CAR_Public/080723.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, July 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 145
  
                            Headlines

ABC LEARNING CENTRES: Investors Sue for Unmet Disclosure Duties
ANB FINANCIAL: Hare Winn Files Suit Over Bank's Closure
ARTHROCARE CORP: To Expand Class Period in Securities Fraud Suit
AT&T INC: Kansas Court Refuses to Reconsider USF Fee Suit Ruling
CANADA: High Court Clears Way for Mad Cow Lawsuit to Proceed

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Fla.
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Reaches $700T Settlement in Ex-Server's Suit
DIRECTV GROUP: Sued in Calif. Over Sale of 'Lifetime' Contracts
EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: $5MM Securities Suit Settlement Approved
GPU MAKERS: California Judge Holds Hearing for Antitrust Lawsuit

HANNAFORD BROS: Judge to Name Lead Counsel in Data Breach Case
HCC INSURANCE: $10MM Texas Securities Fraud Suit Deal Approved
HIGH POINT: Faces N.J. Suit Over "Diminished Value" Coverage
INSURANCE COMPANIES: ABAC Files Suits in Conn. Over "Steering"
INSURANCE COMPANIES: Court Rejects Appeal in La. Hurricane Suit

LAKE COUNTY: Hawthorn Woods Drawn into State's Water System Suit
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Seeks High Court Review of "Chalona" Ruling
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MGM GRAND: Nev. Suit Amended to Add Securities Violations Claims
NASH FINCH: Minnesota Court Approves $6.75M Securities Suit Deal

NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Cheated Employees File Suit in Illinois
SEMGROUP: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Sept. 19
STARWOOD HOTELS: N.Y. Suit Alleges Fraudulent Loyalty Program
UNION PACIFIC: Public Notice Altered Without Judge's Approval
WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Motion to Stay Proccedings in "Mounce"


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

COMPUCREDIT CORP: Holzer & Fistel Files Georgia Securities Suit
FCSTONE GROUP: Holzer & Fistel Files Mo. Securities Fraud Suit
FCSTONE GROUP: Brualdi Files Missouri Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Files N.Y. Securities Suit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ABC LEARNING CENTRES: Investors Sue for Unmet Disclosure Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Learning Centres is facing legal action by current and
former shareholders on claims that the company failed to meet
its continuous disclosure obligations, Business Spectator
reports.

IMF (Australia) Ltd said in a statement to the Australian
Securities Exchange that it will fund the shareholders' claims
against ABC in connection with the company's alleged misleading
and deceptive conduct between August 27, 2007, and April 21,
2008.

"In particular, the proposed proceedings are for failure to
disclose material information regarding the revenue reported in
its 2007 financial year accounts and for providing guidance for
the 2008 financial year without having a reasonable basis for
the guidance," IMF's statement said.

All shareholders who purchased ABC shares in the period are
eligible to participate in the claim.

IMF added that it will fund subject to an acceptable level of
participation and will announce the claim value in its quarterly
case investment reports.

In response, ABC told Business Spectator that it had not
received any claim or any notice of claim.  "If any claim is
commenced, ABC will respond appropriately," the company said.

ABC also said that its share price has been affected by market
rumors, by investors trying to recoup shares held as security in
margin loans, by short selling, by global market conditions, and
by the general market volatility.  The company also said it has
made disclosure regarding these matters and "other factors" to
the market.

According to the report, ABC, which funded its rapid expansion
through extensive loans, struggled to refinance its debts as the
cost of credit surged as a result of the U.S. subprime mortgage
crisis.


ANB FINANCIAL: Hare Winn Files Suit Over Bank's Closure
-------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham-based law firm Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton commenced
an Arkansas lawsuit over the closure of ANB Financial National
Association Bank, Russell Hubbard writes for Birmingham News.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, asserts that
account holders of ANB Financial were harmed when it was closed
by regulators in May because of rampant bad loans.

The report notes that James Thompson, Esq., and Nolan Awbrey,
Esq., are a part of the legal team that filed the lawsuit last
week in Arkansas' Benton County Circuit Court against former
bank directors and officers.

"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," Mr. Awbrey said in a statement.

Birmingham News points out that banks nationwide have been hurt
by the souring economy and over-extended borrowers, especially
home and condo developers.  Hare Wynn said that ANB Financial
held about $39.2 million in uninsured deposits in 647 accounts,
and that the suit is seeking damages of about the same.

The report clarifies that ANB Financial is not related to
Birmingham's Alabama National BanCorp., which is also sometimes
called ANB for short.


ARTHROCARE CORP: To Expand Class Period in Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP is investigating claims that would expand
the class period currently alleged in a securities fraud class
action complaint filed against ArthroCare Corp.

The complaint currently filed against ArthroCare alleges a class
period of August 4, 2006, through January 23, 2008.

ArthroCare is a medical device company that develops,
manufactures and markets minimally invasive surgical products.

Before the market opened on Monday, July 21, 2008, ArthroCare
announced that it would be restating its previously reported
financial results from the third quarter 2006 through the first
quarter 2008 because it improperly recognized revenue from
DiscoCare, Inc., Boracchia & Associates and Clinical Technology,
Inc.  As a result, ArthroCare stated that it estimated
ArthroCare's reported revenue in 2006 would be reduced by
$4 million to $7 million, and that for 2007, reported revenue
would be reduced by $20 million to $25 million.  Further,
ArthroCare stated that reported revenue for the first quarter of
2008 would be reduced by $2 million to $5 million, and that "the
restatement will result in material reductions in operating
income and net income for the annual and quarterly periods being
restated."

The Company also disclosed that while the restatement is being
completed, a review of the Company's internal controls will be
conducted and that further material misstatements or misconduct
might still be uncovered, stating "[d]epending on the results of
this review, it may be expanded beyond internal controls."

Upon that announcement, shares of ArthroCare plummeted from its
close of $40.03 on Friday, July 18, 2008, to a close of $23.21
on July 21, 2008, the next day of trading, on extraordinary
volume -- a drop of over 42%. During the period covered by the
restatement, ArthroCare's officers and directors sold over
$12 million worth of their personal holdings in ArthroCare.

Based on ArthroCare's announcement that it would be restating
certain previously filed financial statements, Klafter & Olsen
is investigating claims on behalf of investors who purchased
ArthroCare's common stock and were damaged by the restatement.

Klafter & Olsen are considering an expanded class period to
cover investors who purchased Arthrocare shares from October 27,
2006, to July 18, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Klafter & Olsen LLP
          1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-261-3553
          Fax: 202-261-3533


AT&T INC: Kansas Court Refuses to Reconsider USF Fee Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has rejected
a request seeking reconsideration of an earlier ruling that
allowed a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit -- which
accuses AT&T, Inc., of engaging in a price-fixing conspiracy
with other long-distance carriers -- to move forward, Dan
Margolies writes for The Kansas City Star.

In rejecting AT&T's recent request to reconsider his order,
Judge John W. Lungstrum actually affirmed his decision last
month not to grant the company's motion for summary judgment in
the case.

The long-running case comprises dozens of class-action lawsuits
that were filed nationwide and eventually consolidated before
Judge Lungstrum in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, according to Kansas City Star.

In general, the lawsuits allege that Sprint Nextel Corp. and
AT&T conspired with each other and their one-time chief
competitor, MCI, to overcharge customers when they passed on
federal assessments, known as the Universal Service Fund fee, to
business and residential users.

Kansas City Star says that Sprint is no longer involved in the
litigation after it agreed to settle its portion of the case in
September 2007 for $30 million.

