CAR_Public/080721.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 21, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 143
  
                            Headlines

ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Mom Sues Over Bat-Infested Halls
AMERICAN EQUITY: $16.4-Million Settlement Gets Final Approval
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs for Risk of Loss of Control Hazard
BOIS D'ARC: Sale to Stone Energy Faces Opposition in Nevada Suit
CABLE TV: Programmers, Distributors to Appeal "Brantley" Ruling

CALIFORNIA: Settles Lawsuit Over Young Parolees' Rights
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: May Pay $500,000 to Settle Workers' Lawsuit
COUNTRY MUTUAL: Judge Hylla Freezes Medical Underpayment Lawsuit
DIRECTV GROUP: Settles Ill. Suit Over Portable DVD Player Promo
EMC CORP: Former Official's Revelation Could Help "Remein" Case

ENTERGY CORP: Texas Electric Power Billing Lawsuit Continues
GANZ USA: Sued Over Webkinz Plush Line Stocking Conditions
GOOGLE INC: Faces California Lawsuit Over 'Parked' Site Fraud
GOOGLE INC: Faces Lawsuit in California for Overcharged AdWords
ILLINOIS: Human Services Dept. Sued Over Refused Nursing Care

INDYMAC BANK: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in California Court
JACK DISTRIBUTION: Undeclared Content Prompts Rize 2 Caps Recall
NEXCEN BRANDS: July 28 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
NOKIA CORP: Faces California Lawsuit Over Sale of Used Phone
O'HARE AIRPORT EMPLOYERS: Sued for Cheating on Immigrants' Wages

PARMALAT: Court Notifies Investors of $40MM Partial Settlement
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Faces Wash. Suit Over Underpaid Claims
ROXANNE LABS: Recalls Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Suspension
ROYAL DUTCH: Reaches $120M Settlement in N.J. Securities Lawsuit
STUDIO RTA: Recalls TV Stands Due to Tip-over Hazard

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit in Illinois Over False Advertising
UNITED NATIONS: Court Hears Arguments in Suit Over 1995 Genocide

* Survey Says Securities Fraud Suits v. Life Science Cos. Up 56%


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

HUNTSMAN CORP: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.



                           *********


ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Mom Sues Over Bat-Infested Halls
--------------------------------------------------------
A Utah County mother has filed a lawsuit against Alpine School
District, claiming the district and school administrators failed
to warn students and parents that Lehi High School was infested
with bats last year, Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Traci Turner told Salt Lake Tribune that she filed the lawsuit
on behalf of her son, Chase Jackson, who caught a bat at school
in September 2007 and played with it for two hours.  The boy was
later treated for possible rabies exposure.

"The defendant did nothing to warn students of the severe danger
that bats pose to humans and to instruct students to avoid
contact with the bats or the bats' after-effects," said court
papers filed in the 4th District Court and obtained by the Salt
Lake Tribune.

According to the report, school officials dispute Ms. Turner's
claim.  They claim that they partnered with the Utah County
Health Department to rid the school of bats as soon as they
learned that hundreds of the creatures had nested in the
building.

"We did inform parents and students of the situation; we let
them all know that we would pay for, if any of them felt like
they had been exposed, pay for them to get a shot," said Ronda
Bromley, spokeswoman for Alpine School District.  "We were very
proactive as far as our communication with parents and
students."

Over a two-week period, announcements were also made over a
school intercom telling students not to touch dead bats and to
report any contact to teachers, the report relates.
The school paid out more than $6,800 in rabies vaccination
compensation for seven students, Ms. Bromley said.

However, Ms. Turner's attorney, Matthew Howell, Esq., contended
that his client only learned about the problem when her son
brought a health department letter home from school explaining
that he could be at risk for rabies.

The report explains that rabies is a fatal disease.  Symptoms of
the disease include central nervous system damage and
neurological problems, according to Dr. Joseph Miner, director
of the Utah County Health Department.  Treatment for the disease
includes five shots of vaccine over 28 days and one gamma
globulin shot.

It is unknown if Ms. Turner's son was bitten or if the bat he
touched had rabies, the report says.  To be safe, he went
through the five-shot regimen for rabies exposure.

"You treat either way," said Dr. Miner.  "You don't wait to see
if someone gets rabies."

Ms. Turner's lawsuit was filed as a class-action so other
injured students could join in.


AMERICAN EQUITY: $16.4-Million Settlement Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
William F. McMurry, a Nationally Board Certified Specialist in
Medical Malpractice and Legal Malpractice, obtained final court
approval of a settlement in the first nationwide class action
suit ever certified by a Kentucky state court judge.

The settlement gives economic and equitable relief as many as
24,000 purchasers of deferred annuities.  The Settlement is
valued at approximately $16,400,000.

American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company was accused of
participating in a Living Trust mill.  Working in concert with a
Dallas-based insurance and legal marketing firm (Advanced Legal
Marketing Services and Addison Insurance Marketing) and local
attorneys, agents persuaded senior citizens to buy a Living
Trust out of fear that probate proceedings were costly and not
in their family's best interest.  After the victims purchased
the Living Trust, agents of the insurance and marketing
companies, appearing as representatives of the law firm,
approached the victims and encouraged the victim to sell their
current investments and purchase deferred annuities from
American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company of Des Moines,
Iowa.

The deferred annuities were often sold to elderly couples with
20-year terms, even though they were approaching their life
expectancy.  Surrender charges for early withdrawal were
substantial.

As part of the Settlement, American Equity agreed that it would
no longer sell deferred annuities where the Company has
knowledge that sales leads were generated through the sale and
marketing of living trusts.

The Settlement offers Class Members a new option in connection
with their annuity contracts, namely, the right to immediately
annuitize funds, with a 2.4% bonus added to the value of their
policies.  American Equity also agreed to waive the penalties
and forfeitures, such as surrender charges, that Class Members
who decide to annuitize immediately would incur but for the
Settlement.

American Equity agreed that Class Members who claim that an
annuity sale was unsuitable or based on a misrepresentation, the
Claimant will receive appropriate relief, which under the
Settlement "shall include a full refund of premiums plus
interest, the current policy value, modification of surrender
charges, or other appropriate relief."

In addition, the Settlement provides that any Class Member who
submits a claim form, and who was 79 or older when he or she
purchased a deferred annuity from American Equity, will receive
the opportunity to withdraw up to 25% of the policy value for
each of the next four years, penalty free.

William F. McMurry served as lead class counsel, along with
other attorneys serving as co-counsel.

To contact Mr. McMurry:

          William F. McMurry, Esq.
          William F. McMurry & Associates
          4801 Olympia Park Plaza, Suite 4800
          Louisville, KY 40241
          Phone: 502-326-9000
          Fax: 502-326-9001
          e-mail: info@courtroomlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.courtroomlaw.com/


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs for Risk of Loss of Control Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co. Inc., of Torrance, Calif., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is
recalling about 42,000 Model Year 2007-2008 TRX 420 Rancher  
All-Terrain Vehicles.

The company said that if the ATV's rubber CV (constant velocity)
boots get punctured or torn the joint will become contaminated
and severe binding of the CV joints could occur, resulting in
the sudden loss of steering control. This poses a risk of injury
or death to riders.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Model Year 2007-08 Honda TRX420 ATVs, also
known as the Honda FourTrax Rancher 4X4.  These are adult-size
ATVs designed for use by riders age 16 and older.  The recalled
ATVs are available in red, black, olive, and camouflage.  The
Honda name and wing logo are printed on the fuel tank.  The
model year is printed on a label located on the frame behind the
left front wheel.  The model name "Rancher" is on a label at the
left rear of the ATV.

