CAR_Public/080724.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, July 24, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 146
  
                            Headlines

ACCREDITED HOME: Illegally Laid Off Workers File New Jersey Suit
AGRICOLA ZARAGOZA: Recalls Jalapenos Due to Possible Health Risk
AMERICAN INT'L: Law Firm Hit for "Judge Shopping" in Fraud Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Investors Sue Over Auction Rate Securities
BRINKER: Labor Suit Cannot Proceed as Class Suit, Appellate Says

COMCAST CORP: Gilbert Randolph Commences Ore. File-Sharing Suit
COOPERTOWN CITY: Traffic Tickets Issuance May Lead to Class Suit
CUNA MUTUAL: Cheated Policyholders File Lawsuit in Texas
DETROIT CITY: Council OKs $640,000 Payout in Ticket Hawking Suit
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE: Awaits Ruling on "Brantley" Dismissal Bid

ELECTRA BICYCLE: Recalls Amsterdam Bicycles Due to Injury Risk
FEDERAL HOME: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New York & Ohio
FORD MOTOR: Cheats on Auto Leases, California Lawsuit Alleges
GRANDE PRODUCE: Recalls Peppers and Avocados Due to Health Risks
GREAT ATLANTIC: Workers' Overtime Suit Gets Class Certification

HONEYWELL INT'L: Still Faces Mass. Suit Over Automotive Filters
HOTELS.COM: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
LITHONIA LIGHTING: Recalls Lighting Fixtures Due to Fire Hazard
MISSOURI DOR: Cos. Are Selling Social Security Numbers Online
NATIONAL BEEF: No Certiorari Petition Filed in "Schumacher" Case

NEW BRUNSWICK RHA7: Sued Over "Faulty" Pathology Work
NORTHERN SUNRISE: Faces California Lawsuit Over Defective Homes
OIL COMPANIES: 27 Firms Made Hartford Village Sick, Suit Says
QUEST SOFTWARE: Court Denies Bid for Securities Suit Dismissal
RICON CORP: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Misrepresented Wheelchair Lifts

SLEEP INNOVATIONS: Recalls Pillows Containing Metal Fragments
SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces California Suit Over Increased Monthly Fees
STONE ENERGY: Faces Nevada Lawsuit Over Bois d'Arc Energy Merger
TOYOTA MOTOR: Wants Two Reese-Levering Lawsuits Consolidated
VISEON INC: Proposes to Settle Securities Fraud Suit in Texas

WAL-MART STORES: Responds to "Braden" Excessive Fee Suit Claims
WELLCARE HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Fla. Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ACCREDITED HOME: Illegally Laid Off Workers File New Jersey Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders is facing a class-action complaint
before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, over
allegations that it illegally laid off more than 50 workers
without notice, without paying wages or severance, and without
paying them for their vested stock, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a lawsuit brought under Title 34:21-1 et seq. of the New
Jersey Statutes Annotated alleging a violation of the statutory
provisions under New Jersey law which provides that an employer
terminating its employee workforce of more than 50 employees
must give advance notification to said employees at least 60
days prior to their separation.

The suit says the defendants have given neither 60 days advance
notice to plaintiffs and their fellow employees, nor have they
provided one week of severance pay for each year of service in
lieu of said advance 60 days notice its sole, New Jersey
location at 123 Tice Boulevard, Woodcliff Lake, in New jersey.
Additionally, the defendants owe its employees bonus and
investment fund money which have also not been paid.

The plaintiff demands damages both compensatory and punitive
for:

     -- certification as a class of all employees at defendant's
        WoodcliffLake, NJ location;

     -- costs of this action including reasonable attorneys'
        fees;

     -- compensatory damages including lost wages, benefits and
        other remuneration;

     -- all lost wages;

     -- unpaid funds for stock purchases made with employees'
        monies;

     -- interest;

     -- counsel fees and costs;

     -- unpaid bonuses;

     -- for work performed in May and June of 2008;

     -- unpaid wages and benefits for time worked;

     -- unpaid wages and benefits; and

     -- such other or further relief as the court deems proper.

The suit is "Patrick DeRosa, et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders
Inc., Case No. L-3529-08," filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Camden County.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Robert F. O'Brien, Esq.
          O'Brien, Belland & Bushinsky LLC
          1526 Berlin Road
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Phone: 856-795-2181


AGRICOLA ZARAGOZA: Recalls Jalapenos Due to Possible Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agricola Zaragoza, Inc., of McAllen, Texas, is recalling
Jalapeno Peppers distributed since June 30 because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain.  In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The Jalapeno Peppers were distributed to customers in Georgia
and Texas.

The Jalapeno Peppers being recalled were shipped in 35-pound
plastic crates and in 50-pound bags with no brand name or label.

The recall is a result of sampling by the Food and Drug
Administration, which revealed that these Jalapeno Peppers were
contaminated with the same strain of Salmonella Saintpaul
responsible for the current Salmonella outbreak.  It is unknown
at this time which, if any, of the more than 1,200 illnesses
reported to date are related to this particular product or to
the grower who supplied this product.  Distribution of these
products has been suspended while the FDA, the Texas Department
of State Health Services and the company continue their
investigation as to the source of the problem.

Consumers and retailers who purchased Jalapeno Peppers should
contact their supplier to determine if their products are
involved in the recall.  Commercial manufacturers that have used
these recalled Jalapeno Peppers as an ingredient in other
products (i.e. salsas, etc.) are encouraged to contact their
local FDA office to determine if these products should be
recalled.  Additionally, restaurants, retail food stores, and
similar retail institutions that have used these Jalapeno
Peppers as a garnish or as an ingredient to prepare entrees,
salsas or other products are asked to dispose of these products
making sure that all such peppers are not inadvertently made
available for purchase, salvage or donation and therefore
preventing any possibility for human or animal consumption.  

Consumers with questions may contact the company at
956-631-6405.


AMERICAN INT'L: Law Firm Hit for "Judge Shopping" in Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John Sprizzo of Manhattan has criticized
class action law firm Labaton Sucharow LLP for seeking to add
new and unrelated claims to a lawsuit against American
International Group, Debra Cassens Weiss writes for ABA Journal.

According to the ABA Journal report, which cites an article from
New York Law Journal, Judge Sprizzo refused to allow Labaton to
add claims related to AIG's recent write-downs to its older
class-action suit alleging bid-rigging and accounting fraud.  
The earlier suit had covered conduct from 1999 through the
spring of 2005.

"As is readily apparent here, lead plaintiff's motion for leave
to amend to add unrelated claims is a calculated attempt at
judge shopping," Judge Sprizzo wrote.  "It seems apparent that
lead plaintiff is trying to usurp lead plaintiff status over
claims which are properly in front of other judges."

                        Case Background

Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud
class action complaints were filed against AIG which were later
consolidated as, "In re American International Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation" (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008).

The lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action is a group
of public retirement systems and pension funds benefiting Ohio
state employees, suing on behalf of themselves and all
purchasers of AIG's publicly traded securities between Oct. 28,
1999, and April 1, 2005.

The named defendants are AIG and a number of present and former
AIG officers and directors, as well as C.V. Starr & Co., Inc.,
Starr International Company, Inc., General Reinsurance Corp.,
and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, among others.

The lead plaintiff alleges, among other things, that AIG:

       -- concealed that it engaged in anti-competitive conduct
          through alleged payment of contingent commissions to
          brokers and participation in illegal bid-rigging;
   
       -- concealed that it used income smoothing products and
          other techniques to inflate its earnings;

       -- concealed that it marketed and sold income smoothing
          insurance products to other companies; and

       -- misled investors about the scope of government
          investigations.

In addition, the lead plaintiff alleges that AIGs former Chief
Executive Officer manipulated AIGs stock price.  

The lead plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

In April 2006, the court denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss the second amended class action complaint.

In December 2006, a third amended class action complaint was
filed, which assert basically the same claims as the previous
complaint.  Fact and class discovery is currently ongoing.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a request for class
certification, proposing a class period from October 28, 1999,
to April 1, 2005.  The defendants have taken depositions on
class certification issues, all of which were premised on the
alleged class period.