The report explains that the Universal Service Fund was set up
to help cover the cost of getting service to high-cost rural
areas, low-income customers, schools, libraries and rural
medical facilities.  Carriers that provide interstate or
international service are required to contribute to the fund.  
The "contribution factor" -- a percentage of gross revenue from
interstate or international calls -- is set by the Federal
Communications Commission.

The report points out that although carriers are not required to
pass the assessment along to customers, most do.  Sprint
described the surcharge on bills as a "Federal Universal Service
Fee" or "Carrier Universal Service Charge."  AT&T described it
as a "Universal Connectivity Charge."

Experts for the plaintiffs estimate the economic damages
attributable to the carriers' alleged price-fixing behavior adds
up to $890.8 million.

Kansas City Star relates that in his 82-page order last month,
Judge Lungstrum ruled that the evidence, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the plaintiffs -- the legal standard in
a summary judgment motion filed by the defendants -- "contains
evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that AT&T, Sprint
and MCI acted independently."

Judge Lungstrum cited evidence of parallel pricing -- both AT&T
and Sprint, for example, charged residential customers a 9.9
percent universal fund rate in the second half of 2003 -- and
evidence that the carriers' universal fund rates exceeded their
contribution factors.

The judge concluded, "This plausibility of noncompetitive
behavior combined with the opinions of plaintiffs' experts is
sufficient for plaintiffs to withstand summary judgment."

The antitrust claims cover the period between Aug. 1, 2001, and
March 31, 2003, since after that period, the Federal
Communications Commission barred carriers from charging
Universal Service Fund recovery rates in excess of the federally
mandated contribution factor, according to Kansas City Star.


CANADA: High Court Clears Way for Mad Cow Lawsuit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal by the
federal government and Ridley, Inc., in a proposed multibillion-
dollar class-action lawsuit on behalf of some 100,000 cattle
farmers hurt by the 2003 mad cow scare, The Canadian Press
reports.

At issue in the case was whether farmers who suffered economic
losses as a result of the 2003 border closure over BSE-
contaminated cattle could sue for what they argue was negligent
regulatory policy.

Canadian Press explains that BSE -- Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy -- commonly known as Mad-Cow Disease, is a fatal,
neurodegenerative disease in cattle, that causes a spongy
degeneration in the brain and spinal cord and also causes red
eyes.  BSE has a long incubation period, about four years, and
usually affects adult cattle at a peak age onset of four to five
years, all breeds being equally susceptible.

Canadian Press recounts that in 2007, the Ontario Court of
Appeal cleared the way for much of the protracted lawsuit to
proceed to the next step, which will determine whether the case
can be classified as a class action.

Coordinated suits from producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Ontario and Quebec are seeking at least $7 billion in losses and
another $100 million in punitive damages, the report relates.

Cattle farmer Bill Sauer, the lead plaintiff in Ontario, has
argued that Ottawa introduced regulations in 1990 that
specifically allowed the feeding of cattle parts to other
cattle.  That's the way mad cow disease is spread, Canadian
Press notes.  

The report says that the Canadian regulations came in a full two
years after Britain had banned the practice, and three years
after Canada barred uncertified cattle imports from the United
Kingdom because of BSE fears.

The Canadian government did not ban the dangerous feed practices
until 1997, according to Canadian Press.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., continues to face a purported
securities fraud class action lawsuit before the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The purported class-action complaint was filed on March 13,
2008, by an institutional shareholder against the company and
certain of its current officers, one of whom is also a director.  

The suit, captioned, "Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension
Fund, et al. v. Darden Restaurants Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-
00388," was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock between June 19, 2007, and Dec. 18, 2007.

The suit alleges that during that period, the defendants issued
false and misleading statements in press releases and public
filings that misrepresented and failed to disclose certain
information, and that as a result, had no reasonable basis for
statements about the company's prospects and guidance for fiscal
2008.

The suit also alleges violation of the federal securities laws.
Specifically, it asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  

The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of
the class, according to the company's July 17, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 25, 2008.

The suit is "Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, et
al. v. Darden Restaurants Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-00388,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Judge Patricia C. Fawsett, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          Suite 200, 58 S. Service Rd.
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

          Chris A. Barker, Esq.
          (cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com)
          Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA
          Suite 2100, 400 N. Ashley Dr.
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-489-1001
          Fax: 813-489-1008

               - and -

          Christopher S. Jones, Esq. (cjones@saxenawhite.com)
          Saxena White, PA
          Suite 257, 2424 N Federal Hwy
          Boca Raton, FL 33431-7781
          Phone: 561-394-3399
          Fax: 561-394-3382

Representing the defendants are:

          Tucker H. Byrd, Esq. (byrdt@gtlaw.com)
          Greenberg Traurig, LLP
          450 S. Orange Ave. - Ste. 650
          PO Box 4923
          Orlando, FL 32802-4923
          Phone: 407-418-2360
          Fax: 407-841-1295


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Reaches $700T Settlement in Ex-Server's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc., reached a $700,000 settlement in a
purported class action lawsuit filed against its Olive Garden
restaurant concept and pending in a California federal court,
according to the company's July 17, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 25, 2008.

The complaint was filed in August 2007 in California state court
by a former Olive Garden server alleging that Olive Garden's
scheduling practices resulted in a failure to properly pay
reporting time (minimum shift) pay as well as to pay minimum
wage, to provide itemized wage statements, and to timely pay
employees upon the termination of their employment.

The complaint seeks to have the suit certified as a class
action.  However, no class has been certified to date.

The case was later removed to federal court, and subsequently,
the company filed motions to dismiss the case.

The company reached a preliminary settlement of this matter
during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008 under which it agreed
to pay the class $0.7 million.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a  
casual dining restaurant company.  The Company owns and operates
the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones
Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in
the U.S. and Canada.


DIRECTV GROUP: Sued in Calif. Over Sale of 'Lifetime' Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
DirecTV Group is facing a class-action complaint before the
Superior Court in California over allegations that it defrauded
subscribers by selling them "lifetime" contracts allowing them
to record TV shows, then imposing a monthly fee for it this
year, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Joel Kozberg says he paid $199 in 2001 for a
"lifetime service fee" that gave him the right to digitally
record shows that DirecTV distributed.

Mr. Kozberg claims that in January this year, and every month
since, DirecTV has charged him $5.99 for this.  The suit relates
that when he protested, "DirecTV's representative told plaintiff
that DirecTV no longer honored its 'lifetime' DVR service
agreement and would neither refund the past monthly charges nor
stop the monthly charges in the future."

Mr. Kozberg demands compensatory and punitive damages and an
injunction.

Headquartered in El Segundo, California, The DIRECTV Group, Inc.
(NYSE:DTV) -- http://www.directv.com/-- provides digital    
television entertainment in the United States and Latin America.
It has two segments, DIRECTV U.S. and DIRECTV Latin America.
The DIRECTV U.S. segment provides direct-to-home digital
television services in the multichannel video programming
distribution industry in the United States.  The DIRECTV Latin
America segment provides digital direct-to-home digital
television services to approximately 1.6 million subscribers in
27 countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, and Puerto
Rico.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          David Freedman, Esq.
          Law Office of David G. Freedman
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-553-2121  
          Fax: 310-553-2111
          Web site: http://www.dfreedman.net/


EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: $5MM Securities Suit Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted preliminary approval of the
$5-million settlement in a securities class action lawsuit
against former Web hosting firm Exodus Communications Inc., the
Stanford Law School Securities Class Action ClearingHouse
reports.

The report recounts that the original complaint was filed in
July 2001 by a number of Exodus stockholders.  A combined class
action was filed later that year to incorporate other suits that
had been filed in the wake of Exodus' September 2001 bankruptcy
filing.