These recalled ATVs were manufactured in the United States and
were being sold by Honda ATV dealers nationwide from January
2007 through May 2008 for between $5,300 and $5,600.

A picture of the recalled ATVs is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08595.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these recalled
ATVs and contact any Honda ATV dealer to make an appointment for
a free repair.  Registered owners of the recalled ATVs have been
sent direct notices.

For additional information, consumers can contact Honda toll-
free at 866-784-1870 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.powersports.honda.com/


BOIS D'ARC: Sale to Stone Energy Faces Opposition in Nevada Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bois d'Arc Energy is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court in Clark County, Nevada, wanting the
company's sale to Stone Energy Offshore for $1.7 billion
enjoined and claiming the deal cheats shareholders, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

This is a class action brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Bois d'Arc to enjoin the proposed buyout of the
public-owned shares of the company, pursuant to the Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated as of April 30, 2007.

On April 30, the defendants announced that the company's board
had approved the proposed merger.  Under the terms of the deal,
owners of Bois d'Arc are to receive $13.65 in cash and 0.165
share of Stone for each of their shares.  As of the same date,
when the deal was announced, the total consideration offered in
the proposed merger was valued at approximately $1.7 billion, or
$24.85 per share.

Instead of receiving a premium above the market price (which is
to be expected in any deal where the purchaser is obtaining
majority control of the acquired company), plaintiff and the
class members would actually be giving up their Bois d'Arc
shares at a significant discount to the market price if the
proposed transaction is consummated.

According to the complaint, the prices offered in the proposed
merger is unfair given the company's solid financial position
and its opportunities for future growth.  Instead of obtaining
the best reasonably available price in this change of control
transaction, the individual defendants agreed to a transaction
that will leave the stockholders of the company in a worse
financial position than if the individual defendants had engaged
in an adequate sale process or otherwise determined to continue
to operate Bois d'Arc as a public operation.

In addition, certain defendants have engaged in self-dealing by
negotiating the terms of a "participation agreement" with Stone
for their own benefit at the same time they were negotiating
with Stone for a buyout price for Bois d'Arc shares.

Moreover, in violation of their fiduciary duty of disclosure,
the individual defendants are soliciting shareholder votes in
favor of the proposed merger on the basis of a proxy containing
omissions of material facts.

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proposed merger to rescind the
proposed merger in the events of its consummation.  The
circumstances described that the defendants have violated their
fiduciary duties resulting in the terms of the merger agreement
that are grossly unfair to the plaintiff and the putative class.

The suit is "Gail Packard, et al. v. M. Jay Allison, et al.,
Case No. A567393," filed in the U.S. District Court in Clark
County, Nevada.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Joni S. Jacobs, Esq.
         McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry
         1630 S. Commerce Street, Suite A-1
         Las Vegas, NV 89102
         Phone: 702-386-5107


CABLE TV: Programmers, Distributors to Appeal "Brantley" Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for programming providers and distributors will appeal
a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California in the matter, "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC
Universal, Inc., et  al., Case No. CV07-06101," Linda Haugsted
writes for the Broadcast Newsroom.

Broadcast Newsroom recounts that on July 7, 2008, Judge
Christina A. Snyder issued a decision in the case that would let
consumers challenge, on antitrust grounds, the practice of
selling video programming in bundles rather than on a channel-
by-channel basis.

Several companies have filed an appeal in connection to Judge
Snyder's recent ruling, according to the report.  

Originally, attorneys for companies including NBC Universal,
Viacom, The Walt Disney Co., Fox Entertainment Group, Time
Warner Inc., Comcast, Coxcom Inc., The DirecTV Group, EchoStar
Satellite (Dish Network), Charter Communications and Cablevision
Systems had asked the judge to dismiss the suit.

However, Judge Snyder found that there were issues raised in the
suit which should be argued at trial and not handled in a motion
to dismiss.

                         Case Background

The antitrust lawsuit was filed on Sept. 20, 2007, before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against cable and satellite providers and programming content
providers (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2008).  

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are:

       -- Rob Brantley,
       -- Darryn Cooke,
       -- William Costley,
       -- Beverly Costley,
       -- Christina Hills,
       -- Michael B. Kovac,
       -- Michelle Navarrette,
       -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and
       -- Joseph Vranich.

The defendants in the case are:

       -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
       -- Viacom Inc.,
       -- The Walt Disney Company,
       -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Cable Inc.,
       -- Comcast Corp.,
       -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
       -- Cox Communiations, Inc.,
       -- The Directv Group, Inc.,
       -- Echostar Satellite LLC,
       -- Charter Communications, Inc., and
       -- Cablevision Systems Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video
programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who
distribute video programming via cable and satellite, which
preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers
on an a la carte (or channel-by-channel) basis in violation of
federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages for the loss of their ability
to pick and choose the specific channels to which they wish to
subscribe, and injunctive relief requiring each distributor
defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an a
la carte basis.

The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the
U.S. who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video
service provided by one of the distributor defendants.

The plaintiffs brought the action under Sections 4 and 16 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26, for treble damages,
injunctive relief, costs of suit and a reasonable attorneys'
fee, against defendants for the injuries sustained by plaintiffs
and class members by reason of defendants' violations of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2
(Class Action Reporter, June 25, 2008).

The plaintiffs brought the suit as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all persons
residing in the United States who subscribe to "expanded basic
cable" provided by one of the cable television or direct
broadcast satellite television provider defendants within four
years of the date of the filing of the complaint.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants have engaged in collaborative
         activity to preclude cable/satellite subscribers from
         securing "a la carte" programming apart from "basic"
         cable service;

     (b) whether, as a result of the antitrust violation as set
         forth in the complaint, plaintiffs and the class are
         entitled to damages, equitable relief or other relief,
         and the amount and nature of such relief;

     (c) whether defendants acted on grounds generally
         applicable to the class, making injunctive relief
         appropriate;

     (d) whether a class can be certified pursuant to
         Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3); and

     (e) whether, alternatively, a class can be certified
         pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).

The plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, request:

     -- that this matter be certified as a class action with the
        class defined set forth in the complaint under
        Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), or in the alternative
        Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), and that the named plaintiffs be
        appointed class representatives and their attorneys be
        appointed class counsel;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants, and each of
        them jointly and severally, for the treble damages as a
        result of defendants' violations of Section 1 and 2 of
        the Sherman Act, and that plaintiffs be awarded a
        reasonable attorneys' fee and the costs of suit as
        required by Section 4 of the Clayton Act;

     -- that the court enter an order requiring defendants, and
        each of them, to immediately cease the wrongful conduct
        as set forth in the complaint and specifically enjoining
        defendants from unlawfully bundling expanded basic cable
        channels and ordering defendant cable providers and
        direct broadcast satellite providers to notify their
        subscribers that they each can purchase "a la carte"
        (separately) except for "basic cable"; and

     -- for such other and further relief as to the court may
        seem just and proper.

In December 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
case.  

On March 12, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, with
permission for the plaintiffs to replead their complaint.  On
March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs served an amended complaint.

The company then filed a renewed motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The court held a hearing on the dismissal motion on
June 16, 2008.

The suit is "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
          Blecher & Collins
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-622-4222

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk and Wardwell
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-752-2005

          John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com)
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513
          Phone: 213-243-4000

               - and -

          Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6321


CALIFORNIA: Settles Lawsuit Over Young Parolees' Rights
-------------------------------------------------------
California settled a federal class action lawsuit that accused
the state of violating juvenile offenders' constitutional
rights, the Associated Press reports.

According to the AP, the settlement requires the state to begin
giving young offenders the same swift hearings that are given
adults who are accused of violating their parole.

