CAR_Public/080804.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, August 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 153
  
                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABS: Faces Tennessee Suit Over Fenofibrate Formulations
ABBOTT LABS: To Settle AIDS Drug Pricing Suit for $10-$27.5 Mln.
ACCREDO HEALTH: October 2008 Trial Set for Tenn. Securities Suit
ALBERTSON'S INC: Calif. Court Yet to Okay Deal in "Ward" Lawsuit
ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Faces Lawsuits Over Domestic Shipping Ops

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Consolidated Suit Over InBev's Buy Offer
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Missouri Suit Challenges InBev's Purchase Offer
AQUA FLORIDA: Jasmine Lakes Residents Sue Over Wastewater Ponds
BABY BOTTLE MAKERS: Continues to Face Suits Over "Toxic" Bottles
CERADYNE: Aug. 28 is Overtime Suit Certification Motion Deadline

DAISO LLC: Recalls Children's Stuffed Toys Due to Choking Hazard
DANNON COMPANY: Sued Over Activia Yogurt Probiotic Health Claims
EVERGREEN ULTRA: Aug. 22 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
FAIRBRIDGE FARM: Former Residents Log Child Abuse Claims
HALLIBURTON CO: July 2009 Trial Set for Texas Securities Suit

HANNAFORD BROS: Murray Plumb Selected to Lead Data Breach Case
HOME DEPOT: 7th Circuit Affirms Lower Court Ruling & Junks Suit
HORIZON LINES: Faces Suits Over Domestic Ocean Shipping Services
KIDS II: Recalls Infant Rattles Due to Choking Hazard
LIBERTY LEAGUE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Pyramiding Scheme

MEDCO HEALTH: Mass. Court OKs PolyMedica Merger Suit Settlement
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Minnesota Derivative Lawsuit
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Derivatives Suit Deal Gets Preliminary Nod
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Settles N.Y. Securities Suit for $47.5 Mln.
MORGAN KEEGAN: Sued Over Funds Held by Regions Trust Accounts

MYSPACE.COM: Unfair News Corp. Sale Suit to Proceed to Trial
OPTIVER HOLDING: Trader's Suit Claims Oil-Market Manipulation
PARMALAT FINANZIARIA: Sept. 24 Hearing Set for N.Y. Settlement
QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Cellular Phone Sales
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Fla. Cabin Stewards' Suit Goes into Arbitration

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Calif. Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Arbitration Order
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Motion to Transfer Copyright Suit Still Pending
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: "Brown" Case Dismissed, Ordered in Arbitration
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Plaintiffs Dismiss Suits Over Fuel Supplements
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: "Bozadzhiev" Nixed and Ordered into Arbitration

SPRINT NEXTEL: Kansas Court Allows Sales Reps' Suit to Proceed
SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Lawsuit in Calif.
SUPERVALU INC: Calif. Court Yet to OK Settlement in Labor Suit
SUPERVALU INC: Appeals Va. Jury's Verdict in "Johnson" Matter
T ROWE PRICE: Suit Over Foreign Securities Resolved & Dismissed

T-MOBILE: BlackBerry Pearls Defect Triggers Unwanted Phone Calls


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in Texas
MF GLOBAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ABBOTT LABS: Faces Tennessee Suit Over Fenofibrate Formulations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories is facing a purported class action lawsuit
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.

The case was filed in April 2008 by Patrick Warren Proffitt, et.
al., against Abbott in the Circuit Court for Cocke County,
Tennessee, alleging antitrust and consumer fraud claims in
connection with the sale of fenofibrate formulations.  

The case has been brought as a purported class action suit on
behalf of all Tennessee individuals who purchased Tricor or a
generic substitute during the period from 1998 through 2008.  

In May 2008, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Abbott Laboratories -- http://www.abbott.com/-- is engaged in  
the discovery, development, manufacture and sale of a
diversified line of healthcare products.  It has four segments.
The Pharmaceutical Products segment's products include adult and
pediatric pharmaceuticals.  The Diagnostic Products segment's
products include diagnostic systems and tests for blood banks,
hospitals, commercial laboratories, physicians' offices,
alternate care testing sites, plasma protein therapeutic
companies and consumers.  The Nutritional Products segment's
products include a line of pediatric and adult nutritional.  The
Vascular Products segment's products include a line of coronary,
endovascular and vessel closure devices.  


ABBOTT LABS: To Settle AIDS Drug Pricing Suit for $10-$27.5 Mln.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2003, Abbott Labs raised the price of its Norvir
AIDS drug, which is commonly used in HIV drug cocktails, by
400%, creating a firestorm in the AIDS community.  The mark-up
prompted the Service Employees International Union Health &
Welfare Fund to file a class-action lawsuit the following year
that alleges the price hike violated antitrust laws, Pharmalot
recounts.

The report relates that Abbott sells a combo pill called Kaletra
that includes Norvir and its own protease inhibitor.  The
lawsuit claims Abbott raised Norvir's price, but not the Kaletra
price, in order to boost Kaletra sales at the expense of other
protease inhibitors that require Norvir as a booster.  In other
words, Abbott allegedly tried to use Norvir to create a monopoly
over the market for protease inhibitors.

Ed Silverman of Pharmalot writes that Abbott is now agreeing to
settle the case for between $10 million to $27.5 million, rather
than battle charges that it tried to create a monopoly for
Kaletra.  

Pharmalot cites an earlier Bloomberg News report as stating that
the class-action suit, which cites internal documents, would
have been the first to come to trial of seven filed by
individuals, rival drugmakers and pharmacies over Abbott's
decision to raise its prices.  Abbott faced up to $1.1 billion
in damages.

Bloomberg noted that losses might eventually make Abbott liable
for $1.1 billion in damages, cost tens of millions a year in
price rollbacks and lead to a reduced share of the $2.1 billion
U.S. market for AIDS meds.

According to Pharmalot, Kaletra is Abbott's third largest-
selling drug, generating annual revenue of $1.3 billion, while
U.S. sales of Norvir totaled $233 million last year.  A court-
ordered 80% reduction in the U.S. price for Norvir -- the
stiffest penalty the judge might impose -- may cut Abbott's
annual revenue by as much as $186 million and fuel price
competition against Kaletra, which logged $538 million in U.S.
sales last year.

Abbott had requested the case be thrown out on the grounds that
its Norvir patents, covering the drug and its use in combination
with other medicines, allowed the company to set its own prices,
Pharmalot recalls.  However, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilkin
ruled the patents are not a shield from an antitrust suit.  She
will decide the case without a jury.  And she also found Abbott
"failed to establish a lack of monopoly power, anticompetitive
conduct or antitrust injury," making a trial necessary.

Abbott has denied any intent to use pricing to maintain a
monopoly in court filings and statements, Pharmalot notes.  the
company disputes claims by a patients' expert that it controls
73% of the market, above the 65% share needed under antitrust
law to show market power.  

Norvir was "repriced to capture its full value," after the drug
moved from being a standalone medicine with an average dose of
600 milligrams twice a day to a daily 100- to 200-milligram
booster in a protease-inhibitor cocktail, an Abbott spokeswoman
told Bloomberg.

Pharmalot says that besides the patients, 16 companies including
Glaxo and Rite Aid, sued over identical claims.  Their cases are
combined in the Oakland court, with no trial date set.

The plaintiffs claim company documents prove Abbott raised the
price to drive up the cost to competitors of combining Norvir
with their protease inhibitors.  E-mails show "executives
understood the illegal nature of their scheme," Glaxo wrote in
its complaint.

The nationwide overcharge is $370 million, according to Douglas
Greer, an economics professor at San Jose State University in
California, in a report prepared for the plaintiffs. The
pharmacy and drug companies may seek that amount in damages,
which can be tripled under antitrust law to $1.1 billion, when
their case comes to trial.


ACCREDO HEALTH: October 2008 Trial Set for Tenn. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative October 2008 trial is scheduled for a consolidated
securities fraud class action lawsuit against Accredo Health
Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.

The suit was filed against the company and two former company
officers, one of whom is now a director at Medco Health
Solutions (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 15, 2007).

The original complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between June 16, 2002, and
April 7, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Accredo common stock (Class Action Reporter, July 22, 2008).

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented these adverse facts, among others:

     (a) that the company was failing to timely record an
         impairment in the value of certain receivables that it
         had acquired in a recent acquisition.  As a result, the
         company's reported financial results were artificially
         inflated throughout the class period;

     (b) as a result of the foregoing, the company's financial
         statements published during the class period were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and were therefore materially
         false and misleading;

     (c) that the company would not have been able to meet its
         stated earnings guidance had it properly reserved for
         its accounts receivables; and

     (d) based on (a)-(c), the defendants' earnings guidance and
         positive statements concerning the company was lacking
         in a reasonable and therefore materially false and
         misleading.

The putative class representatives seek to represent a class of
individuals and entities that purchased the company's stock from
June 16, 2002, to April 7, 2003, and who supposedly suffered
damages from the alleged violations of the securities laws.  

On June 30, 2004, the court appointed Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP's client, the Louisiana School Employees
Retirement System, and individual plaintiff Debra Swiman as co-
lead plaintiffs for the class in the consolidated action.
Bernstein Litowitz was appointed as co-lead counsel.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Sept. 15,
2004.  The plaintiffs' allegations against Accredo and its top
officers arise out of Accredo's overstated fourth quarter 2002
and second quarter 2003 financial statements.  The alleged false
statements relate to the company's inadequate reserves for
nearly $60 million in uncollectible accounts receivable.

On April 11, 2005, the court denied a motion by the defendants
to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  Discovery has commenced
and is continuing.  

On March 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the lead plaintiffs' motion for
class certification be granted.

On April 19, 2006, the court entered an order adopting the
Report and Recommendation, certifying the class and appointing
Louisiana School Employees Retirement System and Debra Swiman as
class representatives and BLB&G as co-class counsel.  

Summary judgment motions have been filed in the matter, and
trial is scheduled to commence in October 2008, according to
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.'s July 24, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 28, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Accredo Health, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-CV-02216," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, Judge Bernice B. Donald,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Timothy A. DeLange, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: 800-793-0070
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com/

               - and -

          Tor Gronborg, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/

Representing the company are:  

          Douglas F. Halijan, Esq.
          Jef Feibelman, Esq.
          Burch Porter & Johnson
          130 N. Court Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Phone: 901-524-5000
          Fax: 901-524-5024

               - and -
  
          John H. Goselin, Esq.
          Oni A. Holley, Esq.
          Peter Q. Bassett, Esq.
          Alston & Bird
          One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree St.
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: 404-881-7000


ALBERTSON'S INC: Calif. Court Yet to Okay Deal in "Ward" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California has yet to
approve the proposed settlement in the matter, "Joanne Kay Ward
et al. v. Albertson's, Inc. et al.," which was filed against
Albertson's Inc., an entity owned by Supervalu, Inc.

The suit, filed on Oct. 13, 2000, alleges that the company and
its subsidiaries -- Lucky Stores and Sav-on Drug Stores -- paid
terminated employees their final paychecks in an untimely
manner.  The suit sought statutory penalties.

On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action.  In
December 2007, however, the parties agreed to settle the matter,
subject to court approval.

Supervalu reported no development in the matter in its July 23,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 14, 2008.

Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S.  
grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three
retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food
and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores.  The
Company's business is classified into two segments: Retail food
and Supply chain services.


ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Faces Lawsuits Over Domestic Shipping Ops
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., and its main subsidiary, Matson
Navigation Co., Inc., are facing several purported class action
lawsuits over their domestic shipping carrier operations,
according to Alexander's July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

As of July 25, 2008, the Company was aware of 14 civil lawsuits
purporting to be class actions (filed between May 9, 2008, and
July 24, 2008) in which the Company and Matson have been named
as defendants.

Another domestic shipping carrier operating in the Hawaii and
Guam trades, Horizon Lines, also has been named as a defendant
in all but one of these lawsuits.

Such purported class action lawsuits allege violations of the
antitrust laws and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.

Eight of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California; two were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington; two
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California; one in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon; and one in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii.

Two of the plaintiffs filed motions with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for transfer and consolidation of the
cases, and a hearing was held on July 31, 2008, to consider the
transfer and consolidation of the cases.

The results of this hearing was not included in the company's
regulatory filing.

Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. -- http://www.alexanderbaldwin.com/--  
is a diversified corporation with most of its operations
centered in Hawaii.  The business industries of the Company
constitute transportation, real estate and agribusiness.  The
Company's ocean transportation operations, related shore side
operations in Hawaii, related intermodal, truck brokerage and
logistics services are conducted by its wholly owned subsidiary,
Matson Navigation Company, Inc. and two Matson subsidiaries.  
Its property development and agribusiness operations are
conducted by A&B and certain other subsidiaries of A&B.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Consolidated Suit Over InBev's Buy Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc., and its board of directors, are
facing a consolidated shareholder lawsuit alleging breach of
fiduciary duties arising out of InBev, S.A.'s proposed
acquisition of Anheuser-Busch for $65 per share in cash in a
multi-billion dollar going private transaction, according to the
company's July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Between June 12, 2008, and July 2, 2008, a total of 11
substantially similar putative shareholder class and derivative
actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Board and the company (in part as a nominal defendant), alleging
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to maximize shareholder value and adopting unreasonable
defensive measures in the face of the InBev non-binding
proposal, including undertaking merger negotiations with Grupo
Modelo.  

The plaintiffs generally sought declaratory relief that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties, injunctive relief to
prevent such breaches, damages, and fees and expenses.

On June 18, 2008, and June 24, 2008, the plaintiffs in two of
these actions moved for expedited discovery.  The court denied
both motions.  

On June 25, 2008, one of the plaintiffs filed an Order of
Dismissal seeking voluntary dismissal of its action without
prejudice.  

On July 10, 2008, the court consolidated the remaining 10
actions under the caption, "In re Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 3851," and appointed as lead
plaintiffs:

   -- Deka International S.A. Luxemburg,
   -- International Fund Management S.A. Luxemburg,
   -- Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH,
   -- Deka Investmentgesellschaft MBH,
   -- Deka Fundmaster Investmentgesellschaft MBH,
   -- the General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, and
   -- Sjunde AP-Fonden.

The court further ordered the lead plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended derivative and class action complaint and
stated that the defendants need not respond to any of the
previously filed-complaints.  

The lead plaintiffs have not yet filed a consolidated complaint.

Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc. -- http://www.anheuser-busch.com/--  
is the holding company of Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (ABI), a beer
brewer.  The Company also has subsidiaries that conduct various
other business operations.  Anheuser-Busch's operations comprise
four business segments: domestic beer, international beer,
packaging and entertainment.  Its principal product is beer,
produced and distributed by ABI, in a variety of containers
under various brand names.  


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Missouri Suit Challenges InBev's Purchase Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., is facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District court for the Eastern
District of Missouri alleging it shortchanged shareholders by
accepting InBev's buyout at $70 a share, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the public
stockholders of Anheuser-Busch against the company and its board
of directors seeking equitable relief for their breached of
fiduciary duty and other violations of law arising out of their
attempt to sell the company to InBev and Pestalozzi Acquisition
Corp., by means of an unfair process and for an unfair proce of
$70 per share in cash of each share of Anheuser-Busch common
stock.  The proposed transaction is valued at approximately
$52 billion.

Named plaintiff Man Foon Shiu claims the $70 a share offer is
not acceptable due to the same standards that prompted Anheuser-
Busch to reject the $65 a share offer.

Mr. Shiu says that Anheuser-Busch is an iconic brand; that it
holds more than 50% of the U.S. market share; that Anheuser-
Busch has strong market growing plans in Latin America; and that
Anheuser-Busch's detailed, accelerated growth plan are the
reasons why Anheuser-Busch breached its duty to shareholders by
accepting InBev's offer.

Anheuser-Busch and InBev participated in a bitter exchange after
InBev's original offer was rejected in June.  More than a dozen
shareholders filed suit against Anheuser-Busch claiming it
breached its duty to shareholders by not accepting the original
$65 a share offer.

InBev filed suit against Anheuser-Busch seeking to remove
Anheuser-Busch's board of directors and Anheuser-Busch sued
InBev claiming its buyout-related promises to shareholders were
false.

InBev's buyout of Anheuser-Busch will create the world's largest
beer distributorship and would have generated $36.4 billion in
revenue, the suit states.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the individual defendants breached the
         fiduciary duties owed by them to plaintiff and the
         class;

     (b) whether the individual defendants, in connection with
         the proposed transaction, pursuing a course of conduct
         that does not maximize Anheuser-Busch's value, in
         violation of their fiduciary duties;

     (c) whether the individual defendants misrepresented and
         omitted material facts in violation of their fiduciary
         duties owed by them to plaintiff and the class;

     (d) whether InBev and Pestalozzi aided and abetted the
         individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty; and

     (e) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief or
         damages as a result of defendants' wrongful conduct.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter a judgment:

     -- declaring this action to be a class action and
        certifying plaintiff as the class representative and her
        counsel as class counsel;

     -- enjoining, preliminarily and permanently, the proposed
        transaction;

     -- in the event that the transaction is consummated prior
        to the entry of this court's final judgment, rescinding
        it or awarding plaintiff and the class rescissory
        damages;

     -- directing that defendants account to plaintiff and the
        other members of the class for all damages caused by
        them and account for all profits and any special
        benefits obtained as a result of their breaches of their
        fiduciary duties;

     -- awarding plaintiff the costs of this action, including a
        reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of
        plaintiff's attorneys and experts; and

     -- granting plaintiff and the class such further relief as
        the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Man Foon Shiu et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Cos. et al.,
Case 4:08-cv-01119," filed in the U.S. District court for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Joseph F. Devereux, Jr.
          (jfdevereuxjr@devereuxmurphy.com)
          Devereux Murphy LLC
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1100
          Phone: 314-721-1516
          Fax: 314-721-4434


AQUA FLORIDA: Jasmine Lakes Residents Sue Over Wastewater Ponds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners in the Jasmine Lakes subdivision have filed a class-
action lawsuit against one of Florida's largest utilities,
claiming that percolation ponds for the company's wastewater
treatment plant are polluting their neighborhood, Christian M.
Wade writes for The Tampa Tribune.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 17 people in Pasco-Pinellas
Circuit Court, alleges that wastewater from Aqua Florida's
percolation ponds, used to treat raw sewage from the west Pasco
County community, has been infiltrating nearby houses and
properties.

According to the report, the homeowners' attorney, Maria D.
Tejedor, Esq., of Orlando, is requesting a jury trial and
unspecified compensation for the property damages.

"The defendants negligently constructed, maintained and operated
said ponds so as to allow repeated and continuous drainage and
infiltration of its contaminated, dangerous and non-natural
materials and water onto the plaintiffs' land," Ms. Tejedor
alleges in the lawsuit.

Tampa Tribune relates that the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection has been investigating problems with
the utility's Jasmine Lakes wastewater treatment system for the
past year.  DEP officials cited higher-than-normal levels of
chloride and sodium in the groundwater near one of the ponds,
indicating that the percolation system wasn't operating
properly.

The state regulatory body is currently negotiating a settlement
with the utility, the report notes.  A draft of the agreement
recommends a $41,160 fine against the utility and a requirement
that it submit a plan for resolving the violations and more
frequent testing of the groundwater.

Tampa Florida recounts that Aqua Florida, one of several
regional utilities in the local market, took over water and
wastewater service in the subdivision from Mad Hatter Utility
several years ago.  Like most of West Pasco's small private
utilities, the water system had been neglected for years,
company executives have said, and was desperately in need of
upgrades.

Company executives also said they have spent more than $675,000
on upgrades in Jasmine Lakes and the Palm Terrace and Zephyr
Shores subdivisions.

While the lawsuit plays out, customers will be paying for the
upgrades in the form of higher monthly water and wastewater
bills, the report says.

The Florida Public Service Commission recently approved an
interim rate increase for Aqua, allowing it to recoup more than
$5 million in improvements statewide.  The rates will remain in
place until the PSC votes on a final increase early next year.
If Aqua's request is denied, customers will be refunded what
they paid in interim rates.

The report relates that in Jasmine Lakes, where Aqua serves
about 1,500 households, the rates for customers who use an
average of 5,000 gallons a month will rise from $25.19 to $40.92
for water and $25.77 to $88.91 for wastewater, according to
figures provided by state regulators.

Tampa Tribune recalls that a year ago, Aqua withdrew a rate
increase request amid complaints from customers and the state
Attorney General's Office over poor service and water quality
issues.  The utility, which hasn't seen an increase since 1995,
is one of several water providers in Pasco seeking to boost
rates to offset the cost of improving distribution systems.

The report further recounts that about three years ago, Aqua
America, the nation's largest publicly traded utility, entered
the Florida market, acquiring more than 60 water and wastewater
systems from Water Services Corp.  Based in Bryn Mawr, Pa., Aqua
now serves 18 counties across Florida.

Aqua Florida representatives declined to comment to Tampa
Tribune, citing the pending litigation.


BABY BOTTLE MAKERS: Continues to Face Suits Over "Toxic" Bottles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Six Southern California families have filed separate consumer
fraud class action lawsuits against different makers of baby
formula and baby bottles containing Bisphenol A (BPA), a
chemical found in plastic and in the lining of cans.

The cases, filed in May and June 2008 against:

     -- Avent America,
     -- Abbott Laboratories,
     -- Evenflo, Gerber,
     -- Handi-Craft and
     -- Mead Johnson

claim that the companies engaged in unfair, unlawful and
fraudulent business practices by carrying out false and
deceptive advertising and selling of BPA-containing products
which they knew or should have known to be unsafe.  These
parents were unaware that the simple action of washing bottles
in hot water, boiling or micro-waving liquid baby formula can
activate the BPA's release into future liquids.

All six of the lawsuits allege that each company knew, or should
have known, that their BPA containing products were and are
dangerous and could potentially cause injury to children and
infants.  According to the lawsuits, each company continued to
sell, promote, market and distribute infant formula and baby
bottles containing BPA with reckless disregard to its risks.

BPA leaches into the liquid from baby bottles and sippy cups and
from the inner lining of canned baby formula containers, more so
from liquid baby formula.  Even at low doses, BPA poses serious
health risks to the infants who subsequently ingest the tainted
baby formula, irrespective of the source (baby bottle or baby
formula container).

Liquid baby formula is known to be a more potent source of
infant exposure to BPA than baby bottles because the liquid has
been in constant contact with the BPA lining for weeks and in
some cases months before consumption.  Even worse, infants of
parents who purchased both BPA tainted baby formula and baby
bottles get a double exposure of BPA.

The suits accuse the companies of continuing to assert that BPA
is safe long after hundreds of studies and published papers
linked the chemical to hormone disruptions, infertility, early
puberty, and cancer.

BPA, a synthetic estrogen used as an ingredient in polycarbonate
plastic, is the most widely used synthetic chemical in the
plastics industry.

The lawsuits contend that it has been known for well over a
decade that BPA is dangerous.  Numerous published studies prove
that BPA leaches from plastics and that it can cause severe
negative health effects in lab animals.  At very low doses, BPA
is known to cause dangerous developmental, neural and
reproductive health effects.  More than 200 laboratory animal
studies to date strongly suggest that BPA exposure, even at low
doses, creates these same risks in infants and children.

Although human exposure is widespread (Centers for Disease
Control found BPA at levels that raise health concerns in 95
percent of people tested), growing infants are particularly at
risk to BPA because their immune systems are simply not equipped
to detoxify powerful chemicals like BPA.  Moreover, because
infants digest formula almost exclusively during the first
several months of their lives and because of their small size,
infants are exposed to much higher proportions of BPA than
adults.

Exposure to BPA has been linked to the following health
problems: breast cancer; prostate disease and cancer; diabetes;
obesity; hyperactivity; impaired, altered, and compromised
immune system and functions; miscarriage; impaired female
reproductive development; sperm defects; lowered sperm count;
chromosome abnormalities; chromosome sorting errors; Turner
Syndrome; Klinefelter Syndrome; genitalia deformity; early onset
of puberty; impaired learning and memory; and increased
aggression.


The cases have been related and transferred to Judge Audrey
Collins in the U.S. District Court in California in Los Angeles.

The team of lawyers representing the plaintiff-families are the
Los Angeles-based firms of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman and
Strange & Carpenter.

"BPA is poisonous and is harming children -- the writing has
been on the wall for some time now," stated bio-engineer and
attorney Ilyas Akbari, Esq., of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman,  "We are disappointed, but not surprised that the
manufacturers of these products and the plastics industry
continue to tout these products as safe for infants and
children, despite hundreds of widely reported and published
studies that confirm the risks.  There are many feasible, safer
alternatives -- the fact that these manufacturers aren’t
discontinuing these products proves to me that they are putting
profits over safety."

The baby formula cases are:

   -- "Beckner v. Mead Johnson & Company, et al., No. 2:08-cv-
      03765," filed on June 9, 2008, for use of BPA-laced
      Enfamil liquid formula; and

   -- "Anderson v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. 2:08-
      cv-03860," filed on June 12, 2008, for use of BPA-laced
      Similac liquid formula.

The baby bottle manufacturers cases (all filed on May 6, 2008)
are:

   -- "Lanza v. Avent America, Inc., et al., No. 2:08-cv-02960,"
      for use of BPA-laced Avent baby bottles;

   -- "Rasmussen v. Handi-Craft Company, et al., No. 2:08-cv-
      02961," for use of BPA-laced Dr. Brown's baby bottles;

   -- "Matusek v. Gerber Products Company, et al., No. 2:08-cv-
      02962," for use of BPA-laced Gerber baby bottles; and

   -- "O'Neil v. Evenflo Company, Inc., et al., No. 2:08-cv-
      02963," for use of BPA-laced Evenflo baby bottles.

Baby bottles have been more extensively tested for BPA than baby
formula, and are known to pose a threat to the health of infants
and children.  In 1999, Consumer Report conducted tests of baby
bottles made with plastics containing BPA.  The report concluded
that infants who used the type of bottles tested would be
exposed to a BPA dose 40 times higher than the conservative
definition of safety.  Another study in 1999 showed that used
polycarbonate baby bottles can leach BPA at daily levels that
damaged the brain and reproductive systems in lab animals.  Baby
bottles can be heated, thus facilitating the leaching of the
toxic chemical, by a dishwasher and boiling.

These studies, along with dozens like them, have been printed
and are public knowledge.  According to the lawsuits, the
companies profited from consumer fraud, false and misleading
advertising as well as unfair and deceptive business practices.
By marketing, manufacturing, and distributing baby bottles and
formula containing BPA, these companies either knew, recklessly
disregarded or reasonably should have known that its products
imposed significant health risks, and yet these defendants
reaped millions of dollars in profits.

For more information, contact:

          Robin McCall (rmccall@baumhedlundlaw.com)
          Media Relations Director
          Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-207-3233
          Fax: 310-820-7444


CERADYNE: Aug. 28 is Overtime Suit Certification Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Orange County set an Aug. 11,
2008 deadline for plaintiffs to file a motion seeking class-
action status for a lawsuit against Ceradyne, Inc., which
alleged that the representative plaintiff, a former Ceradyne
employee, and the putative class members, were not paid overtime
at an appropriate overtime rate.

The suit, "Daniel Vargas, Jr. v. Ceradyne, Inc., Orange County
Superior Court, Civil Action No. 07CC01232," was filed on
March 23, 2007.

The suit alleges that the purportedly affected employees should
have had their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating
overtime, adjusted to reflect the payment of a bonus to them for
the four years preceding the filing of the complaint.

The complaint further alleges that a waiting time penalty should
be assessed for the failure to timely pay the correct overtime
payment.  

Ceradyne has filed an answer denying the material allegations of
the complaint.  

A third-party administrator completed the mailing and processing
of the "opt-out" procedure and has provided the employee contact
information for employees that did not opt-out.

The court has ordered that the motion for class certification
must be filed by Aug. 11, 2008 (it was originally set for
July 8, 2008, but the plaintiff's counsel sought and received an
extension), according to the company's July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Ceradyne, Inc. -- http://www.ceradyne.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets advanced technical ceramic products,
ceramic powders and components for defense, industrial,
automotive/diesel and commercial applications.  It operates
through six segments: Advanced Ceramic Operations, ESK Ceramics,
Semicon Associates, Thermo Materials, Ceradyne Canada and
Ceradyne Boron Products.  The Company's products include
lightweight ceramic armor for soldiers and other military
applications; ceramic industrial components for erosion and
corrosion resistant applications; ceramic powders, including
boron carbide, boron nitride, titanium diboride, calcium
hexaboride, and zirconium diboride, which are used in
manufacture of armor and a range of industrial products;
BORONEIGE boron nitride powder for cosmetic products, and
evaporation boats for metallization of materials for food
packaging and other products.  Its products are sold into four
principal markets: defense, industrial, automotive/diesel and
commercial.


DAISO LLC: Recalls Children's Stuffed Toys Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daiso LLC, of Burlingame, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 40
stuffed dog toys.

The company said the stuffed toys contain small parts, posing a
choking hazard to young children.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled toys are cream-colored stuffed dogs with black eyes
and nose.  Some of the toys have brown spots on the back.  A tag
attached to the toy is written in Japanese language with UPC
codes: 4947678264166 and 4947678246063.

These recalled stuffed dogs were manufactured in China and were
being sold at Daiso retail stores in California and Washington
State from October 2007 through December 2007 for about $3.

A picture of the recalled stuffed dogs is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08597.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the toys and
return them to any Daiso retail store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Daiso toll-free at
866-768-4620 between 9:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.daisollc.com/


DANNON COMPANY: Sued Over Activia Yogurt Probiotic Health Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dannon Company has been named defendant in a class-action
lawsuit filed over allegations that it has made false and
misleading claims about the health benefits of its probiotic
line of yogurts, David Gutierrez writes for Natural News.

"Deceptive advertising has enabled Dannon to sell hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of ordinary yogurt at inflated prices
to responsible, health- conscious consumers," Timothy G. Blood,
Esq. stated in the complaint, which was filed before the U.S.
District Court in California.

Natural News cites the company as arguing that "All of Dannon's
claims for Activia and DanActive are completely supported by
peer-reviewed science and are in accordance with all laws and
regulations."

According to the report, Dannon advertises its Activia and
DanActive yogurts as containing probiotic bacteria that help
boost the immune system and regulate digestion.  An aggressive
marketing campaign by the company includes a high-profile ad
campaign and a Web site with links to studies showing the
benefits of the probiotic bacteria used in Activia products.

The studies cited by Dannon were all funded by the company, the
report notes.

The lawsuit says that there is no evidence that the yogurt
itself functions as advertised, regardless of what various
varieties of probiotic bacteria may do in the laboratory,
Natural News relates.

The report explains that probiotics are microorganisms that
provide health benefits inside the body, but some scientists say
that probiotics remain poorly understood.  Of the thousands of
probiotics that exist, very few have been tested for their
effects when consumed by humans as part of their diets.
Laboratory research does not necessarily translate into real
health benefits, these researchers say.

"At present, the quality of probiotics available to consumers in
food products around the world is unreliable," the report quotes
a 2006 report by the American Society for Microbiology as
saying.

There are few Food and Drug Administration regulations on
marketing claims made on probiotic products, as long as those
products do not claim to be equivalent to drugs that have the
ability to cure diseases, Natural News adds.


EVERGREEN ULTRA: Aug. 22 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP reminded investors in the Evergreen Ultra
Short Opportunities Fund, f/k/a the Evergreen Ultra Short Bond
Fund, of the upcoming August 22, 2008 "lead plaintiff" deadline
in the pending class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of individuals and entities who,
within three years of the filing of the lawsuit on June 23,
2008, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Fund
pursuant to or traceable to the Registration Statement or
Prospectus.

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

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764


FAIRBRIDGE FARM: Former Residents Log Child Abuse Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
A firm of Sydney-based lawyers is preparing to lodge a class
action suit against the administrative board of Fairbridge Farm
for as many as 50 former residents, Janice Harris writes for
Orange Central Western Daily.

The report relates that last week, 38 former residents of the
migrant farm for children had registered with Sydney law firm
Slater and Gordon claiming they were abused while living at the
property near Molong.

"By the close off on September 26th we are hoping that number
will rise to about 50," solicitor Paul Creed told Western Daily.

According to the report, issues surrounding alleged physical and
sexual abuse at the farm, which was closed in the 1970s,
surfaced in 2007 when former head of the ABC David Hill released
a damning account of life at Fairbridge titled "The Forgotten
Children," as told through the eyes of many former residents.

However several Orange and Molong residents who lived at the
working farm have turned their back on the compensation bid, the
report says.

"There's no point dragging this all up again," said former
Orange nurse and resident of Fairbridge, Marina McMahon.  "There
was the good and the bad but in the end it all came out even.
The one thing I regret was we weren't educated properly and when
many of us were brought in to Orange we had no idea of handling
money or living in the real world," she said.

Ms. McMahon said when she received papers from the firm of
solicitors handling the class action that she was not
interested, because "it's all in the past."


HALLIBURTON CO: July 2009 Trial Set for Texas Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A July 2009 trial is scheduled for a securities fraud lawsuit
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas against Halliburton Co.

The class action suit was filed in June 2002 against the company
with the federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common
stock during the period starting approximately May 1998 until
approximately May 2002.  The suit alleges violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with the accounting change
and disclosures involved in the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission investigation.   

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection.  In the weeks
that followed, approximately 20 similar class actions were filed
against the company.   

Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP -- the company's independent accountants for the
period covered by the lawsuits -- and several of the company's
present or former officers and directors: David J. Lesar,
Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore,
Jr.

The class actions were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, "Richard Moore, et al. v.
Halliburton Co., et al.," was filed and served upon the company
in April 2003.  

As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is
now styled, "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v.
Halliburton Company, et al."

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court.  

In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure
claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included
claims arising out of Halliburton's 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc., including that the company failed to timely
disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.  

                      Settlement Attempts

A memorandum of understanding contemplated settlement of the
Dresser claims as well as the original claims.

In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement.  Following the transfer of the case to another
district judge, the court held that evidence of the settlement's
fairness was inadequate, denied the motion for final approval of
the settlement, and ordered the parties to mediate.  The
mediation was unsuccessful.

                       Motion to Dismiss

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the company file a
motion  to dismiss.  The court held oral arguments on that
motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion
under advisement.  

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted
the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to
June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting AMSF to replead some of those claims to
correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.

AMSF then filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint.  The
company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been replead.

A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March
2007, the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all
individual defendants other than the company's CEO.  

The court ordered that the case proceed against Haliburton and
the company's CEO.  

In June 2007, upon becoming aware of a U.S. Supreme Court
opinion issued in that month, the court allowed further briefing
on the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the company's CEO.
The court again denied the motion to dismiss in March 2008.  

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the company's response was filed in November 2007.  A
hearing was held in March 2008, and the company awaits the
court's ruling.  The case is set for trial in July 2009.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq. (rschiffrin@sbtklaw.com)
         Schiffrin & Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056

         Marc R. Stanley, Esq. (mstanley@smi-law.com)
         Stanley Mandel & Iola
         3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
         Dallas, TX 75205
         Phone: 214-443-4301
         Fax: 214-443-0358

              - and -

         Thomas Burt, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
         270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4600

Representing the company is:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404


HANNAFORD BROS: Murray Plumb Selected to Lead Data Breach Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge D. Brock Hornby has selected two Maine lawyers to lead the
class-action lawsuit against Hannaford Bros. arising from last
winter's data breach at the company that exposed millions of
debit and credit card numbers to potential fraudulent use,
Morning Sentinel reports.

According to Morning Sentinel, appointed to lead the case, or at
least for the early part of what could be a drawn-out legal
process, are Peter Murray, Esq., of the Portland firm Murray,
Plumb & Murray, and Lewis Saul & Associates, who has offices in
Portland and New York City.  They were one of two groups that
had been competing to lead the lawsuit, which is considered to
be one of the largest data-breach cases in U.S. history.

As stated in various press reports earlier, the other group is
composed of Berger & Montague, which collaborated with Chicago
firm Barnow & Associates and the Miami firm Harke & Clasby.
Morning Sentinel notes that this group consists of high-profile
class-action lawyers.

Judge Hornby said in his order that the smaller group based in
Maine -- Murray Plumb -- makes more sense at this early stage in
the proceedings.  

"Involving fewer firms and having centralization in Maine should
not only be sufficient, but should help avoid unnecessary legal
fees and administration," Judge Hornby wrote.  "Perhaps a
different or larger leadership structure will be appropriate if
and when a class is certified and full discovery on the merits
ensues," he added.  "It is premature to decide now."

The judge has not yet certified the case as a class action,
Morning Sentinel says.

                        Case Background

Earlier reports by the Class Action Reporter pointed out that
the case against the Scarborough-based supermarket giant began
as more than 20 individual complaints were filed in four states.  
Specifically, the massive breach that compromised up to 4.2
million credit and debit card numbers used at 165 Hannaford
supermarkets in the Northeast and 106 Sweetbay stores in Florida
sparked 14 lawsuits in Maine, seven in Florida, one in New
Hampshire and one in New York.

The request to consolidate the lawsuits filed before the U.S.
District Court in Bangor, Maine, on behalf of Greg Doherty and
all others similarly situated, asserted that Hannaford was
negligent in not providing adequate data security
and did not inform customers of the breach quickly enough (Class
Action Reporter, April 21, 2008).  As recounted in earlier CAR
reports, the breach occurred between Dec. 7, 2007, and March 10,
2008, and Hannaford did not notify the public of the breach
until March 17, 2008.

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

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

                           Next Steps

According to Morning Sentinel, Murray and Lewis are now
responsible for boiling the cases down into one consolidated
complaint, which needs to be filed by Sept. 12, 2008.

The newly appointed lead counsel will also face off against
Hannaford's lawyers, who intend to file a motion to dismiss the
case.

The report says that if Judge Hornby does certify the case as a
class action, he will then decide whether Murray and Saul will
continue as lead counsel, or whether other lawyers should take
over that role.

Hannaford spokeswoman Carol Eleazor told Morning Sentinel that
the company will not comment on ongoing litigation.


HOME DEPOT: 7th Circuit Affirms Lower Court Ruling & Junks Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding, a leading international law firm, earned a
significant appellate victory for its client, The Home Depot,
Inc., in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

On July 28, 2008, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district
court's decision granting The Home Depot summary judgment and
dismissing the case.

The lawsuit centered on The Home Depot's sale of an optional
damage waiver, which was offered to customers in connection with
tool rentals.

The plaintiff claimed that The Home Depot's practices with
regard to this damage waiver were deceptive because, according
to the plaintiff, the damage waiver did not provide any value to
the consumer.  The plaintiff sought to maintain his claim under
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
on behalf of all individuals who purchased a damage waiver from
a The Home Depot store located in Illinois.

After discovery related to class certification, The Home Depot
moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's individual claim,
and the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment of his
own.

Judge John F. Grady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted The Home Depot's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the case.  Judge Grady held that the
damage had value and provided the plaintiff with reasonable
protection from liability.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the earlier decision.  
The Appeals Court held that the "the plain language of the
Rental Agreement demonstrates that the Damage Waiver does have
value" and that "Home Depot is entitled to charge customers a
price in exchange for its waiver of some of the customer's
liability under the Rental Agreement."

This result is a significant victory for The Home Depot in the
damage waiver litigation. It is the first appellate decision
addressing The Home Depot's damage waiver program, which has
been challenged in a number of putative class action lawsuits
across the country.

"The court's interpretation of this matter should set an
undeniable precedent for still-pending lawsuits related to our
damage waiver program," noted Will Barnette, Counsel for
Commercial Litigation at The Home Depot.  "This decision
validates the purpose of the damage waiver program and we could
not have hoped for a better result."

For more information, contact:

          Matt Hyams, Esq.
          King & Spalding
          1185 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-4003
          Phone: 212-827-4057


HORIZON LINES: Faces Suits Over Domestic Ocean Shipping Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc., is facing several purported antitrust class
action lawsuits in Florida, Puerto Rico, California, Oregon, and
Washington over domestic ocean shipping services, according to
the company's July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 22, 2008.

On April 17, 2008, the Company received a grand jury subpoena
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust
Division of the Department of Justice into possible antitrust
violations in the domestic ocean shipping business.  

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, a
number of purported class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and other domestic shipping carriers.

Thirty-five cases were filed between April 22, 2008, and
July 24, 2008, in these federal district courts:

   -- seven in the Southern District of Florida,
   -- five in the Middle District of Florida,
   -- 11 in the District of Puerto Rico,
   -- seven in the Northern District of California,
   -- two in the Central District of California,
   -- one in the District of Oregon, and
   -- two in the Western District of Washington.

Each of the federal district court cases purports to be on
behalf of a class of individuals and entities who purchased
domestic ocean shipping services from the various domestic ocean
carriers.

The complaints allege price-fixing in violation of the Sherman
Act and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

The Company is seeking that all of the foregoing federal
district court cases that relate to ocean shipping services in
the Puerto Rico tradelane be transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida for consolidated
proceedings.

The Company is seeking that all of the foregoing federal
district court cases that relate to ocean shipping services in
the Hawaii and Pacific tradelane be transferred to the Western
District of Washington for consolidated proceedings.

Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly  
known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and
integrated logistics company.  The Company's subsidiaries
include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC
(Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.
(HLPR).  With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones
Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the
Company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets.
The Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon
Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking
operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated
logistics services including relationships with third-party
truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets.  It
ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from
foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household
goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials
used in manufacturing.


KIDS II: Recalls Infant Rattles Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
Kids II Inc., of Alpharetta, Ga., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 19,000
Bright Starts Ring Rattles.

The company said the tip of the rattle's antenna, which is
attached to a bee figure, can detach and pose a choking hazard
to small children.

Kids II has received two reports of the tip of the antenna
detaching from the rattle, including one report that the purple
ball from the tip of the antenna was in the baby's mouth.  No
injuries have been reported.

The soft toy rattle is a bee with a yellow head, ring-shaped
green body, blue/green wings and purple/red antennas.  Model
number 8534 and date code PA8 are printed on a sewn-in label on
the bee's head.

These recalled rattles were made in China and were being sold at
toy stores, mass merchandisers, and other retail stores
nationwide from January 2008 through June 2008 for about $2-$3.

A picture of the recalled rattles can be found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08343.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled rattles
away from small children and contact Kids II to receive a free
replacement rattle.

For additional information, contact Kids II toll-free at
877-325-7056 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kidsii.com/


LIBERTY LEAGUE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Pyramiding Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty League International is facing a class-action complaint
before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California over allegations that it reaps tens of thousands of
dollars from customers by promising them six-figure incomes in
less than a year, but the only success stories are the sales the
pyramid scheme makes hawking its programs and seminars,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This class action challenges the defendants' unlawful and
unethical scheme to unlawfully and wrongfully solicit, market
and sell "personal development" products and seminars to
investors in California, throughout the United States and in
Canada.

The plaintiffs claim they bought into the company through its
aggressive marketing program, which touts the ability to earn
$200,000 in one year.  Liberty tells its customers that the "New
Associate Business Development Kit" is the only required
purchase, but the plaintiffs claim they had to spend at least
$22,500 each on Liberty's products and seminars in order to
become a qualified seller and earn commissions on all sales.

According to the complaint, the start-up kits contain scripts on
how to rope in new recruits, with questions such as, "What would
your goal income/ideal income be for the next twelve months if
there were no limitations placed on you?"

The script then states, "Their answer should be $100K or more
per year.  If it isn't, say, 'I'm sorry but that answer doesn't
qualify for my time.'"  If a recruit claims he or she cannot
afford the products, the Liberty League seller says, "It's not
the money, it's the decision.  Are you ready to have the results
I'm having? Then make it happen.  I'm penciling you in my
register now. Can you get the money together in 48 hours?"

Other talking points include: "If you are serious about making
real money, people are putting money in their pockets
immediately, to the tune of $1K-$5K and more per week" and
"Anyone will have results, as long as they follow our system."

However, plaintiff Vicki Huff claims she followed the program
and saw no results.  She allegedly dropped $30,000 on Liberty
League products and seminars, but was unable to make a single
sale.

The defendants' sales practices alleged violate the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 USC
Section 1961 et seq.  The defendants' practices also constitute
bad faith, violations of consumer protection statutes and unjust
enrichment warranting a constructive trust.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all Liberty League
Advisors and Associates in the United States and Canada who
during the applicable limitations period purchased personal
development products and seminars promoted, marketed and sold by
Liberty League.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants improperly solicited, referred,
         marketed and sold personal development products and
         seminars to consumers, including plaintiffs and the
         class;

     (b) whether the defendants engaged in mail and wire fraud;

     (c) whether the Liberty League Enterprise is an
         "enterprise" within the meaning of 18 USC Section
         1961(4);

     (d) whether the defendants conducted or participated in the
         affairs of the Liberty League Enterprise through a
         pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 USC
         Section 1962(c);

     (e) whether defendants conspired to commit violation of the
         racketeering laws in violation of 18 USC Section
         1962(d);

     (f) whether defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering
         activity intended to transfer and receive money stolen
         in violation of 18 USC Section 2314 and 2315
         (transporting and receiving stolen money);

     (g) whether defendants' pattern of racketeering activity
         intended to defraud plaintiffs and class members using
         the U.S. and international mails and interstate wire
         services in violation of 18 USC Section 1341 and 1343
         (mail and wire fraud);

     (h) whether defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering
         activity that proximately caused injury to the business
         or property of plaintiffs and class members;

     (i) whether defendants were unjustly enriched at the
         expense of the class;

     (j) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         damages; and

     (k) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         declaratory and injunctive relief as a result of
         defendants' unlawful and improper conduct.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action             
        maintainable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
        certifying an appropriate class and certifying plaintiff
        as class representative;

     -- enjoining defendants from conducting their business
        through the unlawful acts and practices described in the
        complaint;

     -- awarding the class statutory damages, actual damages,
        and punitive damages as appropriate;

     -- awarding pre- and post- judgment interest;

     -- awarding the plaintiff all costs and expenses, including
        attorneys' fees; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as the court may
        deem necessary, proper and appropriate.

The suit is "Vicki Huff et al. v. Lierty League International,
LLC et al., Case 5:08-cv-01010-VAP-SS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC
          2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-274-1100
          Fax: 602-798-5852


MEDCO HEALTH: Mass. Court OKs PolyMedica Merger Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Massachusetts for Middlesex County
approved on a final basis the proposed settlement in a class
action lawsuit against Medco Health Solutions, Inc., over a
merger agreement between the company and PolyMedica Corp.,
according to Medco Health Solutions, Inc.'s July 24, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
Aug. 27, 2007, PolyMedica shareholders received $53 in cash for
each outstanding share of PolyMedica common stock.  Medco funded
the transaction on Oct. 31, 2007, through a combination of
$1 billion in bank borrowings from its existing $2 billion
revolving credit facility and cash on hand.

In August 2007, a putative stockholder class action suit related
to the merger was filed by purported stockholders of PolyMedica
Corp. before the Superior Court of Massachusetts for Middlesex
County against, amongst others, the company and its affiliate,
MACQ Corp.

The lawsuit captioned, "Groen v. PolyMedica Corp. et al.,"
alleges, among other things, that the price agreed to in the
merger agreement was inadequate and unfair to the PolyMedica
stockholders and that the defendants breached their duties to
the stockholders and aided breaches of duty by other defendants
in negotiating and approving the merger agreement.  

Shortly thereafter, two virtually identical lawsuits (only one
of which named the company as a defendant) were filed in the
same court.

The complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
seek injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the parties to these actions reached an
agreement in principle to settle the dispute.  The settlement is
subject to, among other things, the execution of definitive
documentation and court approval.

The Middlesex County Superior Court approved the parties' Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement and at a
fairness hearing held on May 8, 2008, granted final approval of
the deal and dismissed the matters with prejudice on the merits.

The plaintiffs' counsel's application for attorneys' fees and
expenses, however, remains pending.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a  
pharmacy benefit manager.  The Company provides traditional and
specialty prescription drug benefit programs and services for
its clients and members.  It provides pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) services through its national networks of
retail pharmacies and its own mail-order pharmacies, as well as
through its Specialty Pharmacy segment, Accredo Health Group.
During the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007, it introduced the
Medco Therapeutic Resource Centers.  The Company's data center
links its mail-order pharmacy operations, including its call
center pharmacies and work-at-home sites, its Websites, and the
retail pharmacies in its networks.  


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Minnesota Derivative Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International is facing a derivative complaint filed
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint accuses MoneyGram's officers of artificially
inflating the value of company stock by issuing misleading
financial statements.

The suit is "York v. Ford et al., Case Number: 0:2008cv04799,"  
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, MoneyGram International
Inc. -- http://www.moneygram.com/-- (NYSE: MGI) is a payment       
services company.  The company's major products and services
include global money transfers, money orders and payment
processing solutions for financial institutions and retail
customers.  MoneyGram had approximately 143,000 money transfer
agent locations in 170 countries and territories.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Derivatives Suit Deal Gets Preliminary Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Supreme Court has issued an order granting
preliminary approval to the settlement of the New York State and
Federal court derivative lawsuits filed against Monster
Worldwide, Inc.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will receive
approximately $10 million in cash from various individuals, the
Class B Common Stock held by Andrew J. McKelvey will be
converted to ordinary shares of common stock, certain
outstanding stock options and restricted stock units will be
cancelled and the exercise price of certain outstanding options
will be increased.

A final hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for
October 2, 2008.

Sal Iannuzzi, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Monster Worldwide, remarked, "The Company wishes to acknowledge
the efforts of Dechert LLP, its lead external counsel, and
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, counsel to the Special Litigation
Committee of the Board of Directors, in negotiating the
settlements of the shareholder securities class action and
derivative actions, respectively."

New York-based Monster Worldwide, Inc., provides online services
to customers in a variety of industries throughout North
America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region in three reportable
segments: Monster Careers – North America; Monster Careers –
International; and Internet Advertising & Fees.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Settles N.Y. Securities Suit for $47.5 Mln.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP, representing the court-appointed Class
Representative Middlesex County Retirement System, has entered
into a memorandum of understanding to settle "In re Monster
Worldwide, Inc. Securities Litigation" for $47.5 million.

The putative securities shareholder class action suit was filed
on or about March 15, 2007, by Middlesex County Retirement
System in Massachusetts and the pension fund of the Steamship
Trade Association-International Longshoreman's Association
against Monster Worldwide and certain former employees before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
The suit was designated as "In re Monster Worldwide Securities
Litigation, 07 Civ. 2237 (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR)."

The suit seeks an indeterminate amount of damages on behalf of
all persons or entities, other than the defendants, who
purchased or acquired the securities of the company from May 6,
2005, until June 9, 2006.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs amended their complaint in the
securities class action asserting claims against the company,
Andrew McKelvey, and Myron Olesnyckyj based on an alleged
violation of Section 10(b) the Exchange Act and against the
individual defendants based on an alleged violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

The company answered the amended complaint on Sept. 11, 2007
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2008).

In July 2008, Judge Jed Rakoff of U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted class-action status to the
securities fraud lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, July 18, 2008).

Judge Rakoff ruled that the proposed class consists of thousands
of potential members and that many lacked the resources to
litigate their claims against the defendants individually.  The
judge found "the class action is the superior method of
adjudication."

The Middlesex group was appointed to represent the class,
although the STA-ILA was not.

The Memorandum of Understanding reached by the parties
memorializes the terms pursuant to which Monster Worldwide, the
class action representative and the individual defendants intend
to settle the securities class action, subject to court
approval.  It provides for a payment to the class by the
defendants of $47.5 million in full settlement of the claims
asserted in the securities class action.

The company's cost is anticipated to be approximately
$25 million (net of insurance and contribution from another
defendant).  The parties expect to enter into a formal
settlement agreement in the near future and to thereafter seek
court approval.

The proposed settlement, if approved by Judge Rakoff, will be
one of the top five largest options backdating class action
settlements in history.

The settlement also requires Monster's founder and former chief
executive officer, Mr. McKelvey, to personally pay $550,000
toward the settlement.

Sal Iannuzzi, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Monster Worldwide, remarked, "This settlement is a positive
development in the Company's efforts to resolve the class action
lawsuit and represents a major step forward in closing this
chapter of the Company's history."

The suit is "In Re: Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-02237," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Jed S. Rakoff
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY, 10017
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          e-mail: info@labaton.com

               - and -

          Goldman, Scarlato & Karon. P.C.
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 360
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 484-342-0700
                 888-668-4130
          Fax: 484-342-0701
          e-mail: info@gsk-law.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Andrew J. Levander, Esq. (andrew.levander@dechert.com)
          Dechert LLP
          P.O. Box 5218
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: 212-698-3500
          Fax: 212-698-3500

               - and -

          Arunabha Bhoumik, Esq. (ABhoumik@manatt.com)
          Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-790-4554
          Fax: 212-536-1861


MORGAN KEEGAN: Sued Over Funds Held by Regions Trust Accounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomason Hendrix Harvey Johnson & Mitchell, PLLC, filed class
action suits concerning certain mutual funds of the Regions
Morgan Keegan Select family of open-end funds and the RMK family
of closed-end funds held by trust, custodial and agency accounts
for which Regions Bank, doing business as Regions Morgan Keegan
Trust, is trustee, custodian or agent.

C. Fred Daniels, in his capacity as Trustee ad Litem, has
commenced five separate class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on
behalf of all trusts and custodial accounts and their respective
trustees, representatives, and fiduciaries:

     (a) for which Regions Bank is a trustee or a directed
         trustee, custodian, or agent;

     (b) that purchased, otherwise acquired or held certain of
         the Regions Morgan Keegan Select proprietary mutual
         fund family of open-end funds, and the RMK
         proprietary mutual fund family of closed-end funds
         during the period from December 6, 2004 (January 23,
         2006, in the case of the RMK Multi-Sector High Income
         Fund) through February 6, 2008; and

     (c) which are effectively excluded from, or are
         inadequately protected by, previously-filed class
         actions relating to the Funds.

                      The Trustee ad Litem

These actions are brought by a special fiduciary appointed by
the Probate Court of Jefferson County, Alabama for the limited
and specific purposes of monitoring, evaluating, and
participating in the Previous Class Actions and taking any and
all appropriate actions on behalf of the Trusts and the
Custodial Accounts relating to the Funds.

The Probate Court's appointment of the Trustee ad Litem resulted
from Regions Bank's conflict of interest between its interests
as a defendant in one or more of the Previous Class Actions (and
as an affiliate of other defendants in the Previous Class
Actions) on the one hand, and its interests and duties as a
fiduciary for Trusts and Custodial Accounts that purchased,
otherwise acquired, or held, shares of one or more of the Funds
on the other hand.

The Probate Court's Order dated June 9, 2008, and Amended Order
Appointing Trustee ad Litem dated June 20, 2008, appointed C.
Fred Daniels, Esq., as Trustee ad Litem.  Mr. Daniels is an
attorney with substantial experience in trust law and is a
partner with the law firm of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas
& O'Neal LLP.  The Probate Court proceeding is styled "In re
Regions Bank, d/b/a Regions Morgan Keegan Trust, Probate Court
of Jefferson County, Alabama, Case no. 200853."

              The Reason for Filing These Actions

It is uncertain whether the Previous Class Actions include the
Trust and Custodial Accounts as members of the respective
putative classes, or otherwise adequately protect the interests
of the Trust and Custodial Accounts, and the Trustee ad Litem
therefore has filed these class actions for the benefit of the
Trust and Custodial Accounts as a precaution.

By filing these actions, neither the Trustee ad Litem nor the
Representative Plaintiff Trusts named as such in the complaints
acknowledge, contend, or assert that any of the Representative
Plaintiff Trusts or other Trusts or Custodial Accounts (or their
respective trustees, representatives, and fiduciaries) otherwise
included in the class defined above are in fact excluded from
the Previous Class Actions.

Rather, these actions were filed to further the purposes of the
Appointment Order, i.e., to protect the interests of the Trusts
and Custodial Accounts. As explained in more detail below, this
notice is similarly being published as a precaution.

                  Allegations of the Complaints

The various complaints name as defendants:

     -- Morgan Keegan Asset Management, Inc.,

     -- the Funds' investment advisor, Morgan Keegan & Company,
        Inc.,

     -- the distributor of the Funds' shares,

     -- their officers and directors,

     -- Regions Financial Holdings, Inc.,

     -- their parent corporation Regions Financial Corporation,
        and

     -- the Funds' accounting firm, PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The RMK Funds are also defendants in the suits affecting those
respective Funds.  Not all these persons or entities are named
as defendants in all the complaints.  While there are different
specific legal and factual allegations in each of the five
complaints, generally the various complaints allege that the
defendants violated the disclosure and anti-fraud requirements
of federal securities laws and in some instances the Investment
Company Act.  The Funds and the defendants misrepresented or
failed to disclose material facts relating to:

     (i) the nature of the risks being assumed by an investment
         in the Funds,

    (ii) the illiquidity of certain securities in which the
         Funds invested,

   (iii) the extent to which the Funds' portfolios contained
         securities that were illiquid or exhibited the
         characteristics of illiquid securities so that they
         were highly vulnerable to suddenly becoming unsalable
         at their estimated values at the prices at which they
         were being carried on the Funds' records,

    (iv) the extent to which the Funds' portfolios were subject
         to fair value procedures,

     (v) the extent to which the values of such securities, and,
         consequently, the net asset values of the Funds, were
         based on estimates of value and the uncertainty
         inherent in such estimated values,

    (vi) the concentration of investments in a single industry
         and

   (vii) the net asset values of the Funds.

The complaints allege that as a result of the eventual
disclosures and partial disclosures of these misstatements and
omissions, the prices of the Funds declined significantly.

                    Purpose of This Notice

This notice is being published pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which requires that a
plaintiff in a securities class action publish a notice advising
members of the purported class that, among other things, any
member of the purported class may move the court to serve as
lead plaintiff of the class.

If it is determined that the Previous Class Actions do in fact
exclude or fail to adequately protect the Trust and Custodial
Accounts as members of the respective putative classes, then it
will be necessary for each of the class actions filed by the
Trustee ad Litem to proceed through lead plaintiffs.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf other
class members in directing the litigation.

In this instance, the purported classes are composed of Trusts
and Custodial Accounts, many of which, as a matter of law, can
only bring the type of claims being made in these class actions
through the trustee, and therefore the Trustee ad Litem has
acted to bring these claims on their behalf.

However, certain other of the Trusts and Custodial Accounts may
act through other persons, and therefore there are persons with
interests in the Trusts and Custodial Accounts who have the
legal capacity to serve as a lead plaintiff if they choose to do
so.  Whether a person with an interest in one of the affected
Trusts or Custodial Accounts has the legal capacity to serve as
a lead plaintiff must be determined on an individual basis, but
generally these persons would be co-trustees of Trusts, settlors
(also known as grantors) of revocable Trusts, or principals of
Custodial Accounts.  Persons who generally do not have the legal
capacity to act on behalf of the Trust or Custodial Account in
this type of matter--and who therefore cannot serve as lead
plaintiff--are beneficiaries of Trusts (whether current
beneficiaries or those who may become beneficiaries in the
future), settlors (also known as grantors) of irrevocable
Trusts, and beneficiaries or other persons with interests in
Custodial Accounts other than as principals.

If (1) a Regions Morgan Keegan Trust or Custodial Account in
which you have an interest is a member of one of the classes
described above, and (2) you are a co-trustee of a Trust, the
settlor or grantor of a revocable Trust, or a principal of a
Custodial Account, you may, not later than September 29, 2008,
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of a class or classes
of which you (or the Trust(s) or Custodial Account(s) you
represent) are a member, if you chose to do so.

If it is eventually determined that the Previous Class Actions
do include and adequately protect the Trust and Custodial
Accounts as members of the respective putative classes, and if
the class actions filed by the Trustee ad Litem are consolidated
with the Previous Class Actions, it is possible -- and the
Trustee ad Litem presently believes this is likely -- that the
Trusts and Custodial Accounts will not exist as separate classes
or subclasses, and therefore there may be no need for lead
plaintiffs to represent the interests of the Trusts and
Custodial Accounts in this litigation.
Additional Information

The case names and docket numbers of the lawsuits filed by the
Trustee ad Litem are:

Relating to all three of the Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds:

     "C. Fred Daniels, As Trustee Ad Litem For The George E. Von  
      Gal III, Intervivos Q-Tip Trust Under Agreement, et al.,
      v. Morgan Asset Management, Inc., et al., Case no. 2:08-
      cv-02454-SHM-tmp"

Relating to the RMK Advantage Income Fund:

     "C. Fred Daniels, as Trustee ad Litem for The Harold G.
      McAbee Family Trust, et al. v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc.,
      et al., Case no. 2:08-cv-02453-SHM-tmp"

Relating to the RMK High Income Fund:

     "C. Fred Daniels, as Trustee ad Litem for The Harold G.
      McAbee Family Trust, et al. v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc.,
      et al., Case no 2:08-cv-02452-SHM-tmp"

Relating to the RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund:

     "C. Fred Daniels, as Trustee ad Litem for The Alice C. Cade
      Trust for the Benefit of Carroll Corbin Bays, et al., v.     
      Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., et al., Case no 2:08-cv-02456-
      SHM-tmp"

Relating to the RMK Strategic Income Fund:

     "C. Fred Daniels, as Trustee ad Litem for KPS Group, Inc.,
      Profit Sharing Retirement Plan, et al. v. Morgan Keegan &
      Co., Inc., et al., Case no. 2:08-cv-02455-SHM-tmp"

The Trustee ad Litem may be contacted through:

          Trustee ad Litem for Regions Morgan Keegan
          Trust and Custodial Accounts
          P.O. Box 830612
          Birmingham, AL 35283-0612
          Toll-free Phone: 1-800-253-4248
          e-mail: trustee@rmklawsuit.com

For additional information concerning the class actions,
contact:

          Albert C. Harvey, Esq.
          Thomason, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson, & Mitchell, PLLC
          One Commerce Square, 29th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Phone: 901-525-8721
          Fax: 901-525-6722


MYSPACE.COM: Unfair News Corp. Sale Suit to Proceed to Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
In response to a major ruling benefitting shareholders of public
companies who depend on the disclosure of accurate and timely
financial information to buy and sell stock, MySpace.com Founder
Brad Greenspan released the following statement on behalf of
former eUniverse shareholders:

"Shareholders of eUniverse laud the federal judge in Jim Brown
v. Brett C. Brewer's decision to order the stockholder class
action lawsuit arising from MySpace's unfair sale in September
2005 to News Corp, to proceed to trial."

U.S. District Court Federal Judge George H. King denied the
defendant's motion to dismiss the entire complaint that alleges
that plaintiffs, who owned common shares in publicly traded
eUniverse, which created and in 2005 was the majority owner of
MySpace.com, were defrauded of billions of dollars in potential
profits from the unlawful sale of both eUniverse and MySpace to
News Corporation, in violation of federal and state law, and
defendants' violations of 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are expected to begin discovery
shortly against Defendants that include the Directors and senior
officers of publicly traded Intermix (formerly eUniverse) and
venture capital investor Vantage Point Partners.

The named defendants are:

     -- Brett C. Brewer,
     -- Daniel L. Mosher,
     -- Lawrence Moreau,
     -- Christopher S. Lipp,
     -- James Quandt,
     -- William Woodward,
     -- Richard Rosenblatt,
     -- David Carlick,
     -- Andrew Sheehan, and
     -- Vantage Point Partners.

Shareholder-victims include thousands of direct shareholders and
hundreds of thousands of people with capital invested with
funds, including:

     -- William Blair & Co.,
     -- Gardner Lewis Asset Management,
     -- Gruber and McBaine Capital Management,
     -- Trafelet & Company, LLC,
     -- Capital Research & Management.

Brown v. Brewer will proceed to trial on Count Two based on the
plaintiff's successful allegations that the 2005 Proxy contained
a false or misleading statement or omission of material fact,
made with at least negligence that was an essential link in
accomplishing the News Corp transaction.

Justice King indicated in the opinion: "In light of our findings
and conclusions on Plaintiff's allegations concerning the value
of MySpace, the internal management projections, and the
derivative suits, we need not consider the remaining allegations
of the CSAC concerning the purported interest from Viacom and
the MySpace option. We intimate no opinion as to the merits of
these latter allegations at this time."

Count Four related to Defendants violations of breach of
fiduciary duty and for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary
duty in connection with the sale of Intermix to News Corp. has
been ordered to proceed to trial.

Judge King noted that "in light of our conclusion that Count Two
is adequately pled, we cannot find untainted stockholder
approval of the merger here."

The defendant's motion to dismiss Count Five was also denied and
will proceed to trial, with Judge King indicating that knowing
participation can be inferred to Carlick and Sheehan, managing
directors of VantagePoint:

MySpace Founder and largest MySpace/Intermix Shareholder at time
of sale in 2005 -- Brad Greenspan -- added: "It has been three
years since I worked around the clock pleading with other
MySpace/Intermix shareholders to vote against the sale of
MySpace to News Corporation in 2005.  I knew that the value of
the company was billions of dollars, however the deceptive
practice of hiding MySpace financials by Intermix management
robbed shareholders of their opportunity to adequately gauge the
company's value"

Mr. Greenspan continued: "This is a very simple case.  
Management of public companies have been sent a signal today
that there are certain conditions that legally must be met prior
to the sale of a publicly traded company."

     1) Management makes a good faith effort to approach all
        potential buyers and ensure they know the company is for
        sale.  And these companies get a chance to see the same
        financial info and metrics as any other potential buyer.

     2) Management has disclosed all material segments of their
        business that could be considered important in a
        shareholder's decision to buy/sell.  The Ruling today
        will hopefully push companies to become more and more
        clear and open with their financial info.

MySpace is an online community that lets you meet your friends'
friends.


OPTIVER HOLDING: Trader's Suit Claims Oil-Market Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A trader living in Spain has filed a class-action lawsuit
seeking damages from the global fund Optiver Holding BV and its
Chicago-based subsidiary that were recently charged by U.S.
commodity regulators with manipulating oil futures markets,
Reuters reports.

Roberto Gracey claims he lost nearly $9,000 in March 2007 as a
result of Optiver's oil market manipulation, Reuters notes.

"As a direct result of the defendants' manipulation, plaintiff
and class members were injured including by being deprived of a
competitive market free of manipulation and by losing money on
their trades in the subject contracts," the suit, filed in the
U.S. District Court in New York, asserts.

Reuters recounts that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
last month charged Optiver with manipulating prices of New York
Mercantile Exchange crude oil and oil products futures contracts
during the March 2007 period.  The CFTC also charged three
employees of the Netherlands-based fund, including the company's
CEO and head of trading, with making about $1 million through
manipulative trading of oil markets.

The commission said the employees carried out a scheme known as
"banging" or "marking" the close of the oil trading day to push
prices up and down.  These terms, Reuters explains, refer to the
practices of acquiring a substantial position leading up to the
closing period, followed by offsetting the position before the
end of trading to attempt to move the price.  

According to the report, oil prices hit a record above $147 a
barrel early this month.  Politicians have pressured the
government to crack down on energy market manipulation and
excessive speculation.

The suit seeks damages and restitution for Mr. Gracey and class
members as well as attorney fees as deemed fit by court.

Reuters says that Optiver US LLC did not immediately return
phone calls about the suit.


PARMALAT FINANZIARIA: Sept. 24 Hearing Set for N.Y. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 24, 2008, to consider
final approval of the proposed settlement by Parmalat
Finanziaria S.p.A. in the matter, "In re Parmalat Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04‐MD‐1653 (LAK)."

The hearing will be held before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan at the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in
500 Pearl St., New York.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Sept. 15, 2008.  The deadline for the submission of  
proof of claim forms is on Jan. 12, 2009.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit was filed against Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A.,
certain, former officers and directors of Parmalat, Parmalat's
former lawyers, Parmalat's former auditors and their affiliates,
and several financial institutions.

On Dec. 19, 2003, it was announced that a EUR4-billion
($4.8-billion) Parmalat bank account did not exist, revealing an
alleged fraudulent financial scheme between Parmalat, the giant
international Italian dairy company, and several other
companies.

Parmalat investors sued in the U.S Court and claimed that the
defendants violated the U.S. federal securities laws through
their fraudulent activities that concealed Parmalat's true
financial condition and generated false and misleading financial
statements.  The alleged fraud resulted in the understatement of
Parmalat's debt by nearly $10 billion and the overstatement of
its net assets by more than $16 billion.  

When this alleged fraud was disclosed, Parmalat filed for
bankruptcy, and the value of its stock and bonds dramatically
declined.

The lead plaintiffs in the matter are Hermes Focus Asset
Management Europe Limited, Cattolica Partecipazioni, S.p.A.,
Capital & Finance Asset Management, Societe Moderne des
Terrassements Parisiens and Solotrat.

Recently, Parmalat S.p.A., one of the defendants, agreed to
settle the case.  The settlement covers anyone who brought
Parmalat securities from Jan. 5, 1999, through and including
Dec. 18, 2003.

Under the settlement agreement, a settlement fund has been
established, and Parmalat S.p.A. will provide to the fund
10,500,000 shares of Parmalat S.p.A. Stock.

The lawsuit will continue to proceed against certain auditing
firms, financial institutions, and individuals.  The defendants
not settling, against whom claims are still pending in the class
action, are:

       -- Bank of America Corp.,
       -- Bank of America, N.A.,
       -- Banc of America Securities Ltd.,
       -- Citigroup Inc., Citibank N.A.,
       -- Eureka Securitisation plc,
       -- Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu,
       -- Deloitte & Touche USA LLP,
       -- Grant Thornton International,
       -- Grant Thornton LLP,
       -- Pavia e Ansaldo, and
       -- numerous individuals.

For more details, contact:

         James J. Sabella, Esq. (jsabella@gelaw.com)
         Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
         485 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 646-722-8500

         Lisa Mezzetti, Esq. (lmezzetti@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
         Suite 500, West Tower
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

              - and -

         Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
         Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
         1818 Market Street, 25th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300
         Fax: 215-496-6611


QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Cellular Phone Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM, Inc., and many other manufacturers of wireless phones,
wireless operators and industry-related organizations, continue
to face several purported class action suits, and several
individually filed actions pending in Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Washington D.C., and Louisiana.

The suits, arising out of the company's sale of cellular phones,
are seeking monetary damages.

The courts that have reviewed similar claims against other
companies to date have held that there was insufficient
scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims in those cases.

The company reported no development in the matters in its
July 24, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

QUALCOMM, Inc. -- http://www.qualcomm.com/-- designs,   
manufactures, and markets digital wireless telecommunications
products and services based on its code division multiple access
technology and other technologies.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Fla. Cabin Stewards' Suit Goes into Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against Royal Caribbean
Cruises, Ltd., and one of its cruise brands, which was filed by
cabin stewards, has gone into arbitration.

The suit, "Lopez v. Royal Caribbean, Case No. 1:05-cv-21159-
MGC," was filed in April 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The suit alleges that the company's Celebrity Cruises Lines
improperly requires its cabin stewards to share guest gratuities
with assistant cabin stewards.   

The suit seeks payment of damages including penalty wages under
46 U.S.C. Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest.

In March 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida dismissed the suit and held that the case should be
arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in Celebrity's
collective bargaining agreement.

In June 2007, the dismissal was affirmed by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the plaintiff's petition
requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari
jurisdiction over the action was subsequently denied.

In February 2008, the plaintiff submitted a notice to arbitrate
the claim pursuant to Celebrity's collective bargaining
agreement and arbitration is currently pending, according to the
company's July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Lopez v. Royal Caribbean, Case No. 1:05-cv-21159-
MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Judge Marcia G. Cooke presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          James Madison Walker, Esq. (jwalker@cruiselaw.com)
          Walker & O'Neill PA
          7301 SW 57th Court
          Plaza 57, Suite 430
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Phone: 305-995-5300
          Fax: 305-995-5310

Representing the defendant is:

          Keith Steven Brais, Esq. (gcraft@braislaw.com)
          McAlpin & Brais
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2805
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: 305-810-5400
          Fax: 305-810-5401


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Calif. Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Arbitration Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter captioned "Michael Rogers et al. v.
Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04574-SVW-
E," are appealing an arbitration order in their case to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In July 2006, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Royal Caribbean before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, alleging that the company failed to
timely pay crew wages and failed to pay proper crew overtime.

The suit seeks payment of damages, including penalty wages under
the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act and equitable relief damages under
the California Unfair Competition Law.

In December 2006, the District Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the claim and held that the dispute should be
arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in Royal
Caribbean's collective bargaining agreement.

In January 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Michael Rogers et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruise
Lines et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04574-SVW-E," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Stephen V. Wilson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Joseph S. Farzam, Esq. (farzam@lawyer.com)
          Farzam and Associates
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1345
          Los Angleles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-226-6890

Representing the defendant is:

          Sanford L. Bohrer, Esq. (sandy.bohrer@hklaw.com)
          Holland & Knight
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-374-8500


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Motion to Transfer Copyright Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., to transfer an
intellectual rights class action lawsuit filed against it before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
remains pending.

The suit was filed in January 2006.  It alleges that the company
infringed rights in copyrighted works and other intellectual
property by presenting performances on company cruise ships
without securing the necessary licenses.   

The suit seeks payment of damages, disgorgement of profits and a
permanent injunction against future infringement.  

In April 2006, the company filed a motion to sever and transfer
the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of   
Florida.  The motion is pending.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Jacobs, et al. v. Carnival Corp., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-00606-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Deborah A. Batts,
presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Howard J. Schwartz Porzio, Esq. (hjschwartz@pbnlaw.com)
         Bromberg & Newman, P.C.
         156 West 56th St.
         New York, NY 10019-3800
         Phone: 212-265-6888

Representing the defendants is:
      
         Frank W. Ryan, Esq. (fryan@nixonpeabody.com)
         Nixon Peabody, LLP
         437 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-940-3129
         Fax: 866-947-2289


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: "Brown" Case Dismissed, Ordered in Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit entitled, "Brown v. Royal
Caribbean Cruises LTD et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-20692-UU," which
names Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., as a defendant, has been
dismissed and ordered into arbitration.

The purported class action suit was filed in March 2008 against
the company, Celebrity Cruises, and a related party, Celebrity
Catering Services, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, alleging that the company improperly
deducted amounts from the gratuities paid to its shipboard
servers, waiters, bar tenders and other personnel in its bar and
restaurant departments.

The suit also alleged that such persons were not properly
compensated for their hours worked.  It suit sought payment of
damages, including penalty wages under the U.S. Seaman's Wage
Act.

The suit was dismissed in June 2008 and ordered to arbitration
in accordance with the terms of the applicable collective
bargaining agreement, according to the company's July 25, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Brown v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-20692-UU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Ursula Ungaro, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steven Frederick Grover, Esq.
          1 E. Broward Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-356-0005
          Fax: 954-356-0010
          e-mail: lawhelp@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Seth Michael Lehrman, Esq. (seth@lehrmanlaw.com)
          Lehrman & Lehrman
          1801 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 103
          Plantation, FL 33322
          Phone: 954-472-9990
          Fax: 954-727-9990

Representing the defendants is:

          Sanford Lewis Bohrer, Esq. (sbohrer@hklaw.com)
          Holland & Knight
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-789-7678
          Fax: 305-679-6335


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Plaintiffs Dismiss Suits Over Fuel Supplements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in five consolidated purported class action
lawsuits against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., have voluntarily
dismissed their respective cases, which were pending with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The actions, which had been filed in February and March 2008
alleged that the company, other cruise lines and a trade
association violated federal antitrust laws or state deceptive
and unfair trade practices laws by conspiring to fix the prices
of the fuel supplements announced by the various cruise lines or
misleading consumers as to the relationship between each cruise
line's fuel costs and the fuel supplements it is charging its
customers.

In April 2008, the five consolidated purported class action
suits in Florida were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs,
according to the company's July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period June 30, 2008.

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. -- http://www.royalcaribbean.com/
-- is a cruise company with 35 cruise ships and 71,200 berths.  
The Company operates five brands: Royal Caribbean International,
Celebrity Cruises, Pullmantur Cruises, Azamara Cruises, and CDF
Croisieres de France.  In addition, the Company has a 50%
investment in a joint venture with TUI Travel PLC (TUI Travel),
formerly First Choice Holidays PLC, which operates the brand
Island Cruises.  The cruise vacation industry comprises the
budget, contemporary, premium and luxury segments.  The ships
operate on a selection of worldwide itineraries that call on
approximately 380 destinations.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: "Bozadzhiev" Nixed and Ordered into Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit entitled "Bozadzhiev v. Royal
Caribbean Cruises, LTD et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-21273-UU," which
names Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., as a defendant, has been
dismissed and ordered into arbitration.

The purported class-action suit was filed in April 2008 against
the company, Celebrity Cruises and a related party, Celebrity
Catering Services, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, alleging that the company underpaid wages
and overtime pay for its shipboard personnel.

The suit also alleged that the company improperly deducted
amounts from the gratuities paid to certain of its shipboard
restaurant personnel.

It suit sought payment of damages, including penalty wages under
the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act.

In June 2008, the court dismissed the case and ordered the
parties to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the
applicable collective bargaining agreements, according to the
company's July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Bozadzhiev v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD et al.,
Case No. 1:08-cv-21273-UU," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Judge Ursula Ungaro,
presiding.

Representing the defendants is:

          Sanford Lewis Bohrer, Esq.
          Holland & Knight
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-789-7678
          Fax: 305-679-6335
          e-mail: sbohrer@hklaw.com


SPRINT NEXTEL: Kansas Court Allows Sales Reps' Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 30, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the  District
Court of Kansas issued an order allowing Sprint Nextel
Corporation's retail employees to continue with their commission
claims against the company.

The suit, filed on Feb. 7, 2008, was brought by current and
former employees who either worked, or currently work, as sales
representatives in Sprint Nextel's retail stores in Louisiana
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2008).

These employees assert that since the merger of Sprint and
Nextel, the companies have failed to pay them all the
commissions they were due because of computer issues Sprint
Nextel failed to resolve.  These employees claim they were
shorted approximately $100 to more than $500 per month in
commissions for products and services they sold for Sprint
Nextel.

The plaintiffs filed their claims in the Kansas District Court
due to choice of law and venue provisions in their commissions
contract that designated Kansas law and the State of Kansas.

Recently, the Court issued its ruling in response to a motion to
dismiss filed by Sprint.  Sprint argued that non-Kansas
residents were not protected by Kansas state commission laws
even though the retail employees' commission agreements included
choice-of-law and choice-of-venue provisions specifying Kansas
law and Kansas courts.  Sprint asserted that the Kansas
commission statute only protected Kansas residents.

The Honorable Judge Kathryn H. Vratil rejected this argument,
explaining that Sprint did not show as a matter of law that out-
of-state employees could recover their commissions from Sprint
under the Kansas Wage Payment Act.

The plaintiffs' motion to certify this case as a class action is
currently pending with the Court.  The plaintiffs' counsel,
Michele Fisher, Esq., stated, "If the case is certified, it will
likely include over 19,000 retail employees, their managers and
their district managers from across the country."

If the case is certified, the plaintiffs estimate that it will
include thousands of Sprint Nextel retail employees across the
country.  They estimate the employees have been shorted anywhere
from $100 to over $1,000 per month in commissions.

The suit is "Sibley et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al.,
Civ. No.2:08-cv-02063," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michele Fisher, Esq. (fisher@nka.com)
          Nichols Kaster & Anderson
          4600 IDS Center, 80 S. Eighth St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-256-3229


SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc., and its acquisition, Albertson's Inc., continue
to face a consolidated class action suit filed by assistant
managers before the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, California.