The action -- brought on behalf of investors who acquired Exodus
stock between April 20, 2000, and Sept. 25, 2001 -- claimed that
Exodus executives conspired to manipulate the company's earnings
and revenue in an attempt to drive up the value of its stock.

On April 9, 2008, the parties drafted a stipulation of
settlement, just days before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued its order partially remanding the dismissed
lawsuit back to the federal court, according to Stanford Law.

The case had been pending in the circuit court on appeal by the
shareholders and on cross-appeal by an Exodus defendant when the
parties agreed to enter into mediation.

Counsel for the plaintiffs told the court in a motion last month
that the settlement eliminated the "substantial risk" that the
shareholders would lose on appeal and walk away empty-handed.
The deal, they said, was the product of "significant give and
take" and was in the best interests of the class.

"Co-lead counsel fully support the settlement, and it is their
informed opinion that, given the uncertainty and substantial
expense of pursuing this matter through appeal and an eventual
trial, the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate," the
plaintiffs' counsel said.

In an order handed down on July 16, Judge Chesney granted
approval to the settlement on an interim basis.  The court still
needs to hold a hearing to consider final approval of the deal.

The suit is "In re Exodus Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case Number: 3:2001cv02661," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Hon.
Maxine M. Chesney, presiding.


GPU MAKERS: California Judge Holds Hearing for Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Escapist Magazine writes that Judge William Alsup of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
recently held a hearing in which an e-mail suggesting collusion
between Nvidia Corp. and ATI Technologies, Inc. -- now owned by
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. -- to keep the price of Graphics
Processing Units (GPUs) artificially high was read as part of a
purported class action lawsuit against the companies.

As of March 5, 2008, around 55 civil complaints have been filed
against the two companies.  The majority of the complaints were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California and several were filed the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  The remaining cases were
filed in several other federal district courts.  

On April 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the actions currently pending outside of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
to that court for coordination of pretrial proceedings before
Judge Alsup.  By agreement of the parties, Judge Alsup will
retain jurisdiction over the consolidated cases through trial or
other resolution.

The consolidated case alleges price fixing in the GPU market as
the result of a conspiracy between Nvidia and ATI, according to
Andy Chalk of The Escapist.

The suit alleges that the two companies held secret meetings to
determine prices, synchronize their product launches and "stage
competition" to camouflage their cooperation.  It also alleges
that the collusion has been going on for several years, the
report says.

In the consolidated proceedings, two groups of plaintiffs (one
representing all direct purchasers of graphic processing units,
or GPUs, and the other representing all indirect purchasers)
filed consolidated, amended class-action complaints.

These complaints purport to assert federal antitrust claims
based on alleged price fixing, market allocation, and other
alleged anti-competitive agreements among Nvidia, ATI, and
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., as a result of its acquisition of
ATI.  

The indirect purchasers' consolidated amended complaint also
asserts a variety of state law antitrust, unfair competition and
consumer protection claims on the same allegations, as well as a
common law claim for unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs filed their first consolidated complaints on
June 14, 2007.  On July 16, 2007, the company moved to dismiss
those complaints.  

The motions to dismiss were heard by Judge Alsup on Sept. 20,
2007.  The court subsequently granted and denied the motions in
part, and gave the plaintiffs leave to move to amend the
complaints.  

On Nov. 7, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
file amended complaints, ordered the defendants to answer the
complaints, lifted a previously entered stay on discovery, and
set a trial date for Jan. 12, 2009.  

Discovery is underway and the plaintiffs are currently required
to file any motion for class certification.  

The Escapist relates that in relation to discovery proceedings,
the court recently held a hearing with regards to an e-mail
suggesting collusion.  

The e-mail message, written in 2002, was sent by Nvidia Senior
Vice President of Marketing Dan Vivoli to ATI CEO Dave Orton.  
In it, Mr. Vivoli wrote, "I really think we should work harder
together on the marketing front.  As you and I have talked
about, even though we are competitors, we have the common goal
of making our category a well positioned, respected playing
field. $5 and $8 stocks are a result of no respect."

Previously, The Escapist notes, Judge Alsup had criticized
defense lawyers at the opening of the trial for attempting to
keep "trade secrets" under seal and out of the trial, saying,  
"This court is not a wholly owned subsidiary of your companies.  
I am against you hiding information from the public.  If we get
to summary judgment in this case, nothing will be under seal."

Recently, Judge Alsup, after hearing the contents of the e-mail,
told the plaintiffs' lawyers that the e-mail "is not a bad
document for you.  It is not a home run but it is a base hit."  
He also added, after reading the document, "That's not good for
the defense," and that "a jury would like to see this."

The Escapist is providing a detailed breakdown of the suit
against Nvidia and ATI, including graphs showing their pricing
and release schedules before, during and after the conspiracy
period, which is available at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?2fb4

The suit is "In Re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1826, Case No.: M:07-CV-01826-WHA," filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Judge William Alsup, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John F. Cove, Jr., Esq. (jcove@bsfllp.com)
          David W. Shapiro, Esq. (dshapiro@bsfllp.com)
          Kevin J. Barry, Esq. (kbarry@bsfllp.com)
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
          1999 Harrison St., Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510-874-1000
          Fax: 510-874-1460


HANNAFORD BROS: Judge to Name Lead Counsel in Data Breach Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge D. Brock Hornby plans to issue an order this week
designating the lead counsel in a class-action lawsuit arising
from last winter's data breach at Hannaford Bros., Boston Globe
reports.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 18, 2008, Judge
Hornby scheduled a July 10 meeting with class-action lawyers
before deciding which of two groups will lead a lawsuit against
Hannaford over a data breach that exposed some 4.2 million debit
and credit card numbers to potential fraudulent use.  

As stated in various press reports earlier, two competing groups
of law firms are vying to lead the Hannaford case.  Berger &
Montague is collaborating with the Chicago firm Barnow &
Associates and the Miami firm Harke & Clasby, while the
competing group consists of Murray, Plumb & Murray in Portland,
Lewis Saul & Associates in Portland, and Shapiro Haber & Urmy in
Boston.

According to the CAR report, the case against the Scarborough-
based supermarket giant began as more than 20 individual
complaints were filed in four states.  The suits have since been
consolidated in the U.S. District Court in Portland before Judge
Hornby.  The report specifically noted that the massive breach
that compromised up to 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers
used at 165 Hannaford supermarkets in the Northeast and 106
Sweetbay stores in Florida sparked 14 lawsuits in Maine, seven
in Florida, one in New Hampshire and one in New York.

In April, a motion to consolidate the lawsuits was filed before
the U.S. District Court in Bangor, Maine, on behalf of Greg
Doherty and all others similarly situated, asserting that
Hannaford was negligent in not providing adequate data security
and did not inform customers of the breach quickly enough (Class
Action Reporter, April 21, 2008).

As recounted in earlier CAR reports, the breach occurred between
Dec. 7, 2007, and March 10, 2008.  Hannaford did not notify the
public of the breach until March 17, 2008.

The suit seeks credit monitoring or similar protection,
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

The CAR wrote that Hannaford has half a dozen stores in the mid-
Hudson region.  So far, the only solution the company has
offered its customers is advice: that they notify their banks
and credit card companies and watch their statements for any
authorized activity.

According to the Boston Globe update, Judge Hornby recently
conferred with the two competing groups of lawyers seeking to
lead one of the nation's largest data breach lawsuits.  The
judge has yet to set a schedule for how the case will proceed.


HCC INSURANCE: $10MM Texas Securities Fraud Suit Deal Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 17, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas approved a $10-million settlement in a class
action lawsuit relating to HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc.'s
historic stock option granting practices.