                Latest Developments to the Case

According to a recent court document obtained by the CAR,
discovery on the case has proceeded regarding the alleged bid-
rigging and accounting fraud since April 2006.  After 20 months
and four million pages of documents from more than 400 different
custodians, the lead plaintiff sent a letter on February 28,
2008, to AIG confirming that AIG's document production was
substantially complete and that no further document requests
were necessary.

Thus, on May 23, 2008, the Court entered an order requiring all
merits discovery to be completed by December 1, 2009, and expert
discovery to be completed by Feb. 1, 2010.

                     Fourth Amended Complaint

Subsequently, the lead plaintiff wants to add new and unrelated
claims as well as new defendants, based on AIG's alleged write-
downs in February and May 2008 of more than $20 billion stemming
from losses in its portfolio of credit default swaps written by
its subsidiary, AIG Financial Products Corp.

             Judge Denies Request to Add New Claims

In his Memorandum of Opinion dated July 17, 2008, Judge Sprizzo
wrote that though not argued by the parties, the proposed new
pleading is properly a supplemental complaint rather than an
amendment to the original complaint because it avers acts
occurring after the date of the complaint.  He noted that the
proposed amendment involves new claims concerning actions by
AIG regarding its portfolio of credit default swaps, which took
place in 2007 and 2008 -- more than three years after the
transactions at issue in the Third Amended Complaint.  Thus, the
request to amend will be treated as a "Motion to Serve a
Supplemental Pleading" pursuant to Rule 15(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Sprizzo also agreed with the defendants' argument that the
requested amendment would place additional burden on them and
that this would result in undue prejudice.

Furthermore, the judge stated, the addition of new defendants in
the proposed amendment may lead to challenges based on service
or jurisdiction.  Also, there may be new motions to dismiss and
issues regarding the process for appointing lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.  The expanded  class  period  may  lead  to
diverging  interests  among parties and may lead to greater
difficulty in certifying a class.

Thomas Dubbs, Esq., of Labaton Sucharow, told the New York Law
Journal that the law firm viewed its proposal to combine the
cases as a way to improve efficiency.  However the firm does not
plan to appeal the ruling.

The suit is "In Re American International Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John
E. Sprizzo presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jason Samuel Cowart, Esq. (jscowart@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-661-1100
         Fax: 212-661-8665

              - and -

         Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq. (tdubbs@labaton.com)
         Labaton Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0700
         Fax: 212-818-0477

Representing the defendants is:

         Lewis E. Farberman, Esq. (lfarberman@paulweiss.com)
         Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-373-3577
         Fax: 212-492-0577


BANK OF AMERICA: Investors Sue Over Auction Rate Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America has been named defendant in a class action
lawsuit involving auction rate securities, Newsinferno.com
reports.  

According to Newsinferno.com, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit
allege that brokers at BofA hid the true risks of auction rate
securities when it sold the instruments to investors.

The report explains that auction rate securities are long-term
corporate bonds, municipal bonds and preferred stock on which
the interest rates are reset periodically based on bids
submitted through securities firms.  Generally, rates are reset
every seven, 14, 28 or 35 days.  Because they can be sold during
weekly or monthly auctions, banks and brokerages often touted
auction rate securities as short-term investments or cash
equivalents.  

Unfortunately, because of the crisis in the credit markets,  
auctions of these securities have not been successful because of
worries that bond insurers guaranteeing many of the $330 billion
in outstanding auction bonds would be downgraded, the report
notes.  Newsinferno.com cites Bloomberg News as having reported
earlier that brokers such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and
Citigroup Inc. also purposely permitted the auctions for
preferred securities, which are not insured, to fail by not
committing their own capital to sales when there were not enough
bidders.  As a result, the market for auction rate bonds has
vanished, leaving a lot of investors holding auction rate
securities they once thought were safe vehicles with no way to
sell them.

The investors suing BofA bought their auction rate securities
between June 11, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008, according to
Newsinferno.com.  It was on Feb. 13 that all  of the major
broker-dealers, including BofA, withdrew their support for the
auctions, leaving the market to crumble and investors unable to
access their money.

According to the report, some legal experts have asserted that  
banks or brokers could be held liable for investors' auction
rate securities loses if the vehicles were represented as short-
term investments or cash equivalents.  The plaintiffs in the
BofA auction rate securities class action lawsuit claim that
brokers did just that.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that BofA failed to disclose
these facts to investors:

    * The auction rate securities were not cash alternatives
      like money market funds but were instead complex long-term
      financial instruments with 30-year maturity dates;

    * The auction rate securities were only liquid at the time
      of the sale because BofA and other broker-dealers were
      artificially supporting and manipulating the market to
      maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability;

    * BofA and other broker-dealers routinely intervened in the
      auctions for their own benefit to set rates and to prevent
      all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and

    * BofA continued to market auction rate securities as liquid
      investments even after the bank and other broker-dealers
      determined that they would likely be withdrawing support
      for the periodic auctions and that a freeze of the auction
      rate securities market would result.


BRINKER: Labor Suit Cannot Proceed as Class Suit, Appellate Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California Court of Appeal has issued an opinion in a class
action lawsuit against Brinker Restaurant Corp. related to meal
and rest breaks, which opinion included rulings favorable to the
company.

Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed the
suit against restaurant operator Brinker International, Inc., in
San Diego County Superior Court, alleging violations of
California labor laws with respect to meal and rest breaks.  

The suit seeks penalties and attorney's fees.  Judge Patricia
A.Y. Cowett certified it as a class action in July 2006.  

The class consists of 63,000 current and former employees of the
company allege violations of California law mandating workers'
meal and rest breaks (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2006).

The company appealed the lower court's certification order.

The California Court of Appeals stayed all trial court activity
in December 2006.  In October 2007, the California Court of
Appeal decertified the class action on all claims, but has been
asked to reconsider that decision (Class Action Reporter, May 9,
2008).

In its recent opinion, the Appellate Court found that Brinker
had the obligation to "make available" meal and rest breaks to
its employees, but did not have the obligation to "ensure" that
they were taken.  In doing so, the Court ruled that the case
cannot proceed as a class action.

"We are pleased that the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial
court should not have certified a class in this case, and agrees
with Brinker's understanding of the legal standards for
providing meal and rest breaks," Roger Thomson, Executive Vice
President and General Counsel of Brinker International, said.  
"We look forward to the case's return to the trial court for
action on the remaining individual issues."

Brinker International, Inc. -- http://www.brinker.com/- is   
principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development,
and franchising of restaurant concepts.


COMCAST CORP: Gilbert Randolph Commences Ore. File-Sharing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Randolph LLP filed a nationwide class action lawsuit
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
against Comcast Corp. for allegedly blocking users attempts to
share files, The Blog of Legal Times reports.

According to BLT, the lawsuit stems from similar suits Gilbert
Randolph filed against Comcast in California, Illinois, New
Jersey, and Washington, D.C., earlier this year.

The suit claims that the telecommunications giant falsely
advertised its Internet service provisions.

According to Alyson Foster, Esq., an associate at Gilbert
Randolph, when named plaintiff Robert Topolski tried to share
music files about his barbershop quartet hobby, he discovered
that Comcast had blocked access to file-sharing programs despite
the company's claim that it provides "unfettered access" to all
aspects of the Internet.

"Comcast surreptitiously installed receiver packets to keep
people from using file-sharing programs when it promised it
wouldn't.  Of course the competition is fierce in
telecommunications, but they were trying to get an unfair leg
up," Ms. Foster alleges.

The suit calls for payment to the class based on the damage
caused by Comcast's alleged misrepresentation of its services
and its allegedly making an unjust profit from its Internet
service.  It also asks for an injunction to stop the company
from engaging in false advertising.  Ms. Foster says it is too
soon to estimate the amount of the damages, but because the case
is filed in federal court, the alleged damages must exceed
$5 million.

The suit is "Topolski v. Comcast Corporation et al., Case
Number: 3:2008cv00852," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak, presiding.

To contact Gilbert Randolph LLP:

          Gilbert Randolph LLP
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-772-2200
          Fax: 202-772-3333
          Web site: http://www.gilbertrandolph.com/


COOPERTOWN CITY: Traffic Tickets Issuance May Lead to Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An issue concerning Coopertown and traffic tickets issued by its
officers on Interstate-24 could be one step closer to becoming a
class-action lawsuit, Eric Snyder writes for The Leaf Chronicle.