To recall, attorneys alleged in the class-action lawsuit that
young offenders often were not told of the exact charges against
them until they had been incarcerated for weeks or months.  
Often, those charges would change unexpectedly, and juveniles
were routinely denied the right to present witnesses or other
evidence, the suit alleged.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton of Sacramento ruled in
September 2007 that the state violated some juvenile offenders'
due process rights by keeping them in custody for months before
they received a hearing on whether they should be sent back to a
state juvenile facility.

The report notes that Judge Karlton also found that more than
half were accused of technical violations of their parole, and
in most cases the offenders were eventually released to simply
continue their parole.

The AP says the settlement reached by the parties requires that
the alleged offenders be given a probable cause hearing within
three weeks and a final decision within another 35 days on
whether they violated their parole.  It also requires that all
alleged juvenile parole violators be represented by an attorney.

In addition, the settlement includes special provisions for
juveniles with disabilities.

"We believe that this agreement will end up saving the state
money, as juveniles will no longer spend months on end in DJJ
(Division of Juvenile Justice) facilities awaiting hearings,"
one of the inmates' attorneys, Geoffrey Holtz, Esq., said in a
statement.  "Youth were warehoused at facilities for months
before they received a hearing, even for technical violations of
parole such as drinking alcohol or traffic violations."

The AP report relates that the settlement still needs Judge
Karlton's approval.


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: May Pay $500,000 to Settle Workers' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A company that owns five Bakersfield Pizza Huts has tentatively
agreed to pay $500,000 to settle a class action lawsuit over
allegations of missed meal and rest breaks, Bakersfield Now
reports.

The suit accuses the Fresno-based company, operating under the
name of California Pizza, of understaffing its Pizza Hut
restaurants so that employees had to cut short or skip breaks.

An attorney for the company confirmed to Bakersfield Now that a
settlement had been reached, but declined to give details.


COUNTRY MUTUAL: Judge Hylla Freezes Medical Underpayment Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge David Hylla froze a class action
lawsuit filed the Lakin Law Firm against Country Mutual
Insurance so that Kevin Hoerner, Esq., of Belleville, can
proceed with a similar suit in St. Clair County, Steve Korris
writes for the St. Clair Record.

According to the report, Judge Hylla on July 10 granted Country
Mutual's motion to stay the suit that Lakins filed in 2007 on
behalf of chiropractor Richard Coy.  The suit claims that the
company underpaid on medical bills from accidents.

Judge Hylla found that the parties and issues in Mr. Coy's suit
were substantially similar to those in "Roche v. Country
Mutual," a suit that Mr. Hoerner filed in St. Clair County last
year.  Judge Hylla wrote that "duplicity of litigation is to be
avoided because it may be greatly inconvenient and wasteful even
if not designed to be vexatious or harassing."

"This Court thinks the Roche case may ultimately encompass all
claims in the present case; but it may not," the judge wrote.  
"Therefore, this case will remain on file, for now, to
best deal with the contingency that substantial claims may be
unresolved through Roche."

St. Clair Record notes that St. Clair County Associate Judge
Andrew Gleeson presides over the Roche case.  Judge Gleeson has
set an Aug. 6 hearing on a motion to dismiss the Roche suit.


DIRECTV GROUP: Settles Ill. Suit Over Portable DVD Player Promo
---------------------------------------------------------------
The DIRECTV Group, Inc., settled a purported class action
lawsuit filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Illinois over
a promise of a free portable DVD player for new subscribers, The
Belleville News Democrat reports.

The suit, which was filed on May 9, 2007, by Belleville attorney
Christopher T. Kolker, Esq., claims that DIRECTV promises a
portable flat-screen DVD player worth up to $129 for a
subscription to its television services (Class Action Reporter,
May 17, 2008).

However, the suit states that the company sends new customers
either nothing at all or a traditional full-sized stationary DVD
player that must be connected to a TV, and it's worth
considerably less than the DVD player advertised.

Represented by Brad Lakin, Esq., of Wood River, Mr. Kolker
claims the company advertised the incentive as having a value of
up to $169 in some instances.  However, Mr. Kolker contends that
the Sungale DVD2028 player he received is available online for
$29.99.

The case, which alleges that DirecTV breached contract, was
brought on behalf of all persons who entered into a programming
agreement with DIRECTV and who, within eight weeks of submitting
a valid redemption form, have not received a portable DVD player
with a value of at least the advertised value.

According to the complaint, "Some of the advertisements purport
to limit the promise 'while supplies last.'  However, defendants
either failed to provide the promised DVD players even while
supplies lasted, never had supplies of the promised portable DVD
players, or knowingly and intentionally continued to run the
advertisements well after supplies had been depleted."

Mr. Kolker claims that the DVD was advertised with phrases such
as, "Bigger screen for easier viewing," "Light enough to take
wherever you go," "High-output stereo speakers," "One-inch
super-slim design," and "Complete portability with car adapter."

The complaint further states, "Unlike the portable DVD player
that defendant advertised and promised, the Sungale DVD2028
cannot be utilized without connecting it to a separate, stand-
alone monitor, it has no car adapter and cannot operate on DC
power in a vehicle; it has no speakers and produces no sound."

Additionally, the complaint claims there are at least 50 members
in the class and that joinder in a single action is
impracticable.  It states that the questions of law and fact
common to all class members are:

      -- whether defendants' conduct resulted in a promise of a
         free portable DVD player with a value of at least the
         advertised value;

      -- whether defendants' conduct constituted a contractual
         offer or acceptance of a contractual offer;

      -- whether the class made or accepted a contractual offer
         by entering into programming commitments and submitting
         the redemption forms provided by defendants;

      -- whether defendants' conduct constitutes a breach of
         contract; and

      -- whether the class members have sustained damages and,
         if so, the proper measure of their damages.

According to Belleville News Democrat, a settlement was recently
reached in the matter, which was approved by the court on
July 15, 2008.  In general, the agreement will award customers
with two free DVD players.

Specifically, under the settlement, subscribers who submitted
redemption forms will receive free portable DVD players, as well
as traditional stationary DVD players.

Those customers who received a traditional stationary DVD player
(valued at about $29) instead of the portable player that was
promised, will get to keep those DVD players in addition to the
portable ones, valued at about $129.

DirecTV also paid for claims notice, claims administrative
costs, attorneys' fees and legal costs.  The Lakin firm will
receive $200,000 for handling the case, Belleville News Democrat
notes.

To be eligible for the refund, class members must submit claim
forms by Sept. 6. 2008, according to Belleville News Democrat.

For more details, contact:

         Bradley M. Lakin, Esq.
         Lakin Law Firm PC
         300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229
         Wood River, IL 62095-0229
         Phone: 618-254-1127
                800-851-5523
         Fax: 618-254-0193
         Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/

    
EMC CORP: Former Official's Revelation Could Help "Remein" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A recent revelation by a former EMC Corp. official could
strengthen a purported sexual discrimination class action
lawsuit that was filed against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, The Register
reports.

The suit, filed in May 28, 2004, by two women who were former
sales representatives at the company, Tami Remien and Debra
Fletcher, alleges discrimination and harassment (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 20, 2007).

The women specifically allege that EMC's discriminatory conduct
included failure to hire and promote women, failure to credit
women for their experience on the same basis as male employees,
systemically paying women lower wages, creating an environment
hostile and offensive to women, making employment decisions
based on gender stereotypes, and defaming women to their
clients, co-workers and corporate partners.

The plaintiffs argue that the resulting lack of opportunity for
career advancement and hostile work environment forced them to
resign from EMC.  They specifically charge EMC district manager
Rick Otten with sexual harassment and discriminatory actions.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status as 12 other EMC saleswomen
have also filed sex-discrimination cases.

                      Recent Developments

The Register says that ex-EMC VP Paul Goetz, in papers filed
with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the
federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claimed that
EMC ignored internal discrimination claims from female employees
whilst fighting a class action lawsuit filed by other female
employees.

Mr. Goetz, who left EMC in November 2007, claimed he was demoted
and placed in a hostile environment after forwarding
discrimination complaints from female staff in his consulting
part of EMC up the management chain in 2006.  

According to The Register, Mr. Goetz is claiming that his
discrimination message was stifled because it would have
provided support for the women in the class-action case.  

The suit is "Remien, et al. v. EMC Corp., Case No. 1:04-cv-
03727," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Judge Charles P. Kocoras, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Mary Stowell, Esq.
          Stowell & Friedman, Ltd.
          321 S. Plymouth Court, Ste. 1400
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: 312-431-0888
          Fax: 312-431-0228
          e-mail: mstowell@sfltd.com
          Web site: http://www.stowellandfriedman.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Barbara B. Brown, Esq. (barbarabrown@paulhastings.com)
          Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20004-2400
          Phone: 202-508-9500


ENTERGY CORP: Texas Electric Power Billing Lawsuit Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corp. and several of its affiliates continue to face a
purported class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Texas retail
customers who were billed and paid for electric power.

The lawsuit was filed in August 2003 before the district court
of Chambers County, Texas, by Texas residents on behalf of a
purported class apparently of the Texas retail customers of
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., who were billed and paid for electric
power from Jan. 1, 1994, to the present.

The named defendants include Entergy Corp., Entergy Services,
Entergy Power, Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy
Arkansas, Inc.  Entergy Gulf States was not named as a
defendant, but is alleged to be a co-conspirator.  

The court granted Entergy Gulf States' request to intervene in
the lawsuit to protect its interests.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price
gouging accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly
situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the
defendants while rejecting and reselling to off-system utilities
less expensive power offered and purchased from off-system
suppliers and generated by the Entergy system.

In particular, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of
generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive
resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

The plaintiffs estimate that customers in Texas were charged at
least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power. They
seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.

In September 2003, the Entergy defendants removed the lawsuit to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and
in October 2003, filed a pleading seeking dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims.

In October 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.  

In January 2004, the federal court determined that it did not
have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the lawsuit, and
remanded the case to the state district court in Chambers
County.

In November 2004, the state district court dismissed the case
based on a lack of jurisdiction.  The plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal.

In March 2006 the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals determined
that neither the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission nor the
Public Utility Commission of Texas had exclusive jurisdiction
over the plaintiffs' claims and, on this basis, reversed the
district court's dismissal order and remanded the case for
further proceedings.  

The court of appeals also affirmed the district court's decision
allowing Entergy Gulf States to intervene in the case.  Entergy
filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.  

The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for review in
February 2007, and in August 2007 denied Entergy's request for
rehearing.

Entergy filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court for review of the decision, and the writ of
certiorari request was denied in February 2008.  The case is now
pending again in the state district court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
July 15, 2008 Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Entergy Corp. -- http://www.entergy.com/-- is an integrated  
energy company engaged primarily in electric power production
and retail electric distribution operations.  Entergy owns and
operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of
electric generating capacity and it is a nuclear power generator
in the U.S.  Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility
customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.


GANZ USA: Sued Over Webkinz Plush Line Stocking Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------
California retailer Nuts For Candy filed a class-action lawsuit
against vendor Ganz USA and its Canadian parent firm, alleging
that the conditions Ganz sets for stocking its popular Webkinz
plush line violate U.S. antitrust laws, Kids Today reports.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, argues that Ganz's policy of requiring
retailers to order $1,000 worth of its non-Webkinz "core" line
in order to apply to become a Webkinz plush seller, with no
guarantee of becoming an authorized Webkinz retailer, violates
the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.

The report also notes that the suit claims Ganz's policy causes
"monetary injury" to retailers, and argues that the company
"succeeded in making it more difficult for Plaintiff and Class
members to sell products that compete with Webkinz and/or the
[core] Ganz products by forcing Plaintiff to stock limited
retail shelf space with unwanted products, reducing Plaintiff's
ability to sell competing products."

According to Kids Today, the suit's class is open to all persons
or entities in the U.S. who established an account with Ganz
from July 1, 2006, onwards.

Nuts For Candy is seeking a jury trial, the report relates.  It
is also requesting damages for all class members "threefold
their actual antitrust damages sustained," along with reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Nuts For Candy is being represented by Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, Burlingame, CA.

A Ganz spokesperson told Playthings, sister publication to Kids
Today, that the company had no comment on the suit.


GOOGLE INC: Faces California Lawsuit Over 'Parked' Site Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Google Inc. is defrauding its advertising customers by charging
them for clicks from "parked" websites that Google knows are
worthless, according to a federal class action lawsuit filed by
Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP, in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in San Jose.

Google places ads on Google.com and on third-party websites.  
Its customers are charged whenever their ad is "clicked."  Ads
appear on third-party websites based on keywords that the
customer selects.  For example, an ad for a hardware store may
appear on a Web site about home improvement projects.

The "parked" sites at issue in the suit, however, contain no
content or useful information -- just ads.  The sole purpose of
those sites is to generate ad revenue for Google and the site
owner, while not providing any benefit to the ad customer.

"The supposed advantage of Google advertising is that it's
targeted," said Brian Kabateck, Esq., Managing Partner of
Kabateck Brown Kellner.  "If Google is simply placing ads
anywhere they can make a buck, one has to seriously question the
value of their advertising program."

According to the lawsuit filed on July 17, 2008, Google did not
disclose to its advertisers the web addresses of the parked
domains where their ads were placed and clicked on, leaving
customers with no ability to evaluate, much less dispute, the
validity of the clicks for which they were charged.  Google
failed to provide this information despite the fact that ads
placed on parked domains are a constant source of invalid
clicks.

Google customers' ads are placed on parked domains
automatically.  Only after registering, and through a
complicated process, can customers "opt out" and exclude their
ads from being placed on parked domains.

The plaintiff in this case was charged for several clicks
originating from parked domains, with no additional information
given by Google as to the nature or specific source of these
clicks beyond the designation "parked domain."

The plaintiff examined charges to his account from unknown
domains labeled only as "parked domains."  Upon further
inspection, the plaintiff realized that he was paying for
traffic originating from parked domains that had little relation
to his business.

The suit is "RK West, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case Number:
5:2008cv03452," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Magistrate Judge Richard
Seeborg, presiding.

To contact Mr. Kabateck:

          Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
          Engine Company No. 28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-217-5000
          Fax: 213-217-5010
          e-mail: info@kbklawyers.com


GOOGLE INC: Faces Lawsuit in California for Overcharged AdWords
---------------------------------------------------------------
Google Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed on July 11,
2008, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California over allegations that it overcharges customers of
its AdWords program by charging them for ads placed on "low
quality parked domain and error page Web sites," CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is a class action for violation of Business  & Professions
Code Sections 17200 and 17500 and unjust enrichent in connection
with Google's AdWords program for Internet advertisers.

The report explains that Google AdWords is a quick and simple
way to advertise on Google, regardless of your budget.  AdWords
ads are displayed along with search results on Google, as well
as on search and content sites in the growing Google Network,
including AOL, EearthLink, HowStuffWorks & Blogger.  With
searches on Google and page views on the Google Network each
day, Google AdWords ads reach a vast audience.