The suit, "Bristol County Retirement System v. HCC Insurance
Holdings Inc et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00801," was filed on
March 8, 2007.  The company is named as a defendant in the
putative class action suit, along with certain of its current
and former officers and directors.

The suit's plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between
May 3, 2005, and Nov. 17, 2006, inclusive.

The action purports to assert claims arising out of improper
manipulation of option grant dates, alleging violation of
Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, as
well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiff also
purports to assert a claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rules 14a-1 and 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiff seeks recovery of compensatory damages for the
putative class and costs and expenses.  

On Sept. 21, 2007, jointly with the other defendants, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the suit.

On January 9, 2008, the company announced that it had reached a
settlement in the case (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 11, 2008).
With the announcement, all private securities litigation pending
against the company regarding the stock option matter has been
resolved.

The terms of the settlement, which includes no admission of
liability or wrongdoing by HCC or any other defendants, provide
for a full and complete release of all claims in the litigation
and payment of $10 million to be paid into a settlement fund,
pending approval by the Court of a plan of distribution. The
amount will be paid by the company's directors' and officers'
liability insurers, and will not have a material effect on HCC's
financial results.

The deadline to file claim forms is on July 31, 2008.

At the July 17 hearing, the settlement was approved and a final
judgment was entered.

"We are very pleased that we have resolved the SEC
investigation.  Our internal investigation, self-reporting and
complete cooperation with the SEC greatly assisted in the final
resolution of this matter," HCC Chief Executive Officer Frank J.
Bramanti said.

The suit is "Bristol County Retirement System v. HCC Insurance
Holdings Inc. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00801," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Judge Sim Lake, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Damon Joseph Chargois, Esq. (damon@cmhllp.com)
         Chargois & Heron LLP
         2201 Timberloch Place, Ste. 110
         The Woodlands, TX 77380
         Phone: 281-444-0604
         Fax: 281-440-0124

              - and

         Alan I. Ellman, Esq. (aellman@labaton.com)
         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0813
         Fax: 212-818-0477

Representing the defendant is:

         Barry F. McNeil, Esq. (barry.mcneil@haynesboone.com)
         Haynes and Boone
         901 Main St., Ste. 3100
         Dallas, TX 75202-3789
         Phone: 214-651-5580
         Fax: 214-200-0535


HIGH POINT: Faces N.J. Suit Over "Diminished Value" Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
High Point Insurance Company is facing a class-action complaint
before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, over
allegations it refuses to provide coverage for the "diminished
value" of autos damaged in accidents, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiffs Axa and Eduardo Kieffer filed this action for
equitable relief and compensatory damages arising from
defendant's failure or refusal to provide coverage for the
"diminished value" of plaintiffs' vehicles resulting from
vehicular accidents or other accidental causes.

According to New Jersey law, the measure of damages in such
circumstances is the is the difference between the pre-crash
value and the vehicle's value after it has been repaired.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant insurance carrier has issued
         automobile insurance policies that expressly prohibit
         class members from recovering for diminution of value
         of their vehicles arising from vehicular collisions or
         other accidental losses;

     (b) whether the defendant insurance carrier has issued
         automobile insurance policies that are ambiguous or
         silent with regard to class members' rights to recover
         for diminution of value to their vehicles arising from
         vehicular  collisions or other accidental losses;

     (c) whether the defendant insurance carrier has issued
         automobile insurance policies that are ambiguous or
         silent with regard to class members' rights to recover
         for diminution of value in response to first-party
         physical damage claims filed by class members arising
         from vehicular collisions or other accidental losses
         occurring within the class period;

     (d) whether the defendant insurance carrier has engaged in
         a pattern or practice of failing to pay for diminution
         of value; and

    (e) whether the defendant insurance carrier breached, and
        continues to breach, its contractual obligations.

The plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

     -- certification of this action as a class action pursuant
        to R. 4:32;

     -- entry of a preliminary injunction and permanent
        injunction, requiring defendant to:

        (1) notify its insureds of diminution of vale coverage
            and establish appropriate procedures to handle
            diminution of value claims;

        (2) honor and abide by its contractual obligations and
            the laws of the State of New Jersey to pay
            diminution of value where policyholders present
            first-party physical damage claims arising from
            vehicular collisions or other accidental losses; and

        (3) pay diminution of value claims in the future;

     -- attorneys' fees;

     -- costs of suit; and

     -- such other relief as the court deems equitable and just.

The suit is "Axa, et al. v. High Point Insurance Company, Case
No. L-3133-08," filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Monmouth County.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Eric D. Katz, Esq.
          Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: 973-228-9898


INSURANCE COMPANIES: ABAC Files Suits in Conn. Over "Steering"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Auto Body Association of Connecticut have sued and will sue
several insurance companies over allegations that they are
illegally steering policyholders toward their respective direct
repair programs, James E. Guyette writes for Automotive Body
Repair News.

Collision repairers filed the suits, some of which are seeking
class action status, with courts in Connecticut.  Bob Skrip,
president of ABAC and owner of Skrip's Auto Body Inc., told ABR
News that, "It's been killing us, and we've decided that we've
had enough."  He added, "We've worked 30 years to establish a
customer base, and they're trying to take our customers away."

Listing Mr. Skrip and several other shop owners as plaintiffs,
the ABAC is suing The Progressive Corp., and The Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc., over "steering" charges.

Mr. Skrip pointed out, "We're not against DRPs -- we're against
the blatant disregard of the laws."  He recounts customers in
his office being harangued via cell phone by insurance company
representatives urging them to take their car elsewhere.

According to the report, calling for class action status that
would ultimately bring injunctive and financial redress to each
of the non-DRP shops among the state's 481 collision repair
centers, the ABAC's pending legal maneuvers versus Progressive
and Hartford are just a portion of the strategies being
implemented.

Mr. Skrip also shared with ABR News that "there are three more
class actions to be brought against three more companies."  He,
however, declined to name the targeted carriers, but said ABAC
members have been busy compiling dossiers of alleged steering
misdeeds in anticipation of the filings.

The report notes that the filing against Progressive is in the
discovery stage, and the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously
upheld a lower court's certification of class action status in
the Hartford case.

                      Hartford Litigation

In the Hartford case, Mr. Skrip said that "[a]ll five justices
sided with the automobile repair industry."  In its ruling, the
Supreme Court paved the path toward a Superior Court trial
scheduled to begin in December 2008.

"It greatly advances our ability to represent and vindicate the
rights of these hard-working small business owners," according
to David Slossberg, Esq., an ABAC co-counsel who argued the case
before the Supreme Court.

In general, the ABAC, along with three Connecticut body shop
owners, alleges that the insurance company "engaged in a pattern
of unfair practices" in violation of state laws.  

The suit against Hartford, which was filed in 2003, accuses the
company of steering its customers to its "preferred" DRP shops
rather than freely allowing customers to use repairers of their
own choosing.

Also, according to suit, Hartford suppressed body shop labor
rates by eliminating the use of independent appraisers and
relying exclusively on its own automobile service
representatives to perform appraisals so the company could
control their content, including the amounts to be paid for
labor.  

The filing says this tactic results in consumers not getting
fair, independent appraisals of the damage done to their
vehicles.

Mr. Skrip told ABR News, "The Hartford reviews the appraisals to
make sure they conform to company expectations."  He added, "The
Hartford has characterized shops that charge more than its
approved labor rate as 'militant.'"

The accusations against Hartford are supported in the lawsuit by
extensive documentation, including internal documents detailing
company policies as well as several depositions by company
employees, Mr. Skrip said.