According to the report, Greg Smith, Esq. -- who successfully
argued last month that Coopertown City Judge Earl Porter had to
dismiss a traffic ticket because the city lacked jurisdiction to
patrol the Interstate between Jan. 1 and June 5, 2008 -- filed a
complaint seeking a declaratory judgment.

The complaint seeks to have a Circuit Court judge reach much the
same finding Judge Porter did in June -- that Coopertown lacked
jurisdiction because it failed to notify the Department of
Safety of its intent to patrol the interstate.

If such a judgment is made, Mr. Smith told Leaf Chronicle, it
would pave the way for the beginning of a class-action lawsuit
should Coopertown officials decide to not settle out of court.

"We will go the distance," Coopertown Mayor Danny Crosby said.
"Mr. Smith will get no compromise here out of Mayor Crosby."

Mayor Crosby said this is not the first time Coopertown has been
under scrutiny over its ticketing practices.  "In every case and
every situation, I've stood my ground and guess what -- we're
going to stand our ground here," he said.

Mr. Smith is currently representing 44 plaintiffs, including
Jeff Davis, whose ticket was the first to be ruled void last
month.

The report says that in the event of a class-action suit, the
plaintiffs would seek a return of all fines and fees they paid.


CUNA MUTUAL: Cheated Policyholders File Lawsuit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Cuna Mutual Insurance Society is facing a class-action complaint
before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
over allegations that it cheats policyholders by selling them
additional accidental death & dismemberment policies, despite
provisions that Cuna says allow it to pay benefits for only one
policy per member, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Barbara Kocurek brings this suit seeking full
payment benefits rightfully owed to her under Policy T-24 on the
grounds that the language relief upon by defendant is
unenforceable because the policy, when read as a whole, is
ambiguous on this point and it would be unconscionable to
enforce the policy under defendant's interpretation of the same.
Alternatively, even if the language is unambiguous on its face,
defendant's promotional mailings render the one policy only
provision unconscionable.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the following
classes:

     (1) The Beneficiary Class: all beneficiaries of
         defendant's AD&D policies who:

         -- are residents of the United States;

         -- were denied benefits based on the one policy only
            provision; and

         -- have claims that are not barred by any applicable
            statute of limitation without regard to or benefit
            of any applicable discovery rule.

     (2) The First Policyholder Class: all present and former
         holders of defendant's AD&D policies who:

         -- are residents of the United States;

         -- held a policy which coverage was denied based on the
            one policy only provision;

         -- were not refunded premiums on the unpaid policy;
            and

         -- have claims that are not barred by any applicable
            statute of limitation without regard to or benefit
            of any applicable discovery rule.

     (3) The Second Policyholder Class: all present and former
         holders of defendant's AD&D policies who:

         -- are residents of the United States;

         -- held a policy which coverage was denied based on
            the one policy only provision;

         -- were refunded premiums on the unpaid policy but
            without interest; and

         -- have claims that are not barred by any applicable
            statute of limitation without regard to or benefit
            of any applicable discovery rule.

     (4) The Former Policyholder Class: all former
         policyholders of defendant's AD&D policies who:

         -- are residents of the United States;

         -- held at one time multiple AD&D policies that
            contained the only one policy only provision;

         -- allowed the policies to lapse or died from non-
            accidental causes;

         -- were not refunded premiums on the policies defendant
            claims were subject ot the one policy only
            provision; and

         -- have claims that are not barred by any applicable
            statute of limitation without regard to or benefit
            of any applicable discovery rule.

     (5) The Declaratory Judgment Class: all present holders of
         multiple of defendant's AD&D policies who:

         -- are residents of the United States; and

         -- have policies containing the one policy only
            provision.

     (6) The Unsuccessful Declaratory Judgment Class: all
         present holders of multiple of defendant's AD&D
         policies who:

         -- are members of the Declaratory Judgment Class; and

         -- were unsuccessful in obtaining the Declaratory
            Judgment.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's policies are unenforceable
         contracts or are unconscionable;

     (b) whether the defendant systematically failed to disclose       
         to the class material information such as the
         defendant's intentions to withhold AD&D benefits under
         the one policy only provision;

     (c) whether the defendant's conduct constitutes deceptive
         trade practice;

     (d) whether the defendant's conduct has or will cause
         damage to the plaintiff and the class and the proper
         measure of those damages; and

     (e) whether the plaintiff and the class are entitled to an
         award of punitive damages.

The plaintiff requests that:

     -- defendant be cited to appear;

     -- the court certify one or more classes pursuant to Rule
        23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- plaintiff and the classes recover their actual damages;

     -- plaintiff and the classes recover their punitive
        damages;

     -- the court grant  the declaratory relief requested and
        all relief that flows from such declaratory relief;

     -- plaintiff and the classes recover all pre-judgment
        interest, post-judgment interest and costs of court
        allowed by law; and

     -- plaintiff and the classes have such other relief in law
        or in equity, to which they may be justly entitled.

The suit is "Barbara Kocurek, et al. v. Cuna Mutual Insurance
Society, Case No. SA08CA0581," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Gerald Drought, Esq.
          Benjamin Guerra, Esq.
          Martin & Drought PC
          Bank of America Plaza, 15th Floor
          300 Convent Street
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Phone: 210-227-7591
          Fax: 210-227-7924


DETROIT CITY: Council OKs $640,000 Payout in Ticket Hawking Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Detroit City Council unanimously approved a $640,000 lawsuit
settlement for hundreds of people who were busted for hawking
tickets -- at or below face value -- at sporting and
entertainment events since December 2001, David Ashenfelter and
Zachary Gorchow write for Free Press.

And one of the potential beneficiaries -- Justin Crane, a 26-
year-old accountant from Berkley who shelled out $300 for a
lawyer to defend himself after being cited in 2005 for selling
three Detroit Lions tickets to buddies for one-third of their
face value -- told Free Press that he is looking forward to
getting some of his money back.

Mr. Crane, who works for a Detroit accounting firm, said his
ticket was dismissed after police did not show up for trial.  He
said approval of the deal would help compensate him for the
embarrassment he suffered in the episode and give him a feeling
of exoneration.

The report recounts that Lansing lawyer Thomas Cecil, Esq.,
filed the class action lawsuit against the city in December 2004
on behalf of three men, including Bradley Carroll, a Western
Michigan University student from Troy who was cited in 2003 for
selling an $80 Eminem concert ticket for $50 at Ford Field.  The
lawsuit eventually was expanded to include 1,236 people who had
been charged under the ordinance.

According to Free Press, police kept the ticket and charged Mr.
Carroll with a misdemeanor, punishable by 90 days in jail and a
$500 fine.

The city ordinance prohibited the resale of tickets at any price
within 500 feet of sporting and other events, the report
explains.  State law, meanwhile, prohibits ticket scalping or
reselling tickets above face value.

In January 2006, U.S. District Judge John O'Meara said the
portion of the law that prohibited reselling tickets at or below
face value is unconstitutional because it failed to state a
specific government interest the law was designed to protect.  


ECHOSTAR SATELLITE: Awaits Ruling on "Brantley" Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of the
purported class action lawsuit "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC
Universal, Inc., et al., Case No. CV07-06101," which names
Echostar Satellite, LLC -- a unit of EchoStar Communications
Corp. -- as a defendant.

A purported class of cable and satellite subscribers filed the
antitrust lawsuit against the company and other defendants on
Sept. 21, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 26, 2007)

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to
bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the
ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.

The complaint names as defendants:

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

The named plaintiffs are:

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

The suit states that the bundling conspiracy restrains trade,
suppresses and eliminates competition, fixes and elevates prices
and forces consumers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for
channels they do not want.

This lawsuit challenges the collective conduct of defendants
which was eliminated, in material part, competition among and
between the content providers and programmers for cable or
satellite television distribution and the cable and satellite
providers by the practice of offering only prepackaged tiers of
bundled programs and refusing to offer cable programming to
consumers on an "a la carte" basis.

The class action seeks to terminate the practice of offering
consumers only bundled or prepackaged bundled tiers and to
require programmers and cable providers to offer channels on an
"a la carte" or individual choice basis.