                      Gardner Litigation

In April 2000, a class-action complaint was filed against
Albertson's, as well as its wholly owned subsidiaries --
American Stores Co.; American Drug Stores, Inc.; Sav-on Drug
Stores, Inc.; and Lucky Stores, Inc. -- in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California.

The suit, "Gardner, et al. v. American Stores Company, et al.,"
was filed by assistant managers seeking recovery of overtime
based on allegations that they were improperly classified as
exempt under California law.

In May 2001, the court certified a class with respect to Sav-on
Drug Stores assistant managers.

                       Rocher Litigation

A case with very similar claims, involving the Sav-on Drug
Stores assistant managers and operating managers, was also filed
in April 2000 against Sav-on Drug Stores in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California.

The suit, "Rocher, Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.,"
was certified as a class action in June 2001 with respect to
assistant managers and operating managers.

                       Consolidated Cases

The two cases were consolidated in December 2001.  New
Albertson's was added as a named defendant in November 2006.

The plaintiffs seek overtime wages, meal and rest break
penalties, other statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Supervalu reported no development in the matter in its July 23,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 14, 2008.

Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S.  
grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three
retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food
and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores.  The
Company's business is classified into two segments: Retail food
and Supply chain services.


SUPERVALU INC: Calif. Court Yet to OK Settlement in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego
has yet to approve the proposed settlement in a purported class
action lawsuit against Supervalu, Inc., and its acquisition,
Albertson's Inc.  

The suit alleges that the defendants failed to pay wages for
time worked during meal breaks by its non-exempt employees
working in key carrier positions.

Sally Wilcox and Dennis Taber filed the complaint with the Court
in August 2004.  It was later certified as a class action.

The lawsuit also alleges that Albertson's failed to provide
itemized wage statements as required by California law and that
Albertson's failed to timely pay wages of terminated or resigned
employees as required by California law.  

The suit further alleges a violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq.

The lawsuit seeks recovery of all wages, compensation and
penalties owed the members of the class certified, including
compensation of one hour of pay for rest or meal period
violations and wages for all time worked while employees were
clocked out for meal periods or required to remain on the
premises during meal periods.  It further seeks to recover all
past due compensation and penalties for failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements and to pay all wages due at
time of termination for members of the class certified with
interest from Aug. 6, 2000, to the time of trial.

In December 2007, the parties agreed to settle the matter,
subject to Court approval.

Supervalu reported no development in the matter in its July 23,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 14, 2008.

Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S.  
grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three
retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food
and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores.  The
Company's business is classified into two segments: Retail food
and Supply chain services.


SUPERVALU INC: Appeals Va. Jury's Verdict in "Johnson" Matter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu, Inc., is appealing before the Virginia Supreme Court
the jury verdict in the matter, "Jonathan Johnson v. SUPERVALU
INC. and Richfoods, Inc.," which was filed before the Circuit
Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia.

The lawsuit was filed in 2004 by Jonathan Johnson, the owner of
Market Place Holdings, which is a five-store grocery store
chain, over allegations that he suffered various medical
problems and financial losses resulting from the company's
alleged wrongful conduct.

On June 6, 2007, a jury awarded Mr. Johnson $0.5 million  for
intentional infliction of emotional distress and $16 million for
negligent misrepresentation.

Previously, the company prevailed in an arbitration action
against Market Place Holdings and obtained a $4-million judgment
against it for unpaid notes and accounts receivable.

The company believes the jury verdict is contrary to the law and
the facts presented at trial, and an appeal is now before the
Virginia Supreme Court, according to the Supervalu's July 23,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 14, 2008.

Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S.  
grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three
retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food
and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores.  The
Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food
and Supply chain services.


T ROWE PRICE: Suit Over Foreign Securities Resolved & Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against T. Rowe Price
International Funds, Inc., and its affiliates over the company's
failure to use the latest prices from international markets has
been resolved and dismissed with prejudice.

The purported class action, entitled "T.K. Parthasarathy, et
al., including Woodbury, v. T. Rowe Price International Funds,
Inc., et al.," was filed in September 2003 in the Circuit Court
for the Third Judicial Circuit of Madison County, Illinois
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2008).

Named as defendants in the complaint are:

          -- T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc.
          -- T. Rowe Price International, Inc.;
          -- Artisan Funds, Inc.;
          -- Artisan Partners Limited Partnership;
          -- AIM International Funds, Inc.; and
          -- AIM Advisors.

Named plaintiffs -- T.K. Parthasarathy, Edmund Woodbury, Stuart
Allen Smith and Sharon Smith -- brought the complaint as a class
action pursuant to Section 5/2-801 et seq. of the Illinois Code
of Civil Procedure individually and on behalf of all persons in
the U.S. who have owned shares of T. Rowe Price International,
Artisan International and Aim European Growth for more than 14
days from the date of purchase to the date of sale (redemption)
or exchange (long term shareholders) (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 25, 2007).

The basic allegations in the case were that the T. Rowe Price
defendants did not make appropriate price adjustments to the
foreign securities owned by the T. Rowe Price International
Stock Fund prior to calculating the Fund's daily share prices,
thereby allegedly enabling market timing traders to trade the
Fund's shares in such a way as to disadvantage long-term
investors.

Following years of procedural litigation in State and Federal
courts, the case has been remanded to the State Court.  

The case was eventually resolved and dismissed with prejudice,
according to the company's July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "TK Parthasarathy et al. v. T. Rowe Price
International Funds, Inc. et al., Case No. 05-CV-302-DRH," filed
in the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit in Madison
County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          10 Executive Woods Court
          Swansea, IL 62226
          Phone: 618-277-1180
          Fax: 618-241-3525

          George A. Zelcs, Esq. (gzelcs@koreintillery.com)
          Three First National Plaza
          70 West Madison, Suite 660
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-641-9750
          Fax: 312-641-9751

               - and -

          Klint Bruno, Esq. (kbruno@simmonscooper.com)
          SimmonsCooper LLC
          707 Berkshire Blvd., P.O. Box 521
          East Alton, IL 62024
          Phone: 618-259-2222
                 866-468-8631
          Fax: 618-259-2251
          Web site: http://www.simmonscooper.com/


T-MOBILE: BlackBerry Pearls Defect Triggers Unwanted Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Sprint Nextel Corp. are facing a class-
action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois for marketing, promoting and selling BlackBerry Pearl
models, which is defective in design and function, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The complaint alleges that BlackBerry Pearls have ultra-
sensitive trackballs that, when bumped, trigger the devices to
automatically redial numbers in their memories, causing owners
to use up their minutes on unwitting phone calls.

Another unpleasant side effect of the BlackBerry Pearl defect,
the lawsuit claims, is that recipients of involuntary calls are
sometimes privy to a caller's private, confidential
conversations.

Lead plaintiff Richard Wu, who says his phone made several calls
on his behalf while he was in China, claims he reported the
defect to T-Mobile, but the company only placated him with a few
$5 credits.

T-Mobile allegedly acknowledged the glitch and said it was
working on a solution, but has yet to remedy the problem.

Mr. Wu claims the company denied his request for a replacement
BlackBerry and suggested he buy a phone cover, on his own dime,
to prevent the trackball from touching other objects.

Mr. Wu brings this action on behalf of all purchasers, owners,
and users of BlackBerry, including persons and entities, who, in
the previous five years or such period permitted under the Act,
subscribed cellular phone service provided by defendants.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in a pattern of marketing,
         promotion, distribution and sale of the BlackBerry with
         the knowledge that the BlackBerry is a defective
         product causing consumer monetary damage and invasion
         of privacy;

     (b) whether defendants knowingly or purposely take such
         action;

     (c) whether defendants' conduct constituted unlawful,
         unfair or deceptive practices in violation of Act;

     (d) whether plaintiffs and the class were damaged, and if
         so, what is the proper measure of damages;

     (e) whether the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         punitive damages and the scope of such relief; and

     (f) the amount and nature of disgorgement and restitution
         to be imposed for defendants' improper conduct.

The plaintiff requests that the court:

     -- find and certify this action as a class action under
        Section 2-801 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure;

     -- designate plaintiffs as class representatives, with Liu
        & Xu, PC as class counsel;

     -- grant judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the class
        against defendants;

     -- award plaintiffs and the members of the class
        appropriate damage;

     -- enter an injunction against defendants for the further
        marketing, promotion, distribution, and selling of
        BlackBerry until the defect in the product could be
        cured;

     -- award plaintiffs and the class attorneys' fees,
        litigation expenses and costs of suit;

     -- award punitive damages; and

     -- grant plaintiffs and the class such other and further
        legal or equitable relief as the court deems just and
        equitable.

The suit is "Richard Wu et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 08CH27694," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Jim Xu, Esq.
          Liu & Xu, PC
          20 N. Clark Street, Suite 525
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-388-5988


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas against
ArthroCare Corporation and certain of its officers and directors
on behalf of purchasers of ArthroCare common stock, who
purchased shares between January 24, 2008, and July 18, 2008,
inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act of
1934 by making false and misleading statements to the public in
its press releases and in its Securities Exchange Commission
filings.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Company misstated its
revenue and otherwise lacked sufficient internal corporate
controls.

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
          Toll-free Telephone: 888-508-6832


MF GLOBAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of MF Global Ltd. common stock during the period
between March 17, 2008, and June 20, 2008.

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

MF Global is a broker of exchange-listed futures and options.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's capital and financial results and concealed the
material deterioration in the Company's business and the
insufficiency of its capital, which would necessitate additional
offerings of securities and dilution of the ownership interest
of MF Global investors.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, MF Global stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $14.98 per
share in May 2008.

On June 17, 2008, MF Global issued a press release announcing
its intention to sell approximately $300 million in convertible
stock and bonds to repay a bridge loan due in December and
updating its current fiscal first quarter 2009 earnings
estimates.  The expected revenues were well below the levels MF
Global's management had led the market to expect just weeks
earlier.  As a result of this news, MF Global's stock dropped to
close at $7.83 per share on June 18, 2008, a decline of 43% from
June 17, 2008.

On June 19, 2008, The Wall Street Journal published an article
regarding the Company's planned $300 million offering and its
other recent problems, including a probe by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission alleging one of the Company's brokers
colluded with a trader at the Bank of Montreal to set natural-
gas prices and speculation about its liquidity position and the
desertion of clients.  On this news, MF Global's stock dropped
to $6.86 per share on June 20, 2008, a decline of 55% from the
Class Period high of $14.98 per share in May 2008.

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

     (a) MF Global's business was materially weaker than
         represented and the Company would not be able to
         achieve the 15%-20% revenue growth projected for fiscal
         2009; and

     (b) MF Global's capital would not be sufficient absent
         additional infusions which would dilute the ownership
         of current shareholders.

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

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
                 619-231-1058


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of MRV
Communications, Inc., common stock between March 31, 2003, and
June 5, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint asserts claims against defendants MRV, Noam Lotan,
Shay Gonen and Michael Blust for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
fraudulently backdated stock option grants and subsequently,
improperly accounted for them.  According to the complaint, as a
result of the improper stock option granting practices, MRV and
its executives issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's stock option plan and financial results.

On June 6, 2008, MRV issued a press release stating that they
had established a special committee to investigate its
historical stock option granting practices and related
accounting.  Based on the committee's ongoing review and
evaluation of the stock option granting practices, "MRV expects
to restate its financial statements for the impacted periods."

In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined
more than 23%, to close on June 6, 2008, at $1.45 per share.

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

For more information, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Laura Armstrong, Esq. (larmstrong@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: 888-240-0775
                 202-408-4600




                            *********

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  * * *