Evidence presented in the case charges that when customers
required repairs, Hartford employees known as "customer care
team specialists" were instructed to direct them to a preferred
shop in the company's "customer care repair service program."

The suit argues that consumers were often pressured to abandon
their choice in favor of a Hartford preferred shop, the report
relates.  It contends that the specialists were trained to
aggressively "sell" the company's DRP by informing customers
that if they used the recommended shop they would obtain
discounts from their deductible and a lifetime guarantee for the
repairs.

For more details, contact:

          David A. Slossberg, Esq.
          Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg, & Knuff LLC
          147 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 112
          Milford, CT 06460-0112
          Phone: 203-877-8000
          Fax: 203-878-9800
          Web site: http://www.hssklaw.com/


INSURANCE COMPANIES: Court Rejects Appeal in La. Hurricane Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected
an appeal that would send an antitrust lawsuit -- filed by
former Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti against some of
the nation's largest insurance companies -- back to state court
where it was originally lodged, The Associated Press reports.

The former Louisiana attorney general's lawsuit contends that
major insurance companies -- including Allstate Insurance Co.
and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. -- manipulated prices on
hurricane damage claims.

The AP says that Attorney General Foti hired a slate of private
attorneys to handle the lawsuit, filed at the end of his term in
2007.  

The suit alleges under state antitrust law that Allstate
Insurance Co., State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. and several
other insurers fixed prices, manipulated damage estimates and
low-balled claims payments after hurricanes Katrina and Rita
devastated the state in 2005.  It asks the companies to forfeit
profits and for any damages awarded to be multiplied by three.

In April 2008, the AP recounts, Judge Judge Jay C. Zainey of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
rejected a bid by the plaintiffs to transfer the case back to
state court, where Mr. Foti originally filed it only days after
he was voted out of office.

In that ruling, Judge Zainey agreed with insurers who said the
case is a class action suit that belongs in U.S. court under
terms of a 2005 federal law designed to streamline class action
suits and end "forum shopping," a method used by attorneys to
choose a jurisdiction -- state or local -- where they feel they
can get the most plaintiff-friendly juries.

A previous AP report had indicated that Attorney General James
"Buddy" Caldwell, who inherited the case from Mr. Foti, is
appealing Judge Zainey's ruling.  The Fifth Circuit agreed to
hear the appeal.

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit rejected efforts to have the case sent
back.  Specifically, in an opinion by Judge Carl Stewart and
joined by Judge Priscilla Owen, the appeals panel upheld the
earlier ruling by Judge Zainey.


LAKE COUNTY: Hawthorn Woods Drawn into State's Water System Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge allowed Lake County to file a complaint against Hawthorn
Woods to force a decision on building a new water system for 224
Glennshire homeowners in that village, Madhu Krishnamurthy
writes for Daily Herald.

The report recounts that the Illinois Attorney General's Office
sued Lake County in 2006 to construct the new water system to
replace Glennshire subdivision's 20 shallow wells, per an
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency order.

According to Daily Herald, Hawthorn Woods has now been named a
third-party defendant in the state's lawsuit against the county.
The county claims that Hawthorn Woods has obstructed the
system's installation by refusing to grant the necessary
permits.

In its complaint against Hawthorn Woods, the county contends
that the village is in breach of a 1975 contract under which the
county took over ownership and operation of the Glennshire
system from the village.  Per that agreement, the village is
required to grant the necessary easements, right-of-ways and
permits to the county whenever upgrades need to be made to the
system.

The county is now asking the court to void the 1975 contract and
return the Glennshire water system to the village if it does not
grant the documents needed for work to begin, the report notes.

"The judge's decision . . . it was a step forward to resolving
the entire mess," Christopher Donovan, president of Citizens for
Equitable Water Solutions, a Glennshire homeowner's group formed
to address the water issue, told Daily Herald.

Daily Herald says that Hawthorn Woods has until Aug. 6, 2008, to
respond to the complaint.

Lake County's special assistant state's attorney Jim Bakk, Esq.,
said that Hawthorn Woods' attorney indicated that the village
would file a motion to dismiss.

"The ball is in Hawthorn Woods' court," Mr. Bakk said.

Hawthorn Woods Mayor Keith Hunt could not be reached for comment
as of press time, the report points out.  Mayor Hunt has,
however, indicated that his village board did agree to grant the
necessary special use permits, variance, waiver, and easements
Lake County seeks to build the system -- but only if the county
figures out who's paying for it.

Mr. Bakk said in the end that the judge could force Hawthorn
Woods to issue the permits or rule that the county does not need
permits to install the system.

The report relates that 672 Glennshire residents filed a federal
class action lawsuit against Lake County in late May, saying it
should pay the entire $6 million cost to replace their "failed"
system.  The county agreed to pay only $1 million.

Separately, the attorney general's office and Lake County are
expected to file a joint-motion to add Hawthorn Woods' as a
"necessary party" to the state's lawsuit on the Glennshire water
issue.

Both complaints against the village will be heard before a judge
on Sept. 18.

"I think the purpose of what we're doing is to protect the
residents in that area, and anything that gets us closer to
making sure that those citizens have safe water, I applaud
that," Rosemarie Cazeau, environmental bureau chief for the
Attorney General's office, told Daily Herald.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Seeks High Court Review of "Chalona" Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. is asking the
Louisiana Supreme Court to overturn certain lower court
decisions that allowed individual hurricane insurance disputes
about the timely payment of claims to be treated as a class
action lawsuit, Rebecca Mowbray writes for The New Orleans
Times-Picayune.

Previously, Times-Picayune reported that in January 2008, Judge
Robert A. Buckley of the 34th Judicial District Court in St.
Bernard Parish granted class certification to a Louisiana
Citizens Property Insurance case about the timeliness of
settlement offers on hurricane claims (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 4, 2008).  Judge Buckley ruled that the parties in "Adrian
P. Chalona Sr. et al. v. Louisiana Citizens," could stand as
representatives for the 76,000 Citizens policyholders with
claims from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The suit was brought on behalf of all policyholders who failed
to receive a written offer from Citizens to settle their claims
within 30 days of filing a satisfactory proof of loss.  

In June 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the
ruling in a split decision, the Times-Picayune recounts.

In a July 11, 2008 filing, Citizens argued that the case should
not be a class action because the circumstances of what happened
at each house and with each insurance claim are too
individualized to be handled as a bundle.  According to
Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp.'s writ application,
"The merits of each claim will have to be tried just to know if
the claimant can be a class member."

Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance also said that it has been
unfairly placed on the defensive because a small group of
attorneys filed "cookie cutter" suits with overlapping
plaintiffs in Orleans, Jefferson and St. Bernard parishes.

The company further wrote, "No party should be forced to
litigate multiple suits over the same transaction or occurrence
between the same parties in the same capacity in two different
courts. Yet because Louisiana lacks rules for complex litigation
. . . that is what has happened."

Times-Picayune says that many class actions have been filed
against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance and three have
been certified as such.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corp. is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware over
allegations that it stiffs its assistant managers for overtime
pay "on average, at least 10 to 20 hours per week," CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Alissa Justison brings this action for past
wages owed in the nature of unpaid overtime pay as well as other
damages and remedies.  She claims that McDonald's misclassifies
workers as management to cheat them of overtime pay, though they
flip burgers, take orders and empty the trash like anyone else.

Ms. Justison also claims McDonald's forces its management
trainees to work overtime during their three-month training,
without overtime pay.

