CAR_Public/080805.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 5, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 154
  
                            Headlines

3COM CORP: Lawsuits Over $2.2BB Bain Capital Buyout Dismissed
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Faces La. Lawsuits Over July 23 Oil Spill
BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Continues in Ill. ERISA Violations Suit
BAXTER INT'L: Tentative Settlement Reached in AWP Lawsuit
CAPITAL INVESTMENT: Faces S.C. Suit Over 'Complex Loan Scheme'

CNA FINANCIAL: Final Approval Order in "Shaffer" Deal Appealed
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Alleging ERISA Violations
COMCAST: Network Professional Sues Over P2P Management Practices
CONAGRA FOODS: Court Dismisses Contaminated Peanut Butter Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Conway"

DAUM COMM: Civic Group to Sue Over Leak of Private Information
E.I. DUPONT: Expects 2008 Ruling in PFOA Contamination Lawsuits
E.I. DUPONT: Still Faces Teflon Lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada
FIFTH THIRD: Illinois Suit Alleges Overcharged ATM Transactions
FORD MOTOR: Couple Commences Suit Over Automobile Fire

GT SOLAR: Sept. 30 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
LCA-VISION: Seeks Dismissal of Ohio Securities Fraud Complaint
NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Throws Out Residents' Bond Interest Suit
NORTHERN MARIANAS: $145 Checks Distribution Rumors Dispelled
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: 9th Circuit Yet to Rule on ERISA Suit Appeal

MAGMA DESIGN: $13.5MM Deal Proposed in Calif. Shareholder Suit
POZEN INC: Wants North Carolina Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
SAFECO CORP: Settles Wash. Lawsuits Over Liberty Mutual Merger
SCOR HOLDING: $84.6-Mln. Settlement Reached in Securities Suit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Seeks Consolidation of Securities Fraud Suits

SEMGROUP ENERGY: Sept. 19 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Court Partially Affirms Ruling in "Galura"
TOP SHIPS: Seeks Final Approval for $1.2MM N.Y. Suit Settlement
TOYS R US: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
VERIZON COMMS: FSIA Amendments Act Could Dismiss Calif. Lawsuits

WARREN FUNERAL: Class Lawsuit Alleges Mistreatment of Deceased
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Still Faces Wage and Hour Suit in California
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Firm, Officials Dropped from "Harris" Matter
WCI COMMUNITIES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Sale of Condominium Units

* Williams Kherkher Offers Assessment of ARS-Related Claims


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Texas
GT SCHOLAR: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.H.
GT SOLAR: Federman & Sherwood Files N.H. Securities Fraud Suit
INDYMAC BANCORP: Berger & Montague Files Calif. Securities Suit
MF GLOBAL: Brualdi Law Files New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit

SEMGROUP ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit



                           *********


3COM CORP: Lawsuits Over $2.2BB Bain Capital Buyout Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several purported class-action lawsuits against 3Com Corp. that
sought to prevent a $2.2-billion buyout of the company by
private equity firm Bain Capital Partners, and China's Huawei
Technologies, have been dismissed.

Between Sept. 28, 2007, and Oct. 10, 2007, five putative class
action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in connection with the announcement of the
proposed acquisition of 3Com by affiliates of Bain Capital
Partners.

The suits are:

       1. "Fisk v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3256-VCL;"

       2. "Bendit v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3258-VCL;"

       3. "Litvintchouk v. Robert Y.L. Mao, et al., Civil Action
          No. 3264-VCL;"

       4. "Kadlec v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3268-VCL;" and

       5. "Kahn v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          3286-VCL."

On Oct. 12, 2007, the five actions were consolidated for all
purposes and captioned, "In Re: 3Com Shareholders Litigation,
Civil Action No. 3256-VCL."

Subsequently, two additional putative class action complaints
were filed before the Superior Court of Middlesex County,
Massachusetts:

       1. "Tansey v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
          07-3768," and

       2. "Davenport v. Benhamou, et al., Civil Action No. 07-
          3973F."

On Nov. 2 and 13, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
or, in the alternative, stay the two Massachusetts proceedings.

On Dec. 20, 2007, the Davenport case was stayed pending the
resolution of class certification in the consolidated Delaware
action.

The motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay filed in the
Tansey case is still pending.

