materially understated tax expenses, since
         MRV had improperly deducted such expenses on its tax
         returns, thereby reducing the amount of taxes to the
         extent owed; and

     (4) the Company failed to accurately report its financial
         statements and will now have to restate its historical
         financial statements for the period between 2003 and
         2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 8,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 888-476-6529
                 888-4.POMLAW


SSGA YIELD: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
State Street Corporation and others on behalf of purchasers of
the SSgA Yield Plus Fund who purchased shares of the Fund within
the three years that preceded the filing of this lawsuit.

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

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.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 2,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Holzer & Holzer, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 770-392-0090
          Fax: 770-392-0029
          Toll-Free: 888-508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/


WACHOVIA CORP: Howard Smith Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Wachovia Corp. between May 8, 2006,
and June 6, 2008, inclusive.

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 material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Wachovia's business and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Wachovia stock.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 8,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847
          Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/





                            *********

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  * * *