The complaint alleges that the defendants willfully, or with
reckless disregard, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
amended, 29 USC Section 201 et seq., as well as the applicable
United States Department of Labor Regulations, including 29 CFR
Section 541.103 et seq., when it willfully failed to pay them
for overtime worked and intentionally misclassified them as
"exempt" employees under the FLSA.

The plaintiff requests the court to enter judgment as follows:

     -- pursuant to the procedure the United States Supreme
        Court set forth in Hoffman-LaRoche v. Sperling, 493 US
        165, S.Ct. 482 (1989), approve the sending of a Notice
        and Consent form to all plaintiffs who defendants
        employed as non-exempt Assistant Managers between July
        18, 2005 and the present. The notice shall inform each
        such individual of this lawsuit and the right to file a
        written consent to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff;

     -- certification of this action as a collective action
        brought pursuant to the FLSA, 29 USC Section 216(b);

     -- designation of named plaintiff as representative of the
        FLSA collective action;

     -- award plaintiffs all compensation due for all time
        worked during the three years before the filing of this
        complaint;

     -- award plaintiffs compensation at time and one half for
        all hours worked in excess of 40 per week during the
        three years before the filing of this complaint;

     -- award plaintiffs an equal and additional amount as
        liquidated damages;

     -- award plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorney's fees;

     -- award plaintiffs interest accruing from each week that
        defendants failed to compensate plaintiffs for overtime
        worked;

     -- declare that defendants' policies and practices
        identified are and continue to be in direct violation of
        the FLSA and enjoin defendants from continuing said
        policies and practices; and

     -- any and all such other relief as the court deems
        appropriate under the circumstances.

The suit is "Alissa M. Justison, et al. v. McDonald's Corp. et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Timothy J. Wilson, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Martin, Esq.
          Martin & Wilson, PA
          1508 Pennsylvania Avenue
          Wilmington, DE 19806
          Phone: 302-777-4680
          Fax: 302-777-4682


MGM GRAND: Nev. Suit Amended to Add Securities Violations Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Gerard & Associates, Blumenthal & Nordrehaug,
Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A., and Robert Fellmeth announced
that on July 2, 2008, a class action lawsuit pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada was
amended to add claims for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The amended complaint seeks to recover, on behalf of all persons
who purchased one or more of the securities in the Signature at
the MGM Grand Hotel/Casino sold by Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers,
LLC and related entities, all amounts paid for MGM condominium-
hotel room units as investment securities.  

The amended complaint alleges that Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers,
LLC and related entities violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants' conduct also
violated Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nevada Securities
Act and constituted fraud.

The amended complaint alleges that Defendants illegally and
fraudulently sold Plaintiffs and others the air rights to hotel
condominium room units as investment securities (the
"Securities") at the Signature at the MGM Grand Hotel/Casino in
2006 & 2007.  Central to the Defendants' marketing of the
Securities were the omission of material facts and the
representations that the Securities would generate substantial
amounts of revenue to the purchaser.

The amended complaint alleges that the reason the air rights to
the hotel condominium units are securities is because:

     (a) the value of the units are all dependent upon the
         success or failure of the MGM Grand branded enterprise;

     (b) Defendants' sales promotions of the investment in the
         hotel room gave rise to a reasonable understanding that
         a valuable benefit, over and above the entire amount
         paid for the physical air rights to the hotel room,
         would accrue to purchasers as a result of the operation
         of the enterprise as an MGM Grand branded enterprise
         pursuant to the MGM Grand Rental Program; and,

     (c) the purchasers, as owners of shares in the enterprise,
         did not receive and did not intend to receive the right
         to exercise any practical or actual control over the
         managerial decisions of the MGM Grand enterprise.

The amended complaint further alleges that Defendants' marketing
of the Securities overtly emphasized the revenue split and the
amount of revenue the purchaser would receive from the rental of
the Securities, branded as MGM Hotel rooms with the MGM Grand
enterprise and that Defendants intentionally omitted material
facts about the Securities and the revenue therefrom.

As a result of the Defendants' sale of unregistered securities
through false and misleading statements, and the concealment of
facts known to them, Class Members were induced into purchasing
these Securities as investments and are now entitled to
rescission and damages.

The suit is "Sussex, et al. v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC,
et al., Case No. 08 cv 00773," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert Gerard, Esq.
          Gerard & Associates
          1516 Front Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-232-2828

               - and -

          Normand Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
          Phone: 858-551-1223
                 858-551-1223


NASH FINCH: Minnesota Court Approves $6.75M Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota gave final
approval to the $6.75-million settlement reached in a
consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit against Nash
Finch Co., according to Nash Finch's July 17, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 14, 2008.

On Dec. 19, 2005, and Jan. 4, 2006, two purported class action
complaints were filed against the company and certain of its
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock during the period from Feb. 24, 2005 (the date the company
announced an agreement to acquire two distribution divisions
from Roundy's), through Oct. 20, 2005 (the date the company
announced a downward revision to its earnings outlook for fiscal
2005).

One of the complaints was voluntarily dismissed on March 3,
2006, and a consolidated complaint was filed on June 30, 2006.  
The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants violated
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false
statements regarding, among other things, the integration of the
distribution divisions acquired from Roundy's, the performance
of the company's core businesses, its internal controls, and its
financial projections, so as to artificially inflate the price
of the company's common stock.  

The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, which motion was denied by the Court on May 1, 2007.

On March 11, 2008, the company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with respect to the putative securities fraud class
action suit.

The Settlement Agreement was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota on March 11, 2008.  It provides
for Court certification of a settlement class, a full release of
all claims in the complaint by the lead plaintiff and the
settlement class, and a dismissal with prejudice of all claims
in the complaint, in consideration for payment of $6.8 million
into a settlement fund.  Such payment has been funded in full by
the company's insurance coverage.

On April 15, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and directed notice to the settlement class of the
proposed settlement.

The Court approved the settlement on July 14, 2008, and entered
an order certifying the settlement and dismissed the claims in
the lawsuit with prejudice.

The settlement fund, less various costs of administration and
plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees, will be distributed to
the settlement class members that have filed a valid and
approved claim.

The suit is "In Re: Nash Finch Co. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 0:02-cv-04736-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, under Judge James M. Rosenbaum,
with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
         (g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com)
         Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
         332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Phone: 651-287-2100

         Connie M. Cheung, Esq. (conniec@lcsr.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudma & Robbins LLP
         100 Pine St., Ste. 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
  
              - and -

         Vernon J. Vander Weide, Esq. (vvanderweide@hsvwlaw.com)
         Head Seifert & Vander Weide
         333 S. 7th St., Ste. 1140
         Mpls, MN 55402-2421
         Phone: 612-339-1601
         Fax: 612-339-3372

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Bleck, Esq. (mbleck@oppenheimer.com)
         Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, LLP
         45 S. 7th St., Ste 3300
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-607-7000
         Fax: 612-607-7100


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Cheated Employees File Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Country Department,
Chancery Division (Illinois) over allegations that it cheated
employees of their rights to exercise vested stock options,
through "a 'blackout' period, as the result of management
malfeasance," during which the options expired, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This action is brought on behalf of employees and former
Navistar employees who owned contractually vested stock options
but were prevented from exercising their options with respect to
which the company refused to permit exercise prior to
expiration, ascribed to a "blackout" period caused by Navistar's
failure to have current financial reporting as required by
federal law.