All of the complaints named 3Com and the current members of its
board of directors as defendants.

All of the complaints except the "Tansey" and "Kahn" petitions
also named Paul G. Yovovich, a former member of the company's
board of directors, as a defendant.  

The consolidated complaint also named Bain Capital Partners as a
defendant, while the Tansey complaint named Bain Capital, LLC
and the Davenport complaint named Diamond II Acquisition Corp.
and Diamond II Holdings, Inc. as defendants.  

Diamond II Acquisition Corp. was also named as a defendant in
the Kahn complaint.

The Bendit complaint named Huawei Technologies company as a
defendant, and the Tansey complaint also named Huawei Technology
Co. Ltd. as a defendant.

The plaintiffs purport to represent stockholders of 3Com who are
similarly situated to them.

Among other things, all complaints alleged that the proposed
purchase price of $5.30 per share is inadequate and that the
company's directors, in approving the proposed Merger, breached
fiduciary duties owed to 3Com's shareholders because they
allegedly failed to take steps to maximize the value to the
company's public stockholders.

The complaints further alleged that Bain Capital Partners and,
in some cases, 3Com, and Huawei, aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaints sought class certification, damages and certain
forms of equitable relief, including enjoining the consummation
of the Merger and a direction to the 3Com board of directors to
obtain a transaction in the best interests of 3Com's
shareholders.

On Nov. 2 and 13, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
or, in the alternative, stay the two Massachusetts proceedings.

On Dec. 20, 2007, and Jan. 23, 2008, the Massachusetts
proceedings were stayed pending the resolution of class
certification in the consolidated Delaware action.

In the consolidated Delaware action, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle, which has been embodied in a
memorandum of understanding filed with the court for its
consideration.

Yet, in light of the termination of the proposed acquisition of
the company, all of these cases have now been dismissed,
according to the company's July 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 30, 2008.

3Com Corp. -- http://www.3com.com/-- provides secure, converged  
networking solutions on a global scale to businesses of all
sizes.  Its products and solutions enable customers to manage
business-critical voice and data in a secure and efficient
network environment.


AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Faces La. Lawsuits Over July 23 Oil Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Commercial Lines, Inc., is facing purported class-
action lawsuits over an incident at the Mississippi River that
resulted in an oil discharge, according to the company's
July 29, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended July 23, 2008.

On July 24-25, 2008, the company received notification that
three separate class action lawsuits have been filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  
These actions include various allegations of adverse health and
psychological damages, destruction and loss of use of natural
resources, and economic and compensatory damages.

American Commercial Lines Inc. issued a press release on
July 23, 2008, announcing that one of its tank barges that was
being towed by independent towing contractor DRD Towing company,
L.L.C., of Harvey, LA, was involved in a collision with the
motor vessel Tintomara at Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi
River in the New Orleans area.

The tank barge was carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of #6
oil.  The barge was damaged in the collision and partially sunk,
but there was no damage to the tow boat and there were no
injuries reported to the crews of either vessel in the incident.
The damage to the Tintomara was considered minor.

The amount of oil that has discharged from the barge is unknown
at this time.

The company was not operating either vessel involved in the
incident and the company's barge was in the exclusive care,
custody and control of DRD Towing at the time of the accident.

The company has received a letter from the U.S. Coast Guard
designating it as the responsible party under the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990.  

The company has responded to the letter denying responsibility,
but stating that it will continue to be involved in the cleanup
efforts and will publish notices as required under the Act.

The U.S. Coast Guard and the National Transportation Safety
Board are investigating the cause of the incident.

The company has been working with the Coast Guard and other
federal, state and local authorities, the operators of the
vessels, response contractors and its own personnel to mitigate
the environmental impact of the incident.

The company is also working, in conjunction with salvage
specialists, to stabilize and remove the barge wreckage from its
current position at or near one of the piers of the Crescent
City Connector Bridge.

More than 120,000 feet of containment boom is in place in
locations from the accident site to the Head of Passes.  More
than 800 personnel from the company, independent contractors,
interest groups and various federal, state and local agencies
are in the area working on salvage efforts and cleaning the
river, the shore line, and numerous vessels.

While traffic was initially stopped in the area, the traffic is
now moving through the area under Coast Guard supervision.  

American Commercial Lines, Inc. -- http://www.aclines.com/-- is  
a marine transportation and service company.  ACL provides barge
transportation and related services, and manufactures barges,
towboats and other vessels, including ocean-going liquid tank
barges.  Barge transportation accounts for the majority of the
Company's revenues, and includes the movement of grain, coal,
steel, liquids and other bulk products in the U.S.  ACL operates
in two primary business segments: transportation and
manufacturing. ACL's transportation segment includes barge
transportation operations in North America, and domestic
fleeting facilities that provide fleeting, shifting, cleaning
and repair services at various locations along the inland
waterways.  The manufacturing segment constructs marine
equipment for external customers, as well as for the Company's
transportation segment.


BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Continues in Ill. ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class-action lawsuit  
against Baxter International, Inc., which alleges violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The purported class action suit was filed in October 2004 before
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Baxter and its current chief executive officer, then-
current chief financial officer, and their predecessors for
alleged ERISA violations.  

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, along with the
Administrative and Investment Committees of the company's 401(k)
plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants
by offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each
of the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004.

The plaintiff alleges that Baxter common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during this period and is seeking
unspecified damages and declaratory and equitable relief.  

In March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan
participants who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through
the plans between January 2001 and the present.

In April 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
denied Baxter's interlocutory appeal and upheld the trial
court's denial of Baxter's motion to dismiss the case.  The
company has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Discovery is underway in the matter, according to the company's
July 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Rogers v. Baxter Int'l. Inc., et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-06476," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Joan B. Gottschall, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Robert D. Allison, Esq.
         Robert D. Allison & Associates,  
         122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1850
         Chicago, IL 60603  
         Phone: 312-427-4500
         e-mail: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com

              - and -

         Michael M. Mulder, Esq. (mmmulder@mmbmlaw.com)
         Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink  
         20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
         Chicago, IL 60603,  
         Phone: 312-263-0272
         Fax: 312-263-2942

Representing the defendants is:
        
         Matthew Robert Kipp, Esq. (mkipp@skadden.com)
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
         333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-407-0700


BAXTER INT'L: Tentative Settlement Reached in AWP Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in the average wholesale
price lawsuit filed by consumers and insurance companies
claiming that the defendants, including Baxter International,
Inc., intentionally inflated reports of AWP on certain
prescription drugs, according to the company's July 29, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Baxter was named a defendant, along with others, in over 50
lawsuits brought in various state and U.S. federal courts, which
allege that the company and others reported artificially
inflated AWPs for Medicare and Medicaid eligible drugs.  These
cases have been brought by private parties on behalf of various
purported classes of purchasers of Medicare and Medicaid
eligible drugs, as well as by state attorneys general.

A number of these cases were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts for pretrial case
management under Multi-District Litigation rules, under the
caption, "In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, MDL No. 1456, Civil Action No. 01-12257-PBS."

The published AWP is used to set the price that consumers making
Medicare Part B co-payments and Medicare pay for the drug, as
well as insurance companies and other third-party payors (Class
Action Reporter, March 11, 2008).  In general, the consolidated
lawsuit contends that consumers and third-party payors paid more
than they should because of the drug companies' false AWP
reporting.

In April 2008, the court preliminarily approved a class
settlement resolving Medicare Part B claims and independent
health plan claims against Baxter and others, which had
previously been reserved for by the company.  Final approval of
this settlement is expected later this year.

The suit is "In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale
Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456, Civil Action No. 01-12257-PBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: 206-623-7292                 
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/

             - and -

          Mark Firmani (Mark@firmani.com)
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: 206-443-9357


CAPITAL INVESTMENT: Faces S.C. Suit Over 'Complex Loan Scheme'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Investment Funding is facing a class-action complaint
filed in Greenville County Court in South Carolina, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The suit alleges that Capital Investment Funding spearheaded a
complex loan scheme by inducing investors to park their money in
dubious retirement accounts by inflating its assets by more than
200 percent through false financial statements.

CourtHouse did not give out further details of the suit.


CNA FINANCIAL: Final Approval Order in "Shaffer" Deal Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
An order approving the settlement reached in the purported class
action lawsuit "Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co., et al.,
Case No. CV06-2235 RGK," which names CNA Financial Corp. -- an
89%-owned subsidiary of Loews Corp. -- and Continental Casualty
Co., as defendants, was appealed before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's
July 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, is a class action suit filed on
behalf of certain California long term health care
policyholders, alleging that CCC and CNAF knowingly used
unrealistic actuarial assumptions in pricing these policies,
which according to plaintiff, would inevitably necessitate
premium increases (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007).

The plaintiff asserts claims for intentional fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of various California
statutes.

Both defendants have denied the material allegations of the
amended complaint and intended to vigorously contest the claims.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the court certified the case to proceed as a
class action suit.  The defendants have appealed the grant of
class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit refused to hear the appeal on an
interlocutory basis.

In April 2007, the Court denied CCC's and CNAF's motions for
summary judgment with the exception of the motion relating to
the plaintiff's claim under the California Legal Remedies Act,
which was dismissed.  The claim under CLRA involved a provision
for claims of awards for attorneys' fees and enhanced damages.

In June 2007, CCC and CNAF filed a motion to reconsider the
denial of summary judgment on the fraud claim.  In July 2007,
the Court denied the motion for reconsideration.

On Oct. 10, 2007, CCC, CNA and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement to resolve the case.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the parties entered into a binding agreement
settling the case on a nationwide basis for the policy forms
potentially affected by the allegations of the complaint.

Under the settlement agreement, CCC will provide certain
enhanced benefits to eligible class members including certain
non-forfeiture benefits, opportunities to exchange policies and
free health screenings.

Following a fairness hearing, the Court entered an order
approving the settlement.  This order was appealed to the Ninth
Circuit.

The suit is "Ralph Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02235-PSG-PJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. (wkreger@maklawyers.com)
         Milstein Adelman & Kreger LLP
         2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
         Santa Monica, CA 90405
         Phone: 310-396-9600

              - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

         Brent R. Austin, Esq. (austin@wildmanharrold.com)
         Wildman Harrold Allen and Dixon
         225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2200
         Chicago, IL 60606-1229
         Phone: 312-201-2848

              - and -

         Stan Karas, Esq. (stankaras@quinnemanuel.com)
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges
         865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
         Phone: 213-443-3000


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Co. is facing several purported class action
lawsuits in New York over alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

In October 2007, a putative class action suit claiming that
certain aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-
Palmolive company Employees' Retirement Income Plan do not
comply with ERISA was filed against the Plan and the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Specifically, "Proesel, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et al.," alleges improper
calculation of lump sum distributions, age discrimination and
failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, thereby
resulting in the underpayment of benefits to Plan participants.

Two other putative class action suits filed earlier in 2007,
"Abelman, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive company Employees'
Retirement Income Plan, et al.," in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, and "Caufield v. Colgate-
Palmolive company Employees' Retirement Income Plan," in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both
allege improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in
the case of "Abelman," claims for failure to satisfy minimum
accrual requirements.  These two cases have been transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The relief sought in the three actions includes recalculation of
benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment
interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  None of the
actions has been certified as a class action yet.

Colgate-Palmolive Co. -- http://www.colgate.com/-- is a  
consumer products company, whose products are marketed in over
200 countries and territories throughout the world.  Colgate's
Oral Care products include toothpaste, toothbrushes, oral
rinses, dental floss and pharmaceutical products for dentists
and other oral health professionals.  Product launches include
Colgate Max Fresh, Colgate Max White, Colgate Sensitive Multi
Protection, Colgate Total Advanced Clean, Colgate Total
Professional Clean, Colgate Max Fresh BURST and Colgate Herbal
Seabuckthorn toothpastes; Colgate 360, Colgate 360 Sensitive
and Colgate Twister Fresh manual toothbrushes, and Colgate 360
Sonic Power battery toothbrush and Colgate Plax Whitening mouth
rinse. The company operates in two product segments: Oral,
Personal and Home Care, and Pet Nutrition.


COMCAST: Network Professional Sues Over P2P Management Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast is facing a federal class-action lawsuit led by Robb
Topolski, an outspoken critic of the operator's peer-to-peer
management practices, alleging that company cheated customers by
surreptitiously "blocking" Internet file transfers, Multichannel
News reports.

Multichannel News relates that Mr. Topolski has regularly spoken
out against Comcast's efforts to curtail P2P traffic, including
at a Federal Communications Commission hearing on providers'
bandwidth-management practices.

The report points out that Mr. Topolski is identified in court
documents as a networking professional currently serving as
"chief technology consultant" for Free Press and Public
Knowledge, two public interest groups that have targeted Comcast
over the P2P issue.

The suit was filed on July 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon.  The court has not yet certified a
class, which the suit defines as composed of any U.S. resident
who purchased or received high-speed Internet access from
Comcast between July 18, 2002, and the forthcoming date of class
certification.

The class-action suit seeks refunds for affected Comcast
subscribers, plus statutory and punitive damages and other fees.

The suit asserts that Comcast violated unfair trade practices
and consumer-protection laws by misrepresenting its broadband
service as "unfettered" and that it provides "the fastest
Internet connection."  Moreover, "Comcast knowingly caused its
subscribers to pay for services that they did not receive," the
complaint said.

The report notes that in previous statements, Comcast has
insisted repeatedly that it "does not block any Internet
content, application or service" and that it takes limited
measures to manage traffic on its broadband network that fall
under the FCC's "reasonable network management" guidelines for
Internet service providers.

Mr. Topolski claims to have conducted tests that first
identified that Comcast was intentionally disrupting BitTorrent
file transfers, which he posted on the discussion site
DSLReports.com in 2007.  

Since then, the report says, Comcast's approach to managing P2P
traffic has erupted into a political issue for network-
neutrality proponents who want to restrict the ways Internet
providers can manage their networks.  As a result, the multiple
system operator has pledged to adopt a "protocol-agnostic"
technique that would limit bandwidth consumption for only the
heaviest-downloading users during times of peak congestion.

Multichannel News writes that FCC chairman Kevin Martin recently
circulated a proposal to rule that Comcast violated agency
policy by "blocking" consumers from freely using Internet
applications.

Mr. Topolski, asked by Multichannel News via e-mail how much he
believes Comcast owes him, replied that the question is
"tremendously complicated," adding that the case also "involves
a very large group of people, it spans quite a bit of time on an
expensive service, and it involves deception.  So the lawyers
are going to have to figure out how to explain this to the
courts and the process ahead has to decide the amount."

The plaintiff's attorneys are the law firms Gilbert Randolph
LLP, SimmonsCooper LLC, and Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan
Fisher & Hayes LLP, along with Portland, Ore.-based attorney
Kari Hong, Esq.  These firms also have filed similar class-
action suits against Comcast in three states -- California,
Illinois and New Jersey -- and the District of Columbia, which
are pending.

Comcast separately is the target of at least two individual
subscriber lawsuits, in California and Washington, D.C.,
alleging false advertising pertaining to its P2P bandwidth
throttling, the report notes.

Asked for comment, Comcast director of corporate communications
Charlie Douglas told Multichannel News that the company does not
comment on pending litigation.


CONAGRA FOODS: Court Dismisses Contaminated Peanut Butter Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. ruled that consumers
poisoned by salmonella-tainted peanut butter cannot pursue a
class action lawsuit against ConAgra Foods, the producer of the
Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter blamed for thousands of
illnesses in 2006 and 2007, Truman Lewis writes for
ConsumerAffairs.com.

The report cites Judge Thrash as saying that a class action
would make little sense because it would not clear the courts of
thousands of individual actions and would not effectively
compensate plaintiffs.  The judge also said that ConAgra has
refunded more than $33 million to consumers and retailers and
that such refunds were "likely more effective" than a class
action suit.

According to ConsumerAffairs, lawyers had sought to create a
class of plaintiffs who had purchased the tainted peanut butter
and another class who were sickened or died after eating it.

Judge Thrash said there are at least 6,000 individual personal
injury cases already pending and that most of those trials would
proceed whether or not a class action was certified, the report
notes.  An additional class action case would be essentially
"expensive, unnecessary, meaningless," he added.

Robert H. Smalley, Esq., of Dalton, Ga., told ConsumerAffairs he
was disappointed with Judge Thrash's ruling but said the judge
raised an issue that needs to be addressed -- the thousands of
pending cases and an unknown number of yet-to-be-filed cases.

Besides the cases filed against ConAgra in Atlanta federal
court, there are a "great number" of cases in various state
courts, Mr. Smalley said.

ConsumerAffairs recounts that ConAgra's 2007 recall followed
hundreds of illnesses and at least four deaths stemming from the
salmonella contamination of peanut butter at the company's
manufacturing plant in Sylvester, Georgia.  The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention received reports of 628
illnesses, including 71 hospitalizations.  Health officials
concede that many cases were never reported or investigated.

The report explains that salmonella is a potentially fatal
bacterium that is found on about 20% of harvested peanuts.  The
outbreak that led to the 2007 recall was not the first instance
of a salmonella infestation in a batch of Peter Pan peanut
butter for ConAgra Foods.

Documents obtained by ConsumerAffairs through a Freedom of
Information Act request reveal that ConAgra discovered
"microbial problems" in October 2004 but the Food and Drug
Administration did not follow through on the finding.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Conway"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the
dismissal of the class-action lawsuit entitled "Conway
Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-05025-R-CW."

Initially, from July 8 through Aug. 31, 2004, various putative
class-action lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Corinthian
Colleges Inc. and certain of its current and former executive
officers, including David Moore, Dennis Beal, Paul St. Pierre
and Anthony Digiovanni.

The suit was filed by certain alleged purchasers of Corinthian
Colleges' common stock during the period starting Aug. 27, 2003,
through July 30, 2004.  

On Nov. 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and the cases were
consolidated into one action.  A first consolidated amended
complaint was then filed in February 2005.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in violation of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed
to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
company's business and prospects during the putative class
period, causing the plaintiffs to purchase the company's common
stock at artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Moore, Beal, St.
Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest,
and costs, as well as other relief.  

Eventually, second and third consolidated amended complaints
were filed in the case.

At the company's behest, the Court, on April 24, 2006, dismissed
the plaintiff's third consolidated amended complaint with
prejudice.  

The plaintiffs appealed the Court's dismissal of the case to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Oral argument took
place on Feb. 11, 2008.  

On July 25, 2008, Corinthian Colleges received notification that
the Ninth Circuit has unanimously affirmed the dismissal of a
consolidated class-action lawsuit captioned, "Metzler Investment
GMBH and Conway Investment Club, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.,
David Moore, Anthony Digiovanni, and Dennis Beal," according to
the company's July 29, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended July 25,
2008.

The suit is "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Manuel L.
Real, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Vahn Alexander, Esq. (valexander@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi and Faruqui LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-461-1426

               - and -

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. (dbacine@barrack.com)
          Barrack Rodos and Bacine
          3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert L Dell Angelo, Esq. (dellangelorl@mto.com)
          Munger Tolles & Olson
          355 S Grand Ave, 35th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100

               - and -

          Daniel Benjamin Levin, Esq.
          AUSA - Office of US Attorney
          Criminal Division
          312 North Spring Street, 13th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Phone: 213-894-5796
          e-mail: USACAC.criminal@usdoj.gov


DAUM COMM: Civic Group to Sue Over Leak of Private Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer rights group intends to file a class action lawsuit
against Internet company Daum Communications Corp. claiming
damages over the leaking of private information, the Korea Times
reports.

According to the report, Consumers Korea --
http://www.cacpk.org/-- began gathering plaintiffs for the  
class action suit.

A security blunder had Daum users directed to wrong e-mail
accounts for nearly an hour on July 22, 2008, Korea Times
recounts.  The company explained that this error occurred while
it was running programs to upgrade its mailing system.

Specifically, the report notes, about 530,000 Daum subscribers
had their accounts exposed to a third person and more than 400
users so far have claimed that e-mails were deleted and other
data altered.

The report says that Consumers Korea will allow Daum users to
join the suit for a fee of KRW5,000 and is planning to seek
compensation of about KRW500,000 per person.

"Some Daum users have been telling us that they accidentally
erased e-mails of other subscribers thinking they had logged-in
to their own accounts, while others complained that their
credit-card bills, test applications and other important
documents were erased," a Consumers Korea spokesperson told
Korea Times.

"Everyone feels uneasy about the possibility that their
mailboxes might have been probed by a third person," she said.

Daum is the country's largest provider of e-mail services with
more than 20 million subscribers.


E.I. DUPONT: Expects 2008 Ruling in PFOA Contamination Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. is expecting a 2008 ruling in two
purported class-action suits pending in New Jersey against the
company over perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) releases from certain
of its plants.