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

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

The suit wants the court to rule on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The company filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which request
the court has not yet ruled upon, according to Echostar DBS
Corp.'s July 10, 2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al., Case No. CV07-06101," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
        David W. Kesselman, Esq. (dkesselman@blechercollins.com)
        Blecher & Collins, P.C.
        515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
        Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334
        Phone: 213-622-4222
        Fax: 213-622-1656


ELECTRA BICYCLE: Recalls Amsterdam Bicycles Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Electra Bicycle Company, LLC, of Vista, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 9,500 Amsterdam Bicycles.

The company said the interior alignment tabs of the bicycle's
chainguard can be pushed against the chain causing it to derail,
which poses a risk of injury to riders.

Electra has received four reports of the chainguard derailing
the chain, including one report of minor cuts and abrasion from
a fall.

This recall involves some Amsterdam model bicycles in the
Classic 3, Original 3, Royal 8, and Sport 3 styles. The bicycles
have an enclosed chainguard.  "Electra" and "Amsterdam" are
printed on the bicycle's frame and/or chainguard.  Bicycles with
frame numbers beginning with "F06" or "EL" or bicycles with
chainguards marked "06/08" are not included in this recall.  The
frame number is located on the underside of the bottom bracket.

These recalled bicycles were manufactured in Taiwan and were
being sold by authorized Electra Bicycle dealers nationwide from
January 2007 through June 2008 for between $400 and $850.

A picture of the recalled bicycles is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08337.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop riding the recalled
bicycle and bring it to an Electra Bicycle dealer for a free
inspection and replacement chainguard part.

For additional information, contact Electra Bicycle at
800-261-1644 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.electrabike.com/


FEDERAL HOME: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in New York & Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. -- doing business as Freddie
Mac -- is facing two virtually identical putative securities
class action lawsuits in New York and Ohio, according to the
company's July 18, 2008 Form 10-12G filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suits were filed against Freddie Mac and certain of its
current and former officers over allegations that the company
violated federal securities laws by making "false and misleading
statements concerning our business, risk management and the
procedures we put into place to protect the company from
problems in the mortgage industry."

The first suit was filed on Nov. 21, 2007, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption,
"Reimer vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Cook, Piszel and McQuade, Case
No. 1:2007cv10526."

The second suit, entitled, "Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., et al., Case No.
4:08-cv-00160-JRA," was filed on Jan. 18, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and interest,
reasonable costs including attorneys' fees and equitable and
other injunctive relief.

The company reported no development in the cases in its
regulatory filing.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and
rental housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market,
and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can
be sold to investors.  The Company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The Company
operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee
and Multifamily.


FORD MOTOR: Cheats on Auto Leases, California Lawsuit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Credit Co. is facing a class-action complaint before
the Superior Court in Los Angeles claiming it cheats on auto
leases, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the report, Ford cheats customers who terminate
auto leases early by continuing to charge them, failing to
notify them of their rights, fraudulently misrepresenting both
sides' rights and obligations, and illegally reporting false
debts to credit agencies.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Mark Chavez, Esq.
          Chavez & Gertler LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Phone: 415-381-5599
          Fax: 415-381-5572
          e-mail: info@chavezgertler.com


GRANDE PRODUCE: Recalls Peppers and Avocados Due to Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grande Produce LTD. Co. of Hidalgo, Texas, is recalling Jalepeno
Peppers and Serrano Peppers (distributed between May 17 and
July 17, 2008) and Avocados (of all sizes, with lot
#HUE08160090889) because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail
or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain.  In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The Jalapeno Peppers, Serrano Peppers and Avocados were
distributed to these states:

        Texas                  Delaware
        North Carolina         Georgia
        Oklahoma               Iowa
        Minnesota              Illinois
        Florida                Indiana
        Maryland               New York
        Mississippi            Arkansas
        Kansas                 Kentucky

The avocados being recalled were shipped in boxes labeled
"Frutas Finas de Tancitaro HASS Avocados, Produce of Mexico,"
all sizes, with lot number HUE08160090889.  The Jalapeno Peppers
and Serrano peppers being recalled were shipped in 35-pound  
plastic crates with no brand name or label.

No illnesses associated with this recall have been reported to
date.

The recall is a result of sampling by the Texas Department of
State Health Services and The North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services, which revealed that these products
contained the bacteria.  Distribution of these products has been
suspended while FDA, the Texas Department of State Health
Services, The North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services and the company continue their investigation as to the
source of the problem.

Consumers who purchased Avocados, Jalapeno Peppers and Serrano
Peppers should contact their supplier to determine if their
products are involved in the recall.  Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 956-843-8575.


GREAT ATLANTIC: Workers' Overtime Suit Gets Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York certified a class of
plaintiffs in a suit filed against the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co., Inc., on behalf of former employees of the supermarkets
it operates.

The class-action complaint was filed on June 24, 2004, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York against The Great
Atlantic -- doing business as A&P, The Food Emporium and
Waldbaum's -- alleging violations of the overtime provisions of
the New York Labor Law.

Three named plaintiffs -- Benedetto Lamarca, Dolores Guiddy, and
Stephen Tedesco -- alleged on behalf of a class that the company
failed to pay overtime wages to full-time hourly employees who
were either required or permitted to work more than 40 hours per
week.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification of the matter, which is now captioned, "LaMarca et
al. v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc."

In July 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and
certified a class composed of:

      All full-time hourly employees of Defendants who were
      employed in Defendants' supermarket stores located in the
      State of New York, for any of the period from June 24,
      1998 through the date of the commencement of the action,
      whom Defendants required or permitted to perform work in
      excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime
      wages.

The Court also ruled that the issue of whether to include an
"opt-in" or "opt-out" provision is premature and can be decided
after discovery has been had.

As class certification was granted only recently, and as
discovery on the prospective plaintiffs comprising the class has
yet to be conducted, neither the number of class participants
nor the sufficiency of their respective claims can be determined
at this time.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
July 21, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 14, 2008.

For more details, contact:

         Rachel Geman, Esq. (rgeman@lchb.com)
         Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-355-9500

              - and -

         Adam T. Klein, Esq. (atk@outtengolden.com)
         Outten & Golden LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000


HONEYWELL INT'L: Still Faces Mass. Suit Over Automotive Filters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., continues to face a purported
class action suit before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut over allegations that 12 filter
manufacturers, including Honeywell, engaged in a conspiracy to
fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers for after-
market automotive filters.

The suit was filed on March 31, 2008, by S&E Quick Lube, a
filter distributor, under the caption, "S&E Quick Lube
Distributors Inc. v. Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:2008cv00475."

This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct
purchasers who bought filters from the defendants.  

Related actions have since been filed by other plaintiffs.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
July 18, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v. Champion
Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00475," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet
Bond Arterton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kerry R. Callahan, Esq. (krcallahan@uks.com)
          Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
          One State St., Po Box 231277
          Hartford, CT 06123-1277
          Phone: 860-548-2600


HOTELS.COM: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hotels.com, L.P., and Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., are facing a class
action lawsuit filed by attorneys working in San Antonio, Texas,
in connection with hotel occupancy taxes, Ryan Holeywell writes
for The Monitor.

The suit, filed in 2006, accuses online booking agents of
shortchanging as many as 174 municipalities on hotel occupancy
taxes.

The Monitor relates that just recently, attorneys working with
the city of San Antonio contacted cities across the state
earlier this month to alert them of the suit.  Locally, McAllen,
Edinburg, Hidalgo, La Feria, Mission and Pharr could join the
legal action.  According to its Web site, Hotels.com operates an
office in Pharr.

Cities that do not wish to join the suit would have to opt out,
but no cities yet have done so, according to Steven Wolens,
Esq., an attorney representing the City of San Antonio.

According to the suit, the travel sites contract with hotels for
a block of rooms at a discounted rate, then sell them to
customers at a marked up price.  However, the sites paid taxes
based on the lower, negotiated rate -- not the retail one -- the
suit says.  Mr. Wolens told The Monitor that the cities are owed
the difference.

The suit seeks reimbursement for fees owed to the cities, as
well as interest, penalties and a ruling that would force online
travel sites to pay the taxes in the future.

In court filings obtained by The Monitor, attorneys for the Web
sites have argued that San Antonio's hotel occupancy laws, which
are similar to those of other Texas cities included in the class
action, do not apply to the travel companies.  They say the
travel companies do not own, operate, manager or controls the
hotels, as required by the tax ordinances.  The sites contend
that if they are held liable, the scope of the city hotel tax
ordinance would be expanded beyond its limit.

Mr. Wolens though told The Monitor that it is hard to argue that
the sites are not controlling the hotels, since they control
reservations and cancellation policies.

James Karen, Esq., an attorney representing Hotels.com, Hotwire,
and Expedia, declined to comment to The Monitor with regard to
the case.

The suit, which seeks $50,000,000 in damages, is set to go to
trial in June 2009, the report points out.

For more details, contact:

          Steven D. Wolens, Esq. (swolens@diamondmccarthy.com)
          Diamond McCarthy LLP
          Renaissance Tower
          1201 Elm Street, 34th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75270
          Phone: 214-389-5300
          Fax: 214-389-5399


LITHONIA LIGHTING: Recalls Lighting Fixtures Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lithonia Lighting, of Conyers, Ga., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,200
Indoor Lighting Fixtures.

The company said a thermal protector could be missing from the
lighting fixtures, posing a risk of overheating and fire.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled fixture is a ceiling-mounted downlight. Model
number LV3R is included in this recall and is printed on a UL
label inside the light's housing.

These recalled indoor lighting fixtures were manufactured in the
United States and were being sold at electrical distributors and
electrical sales representatives nationwide from April 2007
through May 2008 for between $60 and $80.

A picture of the recalled indoor lighting fixtures is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08335.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the lighting
fixtures and contact Lithonia Lighting to arrange for a free
replacement fixture.

For additional information, contact Lithonia Lighting at
800-315-4935 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.lithonia.com/


MISSOURI DOR: Cos. Are Selling Social Security Numbers Online
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri alleges that the Missouri
Department of Revenue sold hundreds of thousands of Missourians'
Social Security numbers to Shadowsoft and publicdata.com, which
got the data under false pretenses and sold it over the
Internet, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This class action arises out of improper and unlawful actions by
defendants who participated in a scheme to disclose, sell or
disseminate the plaintiffs' and the class' highly restricted
personal information for commercial purposes and profit as
prohibited by law.

The plaintiffs claim Shadowsoft directly and purposefully
obtained, misappropriated and sold highly restricted personal
information belonging to individuals living in Missouri.

They say that on Feb. 20, the Jackson County, Mo., Circuit Court
entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting PublicData and
Shadowsoft from "making the social security numbers of any
Missourian available for search or sale on
http://www.publicdata.com/

The complaint states that prior to February 20, 2008, co-
defendant Shadowsoft acquired a large database from Mo. DOR on
the pretense that the information would be used only for the
legitimate business purpose of verifying the accuracy of
information of individuals doing business with Shadowsoft.

This database included Social Security numbers of "hundreds of
thousands of licenses drivers in the State of Missouri," the
complaint states.

Shadowsoft allegedly transferred the database to PublicData,
which sold it over the Internet.

Defendants' acts were in violation of the law, specifically the
Federal Drivers' Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 42 USC Section
1983, and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MPA), the
suit asserts.

The plaintiffs bring this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23, on behalf of all individuals who had a Missouri driveres
license whose highly restricted personal information, as defined
by 18 USC Section 2725(4), was disclosed by the Missouri
Department of Revenue, or any agent, officer, employee or
contractor, thereof, to Shadowsoft or PublicData, or any agent
of the companies.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) the nature and extent of the individual defendants
         participation in Mo. DOR's policy of disclosing the
         highly restricted personal information of Missouri
         drivers;

     (b) whether the actions taken by agents of Mo. DOR and
         the individual defendants in disclosing the highly
         restricted personal information of Missouri drivers
         violated the DPPA and 42 USC Section 1983;

     (c) whether PublicData unlawfully obtained,
         misappropriated, used or sold highly restricted
         personal information from Mo. DOR records within the
         meaning of the DPPA;

     (d) whether PubliData unlawfully obtained, misappropriated,
         used or sold highly restricted personal information
         from Mo. DOR records in violation of the DPPA, 42 USC
         Section 1983, and the MPA;

     (e) whether Shadowsoft unlawfully obtained,
         misappropriated, used or sold highly restricted
         personal information from Mo. DOR records within the
         meaning of the DPPA;

     (f) whether Shadowsoft unlawfully obtained,
         misappropriated, used or sold highly restricted
         personal information from Mo. DOR records in violation
         of the DPPA, 42 USC Section 1983, and the MPA;

     (g) whether the individual defendants, in disclosing the
         highly restricted personal information of the class
         members, violated the DPPA and 42 USC 1983;

     (h) the nature and extent to which the highly restricted
         personal information belonging to the class members was
         unlawfully used or sold;

     (i) the nature and extent of the class members' actual
         damages;

     (j) the nature and extent of all statutory penalties or
         damages for which the defendants are liable to the
         class members; and

     (k) whether punitive damages are appropriate.

The plaintiffs asks:

     -- for an order certifying that this action may be
        maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
        and appointing plaintiffs and their counsel, to
        represent the class;

     -- for a declaration that the defendants' actions violated
        the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act, the
        Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and 42 USC Section
        1983;

     -- for all actual damages, statutory damages, penalties,
        and remedies available for the defendants' violations of
        the Federal Driver's Protection Act,the Missouri
        Merchandising Practices Act, and 42 USC Section 1983;

     -- for a declaration that Shadowsoft and PublicData,
        through their actions and misconduct as alleged, have
        been unjustly enriched and an order that both companies
        disgorge such unlawfully gains and proceeds;

     -- for an award to plaintiff and the class of their costs
        and expenses of this action;

     -- for an award to plaintiff and the class their reasonable
        attorneys' fees; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court mat deem
        necessary and proper.

The suit is "Emily Roberts, et al. v. The Source for Public Data
LLP et al, Case No. 08-4167-CV-C-WAK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Don P. Saxton, Esq.
          Saxton Law Firm
          1000 Broadway, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-471-1700
          Fax: 816-471-1701


NATIONAL BEEF: No Certiorari Petition Filed in "Schumacher" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
No petition for certiorari has been filed before the U.S.
Supreme Court regarding the dismissal of the matter,
"Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-
01027-CBK," which names as defendants National Beef Packing
Company, the beef processor owned by U.S. Premium Beef, LLC.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Dakota on July 1, 2002 against:

     -- Farmland National Beef Packing Co., L.P. (FNBPC or the
        predecessor to NBP [National Beef Packing Company LLC]),

     -- ConAgra Beef Co.,

     -- Tyson Foods, Inc., and

     -- Excel Corp.

The suit is seeking certification of a class of all persons who
sold cattle to the defendants for cash, or on a basis affected
by the cash price for cattle, during the period from April 2,
2001, through May 11, 2001, and for some period -- up to two
weeks -- thereafter.

The case was filed by three named plaintiffs on behalf of a
putative nationwide class that the plaintiffs estimate is
comprised of hundreds or thousands of members.

The complaint alleged that the defendants, in violation of the
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, knowingly used, without
correction or disclosure, incorrect and misleading boxed beef
price information generated by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to purchase cattle offered for sale by the
plaintiffs at a price substantially lower than was justified by
the actual and correct price of boxed beef during this period.

The plaintiffs also sought recovery against all the defendants
under a theory of unjust enrichment.  

The case was certified as a class-action matter in June 2004.
The plaintiffs claimed damages against FNBPC in the amount of
approximately $4.5 million plus prejudgment interest, attorneys'
fees and court costs.

The claim is subject to reduction in an unknown amount by the
number of class members who have opted out of the class.  Trial
began March 31, 2006.

On April 13, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
FNBPC, but against the other defendants.  The other defendants
have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.  

The plaintiffs did not appeal the verdict for the company but no
final judgment will be entered until after the other defendants'
appeal is decided.  

The Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment against the other
defendants and the District Court has dismissed the plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice.  

The deadline for filing a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme Court was on April 29, 2008 (Class Action Reporter,
April 8, 2008).