The blackout period, as the result of management malfeasance,
led to Navistar having to restate its financials.  By allowing
options to expire and prohibiting employees and former employees
from exercising their vested options pursuant to the option
contract, Navistar breached the option contract and its implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  Failing to compensate
individuals for their contractually vested rights also violated
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Further, the plaintiffs ask the court to nullify any releases
received by defendant in connection with an inadequate and
coercive settlement offer sent to putative class members after,
and as a deceitful response to, the original filing of this
lawsuit.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all Navistar
employees and former employees whose stock options either
expired or who were prevented from exercising their options
during the Navistar's "blackout" period (April 6, 2006 to May
29, 2008).

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Navistar was obligated to institute a blackout
         period;

     (b) whether the blackout period option exercised denial was
         appropriately imposed on all option holders;

     (c) whether Navistar breached its contractual obligations
         under the stock option contracts;

     (d) whether Navistar breached its duty of good faith and
         fair dealing in connection with the stock option
         contracts;

     (e) whether Navistar's communication to putative class
         members was coercive and misleading; and

     (f) whether Navistar is liable to the plaintiff and the
         class in this action, as alleged in the complaint.

The plaintiffs ask the court for judgment:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801 on behalf of the class, and
        declaring the plaintiff to be a proper class
        representative, and plaintiff's counsel as counsel for
        the class;

     -- declaring that the stock option plan's 90-day expiration
        period for former employees is tolled by the blackout
        period;

     -- declaring that the offer made to putative class members
        is inadequate, coercive and invalid;

     -- preliminarily enjoining Navistar from accepting releases
        until this matter has been adjucated;

     -- finding that Navistar breached its obligations under the
        company's stock option plan and stock option contracts;

     -- finding that Navistar breached its obligations of good
        faith and fair dealing to plaintiff and the class;

     -- enjoining Navistar from allowing putative class members
        to release their claims;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class compensatory damages
        and exemplary damages in an amount to be proven at
        trial;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class pre-judgment interest,
        as well as reasonable fees and costs; and

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

The suit is "Ravi P. Rawat, et al. v. Navistar International
Corp., Case No. 08CH26042," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Country Department, Chancery Division (Illinois).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
         Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
         Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
         20 North Wacker Dr., Ste. 1350
         Chicago, IL 60605
         Phone: 312-606-0500
         Fax: 312-606-0207


SEMGROUP: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Sept. 19
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, reminds shareholders that Sept. 19,
2008, is the deadline for them to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities fraud class action lawsuit pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. between February 20,
2008, and July 17, 2008, inclusive.

SGLP and certain of the Company's officers and directors are
charged with making a series of materially false and misleading
statements related to the Company's business and operations in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

For more information, contact:

          Lewis Kahn, Esq. (Lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          Poydras Center
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100


STARWOOD HOTELS: N.Y. Suit Alleges Fraudulent Loyalty Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide and American Express are
facing a class-action complaint filed on July 16, 2008, before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
over its customer loyalty program, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The program at issue, like airlines' frequent flyer programs,
claims to offer savings to repeat customers.

The complaint alleges defendants defraud consumers about
Starwood's Preferred Guest customer loyalty program "by
misrepresenting the Program's most important features," and by
pushing co-branded Starwood/Amex credit cards through these
misrepresentations.

Named plaintiff S. Adams claims Starwood's misrepresentations
have induced "more than 27 million people" to join.

The complaint alleges that Starwood claims that there are no
'blackout dates' or 'capacity controls' to limit customers'
usage of Rewards Points earned in the Program, and, moreover,
that Rewards Points can be used toward any available room in one
of the Program's participating hotels.

The suit states that as wrongful as Starwood's conduct has been,
it does not stand alone in its fraud.  Amex has echoed these
same misstatements through the sale of its co-branded Starwood
Preferred Guest Credit Card and the Starwood Preferred Guest
Business Card.

The plaintiff claims Amex pushes the cards online through the
same misrepresentations that Starwood makes . . . Moreover,
individuals who join the SPG Program through Amex are forced to
pay an annual fee of at least $45 simply to receive the
'benefits' promised by both Starwood and Amex.

The complaint states that the misrepresentations induce
customers "to spend big money staying at expensive hotels to
accumulate Rewards Points when they would otherwise purchase
more affordable accommodations outside of the Starwood family.

The grim reality, however, is that all of this consumer spending
is for naught, as Starwood does impose numerous restrictions on
the use of Rewards Points, thus denying Program members their
promised expected benefits, the complaint states.

The plaintiff demands punitive damages for fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
deceptive business and other charges.

The suit is "Adams v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
et al., Case Number: 7:2008cv06392," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Stephen C.
Robinson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Craig Lanza, Esq.
         Balestriere Lanza PLLC
         225 Broadway, Suite 2900
         New York, NY 10007
         Phone: 1-212-374-5400
         e-mail: info@balestriere.com
         Web site: http://www.balestriere.com/


UNION PACIFIC: Public Notice Altered Without Judge's Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
On April 11, 2008, Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge Jim
Hudson determined that a class action suit should proceed in the
case "Victor S. Vickers, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad, et
al. Case No. CV-2005-005-2," (Class Action Reporter, June 6,
2008).

Judge Hudson also reportedly issued a court order on May 29,
2008, instructing class attorneys to begin notifying all
Arkansans of their right to pursue legal action against Union
Pacific for violating the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
act.  

The railroad is accused of pressuring families and individuals
to settle claims against the company without legal
representation and for illegally engaging in the practice of
law, while it admits no wrongdoing.

The notices says:

    If you settled a personal injury or wrongful death claim
    with Union Pacific from 1992 to Feb. 14, 2005, and you were
    an unrepresented, non-railroad employee and a citizen of
    Arkansas, you are a class member.

However, Lynn LaRowe of the Texarkana Gazette writes that the
notice to the public regarding the class action suit was altered
without the approval of Judge Hudson before it was printed in
Arkansas' largest newspaper.

"I know you'll take the bullet, but I want to know who the hell
did it," the judge said to lead attorney Thomas Jones, Esq., of
Kansas City, Mo., who is representing the plaintiffs.  "If you
want to try to avoid depositions, discovery and hearings on this
matter, if we're going to do that, then I need to know who
tinkered with my order."

Union Pacific Corporation, through its subsidiary, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, provides rail transportation services in North
America.  It offers transportation services for agricultural
products, automotive, lumber, steel, paper, food, chemicals,
coal, and industrial products, as well as for finished vehicles
and intermodal containers.  The Company is based in Omaha, Nebr.


WELLS FARGO: Court Denies Motion to Stay Proccedings in "Mounce"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas
denied a motion by Wells Fargo Mortgage, Inc., seeking a stay of
proceedings in the matter, "Mounce et al. v. Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 04-05182-lmc."

The suit was filed by Andrew Mounce and Valerie Mounce on
Dec. 22, 2004, alleging that Wells Fargo Mortgage imposed
"hidden bankruptcy-related fees and costs" on them and other
similarly situated plaintiffs, without disclosure and without
authorization from the bankruptcy court.  

Wells Fargo is alleged to have collected these fees from many
other debtors.  The plaintiffs say the charges are illegal.

The essence of the plaintiffs' claim is that the charges in
question are illegally assessed.  Specifically, the plaintiffs
claim that:

       -- the agreed order on motion for relief from stay in
          their bankruptcy case capped the amount of fees and
          charges collectible by defendant, such that any
          further collection effort would be barred by the terms
          of the court order itself.  This charge seems
          essentially to be one of judicial estoppel;

       -- the charges could not have accrued during the case
          because there was an automatic stay in place.  Thus,
          they seem to be saying, any charges accruing during
          their case would violate the stay and so must be
          declared void;

       -- the charges could not be recovered unless they were
          allowed by the court pursuant to section 506(b) of the
          Bankruptcy Code.  Absent such allowance, the charges
          cannot be assessed or collected (and there was
          undeniably no such allowance in this case); and

       -- the charges cannot be assessed under the terms of
          their loan documents.  Charging and collecting thus
          constitutes breach of contract.