Named plaintiff Hal Levitte, who advertised his Boston law
office through Google, says 99% of Google's $16.6 billion
revenue in 2007 came from advertising.

Mr. Levitte adds, "Google marketed AdWords by emphasizing the
high quality of sites on which AdWords ads will be placed, and
did not disclose Google's practice of placing ads on parked
domains and error pages."

Mr. Levitte claims more than 16% of the clicks he paid for were
from parked domains and error pages, from which he received no
benefit.  When he demanded a refund for those charges, he says
Google replied that "the clicks you have been charged for appear
to fit a pattern of normal activity."

The plaintiff alleges that Google has concealed from and
misrepresented material information to plaintiff and the class
concerning the Google AdWords program.  According to the suit,
Google has damaged the plaintiff and the class by improperly
charging them for advertising placed by Google on low-quality
parked domain and error page websites.

Mr. Levitte brings this nationwide class action on behalf of all
persons or entities located within the United States who, within
four years of the filing of this complaint, had an AdWords
account with Google and who were charged for advertisements
appearing on parked domain and error page websites.

Mr. Levitte wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Google's representations regarding AdWords were
         false or misleading;

     (b) whether Google, in violation of applicable law and its
         own stated policy, charged plaintiff and the members of
         the class for ads that were placed on parked domain and
         error page websites;

     (c) whether Google engaged in unfair, unlawful and/or
         deceptive business practices;

     (d) whether Google failed to disclose material facts about
         its AdWords program; and

     (e) whether or not plaintiff and the members of the class
         have been damaged by the wrongs complained of, and if
         so, the measure of those damages and the nature and
         extent of other relief that should be provided.

Mr. Levitte asks the court for:

      -- certification of the proposed class pursuant to Fed. R.
         Civ. P. 23;

      -- a declaration that the defendant engaged in the conduct
         alleged;

      -- an injunction ordering the defendant to cease and
         desist from engaging in the unfair, unlawful, and
         deceptive practices alleged;

      -- restitution and disgorgement on certain causes of
         action;

      -- compensatory and general damages according to proof on
         certain causes of action;

      -- special damages according to proof on certain causes of
         action;

      -- both pre- and post- judgment interest at the maximum
         allowable rate on any amounts awarded;

      -- costs of proceedings;

      -- reasonable attorneys' fees; and

      -- any and all such other and further relief that the
         court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Hal K. Levitte, et al. v. Google Inc., Case No. C  
08 03369," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

         Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
         Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
         Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
         Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-788-4220
         Fax: 415-788-0161


ILLINOIS: Human Services Dept. Sued Over Refused Nursing Care
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Department of Human Services is facing a class-
action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois over allegations that it illegally refuses
to fund intensive nursing care for developmentally disabled
adults under Medicaid, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Keith Boney brings this action against the
defendant, who administers Illinois Medicaid Assistance program,
to enjoin the policy and practice of denying or failing to make
available funding for intensive care nursing care or access to
24-hour nursing care to persons with developmental disabilities
over the age of 21 years or when they age out of the "children's
program" and are funded in the "adults' program" solely because
they are living in the community, even when such nursing
services are medically necessary for them.

The suit contends that these policy and practices violate Title
XIX of the Social Security Act (which governs Medical Assistance
or Medicaid) 42 USC Section 1396-1396v and 42 USC Section 1983,
Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 USC Section
12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 USC Sec.
794(a).

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
developmentally disabled persons who are or will be recipients
of Illinois Medicaid program, who reside in Medicaid funded
Community-Integrated Living Arrangement and for whom intensive
nursing care or access to 24 hour nursing care is medically
necessary, but who have not been provided funding for such care.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants' have utilized criteria or
         methods of administration that have the effect of
         subjecting the plaintiff and the class to illegal
         discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities
         Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;

     (b) whether the defendants' practice and policy is to
         provide funding for developmentally disabled persons
         under the age of 21 years or while they are enrolled in
         the "children's program" to receive intensive nursing
         care services or access to 24-hour nursing services,
         when medically necessary;

     (c) whether the defendants' practice and policy is not to
         provide funding for developmentally disabled persons
         over the age of 21 years or when they age out of the
         "children's program" into the "adults' program" to
         receive intensive nursing care services or access to
         24-hour nursing services when medically necessary if
         they are living in the community;

     (d) whether the defendants' practice an policy is to
         provide funding for developmentally disabled persons
         over the age of 21 years or when they are in the
         "adults program" to receive intensive nursing care
         services or access to 24-hour nursing services when
         medically necessary, only if they are living in an
         institution and not in the community;

     (e) whether the defendants violated the ADA and
         Rehabilitation Act by not providing funding for
         community-based services for the plaintiff and the
         class for intensive nursing care services or access to
         24-hour nursing services when medically necessary;

     (f) whether a fundamental alteration of the Illinois
         disability programs would occur if the defendants'
         provided funding for community-based services for the
         plaintiff and the class for intensive nursing care
         services or access to 24-hour nursing services when
         medically necessary; and

     (g) whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act permits the
         defendants to reduce the level of services (funding)
         for disabled persons after the age of 21 or when they
         age out of the "children's program," even though there
         has been no change in their medical needs.

The plaintiff requests that the court:

      -- certify this case to proceed as a class action;

      -- issue a declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiff
         and the class and that the defendants' acts or
         omissions violate Title XIX of the Social Security Act,
         Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
         Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;

      -- issue a preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
         requiring the defendants' to restore the level of
         funding for plaintiffs' Medicaid Benefits prior to
         aging out of the "children's program," at the current
         prevailing rate paid by the defendants to persons who
         are developmentally disabled in a residential program
         and who have a need for access to 24-hour nursing care
         services and who have not attained the age of 21 years;

      -- award plaintiff and the class the costs of this action,
         including reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42
         USC Section 12205; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
         Act, and 42 USC Section 1988; and

      -- award such other relief as the court deems just and
         appropriate.

The suit is "Keith Boney, et al. v. Barry S. Maram, et al., Case
No. 08CV4026," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Robert H. Farley, Jr., Esq.
          Robert H. Farley, Jr., Ltd.
          1155 S. Washington Street
          Naperville, IL 60540
          Phone: 630-369-0103


INDYMAC BANK: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates said that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced against IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (Pink
Sheets:IDMC) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended.

The Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a class of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the IndyMac
Bank, F.S.B. 401(k) Plan between December 31, 2006, and the
present, and whose accounts included investments in IndyMac
common stock.

The Complaint alleges that IndyMac and other administrators of
the Plan may have breached their ERISA mandated fiduciary duties
of loyalty and prudence to participants and beneficiaries of the
Plan.  A breach may have occurred if the fiduciaries failed to
manage the assets of the Plan prudently and loyally by investing
the assets in Company stock when it was no longer a prudent
investment for participants' retirement savings.

Specifically, IndyMac continued to make and maintain investments
in IndyMac stock despite the Company's apparent mismanagement of
the risk of assets held by the Company and its gross failure to
maintain adequate capital and liquidity.

The suit is "Teresa D. Moore v. Indymac Bancorp, Inc., et al.,
Case Number: 2:2008cv04579," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

For more information, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN 55112
          Phone: 651-633-5685


JACK DISTRIBUTION: Undeclared Content Prompts Rize 2 Caps Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Distribution, LLC, 1501 Green Road Unit C Pompano Beach,
Florida 33064 and its wholesale distributors G & N works, Inc.,
and Devine Distribution, Inc., are conducting a voluntary
nationwide recall of these lot numbers of the company's
supplement products sold under the brand names Rize 2 The
Occasion and Rose 4 Her:

   -- Rize 2 lot number CG-84 expires 11/10,
   -- Rize 2 lot number GD-98 expires 08/10,
   -- Rize 2 lot number CC-06 expires 06/10,
   -- Rize 2 lot number 709 expires 09/10,
   -- Rize 2 lot number CG-79 expires 11/10, and
   -- Rose 4 Her lot number CG-78 expires 11/10.

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

FDA asserts that its chemical analysis revealed that these lots
of Rize 2 The Occasion and Rose 4 Her contain
thiomethisosildenafil, an analog of sildenafil, the active
ingredient of a FDA-approved drug used for Erectile Dysfunction.

FDA maintains that this ingredient is close in structure to
sildenafil and is expected to possess a similar pharmacological
and adverse event profile.  This undeclared chemical poses a
potential threat to consumers because it may interact with
nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as
nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.

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

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

Any adverse events that may be related to the use of this
product should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program through
this contact information:

          MedWatch
          HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane
          Rockville, MD 20852-9787
          Phone: 1-800-FDA-1088
          Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

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

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

The Company is taking this voluntary action because it is
committed and is always concerned with the health of persons who
have consumed this product.

The Company is reviewing the procedures and policies of all
firms involved with the manufacture of the product to ensure
that there will be no future issues with regard to Rize 2 and
Rose 4 Her pills composition.

The Company is working closely with the FDA in the recall
process and is committed to the quality and integrity of its
products.  It says it sincerely regrets any inconvenience to
consumers and its other customers.


NEXCEN BRANDS: July 28 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP disclosed that July 28, 2008,
is the deadline for investors to seek a lead plaintiff
appointment in the pending class action lawsuits against NexCen
Brands, Inc., and other defendants.

On May 28, 2008, Dyer & Berens LLP filed "Gray v. NexCen Brands,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-04906-MGC," in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of investors who purchased the common stock of NexCen between
May 10, 2007, and May 19, 2008.

The complaint charges NexCen and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Thereafter, other law firms filed similar complaints on
behalf of purchasers of NexCen common stock and call options.

The suit is "Gray v. NexCen Brands, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:08-
cv-04906-MGC," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362


NOKIA CORP: Faces California Lawsuit Over Sale of Used Phone
------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Corp., AT&T Mobility, and CommClub are facing a purported
class action lawsuit over an incident in California involving a
used cellphone that was being sold as brand new, Jeffrey Silva
writes for RCRNews.com.

According to the report, the suit was originally filed in the
Los Angeles Superior Court, only to be removed on July 9, 2008,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The suit was filed by attorneys at the law offices of Gregg
Farley and Michels & Watkins in Los Angeles on behalf of Kevin
A. Munroe and Lorelei L. Munroe.

According to the 27-page complaint obtained by RCRNews.com, "The
class has suffered injuries in fact and lost money or property
as a result of the acts in that members of the class paid the
purchase price for a brand new Nokia cellphone and instead
received a used or reconditioned Nokia cellphone that was worth
substantially less."

The suit is "Kevin A. Munroe, et al. v. Nokia, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-04503-ODW-RZ," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge Otis D. Wright,
II, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shirley K. Watkins, Esq. (swatkins@michelswatkins.com)
          Law Offices of Michels and Watkins
          11755 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-444-1200
          Fax: 310-445-4109

               - and -

          Gregg A. Farley, Esq. (gfarley@farleyfirm.com)
          Law Offices of Gregg A. Farley
          11755 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-445-4024
          Fax: 310-445-4109

Representing the defendants is:

          Lisa W. Cornehl, Esq. (lcornehl@mayerbrown.com)
          Mayer Brown LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Phone: 213-229-9500
          Fax: 213-625-0248


O'HARE AIRPORT EMPLOYERS: Sued for Cheating on Immigrants' Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ten Mexican workers on July 17, 2008, filed a class-action
lawsuit targeting nine employers around O'Hare International
Airport, claiming that the companies cheated immigrants out of
thousands of hours of wages, the Chicago Public Radio reports.

The report relates that the case emerged after federal
authorities arrested dozens of airport workers in November 2007.
The raids led to felony charges over fake airport security
badges, and put many of the workers into deportation
proceedings.  

The plaintiffs say United Airlines and the other companies
brought them to O'Hare through a temporary agency.

Telephone numbers for the temporary agency, the Bensenville-
based Ideal Staffing Solutions, Inc., have been disconnected,
Chicago Public Radio notes.  

Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for United Airlines told Chicago Public
Radio that the airline is not responsible because the immigrants
came to its cargo facilities through a contractor.

The workers' attorneys argue that United does share blame.


PARMALAT: Court Notifies Investors of $40MM Partial Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A multi-national notification program has begun, as ordered by
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, to alert investors, brokers, financial institutions,
and other nominees who bought the common stock or bonds of
Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. and its subsidiaries and affiliates
from January 5, 1999, through and including December 18, 2003,
about a partial settlement of a class action lawsuit.

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 preliminarily 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 announced the $40 million settlement.

The company said in a statement that as part of the settlement
with investors who filed the class action case, 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 partial settlement resolves the case against Parmalat S.p.A.
and will result in Parmalat providing 10,500,000 shares of stock
in the Parmalat company that has emerged from reorganization
proceedings in Italy.  That stock will then either be sold, and
money paid to class members, or the stock will be distributed
among themselves.

In an order handed down on July 2, 2008, 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,
2008, 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.

Deadline to file for exclusions from and objections to the
settlement is on Sept. 15, 2008.  Deadline to file claim forms
is on Jan. 12, 2009.

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.


PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Faces Wash. Suit Over Underpaid Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Progressive Insurance Co. is facing a class-action complaint
before the Superior Court of Washington for King County over
allegations that it cheats policyholders by underpaying for
personal injury claims through a database that purports to
summarize health-care provider charges within a geographical
area, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to
Civil Rule 23 of the Civil Court Rules for the State of
Washington on behalf of  all persons who sustained injuries in
car crashes (e.g. car v. car, car v. pedestrian, car v. bicycle,
etc) who were Progressive insureds or claimants entitled to
pursue PIP benefits and who timely filed with Progressive an
application for PIP benefits and Progressive did not pay the
full amount of the health care bills submitted to it for payment
in reliance on an Explanation Code 41 and Explanation Code 340
and a data base or survey.

The plaintiffs seek:

     -- a judgment in their favor;

     -- an award of actual damages to be established at trial;

     -- an award of statutory damages;

     -- an award of reasonable attorney fees;

     -- exemplary damages provide for by the Consumer Protection
        Act;

     -- an award of consequential damages;

     -- an order certifying a class according to CR 23(b)(3);
        and

     -- an award of all other monetary and equitable relief as
        to the court seems just.

The suit is "Tracey L. Carlson, et al. v. Progressive Insurance
Co., Case No. 08-2-23495-9 SEA," filed in the Superior Court of
Washington for King County.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Brad J. Moore, Esq.
          Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Coluccio
          200 Second Avenue West
          Seattle, WA 98119-4204
          Phone: 206-448-1777
          Fax: 206-728-2131


ROXANNE LABS: Recalls Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Suspension
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roxane Laboratories, Inc., is conducting a nationwide voluntary
recall of two manufacturing lots of Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate
Suspension, USP, 15 g/60 mL Unit dose bottles (NDC 0054-0165-51;
Lot 856396A Exp April 2010, and Lot 856693A Exp May 2010).

Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Suspension is used to treat
hyperkalemia, an elevated blood level of the electrolyte
potassium.

Roxane Laboratories' number one priority is for the safety of
patients who use our products.  A sample from product lot
856396A tested positive for a strain of yeast, which could
potentially affect immunocompromised patients.  Roxane
Laboratories believes that this may be attributed to yeast
contamination in one lot of high-density polyethylene bottles
received from a supplier.  There are various manifestations of
yeast infections.

The risk of developing a yeast infection depends on how
immunocompromised the patient is.  Additionally, there are a
range of symptoms in a yeast infection from thrush, skin rash,
and blood infections (sepsis).  If patients develop an infection
they should consult their physician.  Due to the potential risks
that could occur in immunocompromised patients, Roxane
Laboratories is voluntarily recalling lot 856396A.  Although
there have been no testing failures associated with lot 856693A,
this additional lot is also being included in the recall as a
precautionary measure because the same lot of bottles was used
in both finished product lots.

All other product parameters were within specification and
product efficacy is not impacted. There have been no complaints
or adverse events reported for the affected lots.  This recall
is limited to the two lot numbers listed.  No other Roxane
Laboratories, Inc. products or lots are impacted by this recall.

Information has been sent to Pharmacists alerting them of the
details pertaining to this recall.  As described in these recall
communications, pharmacists who may have dispensed Sodium
Polystyrene Sulfonate Suspension, USP, 15 g/60 mL Unit dose
bottles from Lots 856396A and 856693A are instructed to contact
those patients to return the affected product to the pharmacist.

Pharmacists and wholesalers that have any Sodium Polystyrene
Sulfonate Suspension, USP, 15 g/60 mL Unit dose bottles from Lot
856396A or Lot 856693A have been instructed to discontinue
distribution and use of these lots immediately and contact
Capital Returns at 888-839-7837 for any questions regarding the
recall returns.  Requests for additional information should be
referred to Roxane Laboratories Technical Product Information at
800-962-8364.


ROYAL DUTCH: Reaches $120M Settlement in N.J. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Dutch Shell has reached a $120-million settlement deal in
a securities fraud class action lawsuit that accuses the company
and other defendants of overstating oil and natural gas reserves
and artificially inflating stock prices over a five year period,
from April 1999 to March 2004, The Gant Daily reports.

In June 2008, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Esq.,
announced the $120-million settlement reached in the case, whose
lead plaintiffs are the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement
Board and the Public School Employees' Retirement Board.

The lawsuit, styled, "Brockamp v. N.V. Koninklijke Nederlandsche
Petroleum Maatschappij et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00374-JAP-JJH,"
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Jan. 29, 2004.  It was brought on behalf of all U.S.
investors who suffered losses as the result of the alleged
actions by Shell.

The settlement covers all investors who purchased Shell shares
on U.S. markets between April 1999 and March 2004, along with
any American citizen or entity that purchased Shell shares on
non-U.S. markets during that same period, according to The Gant
Daily.

A.G. Corbett told Gant Daily that the final distribution of
funds will be determined by the total number of investors who
submit claims.  It is expected that the Pennsylvania State
Employees' Retirement Fund and the Public School Employees'
Retirement Fund will recover approximately $6.5 million as the
result of this settlement.  The money will be returned directly
to the retirement funds.

The suit is "Brockamp v. N.V. Koninklijke Nederlandsche
Petroleum Maatschappij et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00374-JAP-JJH,"
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Judge Joel A. Pisano, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert J. Berg, Esq. (berg@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Phone: 201-592-3201

          William C. Cagney, Esq. (wcagney@windelsmarx.com)
          Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, LLP
          120 Albany Street Plaza
          New Brunswick, NJ 08901
          Phone: 732-846-7600

               - and -

          Jan Meyer, Esq. (jmeyer@janmeyerlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Jan Meyer
          1029 Teaneck Road, 2nd Floor
          Teaneck, NJ 07666
          Phone: 201-862-9500

Representing the defendants are:

          Jeffrey Alan Cohen, Esq. (jcohen@rfbclaw.com)
          Robertson, Freilich, Bruno & Cohen, LLC
          One Riverfront Plaza, 4th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: 973-848-2100


STUDIO RTA: Recalls TV Stands Due to Tip-over Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
Studio RTA, of Pico Rivera, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 6,700 TV
stands.

The company said the stability of the stand does not meet
industry standards to prevent TV tip-over, posing a risk of
injury or death to consumers.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves "Silhouette" TV stands with black or
brushed silver and black frames and three glass shelves.  Models
included in the recall are 403650 (brushed silver and black) and
404191 (black).  Model numbers are printed on the packaging and
instruction sheet.

These recalled TV stands were manufactured by King Pao
Enterprise Co. Ltd., of Guangdong, China and were being sold by
Shopko and Boscov's stores nationwide from September 2007
through June 2008 for about $140.

Pictures of the recalled TV stands are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08331a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08331b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the TV from stand
and contact Studio RTA to receive a free repair kit.

For additional information, contact Studio RTA at 888-309-0299
between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday.
Consumers can also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.studiorta.com/


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit in Illinois Over False Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales USA,
Inc., are facing a class-action complaint before the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida over
allegations they falsely advertise that their Prius hybrid gets
55 miles per gallon, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action brought by Derek B. Brett on behalf of
all persons in Florida who purchased or leased a new Toyota
Prius Hybrid distributed or marketed by defendant from Jan. 1,
2000, through the present.

The plaintiff claims that Toyota's Advertising and marketing of
the PRIUS includes representations of fuel economy that the car
does not achieve under normal driving conditions.

The class claims the car gets no more than 46 mpg (48 city and
45 highway).

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Toyota knew, or by exercise of reasonable care
         should have known that the PRIUS actual fuel efficiency
         was significantly below the figures Toyota advertised;

     (b) whether Toyota advertised the PRIUS to the class with
         materially deceptive, untrue, or misleading statements
         of fuel efficiency expressed in miles per gallon or
         cost savings;

     (c) whether Toyota made materially untrue or misleading
         statements of fact to the class concerning the fuel
         efficiency of the PRIUS;

     (d) whether Toyota concealed from the class and failed
         to disclose or omitted to state to the class material
         facts concerning the actual fuel efficiency of the
         PRIUS;

     (e) whether Toyota knew, or by the exercise of reasonable
         care should have known, that the omissions of fact,
         non-disclosures of fact and materially misleading
         statements of fact made to the class about the fuel
         economy and fuel cost savings of the PRIUS had the
         capacity or tendency to confuse and mislead;

     (f) whether, by the misconduct as set forth in the
         complaint, Toyota engaged in unfair or unlawful
         business practices with respect to the advertising,
         marketing and sale of the PRIUS;

     (g) whether, as a result of Toyota's misconduct as set
         forth in the complaint, plaintiff and the class are
         entitled to damages, restitution, equitable relief and
         other relief;

     (h) whether Toyota has acted on grounds generally
         applicable to the class, making injunctive relief
         appropriate; and

     (i) whether a class can be certified in the alternative,
         the class can b certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
         23 (b)(2).

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class and appointing him and his
        counsel to represent the class;

     -- restitution and disgorgement of amounts paid by the
        plaintiff and members of the class for the purchase
        and lease of the PRIUS, together with interest from
        the date of payment;

     -- actual damages;

     -- statutorily provided damages;

     -- statutory prejudgment interest;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of this
        action;

     -- legal, injunctive and equitable relief under the
        causes of action stated; including enjoining defendants
        from misrepresenting the fuel efficiency and requiring
        defendants to disclose the actual fuel efficiency of
        affected PRIUSES; and

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

The suit is "Derek B. Brett, et al. v. Toyota Motor North
America Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-CV-464-Ftm-34 DNF," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Scott Wm. Weinstein, Esq.
          (SWeinstein@ForThePeople.com)
          Morgan & Morgan PA
          One University Park
          12800 University Drive, Suite 600
          Fort Myers, FL 33907-5337
          Phone: 239-433-6880
          Fax: 239-433-6836


UNITED NATIONS: Court Hears Arguments in Suit Over 1995 Genocide
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Dutch court recently heard arguments from parties involved in
a purported class action lawsuit against the United Nations
Organization over its failure to prevent the 1995 massacre of
Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica, Bosnia, The Canadian Press
reports.

The suit was filed in the Dutch Supreme Court in The Hague,
Netherlands, on June 4, 2007.  It alleges that the defendants --
the U.N. and the Netherlands -- failed to protect Muslim
civilians from the 1995 genocide, also known as the Srebrenica
massacre.  Many of the victims were refugees that relocated to
the Srebrenica enclave declared to be a "safe area" by the U.N.
Security Council in 1993 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2007).

According to Canadian Press, the suit also accuses the Dutch
government of failing to authorize air cover to prevent the
massacre.

Dutch lawyers for the group "Mothers of Srebrenica" filed the
purported class action suit.  The "Mothers of Srebrenica," which
is composed of relatives of men and boys killed at the U.N.-
declared safe zone, is the most vocal claimant in the civil
suit, Canadian Press explains.

Specifically, attorneys Axel Hagedorn, Marco Gerritsen, Faruli
Capina, Semir Guzin, and Maunira Subasic filed the suit on
behalf of 10 lead plaintiffs and the survivors and relatives of
victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre (Class Action Reporter,
June 7, 2007).

The attorneys are seeking compensation from both the U.N. and
the Dutch government for their failure to protect the Muslim
civilians.  According to Canadian Press, lawyers for the
families earlier cited a figure of US$4 billion as a starting
point for compensation negotiations.

In a June 2008 hearing, Canadian Press relates, lawyers for the
victims' families argued that the U.N. should be held liable for
failing to stop the events that transpired in July 1995, which
has been described as the worst massacre of civilians in Europe
since the Second  World War.

The report notes that the Dutch government lawyers argued before
the Hague District Court that the U.N. is immune from
prosecution in national courts under the U.N. charter, endorsed
by all its members.  

However, according to the lawyers for the families, there was
nowhere else to turn for a fair hearing of grievances.  

Axel Hagedorn, whose firm claims to represent 6,000 family
members of victims in the unusual class-action lawsuit, told the
court that he believed the U.N.'s immunity is not applicable in
a genocide case.  He pointed out that "They may be responsible
but unable to be called to account because of immunity.  This is
unacceptable legally, humanly and morally."

Bert Jan Houtzagers, representing the Dutch state, told the
three-judge tribunal that a ruling for the victims would have
broad implications.

Mr. Houtzagers told the tribunal, "It is not true that the
United Nations believes it is over and above the law, but the
question is whether a Dutch court is competent to hear a case
against it.  Because if a Dutch court does, any court in any
country could do so and that would thwart the viability of the
United Nations."

Mr. Hagedorn though countered that if the Dutch court refused to
hear the suit, it would leave the victims with no venue for
their claims, in contravention of international treaties on
genocide.

Marco Gerritsen, another lawyer for the victims, said the U.N.
and Netherlands "should not hide behind each other or each point
the finger at the other" to avoid claims.

The suit is one of several cases seeking to determine whether
the Netherlands and the U.N. can be held liable for not being
able to carry out a promise of protection for civilians in the
U.N. enclave.  The court said it will rule on the immunity issue
within this month.

Canadian Press points out that an independent report by the
Netherlands Institute for War Documentation in 2002 placed
partial blame for the massacre with the Dutch government for
sending its ill-prepared troops on an impossible mission.  It
also faulted the U.N. for designating the area a "safe haven"
for Bosnian war refugees, but not defining what that meant.

The NIWD report led the Dutch government to resign, but the
state denied liability for the murders, saying that rested with
the Serb forces.

According to Canadian Press, the U.N. war crimes tribunal set up
to prosecute war crimes committed during the breakup of the
former Yugoslavia is still seeking the two prime criminal
suspects in the Srebrenica massacre: Gen. Ratko Mladic, who
commanded Serb forces in Bosnia, and Radovan Karadzic, the top
political leader of Bosnian Serbs.


* Survey Says Securities Fraud Suits v. Life Science Cos. Up 56%
----------------------------------------------------------------
A survey by the international law firm of Dechert LLP has
revealed that securities fraud class action lawsuits against
life sciences companies climbed 56% last year to 25 lawsuits
filed, compared with 16 cases filed in 2006, Sheri Qualters
writes for The National Law Journal.

The June 2008 Dechert "Survey of Securities Fraud Class Actions
Brought Against Life Sciences Companies" also noted that the
largest and smallest companies are the most likely to be sued,
with large companies increasingly likely to face such lawsuits.

In prior surveys, Dechert observed that nearly half of the cases
were against small public companies with a market capitalization
of less than $250 million, National Law Journal notes.

The report explains that market capitalization is a measure of a
public company's value determined by multiplying the stock price
by the number of outstanding shares.

National Law Journal also cites the survey report as stating
that in 2007, eight companies with a market capitalization of
more than $10 billion were sued, compared with 11 small
companies with market capitalization of less than $250 million.

Larger public companies tend to be targets of securities class
actions in a variety of industries so the trend is not
surprising, according to Princeton, N.J.-based attorney David
Kotler, Esq., who is also a partner in Dechert's white collar
and securities litigation group.  

National Law Journal further relates that smaller companies with
a market capitalization of less than $250 million face
securities lawsuits because they're less likely to have in-house
legal staff or strict policies about public statements or stock
sales and purchase by insiders.

Mr. Kotler said that the smaller companies "are not as attuned
to the potential implications for securities fraud lawsuits
inherent in a product development process."  He also said
research employees of biotechnology and pharmaceutical
companies, such as chief medical officers, are more likely to be
named as defendants in such cases than employees of other
companies who are not corporate officers or directors.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

HUNTSMAN CORP: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., has commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Huntsman Corporation
common stock between May 14, 2008, and June 18, 2008, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against defendants Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Craig
Morrison and Joshua Harris.

The complaint alleges that on July 12, 2007, Hexion announced an
agreement to acquire all Huntsman common stock in a merger
transaction for $28/share.  The transaction was to close during
the second quarter 2008 pending receipt of regulatory approvals
and satisfaction of other closing conditions.

Huntsman shareholders approved the transaction on October 16,
2007.  On May 14, 2008, Hexion disclosed that it agreed to allow
additional time to obtain the regulatory approvals.  Unbeknownst
to the public, defendants had determined to abort the merger and
took steps to abrogate the Merger Agreement.  Defendants
retained the services of Duff & Phelps to render an opinion that
the combined entity lacked financial viability.

On June 18, 2008, Duff sent a letter to the Board of Directors
of Hexion opining that the combined company's assets would not
exceed its liabilities, that it would not have the ability to
pay its total debts and liabilities as they become due and that
it would have an unreasonably small amount of capital.

On that same date, defendants filed a complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, seeking abrogation of the Merger Agreement.
The reaction in the marketplace was devastating to the price of
Huntsman's common stock.  On June 19, 2008, the first day of
trading after the June 18, 2008 actions by Hexion, the market
price of Huntsman common stock fell approximately $8, or 40%,
from $20.86 to close at $12.84, on enormous volume of
approximately 43 million shares.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased the common stock of Huntsman between May 14, 2008,
and June 18, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Susan R. Gross, Esq. (susang@bernardmgross.com)
          Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 866-561-3600
                 215-561-3600
          Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.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  * * *