The only remaining issue in the case is the amount of court
costs to be assessed against the plaintiffs, according to the
company's July 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2008.

The suit is "Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-01027-CBK," filed in the U.S. District Court of South
Dakota, Judge Charles B. Kornmann, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Elizabeth J. Anderson, Esq.
         David F. Herr, Esq.
         Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand
         3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. 7th St.
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
         Phone: 612-672-8200
         Fax: 612-672-8397

Representing the defendants are:

         William H. Baumgartner, Jr., Esq.
         (wbaumgartner@sidley.com)
         Sidley Austin LLP
         One South Dearborn Street
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-853-7000
         Fax: 312-853-7036

              - and -

         Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq.
         McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO
         1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700, First Natl. Tower
         Omaha, NE 68102-1627
         Phone: 402-341-3070
         Fax: 402-341-0216


NEW BRUNSWICK RHA7: Sued Over "Faulty" Pathology Work
-----------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit was launched on July 22, 2008, against
New Brunswick's Regional Health Authority 7 for allegedly
providing faulty pathology work at the Miramichi Regional
Hospital, Canada.com reports.

The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of as many as 50 patients
who received treatment under pathologist Rajgopal Menon between
2004 and 2005, according to a statement of claim filed in the
Court of Queen's Bench.

The report says that the claim alleges the hospital authority
was negligent when it hired Dr. Menon in 1994 against the advice
of its vice-president of medical services at the time, Dr. John
MacKay.

The suit also contends that "an inadequate background check" was
performed and that the authority "ignored warnings and cautions"
from Dr. Menon's previous employer, the Saint John Hospital.  
The RHA is also accused of not acting quickly enough to respond
to possible inaccuracies in Dr. Menon's work.

Canada.com points out that Dr. Menon was responsible for
diagnostic testing of 24,000 pathology samples between 1995 and
2007.  An independent audit launched in December 2007 showed
discrepancies in 18% of 227 prostate and breast cancer cases
under Dr. Menon's care in 2004-2005.

The claim says that 6% of these cases were misdiagnosed.  In 41
cases, there was either "a miscalculation of the stage of
cancer, an incomplete protocol, or an incomplete examination."
Nine of the cases involved undetected cancers leading to
misdiagnoses, the claim further outlined.


NORTHERN SUNRISE: Faces California Lawsuit Over Defective Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Sunrise Estates is facing a class-action complaint
before the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Stanislaus, over allegations that it built 146 defective homes
in Turlock, Calif., CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Ann L. Brewster brings this suit on behalf of
all individuals residing within the City of Turlock, County of
Stanislaus, CA who own real property within the housing
development known as "Northern Sunrise Estates."

Ms. Brewster claims that the homes have had water damage inside
from, including but not limited to, cracked stucco, leaking
roofs, condensate lines, leaking windows, pipes and shower
assemblies.  The causes are typical in that water damage was
caused by failure to build stucco systems, roofs, windows,
condensate lines and pipes in conformity with building codes and
industry standards.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- damages according to proof;

     -- attorney's fees and costs of suit;

     -- interest thereon at the maximum legal rate;

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

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

The suit is "Ann L. Brewster, et al. v. Northern Sunrise
Estates, Case No. 62870," filed before the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Stanislaus.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Luke P. Ryan, Esq.
          Megan M. Chodzko, Esq.
          Roshni V. Patel, Esq.
          Shinnick & Ryan LLP
          1810 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101-2514
          Phone: 619-239-5900
          Fax: 619-239-1833


OIL COMPANIES: 27 Firms Made Hartford Village Sick, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Chemical and other oil companies are named in a class-
action complaint filed before the Third Judicial Circuit Court  
in Madison County, Illinois, claiming that the companies have
released a toxic plume of petroleum products that contaminated
the Village of Hartford's groundwater and sickened its
residents, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The defendants named in the complaint are:

     1. The Premcor Refining Group, Inc., f/k/a Clark Refining
        and Marketing Inc., f/k/a Clark Oil and Refining Corp.
        f/k/a AOC Acquisition, Inc.

     2. Apex Oil Co.

     3. Alberta Energy

     4. ARCO Pipeline

     5. Atlantic Richfield

     6. British Petroleum Pipeline

     7. British Petroleum Products of North America

     8. Buckeye Partners

     9. Shell Oil Producst United States

    10. Shell Pipeline LP

    11. Sinclair Oil

    12. St. Louis Pipeline

    13. Cotsco Corp.

    14. Cherokee Pipeline

    15. Conoco Phillips

    16. Encana Corp.

    17. Equilon

    18. Explorer Pipeline

    19. Illinois Petroleum Supply

    20. Koch Inc.

    21. Marathon Ashland

    22. TransCanada Energy Corp.

    23. TransCanada Petroleum Corp.

    24. Phillips Petroleum

    25. Shell Chemical

    26. Shell Oil

Gasoline vapors seeped into the basements and contaminated the
town's air, which has unsafe levels of benzene and other toxins,
and Hartford residents have suffered from vapor-related
respiratory illnesses and headaches, the suit states.

The Village of Hartford says the defendants are responsible for
4 million gallons of petroleum waste underneath the city and the
underground plume has decreased property values.

Hartford claims gasoline found in groundwater originated from by
leaking pipes that transport the petroleum from the defendants'
refinery to a terminal on the Mississippi River.  The pipes leak
about 360 barrels of petroleum every week underneath Hartford,
the suit states.

The plaintiffs request judgment for:

     -- economic damages for lost use of property, lost profits,
        diminution in value and loss of useful and quiet
        enjoyment of property, impairment of salability of
        property and losses related to residual toxic
        contamination and the stigma damage to property value,
        because of the actual or perceived health threats
        associated with living in proximity to the refinery
        and the toxic plume;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages
        as may be allowed by law;

     -- costs of suit, including, but not limited to
        discretionary court costs of this cause, and those costs           
        available under the law, as well as expert fees, as well
        as plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses
        and any other costs in this action;

     -- equitable and injunctive relief requiring defendants
        to clean up and remediate the toxic plume of gasoline in          
        a manner that the court determines will appropriately
        and safely remediate the environmental damage and abate
        the nuisance and trespass caused or maintained by
        defendants; and

     -- for any further orders and relief the court deems just
        and proper.

The suit is "Village of Hartford, et al. v. The Premcor Refining
Group Inc. et al, Case No. 08-L-637," filed before the Third
Judicial Circuit Court  in Madison County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Rene Basset Butler, Esq.
          Basset Law Office, PC
          16 West Lorena Avenue
          Wood River, IL 962095
          Phone: 618-254-0141


QUEST SOFTWARE: Court Denies Bid for Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California has substantially denied defendants' motions to
dismiss a securities fraud class action filed against Quest
Software Inc. (NasdaqGS: QSFT).

The suit, filed in October 2006, alleges that Quest Software,
Inc., and certain of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose and concealing
through various false statements and omissions that they did not
properly account for issuing stock option grants at prices which
were below fair market value on the actual grant date.

Consequently, the price of Quest stock was artificially inflated
during the period starting Nov. 9, 2001, through July 3, 2006.

In January 2007, the Court appointed Middlesex Retirement System
as lead class plaintiff and entered a stipulated order
establishing a pleading schedule for the plaintiffs' first
amended complaint and the defendants' response.  The first
amended class action complaint was filed with the Court in March
2007.

In October 2007, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
under Section 10(b) with respect to Michael Lambert, the
Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and the plaintiffs'
claims under Section 20(a) with respect to the Company and to
Doug Garn, the Company's president, which claims have been
dismissed without prejudice.  The Court also held in abeyance
the plaintiffs' claims under Section 20A pending their filing of
an amended complaint due Dec. 1, 2007.

Otherwise, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as
it related to the Company and other individual defendants.  

Subsequently, the Company and the individual defendants have
filed a motion with the U.S. District Court requesting
certification of the Court's order for interlocutory appellate
review.  This request was denied bu the court.

The plaintiff then filed a second amended class action complaint
in February 2008.

In March, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended class action complaint (Class Action Reporter, March 3,
2008).

Recently, the court has substantially denied defendants' motions
to dismiss plaintiff's class action complaint charging Quest and
certain of its officers and directors with securities fraud in
the intentional backdating of stock options.

The Court found that the facts alleged in the complaint strongly
infer that defendants knew or were deliberately reckless in not
knowing that Quest's SEC filings were false and misleading. The
Court noted that it was "highly implausible that Defendants were
not aware that their prolonged practice of backdating stock
options would have a material and misleading effect on their
public financial statements."

The Court's opinion stated that "Defendants knew that they were
backdating stock options and were certainly aware of the large
profits they were reaping from those options."  In dismissing
defendants' arguments as "convenient," the Court stated that
there were "red flags" and "warnings" which gave rise to the
inference that defendants "either knew or were deliberately
reckless in not knowing that their backdating and accounting
procedures rendered Quest's financial statements misstated" and
that "[a]t the very least, Defendants' actions show deliberate
recklessness."

The Court ordered discovery in the litigation to begin
"posthaste."

The suit is "Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest Software Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-06863-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
David O. Carter presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patricia I. Avery, Esq. (pavery@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper
          845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-451-9619

               - and -

          Blake M. Harper, Esq. (bmh@hulettharper.com)
          Hulett Harper Stewart
          550 West C Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-338-1133

Representing the defendants are:

          Koji F. Fukumura, Esq. (kfukumura@cooley.com)
          Cooley Godward Kronish
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Phone: 858-550-6000

               - and -

          Richard J. Cutler, Esq. (richard.cutler@dechert.com)
          AUSA - Office of US Attorney
          411 W 4th St., Ste. 8000
          Santa Ana, CA 92701-4599
          Phone: 714-338-3500


RICON CORP: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Misrepresented Wheelchair Lifts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricon Corp. and ABC Bus are facing a class-action complaint
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Manhattan
alleging the companies misrepresented their wheelchair lifts as
complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The lifts lack required side barriers, Fung Wah Bus
Transportation claims in the complaint.

Ricon Corp. -- http://www.riconcorp.com/-- is a recognized  
world leader in the design and manufacture of wheelchair
accessibility systems and solutions, including wheelchair lifts
and ramps for vans, buses, coaches and rail vehicles.


SLEEP INNOVATIONS: Recalls Pillows Containing Metal Fragments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sleep Innovations Inc., of West Long Branch, N.J., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 120,000 Cuddly Comfort Pillows.

The company said the pillows can contain small metal fragments
in the fiber-fill as a result of a mechanical breakdown in the
manufacturing process.  The metal fragments can cause abrasions
and cuts to consumers.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Cuddly Comfort Pillows were sold in packs of two.
Each pillow is 20' wide by 26' long, and they were sold in
white, violet, blue, pink and yellow colors.  Only pillows with
Registration Number PA-27156(CA) are included in the recall.  
The Registration Number and the words "Sleep Innovations" are
printed on the pillow's tag.

These recalled pillows were manufactured in China and were being
sold at certain Costco stores nationwide from February 2008
through June 2008 for about $20.

A picture of the recalled pillows is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08596.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
pillows and return them to any Costco store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Sleep Innovations toll-free
at 866-656-0610 between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.sleepinnovations.com/


SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces California Suit Over Increased Monthly Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California over
allegations that it increased its monthly service and repair
fees in February 2007 without contractually required notice,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Celia Pena-Ayala brings this action on behalf of
all persons or entities, other than the California state or
federal judiciary, who were customers of Sprint Nextel and
participants in its Equipment Service and Repair Program who did
not receive 30 days written notice of the program fee increase
in 2007 as provided in Sprint Nextel's Equipment Service and
Repair Program agreement.

The plaintiff requests that the court:

     -- determine that this action may be maintained as a class
        action pursuant to Rule 23 on behalf of the class
        defined and declare plaintiff to be a proper class
        representative and her counsel to be class counsel;

     -- find that Sprint Nextel collected fees in violation of
        the contract;

     -- award the class damages and interest stemming from the
        breach;

     -- award counsel for plaintiff and the class reasonable
        attorneys' fees, together with reimbursement of expenses
        and costs of suit as allowed by law; and

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

The suit is "Celia Pena-Ayala et al. v. Sprint Spectrum LP, Case
No. CV 08-04772 CAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Arthur T. Susman, Esq.
          Matthew T. Hurst, Esq. (Mhurst@shhllp.com)
          Susman Heffner & Hurst LLP
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-346-3466
          Fax: 312-346-2829


STONE ENERGY: Faces Nevada Lawsuit Over Bois d'Arc Energy Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Energy Corp. is facing a purported class action lawsuit
before the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, in connection
with the merger of Bois d'Arc Energy, Inc., with and into a
subsidiary of the company, according to the company's July 21,
2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On July 18, 2008, Comstock Resources Inc., a Nevada corporation,
was served with a summons and complaint in which Nevada-based
Bois d'Arc, its directors and certain of its officers, as well
as Comstock, Stone Energy Corp., and Stone Energy Offshore,
L.L.C. -- a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned
subsidiary of Stone (Merger Sub) -- have been named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit seeking
certification.  The suit is entitled, "Packard v. Allison, et
al., Case No. A567393."

The lawsuit was brought by Bois d'Arc stockholder Gail Packard,
on behalf of a putative class of other Bois d'Arc stockholders
and, among other things, seeks to enjoin the named defendants
from proceeding with the merger of Bois d'Arc with and into
Stone Energy Offshore with Stone Energy Offshore surviving the
merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Stone.  The suit also
seeks to have the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
April 30, 2008, by and among Stone, Stone Energy Offshore and
Bois d'Arc, rescinded, and seeks an award of monetary damages.

The plaintiff asserts that the decisions by Bois d'Arc's
directors and Comstock to approve the merger constituted
breaches of their respective fiduciary duties because they did
not engage in a fair process to ensure the highest possible
purchase price for Bois d'Arc's stockholders, did not properly
value Bois d'Arc, failed to disclose material facts regarding
the proposed merger, and did not protect against conflicts of
interest arising from the participation agreement, the parachute
gross-up payments, and the change in control and severance
arrangements.

Ms. Packard also contends that Stone and Stone Energy Offshore
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Bois
d'Arc's officers and directors.

Stone Energy Corp. -- http://www.stoneenergy.com/-- is an  
independent oil and natural gas company.  The Company is engaged
in the acquisition and subsequent exploration, development,
operation and production of oil and gas properties located
primarily in the Gulf of Mexico.  It also has operations in the
Rocky Mountain Basins and the Williston Basin.  It is also
engaged in an exploratory joint venture in Bohai Bay, China and
has begun acquiring leasehold interests in Appalachia.  The
Company's property base also contains multiple deep shelf
exploration opportunities in the GOM, which are defined as
prospects below 15,000 feet.  On June 29, 2007, the Company
completed the sale of substantially all of its Rocky Mountain
Region properties and related assets to Newfield Exploration
Company.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Wants Two Reese-Levering Lawsuits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. seeks the consolidation of two
purported class action lawsuits over alleged violations of the
Reese-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act of California.

The suit, "Garcia v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation," is a
cross-complaint, alleging a class action, filed before the
Superior Court of California Stanilaus County in January 2007.  
It claims that the company's post-repossession notice failed to
comply with the Reese-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act of
California.  

An additional cross-complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
California San Francisco County alleging a class action.  The
suit, "Aquilar and Smith v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation,"
was filed in February 2008 and contains similar allegations
claiming that the company's post-repossession notices failed to
comply with Reese-Levering.

The plaintiffs in the Aguilar matter are seeking injunctive
relief, restitution and disgorgement, as well as damages.  

The company has filed a petition to consolidate these cases as
they present nearly identical questions of law and fact,
according to the company's July 21, 2008 Form 10-K/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2008.

Toyota Motor Credit Corp. -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/--
provides a range of finance and insurance products to authorized
Toyota and Lexus vehicle dealers and, to a lesser extent, other
domestic and import franchise dealers and their customers in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico.  It also provides finance products to
commercial and industrial equipment dealers (industrial
equipment dealers) and their customers.  TMCC provides a range
of finance products, including retail financing, leasing, and
dealer financing to vehicle and industrial equipment dealers and
their customers.  It also provides marketing, underwriting, and
claims administration related to covering certain risks of
vehicle dealers and their customers.  TMCC also provide coverage
and related administrative services to its affiliates.  The
Company is wholly owned by Toyota Financial Services Americas
Corp. (TFSA).


VISEON INC: Proposes to Settle Securities Fraud Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed against Viseon, Inc. (Ticker:
VSNI.OB) before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, have entered into a
Stipulation with defendants to resolve the matter.

In April 2007, the Florida law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP
filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Viseon between Nov. 3, 2004, and May 15, 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, April 24, 2007).

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  During the class period, Viseon issued a series of
statements relating to Viseon's next generation VisiFone
broadband video phone.

Viseon claimed to have developed the VisiFone II, the next
generation of consumer telephony.  Viseon failed to disclose to
the public that the development of the VisiFone II was only
partially completed, and that it was not ready for production.

The complaint alleges that Viseon and its officers were well
aware of production problems in connection with the VisiFone II.

On May 15, 2006, Viseon announced in a public filing that
minimal revenue was recorded on the deployment of units of next
generation VisiFones to carriers since the deployments continued
to be for trial-purposes only.  Viseon's stock price fell as a
result of this announcement.

The Plaintiffs in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June 6,
2008, for themselves and on behalf of the Settlement Class
Members, have entered into a Stipulation with the Defendants to
resolve the Litigation.

Vianale & Vianale further advised plaintiffs that, pursuant to
the Preliminary Order in Connection with Settlement Proceedings
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, dated July 2, 2008, a hearing will be held before the
Honorable Reed O'Connor, United States District Judge, United
States Courthouse, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas,
Courtroom 1505, at 1:00 p.m., on October 14, 2008 to determine:

     (1) finally whether this Litigation satisfies the
         applicable prerequisites for class action treatment
         under Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
         Procedure;

     (2) whether the terms of the Stipulation, including the
         Settlement Fund consisting of $550,000.00 plus accrued
         interest should be approved as fair, just, reasonable,
         and adequate to Class Members;

     (3) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement
         proceeds is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate;

     (4) whether to enter a Bar Order and approve the Releases
         by and in favor of the Class Members, as described in
         the Stipulation;

     (5) whether the application by Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel for
         an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
         expenses should be approved; and

     (6) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with
         prejudice in accordance with the terms of the proposed
         Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.

The deadline to file for exclusion is on September 24, 2008. The
deadline to file claims is on November 19, 2008.

The suit is "William Drake III, et al. v. John C. Harris, et
al., Case No. 3:07-CV-0631-O," filed in the the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll Free)
                 561-392-4750
          Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.com/


WAL-MART STORES: Responds to "Braden" Excessive Fee Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has filed its response to allegations
asserted in the purported class action lawsuit, "Braden v. Wal-
Mart Stores Inc et al., Case No. 6:2008cv03109," which was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri and claims that the company violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Rebecca Moore writes for
Planadviser.com.

In response to allegations of excessive fees in its 401(k) plan,
Wal-Mart said ERISA does not require fiduciaries to select the
cheapest option.

In a 35-page document obtained by Planadviser.com, Wal-Mart
retorted that disclosures about such things as how investments
options were selected or revenue sharing arrangements are
"demonstrably immaterial to any investment decision faced by
participants."

According to a Workforce Management news report, Wal-Mart added
that participant Jeremy Braden, who filed the suit, did not
suggest that he would have invested his 401(k) assets
differently if such disclosures were provided.

The retail giant called the employees' allegations little more
than "mere speculation" and lacking of any substance, the WM
news report said.

In addition, Wal-Mart accused the suit of disregarding the
relation of the fees to the overall costs of administering the
plan and ignoring "the economics of participant directed
individual account plans."

The company pointed out that the ERISA does not call for plan
fiduciaries to consider only price when selecting investment
options or select the least expensive options, according to
Planadviser.com.

                        Case Background

According to a previous Planadviser.com report, the plaintiff,
Mr. Braden, is a Missouri Wal-Mart employee and participant in
the company's 401(k) plan (Class Action Reporter, April 23,
2008).

Planadviser.com cited a news report on LawyersandSettlements.com
as saying that Mr. Braden claims Wal-Mart cost participants
$60 million in unnecessary expenses over six years by offering
what were expensive mutual funds and not their less expensive
alternatives.

Mr. Braden's complaint, according to Planadviser.com, alleges
that all plan investment options were retail class shares, which
historically carry higher fees than institutional class shares,
and that plan trustee Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. received revenue
sharing and other unspecified payments without providing any
services.

LawyersandSettlements.com noted that the suit, which requests
class action certification, seeks to represent current or former
employees who participated in, or benefited from the plan since
January 31, 2002.  It is estimated that more than one million
people could be affected.

According to the complaint, Wal-Mart failed to inform employees
about the impact that the allegedly excessive fees would have on
their savings, why particular investments options were chosen,
or that less expensive options were available.

The suit is "Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No.
6:2008cv03109," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Judge Gary A. Fenner, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          (gcappio@KellerRohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave., #3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900

               - and -

          William R. Robb, Esq.
          Aleshire Robb, P.C.
          2847 Ingram Mill Rd., Suite A-102
          Springfield, MO 65804
          Phone: 417-869-3737
          Fax: 417-869-5678
          e-mail: arslaw@arslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Morgan D. Hodgson, Esq. (mhodgson@steptoe.com)
          Steptoe & Johnson LLP
          1330 Connecticute Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-429-6219
          Fax: 202-261-9821

               - and -

          Nancy Jo Morales Gonzalez, Esq. (ngonzalez@shb.com)
          Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
          Phone: 816-474-6550
          Fax: 816-421-5547


WELLCARE HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
WellCare Health Plans, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, according to the company's
July 21, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Initially, two putative class action suits, entitled, "Eastwood
Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Farha, et al.," and "Hutton v. WellCare
Health Plans, Inc. et al.," were filed on Oct. 26, 2007, and on
Nov. 2, 2007, respectively.

These suits were filed against the company; its former chairman
and chief executive officer, Todd Farha; and its former senior
vice president and chief financial officer, Paul Behrens.  
Messrs. Farha and Behrens were also officers of various
subsidiaries of the company.  

The Eastwood Enterprises complaint alleges that the defendants
materially misstated the company's reported financial condition
by, among other things, purportedly overstating revenue and
understating expenses in amounts unspecified in the pleading in
violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  

The Hutton complaint alleges that various public statements
supposedly issued by defendants were materially misleading
because they failed to disclose that the company was purportedly
operating its business in a potentially illegal and improper
manner in violation of applicable federal guidelines and
regulations.  It also asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  

Both complaints seek, among other things, certification as a
class action and damages.  The two actions were consolidated,
and various parties and law firms filed motions seeking to be
designated as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  

In an order issued on March 11, 2008, the Court appointed a
group of five public pension funds from New Mexico, Louisiana
and Chicago (Public Pension Fund Group) as lead plaintiffs.  

The Court has directed that the Lead Plaintiffs file a
consolidated amended complaint, which will become the operative
pleading in the case, no later than Sept. 9, 2008, to which the
defendants must respond within 60 days thereafter.  

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
regulatory filing.

The suit is "Eastwood Enterprises, LLC v. Farha et al., Case No.
8:07-cv-01940-SCB-MSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Judge Susan C. Bucklew, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David C. Cimo, Esq. (dcimo@gjb-law.com)
          Genovese, Joblove & Battista, PA
          44th Floor, 100 SE 2nd St
          Miami, FL 33131-2311
          Phone: 305-349-2300
          Fax: 305-349-2310

               - and -

          Laura Gundersheim, Esq. (LauraG@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1400
          Fax: 212-554-1444

Representing the defendants are:

          Laura E. Besvinick, Esq. (lbesvinick@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan & Hartson, LLP
          Suite 1900, 1111 Brickell Ave.
          Miami, FL 33131-3142
          Phone: 305-459-6622
          Fax: 305-459-6550

               - and -

          Ronald Sturgis Holliday, Esq.
          (ronald.holliday@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US, LLP
          Suite 2200, 100 N. Tampa Street
          Tampa, FL 33602-5809
          Phone: 813-229-2111
          Fax: 813-371-1160





                            *********

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  * * *