The plaintiffs demand that the hidden fees and costs be reversed
and refunded, as having been charged without court approval.

Alternatively, the plaintiffs maintain that the charges violate
the loan contract the plaintiffs have with Wells Fargo, in that
the loan documents do not authorize such charges, warranting
damages in the amount of charges collected, plus interest.

The plaintiffs maintain in the further alternative that
assessing the charges violated the automatic stay, and also
violated the discharge injunction, entitling plaintiffs to
recovery of the money improperly charged, together with
interest, plus an assessment of punitive or exemplary damages.

The plaintiffs also seek relief under the Declaratory Judgment
Act that assessing such fees and charges is illegal.  They also
seek from the court injunctive relief to prevent further
continued violations of the law.  

Additionally, the plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys' fees.

On May 15, 2006, the court denied a motion by Wells Fargo that
sought the dismissal of the case.

On May 27, 2008, the court partially granted the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  Having found that the
prerequisites for class certification to be satisfied, the court
concludes that the class should be certified for the breach of
contract and fraud claims.

On July 10, 2008, the court, finding no legitimate reason to
prevent the class action from moving forward, denied a motion by
Wells Fargo that sought a stay on the proceedings of the case.

The suit is "Mounce et al. v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.,
Case No. 04-05182-lmc," filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Texas, Judge Leif M. Clark, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Melvin N. Eichelbaum, Esq.
          Eichelbaum Law Office
          6100 Bandera Road, Suite 407
          San Antonio, TX 78238
          Phone: 210-681-5710
          Fax: 210-509-6444
          e-mail: Bankruptcy@eichelbaumlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Gary Klein, Esq. (klein@roddykleinryan.com)
          Roddy Klein & Ryan
          727 Atlantic Ave. 2nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: 617-375-5500 ext 15
          Fax: 617-357-5030

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas A. Connop, Esq. (tconnop@lockelord.com)
          Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Ste 2200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-740-8000
          Fax: 214-740-8800


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

COMPUCREDIT CORP: Holzer & Fistel Files Georgia Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, commenced a class action lawsuit
for an institutional investor in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
purchasers of CompuCredit Corporation common stock during the
period between November 6, 2006, and June 9, 2008.

The complaint charges CompuCredit and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

CompuCredit provides credit and related financial services and
products to underserved and un-banked consumers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, CompuCredit stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching
its Class Period high of $40.61 per share in December 2006.

Then, the complaint alleges, on June 10, 2008, The Wall Street
Journal reported that federal regulators were expected to seek
more than $100 million in fines and restitution against
CompuCredit related to deceptive credit-card marketing tactics
and abusive debt-collection practices.  The complaint alleges
that on this news, CompuCredit's stock dropped $2.49 per share
to close at $6.30 per share on June 10, 2008, a one-day decline
of 28% on extremely high volume.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) the Company's assets contained millions of dollars
         worth of impaired and risky securities, many of which
         were backed by loans to subprime borrowers;

     (b) the Company was not adequately accounting for its
         provision for loan losses in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles, causing its financial
         results to be materially misstated;

     (c) the Company's improper marketing and collection
         practices would lead to large fines and would harm the
         Company's future results;

     (d) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
         losses and defaults related to its subprime customers
         than it had previously disclosed;

     (e) given the deterioration in the market for asset-backed
         securities related to subprime consumers, the Company
         would be forced to reduce its lending operations due to
         liquidity concerns as it relied upon the sale of its
         asset-backed securities to fund its ongoing operations;
         and

     (f) given the increased volatility in the subprime market
         and increased level of delinquencies and defaults that
         CompuCredit was experiencing, the Company had no
         reasonable basis to make projections about its
         financial results.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 15,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 888-508-6832


FCSTONE GROUP: Holzer & Fistel Files Mo. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, has filed a shareholder class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of FCStone
Group, Inc. common stock during the period between November 15,
2007, and July 9, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges FCStone and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

FCStone is an integrated commodity risk management company
providing risk management consulting and transaction execution
services to commercial commodity intermediaries, end users and
producers.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 16,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 888-508-6832


FCSTONE GROUP: Brualdi Files Missouri Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. disclosed that a lawsuit has commenced
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on behalf of purchasers of FCStone Group, Inc. common
stock during the period between April 10, 2008, and July 9,
2008.

The Complaint alleges that the Company entered into an important
hedge transaction, which, for the first two quarters of fiscal
2008, generated net income to the Company of approximately
$5 million.  Most of this income was generated in the second
quarter ended February 29, 2008.

In a conference call on April 10, 2008, the Company concealed
the true nature of the Hedge, by failing to reveal that should
there develop a significant spread between the U.S.-based Fed
Funds interest rate and the London Inter-Bank Rate, the Hedge
would decline in notional value.  Based on what the market was
told, the investing public viewed the hedge as simply one to
protect the Company from falling interest rates, and not one
which was crucially dependent upon the spread between the Fed
Funds Rate and LIBOR not widening.  However, in the third
quarter of 2008 a significant spread arose between the Fed Funds
Rate and LIBOR.

As a result, the Hedge was declining so swiftly in notional
value that the Company sold the Hedge, which sale wiped out any
Hedge based gains for the first two quarters of fiscal 2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 15,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 877-495-1187 (toll free)
                 212-952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Files N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On July 21, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Oklahoma-based SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.  

The complaint alleges that the parent company of SemGroup Energy
Partners, L.P., failed to disclose its financial difficulties or
high risk for financial problems associated with its risky crude
oil hedge transactions by the start of the class period, and
then hiding this information from investors in SGLP.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5.  The class period is for those investors who
purchased common units of SGLP from February 20, 2008, through
July 17, 2008.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates has filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the common units of SemGroup Energy Partners,
L.P. during the period from February 20, 2008, through July 17,
2008, for violation of the federal securities laws.

The defendants include SGLP and certain officers and directors.

The Complaint alleges that SGLP's parent SemGroup, L.P., was in
financial difficulty or at high risk for such financial
difficulty as a result of its investment in risky crude oil
hedge transactions by the start of the class period, but hid
this from investors in SGLP.  Rather, on or about February 20,
2008, SGLP effected a secondary offering, where it sold
6 million units at $23.90 for proceeds of $137 million.  It also
borrowed substantial funds and purchased the Parent's asphalt
business for $387 million.  It is alleged that this transaction
was designed to financially prop up the Parent.  While the
Prospectus for the Offering described the positive relationship
between SGLP and the Parent, and further described how important
the Parent was to SGLP since it was SGLP's primary customer and
provided almost all of the Company's revenue, there was no
discussion of the Parent's financial difficulties or risk
factors.

In the period following the Offering, SGLP units traded in the
$24-27 range reflecting that, as far as the investing public was
aware, the Company was operating according to its business plan.
However, by July 11, 2008, SGLP unit values began to decline on
increased trading volume, despite the release of no adverse
news.  Then on July 17, 2007 SGLP unit prices declined 50% to
$11.00 on greatly increased volume of 5.7 million units, as a
result of leakage of material adverse news which had been
withheld by defendants.  As a result of the widespread leakage,
the defendants were finally forced to issue a statement after
the market closed on July 17, 2008, revealing that the Parent
was experiencing liquidity issues and was exploring various
alternatives, including raising additional equity, debt capital
or the filing of a voluntary petition for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

This news, which was completely unexpected, shocked the market.
As a result the price of the Company's units have continued to
decline, wiping out almost $300 million in unitholder value.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *