CAR_Public/080731.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, July 31, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 151

                            Headlines

APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Bader" Suit in Calif.
APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Third Amended Complaint in "Birdsong"
APPLE INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Certain Claims in "Branning"
APPLE INC: Calif. Court Yet to Approve Settlement in "Gordon"
AT&T INC: Agreement Reached in Pension Calculation Lawsuit

BASHAS': Court Gives Workers' Pay Discrimination Suit Go Signal
BRISTOL-MYERS: N.Y. Court Says Amendola Suit Not A Class Action
BROOKS AUTOMATION: $7.75-Mln. Settlement Hearing Set on Oct. 2
CAVALIER HOMES: Faces La. Suits Over Formaldehyde Contamination
MATTEL INC: Still Faces Lead Contaminated Toys Suits in Canada

MAYTAG: Whirlpool Files Lawsuit Over Retiree Benefits
MCKESSON CORP: Amended Complaint Adds Claim in SFHP Lawsuit
MERCK & CO: Ontario Court Certifies Another Class of Vioxx Users
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
RADIOSHACK: Calif. Court Denies Review Petition in "Brookler"

SPRINT NEXTEL: California Court Awards Customers $18.3 Million
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Brokerage Antitrust Suit Dismissal Appealed
SUNSMART INC: Short-Changes Gasoline Buyers, Lawsuit Says
TRAVELERS COS: Reaches Settlement in Minn. Securities Fraud Suit
WACHOVIA: Prospective Class to Decide on Proper Legal Process

WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wash. Court Certifies ERISA Pension Plan Suit

* Study Says Securities Cases Rise Due to Subprime/Credit Crisis


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Brower Piven Files Texas Securities Fraud Suit
CIT GROUP: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
FIFTH THIRD: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
HEALTHWAYS INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Tennessee Securities Suit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Charles Johnson Files Securities Suit in N.Y.



                           *********


APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Bader" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs are appealing a judgment by the Santa Clara
County Superior Court that completely dismissed a purported
class action lawsuit entitled, "Bader v. Anderson, et al.,"
filed against Apple, Inc.

On May 19, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed the purported
shareholder derivative action with the Santa Clara County
Superior Court, naming as defendants Apple, each of its then
current executive officers, and certain members of its board of
directors.

The suit is asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
material misstatements and omissions and violations of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition).

The lead plaintiff alleged that the company's March 14, 2005
proxy statement was false and misleading for failure to disclose
certain information relating to the Apple Computer, Inc.
Performance Bonus Plan, which was approved by shareholders at
the annual meeting held on April 21, 2005.

The lead plaintiff, who brought the suit also on the company's
behalf, made no demand on the Board of Directors, stating that
any demand is excused.  The lead plaintiff also sought
injunctive and other relief for purported injury to the company.

On July 27, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging that, in addition to the purported derivative claims,
adoption of the bonus plan and distribution of the proxy
statement describing that plan also inflicted injury on her
directly as an individual shareholder.

On Jan. 10, 2006, the Court sustained the defendants' demurrer
to the amended complaint, with leave to amend.  The plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint on Feb. 7, 2006, and the
company filed another demurrer.

After a hearing on June 13, 2006, the Court sustained the
demurrer without leave to amend as to the non-director officers
and with leave to amend as to the directors.

On July 24, 2006, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint,
which purported to bring claims derivatively as well as directly
on behalf of a class of common stockholders who have been or
will be harmed by virtue of the allegedly misleading proxy
statement.

In addition to reasserting prior causes of action, the third
amended complaint included a claim that the company violated the
terms of the plan, and a claim for waste related to restricted
stock unit grants to certain officers in 2003 and 2004 and an
option grant to the company's chief executive officer in January
2000.

The company filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint.  On
Jan. 30, 2007, the Court sustained the company's demurrer with
leave to amend.

On May 8, 2007, the plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint.
The company filed a demurrer to the fourth amended complaint,
which the court sustained, without leave to amend, on Oct. 12,
2007.

On Oct. 25, 2007, the Court entered a final judgment in favor of
the defendant and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.

On Nov. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,
according to the company's July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 28, 2008.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Third Amended Complaint in "Birdsong"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted, with prejudice, a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint in a purported class action suit against Apple, Inc.,
which alleges that defects in the company's iPod products cause
hearing loss to users.

The action, entitled, "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc.,"
specifically alleges that the company's iPod music players, and
the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective
in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the
risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users.

The Birdsong Action was initially filed on Jan. 30, 2006, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.  It
asserts causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana
class of iPod purchasers.

A similar action, "Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed
on Jan. 31, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California asserting California causes of action on
behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the
four-year period before Jan. 31, 2006.

The Birdsong Action was transferred to the U.S. District Court
with the Northern District of California, and the Patterson
Action was dismissed.

An amended complaint was subsequently filed in "Birdsong,"
dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California
law-based claims equivalent to those in "Patterson."

After the company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2006, the
plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second
amended complaint on Jan. 16, 2007.

That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches
of implied and express warranties, violations of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false
advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent
misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a
Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-
class.

On March 1, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
California law-based claims, which motion was heard on June 4,
2007.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the Court granted this request, with leave to
amend the complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on Jan. 11, 2008,
which the company again sought to have dismissed.

On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice, according to
the company's July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 28, 2008.

The suit is "Birdsong v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv-02280-JW,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Judge James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. (rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com)
          Neblett, Beard & Arsenault
          P.O. Box 1190, 2220 Bonaventure Court
          Alexandria, LA 71309
          Phone: 318-487-9874
          Fax: 318-561-2591

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq. (phil@bohrerlaw.com)
          Bohrer Law Firm
          8712 Jefferson Hwy., Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: 225-925-5297
          Fax: 225-231-7000

Representing the company is:

          James Alfred Lico, Esq. (Jlico@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-439-1400
          Fax: 415-439-1500


APPLE INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Certain Claims in "Branning"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County Superior Court dismissed certain claims
in a purported class action suit against Apple Computer, Inc.,
which alleges that the company violated California's trade laws,
according to the company's July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 28, 2008.

The plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action suit
styled, "Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," before the
San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005.

The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business
Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly
unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to,
allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor
warranties.

The plaintiffs also brought causes of action for
misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and
violation of the Song Beverly Act.  They requested unspecified
damages and other relief.

On May 2, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action
including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act
(California Business and Professions Code 16700 et seq.), and a
claim for false advertising.

On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the
court sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005.  The court
granted the plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended
complaint on Dec. 29, 2005.

The plaintiffs' amended complaint adds three additional
plaintiffs and alleges many of the same factual claims as the
previous complaints such as alleged selling of used equipment as
new, alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts
for the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the
opening of the Apple Retail stores.

The plaintiffs continue to assert causes of action for unfair
competition (17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract,
misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright
Act and allege new causes of action for fraud, conversion and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on
Jan. 31, 2006, which the court sustained on March 3, 2006, on 16
of 17 causes of action.

The plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on Sept. 21,
2006.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  On
Nov. 30, 2007, it filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
which the court denied.

The plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on March 19,
2008, and a Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on April 1.  The
company filed an answer to the Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint
on April 18, 2008.

The Court has scheduled a class certification hearing on the
purported consumer class for Oct. 17, 2008.

The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings for an
order dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim based upon the statute
of limitations, which was granted by the Court on June 24, 2008,
with leave to amend.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.


APPLE INC: Calif. Court Yet to Approve Settlement in "Gordon"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to grant final approval to the purported class action
suit, "Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.," a purported consumer
fraud class action suit over problems with Apple, Inc.'s 65W
Power Adapters for iBooks and Powerbooks.

The suit is "Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.," and was filed on
Aug. 31, 2006, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of
consumers who purchased 65W Power Adapters for iBooks and
Powerbooks between November 2002 and the present.

The complaint alleges various problems with the 65W Adapter,
including fraying, sparking and premature failure.  The
plaintiffs allege violations of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act and breach of warranties.

The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.  The company
filed an answer on Oct. 20, 2006, denying the material
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.

According to the company's latest update on the matter, it has
reached a settlement of the suit and the parties have received
preliminary court approval for the agreement.  The parties await
final court approval for the settlement, according to the
company's July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 28, 2008.

The suit is "Gordon v. Apple Computer Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv-
05358-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Mel E. Lifshitz, Esq. (lifshitz@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414
          Fax: 212-779-3218

Representing the defendants is:

          Andrew David Muhlbach, Esq. (amuhlbach@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster
          425 Market Street, 32nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-7000
          Fax: 415-268-7522


AT&T INC: Agreement Reached in Pension Calculation Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for a class of participants in the AT&T Pension Plan
announced an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit filed in
2003 over claims that AT&T miscalculated the pension benefits
owed to some non-bargained (management) retirees of certain AT&T
companies who retired under a 2000 early retirement window known
as the Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program.

Under the deal, the AT&T Pension Plan will pay a total of
$16 million to settle the suit.

Specifically, the federal court lawsuit in Washington, D.C.,
"Wagener, et al. v. SBC Pension Benefit Plan-NonBargained
Program, Civ. Action No. 03-00769 (D.D.C.) (RCL)," alleged that
the Plan (since renamed the AT&T Pension Plan), incorrectly
omitted pay earned for work performed during an averaging period
used as one component in the calculation of retirees' pensions
for retirees entitled to one of several pension options.

The Plan denied liability and contended that the omission of the
pay in question was authorized and consistent with the terms of
the Plan.

In 2004, the district court agreed that the Plan's
interpretation was reasonable and dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims.

The plaintiffs appealed and in 2005 the District of Columbia
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the case and
reinstated the plaintiffs' claims.

Following remand, the district court certified the case as a
class action and for over two years, the parties engaged in
substantial discovery, filed and briefed various motions and
filed amended pleadings.  Near the completion of the discovery
process, the parties reached an agreement on the terms of a
settlement.

After the deduction of notice costs, and attorneys' fees and
compensation for the named plaintiffs in amounts to be
determined by the Court, the net settlement benefit will be
distributed to the approximately 3,800 plan participant class
members and their beneficiaries on a pro rata basis (using the
Plan's fall 2001 estimates of participants' benefits compared to
the overall amount paid to those participants as a group).

The net average additional payment, calculated as a lump sum,
that each plan participant class member and his or her
beneficiaries is expected to receive is approximately $2,900.00.

The vast majority of participants and their beneficiaries will
be able to elect to receive a tax-qualified additional lump sum
payment.  A small number of participants and their
beneficiaries, those who originally received tax-qualified
annuities, will have the option of taking an increased monthly
annuity or a one-time qualified lump sum payment. About 10% of
plan participant class members or their beneficiaries will
receive a non-tax qualified lump sum.

To become effective, the agreement must be both preliminarily
and finally approved by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

As part of the agreement, a second case, pending in the Western
District of Texas, "Calder, et al. v. AT&T, Inc., et al, 07-cv-
00340-XR (W.D. Tex.)," brought on behalf of the class raising
other claims seeking the same relief, will also be dismissed
with prejudice.

Eli Gottesdiener, Esq., one of the attorneys for plaintiffs and
the class, hailed the settlement as an "excellent result given
the very real risk the class could have ended up with no
additional benefits had we litigated the case to judgment.
Frankly, these are difficult cases to win."

More details with regard to the SBC EPR Class Action Settlement
is available at http://www.EPRClassAction.com/

The plaintiffs and the class are represented by:

          Eli Gottesdiener, Esq.
          Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC
          1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036

               - and -

          Marc I. Machiz, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1 South Broad Street, Suite 1850
          Philadelphia, PA  19107


BASHAS': Court Gives Workers' Pay Discrimination Suit Go Signal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Current and former workers of the Bashas' food chain may be able
to pursue their claims of pay discrimination together, a federal
appeals court ruled earlier this week, East Valley Tribune
reports.

The report says that in a unanimous decision, the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals said the worker who charged that the
Chandler-based grocer paid Hispanic workers less than white
counterparts presented "extensive evidence" that the chain's
"discriminatory pay practices affected all members of the
proposed class."  That means the three workers who filed the
original lawsuit in 2003 may be entitled to represent anyone
affected.

The ruling does not address the merits of the suit's claim that
workers at Food City stores, who are predominantly Hispanic,
were paid less in the 1990s than employees at the Bashas' and
A.J.'s stores owned by the same chain, most of whom are white,
according to East Valley Tribune.

However, the report notes, it does direct U.S. District Judge
Robert Broomfield to consider whether the plaintiffs should be
able to collect damages for past practices for any Hispanic
employee who was paid less.

Jocelyn Larkin, Esq., who represents the workers, told East
Valley that class-action status would be significant because it
makes more economic sense to have a single lawsuit for damages
to the thousands of affected workers rather than having to hire
attorneys and bring in economic experts for each of them, given
that the losses for some were as little as $300 a year.

Stephanie Quincy, Esq., who represents the chain, said Bashas'
believes that it has done nothing wrong.  She also said the
lawsuit is simply one of a series of efforts by the United Food
and Commercial Workers to force the chain to unionize.

The report points out that fewer than 1,000 of the company's
approximately 14,000 workers belong to the union, solely because
they were working for union-represented stores subsequently
acquired by Bashas'.

Ms. Larkin, however, contends that the issue has nothing to do
with unionization.


BRISTOL-MYERS: N.Y. Court Says Amendola Suit Not A Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued a decision that renders the case, entitled "Beth Amendola
v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., Case No. 07-CV-6088," a
non-class action lawsuit.

The putative class action complaint was filed against Bristol-
Myers by Beth Amendola, a former sales representative of the
company, on June 28, 2007.  The plaintiffs allege that the
company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by, among
other things, not paying overtime compensation to her and a
putative class of similarly situated sales employees.

On June 5, 2008, the Court issued a decision that renders the
case a non-class action lawsuit, according to the company's
July 24, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Beth Amendola v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et
al., Case No. 07-CV-6088," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Denise L. Cote,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Jonathan S. Abady, Esq. (jabady@ecbalaw.com)
          Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP
          75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Flr.
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-763-5000
          Fax: 212-763-5001

Representing the defendant is:

          Joshua F. Alloy, Esq. (jalloy@proskauer.com)
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-969-3000
          Fax: 212-969-2900


BROOKS AUTOMATION: $7.75-Mln. Settlement Hearing Set on Oct. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will hold a hearing on October 2, 2008, at 2:30
p.m., to consider final approval of the $7.75-million settlement
in the class action lawsuit filed against Brooks Automation,
Inc., in June 2006 in connection with the company's historical
stock option granting practices and related accounting.

The original complaint alleges that defendants Brooks Automation
and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by publicly
issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding
the company's business and financial results, thus causing
Brooks' shares to trade at artificially inflated prices (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2007.

Early this year, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss, and allowed the lead
plaintiff's motion to add a named plaintiff.

In particular, the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against
individual defendants Joseph Martin and Ellen Richstone were
dismissed, and the Section 11 claims against Mr. Martin and
defendants Robert Woodbury and Edward Grady were dismissed.
Also, the Section 11 claims against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
were dismissed, and therefore dismissed entirely.

The dismissal motions were denied as to the remaining claims in
the consolidated amended complaint.

On Jan. 22, 2008, the plaintiffs in the action filed a motion
for class certification for the matter, which is captioned
"James R. Shaw v. Brooks Automation, Inc. et al." and is pending
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2008).

In June, Brooks Automation reached a settlement in the
consolidated securities class action (Class Action Reporter,
June 26, 2008).

The terms of the recent settlement, which include no admission
of liability or wrong doing by Brooks, provide for a full and
complete release of all claims in the litigation and a payment
of $7.75 million into a settlement fund, pending final
documentation and approval by the Court of a plan of
distribution.  There will be no earnings or cash effect of this
settlement as the $7.75 million will be paid by the company's
liability insurers.

Once approved, the settlement will provide a full release of
Brooks and the other named defendants in connection with the
allegations raised in the class action, and it will resolve all
class action litigation pending against the company and against
its present and former officers and directors.

The fairness hearing will be held before the Honorable Rya W.
Zobel of the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts at Courtroom 12 of the John Joseph Moakley Federal
Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, in Boston, Massachusetts, at 2:30
p.m., on October 2, 2008, to determine whether:

     (i) the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court
         as fair, reasonable, and adequate,

    (ii) the Plan of Allocation should be approved, and

   (iii) the claims against the defendants should be dismissed
         with prejudice.

At the hearing, the Court will also consider comments concerning
Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.  If approved, the settlement would
end this litigation in its entirety.

The suit is "James R. Shaw v. Brooks Automation, Inc., et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Rya W. Zobel presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Peter A. Pease, Esq. (ppease@bermanesq.com)
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-542-8300
         Fax: 617-542-1194

              - and -

         Daniel P. Chiplock, Esq. (dchiplock@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-355-9500
         Fax: 212-355-9592

Representing the defendants are:

         Randall W. Bodner, Esq. (rbodner@ropesgray.com)
         Ropes & Gray LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7000 x7776
         Fax: 617-951-7050

              - and -

         Joseph P. Messina, Esq. (jpmessina@mintz.com)
         Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC
         One Financial Center
         Boston, MA 02111
         Phone: 617-542-6000
         Fax: 617-542-2241


CAVALIER HOMES: Faces La. Suits Over Formaldehyde Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cavalier Home Builders, LLC, a wholly owed subsidiary of
Cavalier Homes Inc., is facing several purported class action
lawsuits in Louisiana over manufactured homes, mobile homes or
travel trailers that had harmful levels of formaldehyde,
according to the company's July 24, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 28, 2008.

In the first quarter of 2008, Cavalier Home Builders was named a
defendant in an action entitled, "In Re: FEMA Trailer
Formaldehyde Product Liability Litigation, Docket Number MDL
1873," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

In the second quarter of 2008, Cavalier Homes and Cavalier Home
Builders were named defendants in another formaldehyde-related
action styled, "Stephanie G. Pujol, Individually and as
Representative of Similarly Situated Persons vs. The United
States of America, Docket No. 08-3217," which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Also in the second quarter, Cavalier Homes was named defendant
in a third formaldehyde-related action styled, "Keith Johnson,
ET AL vs. United States of America, ET AL, Case Number 08-3602 N
(4)," which was filed in the same district court.

Each of the three class action suits are brought on behalf of
those persons residing or living in manufactured homes, mobile
homes or travel trailers along the Gulf Coast of the United
States.

The plaintiffs allege that they are being subjected to harmful
levels of formaldehyde while residing in these housing units.

Cavalier Homes, Inc. -- http://www.cavalierhomebuilders.com/--
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the production, sale and
financing of manufactured homes.  Cavalier has two business
segments: home manufacturing and financial services.  Under the
home manufacturing segment, the Company designs and manufactures
a range of low- to medium-priced homes in the South Central and
South Atlantic regions of the U.S.  Through the financial
services segment, Cavalier offers retail installment sale
financing and related insurance products primarily for
manufactured homes sold through its dealer network.


MATTEL INC: Still Faces Lead Contaminated Toys Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc., continues to face several product liability
lawsuits in Canadian courts in connection with lead contaminated
toys, according to the company's July 24, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Since Sept. 26, 2007, eight proposed class action complaints
have been filed in the provincial superior courts of these
Canadian provinces:

   -- British Columbia (Trainor v. Fisher-Price, filed Sept. 26,
      2007);

   -- Alberta (Cairns v. Fisher-Price, filed Sept. 26, 2007);

   -- Saskatchewan (Sharp v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 26,
      2007);

   -- Quebec (El-Mousfi v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 27, 2007,
      and Fortier v. Mattel Canada, filed Oct. 10, 2007);

   -- Ontario (Wiggins v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 28, 2007);

   -- New Brunswick (Travis v. Fisher-Price, filed Sept. 28,
      2007); and

   -- Manitoba (Close v. Fisher-Price, filed Oct. 3, 2007).

Mattel, Fisher-Price and Mattel Canada are defendants in all of
the actions, and Fisher-Price Canada is a defendant in two (El-
Mousfi and Wiggins).

All but one of the cases seek certification of both a class of
residents of that province and a class of all other residents of
Canada outside the province where the action was filed.

The classes are generally defined similarly in all of the
actions to include both purchasers of the toys recalled by
Mattel and Fisher-Price in August and September 2007 and
children, either directly or through their parents as "next
friends," who have had contact with those toys.

The actions in Canada generally allege that the defendants were
negligent in allowing their products to be manufactured and sold
with lead paint on the toys and negligent in the design of the
toys with small magnets, which led to the sale of defective
products.

The cases typically state claims in four categories:

       1. production of a defective product;

       2. misrepresentations;

       3. negligence; and

       4. violations of consumer protection statutes.

The plaintiffs generally seek general and special damages,
damages in the amount of money paid for testing of children
based on alleged exposure to lead, restitution of any amount of
money paid for replacing recalled toys, disgorgement of benefits
resulting from recalled toys, aggravated and punitive damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an award of
litigation costs and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions except one do not specify
the amount of damages sought.  In the Ontario action (Wiggins),
the plaintiff demands general damages of CDN$75 million and
special damages of CDN$150 million, in addition to the other
remedies.

In November 2007, the class action suit commenced by Mr. Fortier
was voluntarily dismissed.

All of the actions in Canada are at a preliminary stage.

Mattel, Inc. -- http://www.mattel.com/-- designs, manufactures
and markets a variety of toy products worldwide through sales to
its customers and directly to consumers.


MAYTAG: Whirlpool Files Lawsuit Over Retiree Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corp. has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa in Des Moines seeking to cut
the medical benefits of thousands of retired Maytag workers,
International Herald Tribune reports.

The lawsuit, dated July 24, 2008, and filed as a class action
complaint, names the international and local chapters of the
United Auto Workers union and three retired Maytag workers as
representatives of the class.

Whirlpool said it provides benefits to about 3,000 retired
Maytag workers, surviving spouses and dependents.

The report recounts that Whirlpool bought rival Maytag in 2006
for $1.7 billion and assumed the negotiated union contracts and
related benefit plans.  Whirlpool closed the Maytag corporate
headquarters in Newton and a laundry equipment factory in the
town of about 15,000 located 30 miles (50 kilometers) east of
Des Moines.  About 1,800 workers lost their jobs.

Whirlpool said in the lawsuit that a contract negotiated between
the union and Maytag in 2004 expires on July 31, 2008, the
report notes.  Whirlpool said it plans to change the retiree
medical benefits on Jan. 1, 2009, to bring the benefits in line
with the same plan that more than 10,000 current employees,
retirees and their dependents have.

Company spokeswoman Monica Teague told IHT that the company will
not discuss benefit changes until the workers are first
informed.  She said letters are going out to the retirees.

The company said in court documents that on July 1 during a
collective bargaining negotiating session, it proposed modifying
retirees' medical benefits and the union refused to discuss the
issue.  The union claimed the company could not modify the
retirees' medical benefits, the lawsuit said.

The UAW did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

IHT cites notes that Whirlpool said in court documents that the
union has aggressively fought efforts by other companies to
change retiree benefits claiming they violate collective
bargaining agreements.

Whirlpool asked the court to declare the benefits expired on
July 31 and that the company has the right to change the medical
benefits on Jan. 1, 2009.


MCKESSON CORP: Amended Complaint Adds Claim in SFHP Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported class action
lawsuit entitled, "San Francisco Health Plan et al. v. McKesson
Corporation, Civil Action No. 08-CA-10843-NG."

The class action suit was filed on May 20, 2008, by the San
Francisco Health Plan on behalf of itself and a purported class
of political subdivisions in the State of California and by the
San Francisco City Attorney on behalf of the "People of the
State of California" in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against the Company as the sole defendant,
alleging violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the California Cartwright Act, California
False Claims Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law.  The
suit seeks damages, treble damages, civil penalties,
restitution, interest and attorneys' fees, all in unspecified
amounts.

The suit asserts that McKesson wrongfully increased the so-
called WAC to AWP (Wholesale Acquisition Cost to Average
Wholesale Price) markup factor for hundreds of brand-name
prescription pharmaceuticals through a scheme beginning in late
2001, thereby causing SFHP and members of the class, whose
payments for pharmaceuticals are directly tied to AWP, to make
hundreds of million of dollars of excess payments for those
pharmaceuticals (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008).

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether AWPs published are used as a contractual
         benchmark for payments by third-party payors for drugs;

     (b) whether defendants engaged in a contract, combination,
         and conspiracy to fix or raise the WAC-to-AWP markup
         and the ultimate AWPs or cash price used by the
         plaintiffs and other class members as the basis for
         reimbursement for the drugs that are the subject of the
         complaint;

     (c) whether the defendants caused the prices of the subject
         drugs to be sold to class members at artificially high
         and noncompetitive levels;

     (d) whether defendants engaged in a course of conduct that
         improperly inflated the WAC-to-AWP markup and the
         ultimate AWPs or cash price used by the plaintiffs and
         other class members as the basis for reimbursement;

     (e) whether McKesson engaged in a pattern of deceptive
         and fraudulent activity intended to defraud the
         plaintiffs and other class members;

     (f) whether McKesson formed an enterprise for the purpose
         of carrying out the 5% Scheme;

     (g) whether McKesson used the U.S. mails and interstate
         wire facilities to carry out the 5% Scheme;

     (h) whether the plaintiffs and other class members were
         injured by McKesson's conduct, and if so, the
         appropriate measure of damages for class members; and

     (i) whether the defendants' conduct violated the RICO and
         Cartwright statutes.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order granting approval of this case as a proper
        class action and naming the plaintiffs as proper
        class representative;

     -- actual and treble damages and costs to the plaintiffs
        and the class pursuant to the federal RICO Act, 18 USC
        Section 1964(c); and the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. &
        Prof. Code Section 16750(a); actual and treble damages
        and costs to SHFP and to the State of California
        pursuant to the California False Claims Act, Cal. Gov.
        Code Section 12651(a);

     -- civil penalties of $10,000 for each false claim
        submitted as a result of the Scheme, as well as civil
        penalties of $2,500 to the people for each violation of
        the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
        Section 17200 et seq.;

     -- attorney's fees pursuant to 18 USC Section 1964(c); Cal.
        Bus. & Prof. Code Section 16750(a); Cal. Gov. Code
        Section 12651(a); and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section
        1021.5;

     -- interest as provided by law; and

     -- such other legal or equitable relief as the court may
        deem appropriate.

On July 3, 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the San
Francisco action adding a claim for tortious interference,
according to the company's July 24, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "San Francisco Health Plan et al. v. McKesson Corp.,
Civil Action No. 08-CA-10843-NG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Danny Chou, Esq. (danny.chou@sfgov.org)
          San Francisco City Attorney's Office
          1390 Market Street, 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: 415-554-3807
          Fax: 415-554-3985

Representing the defendants is:

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


MERCK & CO: Ontario Court Certifies Another Class of Vioxx Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian court has certified another class-action lawsuit
against Merck & Co. over its former painkiller Vioxx, for which
the U.S. drug maker is doling out billions of dollars to cover
American settlements, the International Herald Tribune reports.

According to the report, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
has certified a case involving Vioxx users outside the Canadian
provinces of Quebec and Saskatchewan, where judges have already
certified class-action personal injury cases.  Vioxx was
developed at a Merck research facility in Quebec.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on on June 3, 2008,
Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. has learned that the Saskatchewan Court
of Queen's Bench has decided to expand the scope of previously
certified class proceedings in a Vioxx lawsuit from a class
primarily consisting of Saskatchewan residents to a class of
Canadian residents outside Quebec who purchased or ingested
Vioxx.

IHT notes that the latest class-action certification encompasses
several thousand patients, according to plaintiffs attorney
Bonnie Tough, who did not have an exact figure.  She said the
cases date back to the fall of 2004.

"We're thrilled to have brought it to this place," Ms. Tough
said, calling the decision a "necessary step" to get Merck to
move toward trial.

Merck said in a statement that it plans to appeal the decision.
"The company intends to defend these cases vigorously over the
coming years, and we are confident that the courts will decide
these cases based on sound science," Merck attorney Mary M.
Thomson said in the statement.

The company contends that each plaintiff's case should be tried
separately.

IHT recounts that U.S.-based Merck pulled Vioxx off the market
four years ago due to increased cardiac risks, and a stream of
litigation followed.  The Vioxx case has cost Merck at least
$6.8 billion.

The company announced earlier this month that nearly all
eligible Vioxx claimants had signed on for a $4.85-billion
settlement that will end nearly 50,000 lawsuits, the bulk of the
massive litigation.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. and several other major U.S. railroads
are seeking the dismissal of the consolidated amended complaints
filed in several putative class action suits against them that
were consolidated in the District of Columbia.  These suits
allege that the individual railroads conspired in violation of
U.S. antitrust laws.

As of Feb. 14, 2008, 18 antitrust class action complaints have
been filed against Norfolk Southern and the other Class 1
railroads in various federal district courts regarding fuel
surcharges (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2008).

On Nov. 6, 2007, these actions were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia by the Judicial
Panel on Multi-district Litigation.  Consolidated amended class
action complaints were then filed against Norfolk Southern and
three other railroads on April 15, 2008.

The complaints allege violations of federal antitrust laws and
other laws with regard to the railroads' fuel surcharge
programs.

Motions to dismiss the consolidated complaints were filed by the
railroads on May 30, 2008, and discovery has been stayed pending
resolution of these motions, according to the company's July 24,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- controls a
freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co.  Norfolk Southern
Railway Co. is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of
raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods
primarily in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via
interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the U.S.
and parts of Canada.


RADIOSHACK: Calif. Court Denies Review Petition in "Brookler"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court denied a petition by RadioShack
Corp. that had sought to review a lower court ruling in the
matter, "Brookler v. RadioShack Corp."

The suit involves allegations that RadioShack violated
California's wage order and labor code relating to the provision
of meal periods.

In February 2006, a California State Court certified a class of
approximately 23,000 members in the wage and hour suit.
RadioShack moved to decertify this class in July 2007, based
upon recent case authority dealing with the standard of
liability for meal and rest period actions.

RadioShack's motion to decertify was denied by the trial court,
and its petition for review to the California Supreme Court was
denied on Jan. 3, 2008.

However, because it appears there is a conflict in case
authority on this issue in other lawsuits not involving
RadioShack, it appears likely the California Supreme Court will
be asked to review and add clarity to the standard of liability
applicable in these types of matters, according to the company's
July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics
goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-
RadioShack branded kiosk operations.


SPRINT NEXTEL: California Court Awards Customers $18.3 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on July 15, 2008, that Sprint
Nextel Corp. was awaiting a decision by a California court
in a purported class action lawsuit over whether it violated
state law with its early-termination fees.

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

The CAR noted Sprint as having predicted that even if the judge
rules that it is violating state law, the won't have to pay any
damages because a jury ruling in June 2008 found that Sprint
customers had paid $73.8 million in early-termination fees,
while the company had lost $225.7 million due to breaches of
contracts.

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

In a recent update, Jacqueline Emigh of BetaNews writes that the
court this week sided with the plaintiffs and ordered Sprint
Nextel to pay customers $18.3 million.

According to the BetaNews report, the court ruling also directs
Sprint to also credit another $54.5 million to customers who
were charged the fees but have not paid them yet.


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Brokerage Antitrust Suit Dismissal Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in an insurance brokerage antitrust lawsuit
pending against St. Paul Travelers Cos., Inc., now known as The
Travelers Cos., Inc., are appealing the earlier dismissal of
certain claims in the matter by the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought
against a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including
the company and certain of its affiliates, by plaintiffs who
allegedly purchased insurance products through one or more of
the defendant brokers.

The plaintiffs alleged that various insurance brokers conspired
with each other and with various insurers, including the company
and certain of its affiliates, to artificially inflate premiums,
allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance products
offered to those customers.

To the extent they were not originally filed there, the federal
class action suits were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey and were consolidated for pre-
trial proceedings with other class actions under the caption,
"In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

On Aug. 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the named
plaintiffs in the four class action suits, filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint naming various brokers and
insurers, including the company and certain of its affiliates,
on behalf of a putative nationwide class of policyholders.

The complaint included causes of action under the Sherman Act,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state
common law and the laws of the various states prohibiting
antitrust violations.  It sought monetary damages, including
punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent injunctive
relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits, interest
and costs, including attorneys' fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim.  After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities
to replead, the court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on
Aug. 31, 2007, and the RICO claims on Sept. 28, 2007, both with
prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims.

The plaintiffs are appealing the district court's decisions to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to
The Travelers Cos., Inc.'s July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- http://www.travelers.com/--
formerly The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., is a holding
company principally engaged, through its subsidiaries, in
providing a range of commercial and personal property and
casualty insurance products and services to businesses,
government units, associations and individuals.  The Company is
organized into three business segments: Business Insurance;
Financial, Professional & International Insurance, and Personal
Insurance.


SUNSMART INC: Short-Changes Gasoline Buyers, Lawsuit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
The owners of Sunmart Inc. gas stations are facing a class-
action complaint filed in the District Court of Harrison County,
Texas, claiming that they short-changed customers by as much as
40 cents for every gallon of gasoline bought at nearly 1,000
pumps in Texas, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this action Pursuant to Rule 42 of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who from
July 25, 2004 (or such earlier date that is four years from the
time that plaintiffs discovered, or in the exercise of
reasonable diligence should have discovered defendants' fraud)
to the date this action is certified purchased gasoline from
defendants at unlawfully calibrated pumps in the state of Texas.

Drivers say consumer complaints about Sunmart pumps were so
frequent that the Texas Department of Agriculture decided to
investigate.  State investigators allegedly reported that more
than 60% of the pumps at 47 Sunmart stations cheated customers
by delivering less gas than customers paid for and state
standards required.

The plaintiffs claim the evidence points to an orchestrated plan
to rip off drivers, as inspections revealed that Sunmart pumps
yielded a 34% noncompliance rate with state standards, compared
to the standard rate of 4% to 6%.

The problem pumps had to be shut down and recalibrated.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants fraudulently misrepresented the
         price of gasoline to the class members;

     (b) whether the defendants or any agent of defendants
         intentionally or with gross negligence improperly
         calibrated the defendants' pumps to dispense product in
         amounts lesser than allowed by law; and

     (c) whether defendants withheld information from the class
         about its improper calibration of its pumps with the
         intent of inducing plaintiffs to purchase gasoline or
         diesel fuel from defendants.

The plaintiffs request:

     -- that the court certify the class and appropriate
        subclasses, if any;

     -- that the court appoint class counsel;

     -- that the court enter judgment in favor of the class for
        economic damages in an amount within the jurisdictional
        limits of the court;

     -- that the court enter judgment for actual damages in a
        sum within the jurisdictional limits of the court;

     -- that the court enter judgment for exemplary damages in a
        sum determined by the trier of fact;

     -- that the court award the class prejudgment interest as
        provided by law;

     -- that the court award the class postjudgment interest as
        provided by law;

     -- that the court award the class attorney's fees;

     -- that the court award the class costs of suit; and

     -- that the court award such other and further relief to
        which class may be justly entitled.

The suit is "Allison Snoddy et al. v. Sunmart Inc. et al., Case
No. 2008-45087," filed in the District Court of Harrison County,
Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Dennis C. Reich, Esq.
          Robert J. Binstock, Esq.
          Debra Brewer Hayes, Esq.
          Reich & Binstock LLP
          4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: 713-622-7271
          Fax: 713-623-8724


TRAVELERS COS: Reaches Settlement in Minn. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Cos., Inc. -- formerly The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc. -- reached a settlement agreement in the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit "In Re: St. Paul
Travelers Securities Litigation II, Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-
FLN."

In November 2004, two purported class action suits were brought
by certain shareholders of the company against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  These
two actions were consolidated as "In re St. Paul Travelers
Securities Litigation II."

On July 11, 2005, an amended consolidated complaint was filed.
The amended and consolidated complaint alleged violations of
federal securities laws in connection with the company's alleged
failure to make disclosure relating to the practice of paying
brokers commissions on a contingent basis, the company's alleged
involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids and the company's
allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance products.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the company and the other defendants in "In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II" moved to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim.

Oral argument on the company's motion to dismiss was presented
on June 15, 2006.  By order dated Sept. 25, 2006, the Court
denied the company's motion to dismiss.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the company and the other defendants in the
suit moved for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking
dismissal of the allegations relating to the allegedly improper
use of finite reinsurance products.

On June 1, 2007, the Court granted that motion and permitted the
lead plaintiff to replead.

On June 8, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended and
consolidated complaint alleging the same claims as in the first
amended and consolidated complaint but extending the putative
class period.

In July 2007, the company and other defendants in the suit moved
to dismiss the second amended and consolidated complaint (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2007).

On Jan. 17, 2008, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement resolving the case.

On July 11, 2008, the district court entered an order granting
final approval of the settlement, according to The Travelers
Cos., Inc.'s July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II,
Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge John R. Tunheim,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. (isquith@whafh.com)
         Gustavo Bruckner, Esq. (bruckner@whafh.com)
         Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. (rifkin@whafh.com)
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         270 Madison Ave.
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4690
                212-545-4605
                212-545-4762
         Fax: 212-545-4653

              - and -

         Jack L. Chestnut, Esq.
         (jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com)
         Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
         (kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com)
         Chestnut & Cambronne
         222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700
         Mpls., MN 55402
         Phone: 612-339-7300
         Fax: 612-336-2940

Representing the defendants are:

         David H. LaRocca, Esq. (dlarocca@stblaw.com)
         Michael J. Chepiga, Esq. (mchepiga@stblaw.com)
         Michael J. Garvey, Esq. (mgarvey@stblaw.com)
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
         425 Lexington Ave.
         New York, NY 10017-3954
         Phone: 212-455-2377
                212-455-2598
                212-455-7358

              - and -

         Peter W. Carter, Esq. (carter.peter@dorsey.com)
         Richard B. Solum, Esq. (solum.rick@dorsey.com)
         Dorsey & Whitney
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Mpls., MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2868


WACHOVIA: Prospective Class to Decide on Proper Legal Process
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prospective class members in a class action lawsuit against
Wachovia Corp. -- which suit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of investors who purchased common stock during the period from
May 6, 2006 and June 6, 2008 -- need to decide which legal
process is more suitable for them; Class Action vs Individual
Arbitration lawsuits.

The class action alleges that Wachovia issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's operations
including exposure to the subprime mortgage meltdown and sales
practices concerning auction rate securities.

Investors can choose to "opt-out" of a class action lawsuit and
pursue their individual claims through the securities
arbitration process.  Securities arbitration may provide an
opportunity for individual investors to recover a greater
percentage of their losses.

FINRA has standards of care for the handling of investment
accounts concerning investment advice and supervision.  Failure
of member firms to comply with the rules and regulations can
result in a cause of action in a securities arbitration case.

In particular, specific standards of care are required for the
handling of investor accounts concentrated in a single stock
position, such as Wachovia.  Failure to implement risk
management strategies to protect the value of a concentrated
stock position can represent unsuitable investment advice and a
failure to supervise client accounts.

Community banks throughout the country have been consolidated
through bank merger or acquisition by Wachovia.  In many
instances, these bank stock positions represent a significant
portion of investor's personal and family wealth.

The stock market losses sustained have decimated the value of a
lifetime of investment. There is important information that
Wachovia stock investors need to understand. This information
concerns issues such as the required standards of care and
whether the stock was held in bank trust or brokerage account.

The suit is "Lipetz, et al. v. Wachovia Corporation, et al.,
Case Number: 1:2008cv06171," Judge Richard J. Sullivan,
presiding.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wash. Court Certifies ERISA Pension Plan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 24, 2008, Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order
certifying a class of participants in the pension plans
sponsored by Washington Mutual, Inc. (NYSE:WM) and three
predecessor banks.

The class action suit alleges that Washington Mutual and the
predecessor banks failed to provide adequate notice to plan
participants that pension plan amendments involving conversions
to cash balance plan formulas reduced their rate of future
benefit accrual.

The certified subclasses include:

     * All participants, whether active, inactive, or retired,
       their beneficiaries and estates, who were participants in
       and entitled to accrue benefits under the Washington
       Mutual Retirement Plan for Employees immediately prior to
       January 1, 1987, and whose accrued benefits or pension
       benefits are based in whole or in part on the Washington
       Mutual Cash Balance Pension Plan's cash balance formula,
       from January 1, 1987, to the present;

     * All participants, whether active, inactive, or retired,
       their beneficiaries and estates, who were participants in
       and entitled to accrue benefits under the Great Western
       Retirement Plan immediately prior to January 1, 1997, and
       whose accrued benefits or pension benefits are based in
       whole or in part on the cash balance formulas of the
       Great Western Retirement Plan and the Washington
       Mutual Cash Balance Pension Plan, from Jan. 1, 1997, to
       the present;

     * All participants, whether active, inactive, or retired,
       their beneficiaries and estates, who were participants in
       and entitled to accrue benefits under the Retirement Plan
       of Dime Bancorp, Inc. immediately prior to April 1, 2002,
       and whose accrued benefits or pension benefits are based
       in whole or in part on the Washington Mutual Cash Balance
       Pension Plan's cash balance formula, from April 1, 2002,
       to the present; and

     * All participants, whether active, inactive, or retired,
       their beneficiaries and estates, who were participants in
       and entitled to accrue benefits under the Pension Plan
       for Employees of Pacific First Bank immediately prior to
       April 1, 1994, and whose accrued benefits or pension
       benefits are based in whole or in part on the Washington
       Mutual Cash Balance Pension Plan's cash balance formula,
       from April 1, 1994, to the present.

The class action includes current and former Washington Mutual
employees, who were participants in the pension plans of
Washington Mutual, Pacific First, Great Western, or Dime at the
dates identified above.  If you were a participant in any of
these Plans during the above-mentioned dates you are a member of
the Class regardless of whether you have not yet taken your
benefit from the Plan, are currently drawing an annuity from the
Plan, or received a lump sum payment of your pension benefits
from the Plan.

Judge Pechman declined to include in the class participants in
the H.F. Ahmanson & Company Retirement Plan because of the
absence of a named plaintiff who had been a participant in the
Ahmanson Plan.

Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer
and small business banking company with operations in U.S.
markets.  The Company is a savings and loan holding company.  It
owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank and
Washington Mutual Bank fsb, as well as numerous non-bank
subsidiaries.  The Company operates in four segments: the
Retail Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of
2,257 stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York,
Washington, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona,
Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services
Group, which operates a nationwide credit card lending business;
the Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and
commercial real estate lending business in selected markets, and
the Home Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family
residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets
activities.


* Study Says Securities Cases Rise Due to Subprime/Credit Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
Driven in large part by the current subprime and credit crisis,
shareholder class action filings continued to increase in the
first half of 2008, according to a new study from NERA Economic
Consulting.  Filings are on pace to reach almost 280 by year's
end, which would represent a 42% increase over 2007 and the
largest annual total since 2002; at that rate filings will have
more than doubled in just two years, from their recent low of
131 in 2006.

According to NERA's study, 2008 Trends: Subprime, Auction-Rate
Cases Continue to Drive Filings, and Large Settlements Keep
Averages High, the credit crisis is a significant factor
contributing to the increase.  In fact, 51% of 2008 filings
through June 30, 2008 have allegations related to the subprime
collapse (including auction-rate securities cases).

  Market Volatility, Returns also Factor in Filings Increase

Market volatility and returns are also significant factors
associated with filings.  Specifically, the NERA study found
that if market volatility is higher during a quarter, filings
are likely to be higher as well.  The authors also found:

     -- The probability of a company facing a class action
        filing over the three months following a large one-day
        drop in its stock price increases with the size of the
        drop.

     -- Nearly one-third of companies whose stock fell by 40% or
        more in a single day, net-of-market, were confronted
        with a federal filing within three months.  Large price
        drops may trigger shareholder class action litigation
        because they often follow disclosures of adverse
        company-specific news that fuel allegations of fraud.

               Settlement Values Remaining Steady

Although filings increased through the first half of the year,
average settlement values remained roughly constant at around
$30 million.  However:

     -- Excluding settlements of over $1 billion, the average
        settlement dropped to $10 million, representing a
        decline compared to recent years.

     -- In part this is due to the lower incidence of so-called
        "mega-settlements" of at least $100 million.  Only 2% of
        settlements in 2008 cross this $100 million mark, as
        compared to almost 7% in 2007 and nearly 10% in 2006.

However, the average settlement amount may begin to increase as
more recently filed cases settle.  Driven by the recent surge in
subprime cases, median investor losses -- a powerful determinant
of settlement size -- for cases filed in the first six months of
2008 are more than twice the level for cases settled from 2005
through 2007.  Because of their unusually high investor losses,
recently filed subprime cases can be expected to settle for
unusually large amounts.

                  Shareholder Trends Report Series

NERA has been analyzing trends in shareholder class actions for
more than 15 years.  Two reports are published a year: one at
mid-year and a second, annual review published at year's-end.
This year's mid-year report was authored by NERA Senior
Consultant Dr. Stephanie Plancich, Consultant Svetlana Starykh,
and former NERA Consultant Brian Saxton, and includes data on
filings and settlements through June 30, 2008.

                            About NERA

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com/-- is an
international firm of economists who understand how markets
work. We provide economic analysis and advice to corporations,
governments, law firms, regulatory agencies, trade associations,
and international agencies. Our global team of more than 600
professionals operates in over 20 offices across North America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific.

NERA provides practical economic advice related to highly
complex business and legal issues arising from competition,
regulation, public policy, strategy, finance, and litigation.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Brower Piven Files Texas Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of ArthroCare Corporation between January 24, 2008, and
July 18, 2008, inclusive and all persons or entities who
purchased call options or sold put options in ArthroCare common
stock from October 27, 2006, through July 18, 2008.

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

The complaint charges ArthroCare and certain of its officers and
directors with violations under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that before the market opened on
July 21, 2008, ArthroCare announced that it would be restating
its previously reported financial results from the third quarter
2006 through the first quarter 2008 because it improperly
recognized revenue from DiscoCare, Inc., State of the Art
Medical Products, Boracchia & Associates and Clinical
Technology, Inc.

The complaint asserts that as a result, ArthroCare indicated
that it expects its reported revenue in 2006 will be reduced by
$4 million to $7 million, and that for 2007, reported revenue
will be reduced by $20 million to $25 million and revealed on
July 21, 2008, that reported revenue for the first quarter of
2008 will be reduced by $2 million to $5 million and that "the
restatement will result in material reductions in operating
income and net income for the annual and quarterly periods being
restated."

The complaint also alleges that the Company also disclosed that
while the restatement is being completed, a review of the
Company's internal controls will be conducted and that further
material misstatements or misconduct might still be uncovered.
Upon that announcement, shares of ArthroCare declined
significantly.

The complaint asserts that on July 24, 2008, the Company
disclosed that the SEC had commenced an inquiry into the
circumstances surrounding the restatement and that during the
Class Period, ArthroCare's officers and directors sold nearly
$12 million worth of their personal holdings in ArthroCare.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 23,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


CIT GROUP: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of CIT
Group Inc. between April 18, 2007, and March 5, 2008, inclusive.

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

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 23,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


FIFTH THIRD: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of Fifth Third Bancorp from October 19, 2007,
through June 17, 2008, inclusive, against the Company and Kevin
T. Kabat, the Company's president and chief executive officer,
alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action is also brought on behalf of a sub-class of Class
members who purchased $750,000,000 (in aggregate liquidation
amount) of 7.25% Trust Preferred Securities, liquidation amount
$25 per security, which were registered pursuant to an automatic
shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (SEC File Nos. 333-
141560 and 333-141560-03) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 26, 2007, the sale of which to investors was
in an initial public offering which became effective on or about
October 25, 2007, Fifth Third Capital Trust VI (NYSE: FTB-PB),
seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The Securities Act claim is also bought against the underwriters
of Fifth Third Capital Trust VI preferred securities:

     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc.;
     -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated;
     -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated;
     -- UBS Securities LLC.;
     -- Banc of America Securities LLC; and
     -- Credit Suisse Securities.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the
quality of Fifth Thirds Tier 1 capital, the relevant ratios and
sufficiency of its Tier 1 capital, the necessity to take net
charge-offs stemming from increasing credit losses, and the need
to shore up capital due to its exposure to poorly performing
real estate markets in the Mid-West region.

The complaint also alleges that as a result of these materially
false and misleading statements and omissions, plaintiffs allege
that the price of Fifth Third's securities was artificially
inflated during the Class Period.

The complaint also alleges that on June 18, 2008, the Company
disclosed certain of the adverse factors of FITB's business and
announced that it would slash its quarterly dividend and its
earnings would be as little as 1 to 5 cents a share for the
second quarter and that the Company said it would sell
subsidiaries and issue preferred stock to raise $2 billion.

These disclosures caused Fifth Third's common stock to decline
27%, to close on June 18, 2008 at $9.26 per share on very heavy
volume.  The Company's stock had traded as high as $28.00 per
share in February 2008.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


HEALTHWAYS INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Tennessee Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Healthways, Inc. common
stock during the period between October 17, 2007, and
February 26, 2008, inclusive, and the deadline for investors to
move the Court to be appointed lead plaintiff is August 4, 2008.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 4,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Charles Johnson Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates commenced a class action lawsuit
against SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., and certain affiliated
parties, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors in SemGroup on the
February 13, 2008 secondary offering.

Plaintiff alleges that the Prospectus for the secondary offering
misrepresented the financial strength of SemGroup's Parent
(SemGroup, L.P.) and failed to disclose that the Parent had
engaged in risky hedging strategies that presented a material
risk of default and bankruptcy.  Because SemGroup's business
operations were heavily dependent on its Parent, the true facts
concerning the Parent's financial condition were material to a
reasonable investor's decision to purchase units from the
secondary offering.

The facts were first disclosed to investors on July 17, 2008,
when SemGroup revealed that because of its hedging strategies,
the Parent was at risk for filing for bankruptcy.

The Parent and its affiliated companies subsequently filed for
bankruptcy on July 21, 2008.  As a result of the July 17, 2008
disclosures and subsequent bankruptcy filing, SemGroup's units,
which closed on July 16, 2008, at $22.80 per unit, plummeted to
close on July 23, 2008 at $8.00 per unit.  Documents filed on
behalf of the Parent in Bankruptcy Court revealed that SemGroup
began experiencing financial distress in 2007 and early 2008,
prior to the secondary offering.  The Prospectus failed to
disclose that the Parent was suffering from liquidity problems,
or that it was engaged in highly risky crude oil hedge
transactions that affected its ability to continue as a going
concern.

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

For more information, contact:

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





                            *********

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  * * *