Initially, the company was named in several purported class-
action lawsuits in West Virginia and New Jersey over PFOA.

PFOA is a synthetic chemical that does not occur naturally in
the environment.  PFOA is sometimes called "C8."  Companies use
PFOA to make fluoropolymers, substances with special properties
that have thousands of important manufacturing and industrial
applications.

The suits were filed in the second quarter of 2006 as purported
class actions.  

One of these cases was filed with the West Virginia state court
on behalf of customers of the Parkersburg City Water District,
but was removed, on DuPont's request, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia.  

Two other purported class action suits were filed in New Jersey.
One was filed in the federal court on behalf of individuals who
allegedly drank water contaminated by releases from DuPont's
Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey.  The second N.J.
suit was filed in New Jersey state court on behalf of customers
serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township Water Department
and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on DuPont's motion.

The New Jersey cases have been combined for purposes of
discovery and the complaints have been amended to allege that
drinking water had been contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04
ppb.

A ruling on whether the New Jersey cases can proceed as a class
action is expected in 2008, according to the company's July 28,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com--  
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.


E.I. DUPONT: Still Faces Teflon Lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. continues to face several purported
class-action lawsuits in the United States and one in Canada
over the company's cookware with Teflon non-stick coating,
according to the company's July 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended
June 30, 2008.

                        U.S. Litigation

As of June 30 last year, 22 intrastate class action suits have
been filed on behalf of consumers who have purchased cookware
with Teflon non-stick coating in federal district courts against
the company.

The actions were filed on behalf of consumers in California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.

One of the two actions originally filed in California was
dismissed in the second quarter of 2008 for failure to
prosecute.

By order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, all
of the cases have been combined for coordinated and consolidated
pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa.

Under the court's latest case management order, a ruling on
whether these cases can proceed as class actions is expected in
2008.

The actions allege that DuPont violated state laws by engaging
in deceptive and unfair trade practices by failing "to disclose
to consumers that products containing Teflon were or are
potentially harmful to consumers," and that DuPont has liability
based on state law theories of negligence and strict liability.

The actions allege that Teflon contained or released harmful and
dangerous substances; including a chemical (PFOA) alleged to
have been determined to be "likely" to cause cancer in humans.

The actions seek unspecified monetary damages for consumers who
purchased cooking products containing Teflon, as well as the
creation of funds for medical monitoring and independent
scientific research, attorneys' fees and other relief.

                      Canadian Litigation

In December 2005, a motion was filed by a single named plaintiff
in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, in Canada,
seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of
all Quebec consumers who have purchased or used kitchen items,
household appliances or food-packaging containing Teflon or
Zonyl non-stick coatings.  

A ruling on this motion is expected from the Court in 2008.

Damages are not quantified, but are alleged to include the cost
of replacement products as well as one hundred dollars per class
member as exemplary damages.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com/--  
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.


FIFTH THIRD: Illinois Suit Alleges Overcharged ATM Transactions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bank is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois over
allegations that the bank charged ATM users $2.50 per
transaction but stated a $2 fee on the machines, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Fifth Third Bank (NASDAQ: FITB) is a U.S. regional banking
corporation, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


FORD MOTOR: Couple Commences Suit Over Automobile Fire
------------------------------------------------------
A couple from Mercer County filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor
Company after their automobile burst into flames and injured
them, Audrey Holsclaw writes for West Virginia Record.

According to the report, Carroll and Raymond Pedigo of Flat Top
have commenced a potential class-action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
against Ford after a faulty speed control deactivation switch
caused their 1993 Mercury Marquis to catch fire while being
driven, resulting in an accident.

The lawsuit, filed on July 22, 2008, relates that Carroll Pedigo
was driving on July 23, 2006, when, without warning, the Marquis
burst into flames.  The flames scared her so badly that she lost
control of the car, struck a tree and was thrown from the
vehicle.  Ms. Pedigo was hospitalized for an extended period of
time because of the fire and collision and had extreme pain,
suffering, and emotional distress following the accident, the
suit states.

The report also cites the suit as saying that because of Ms.
Pedigo's extended hospitalization, the couple faced substantial
medical bills and lost income, and Raymond Pedigo lost the
consortium of his wife because of her injuries.

According to the suit -- filed on behalf of the Pedigos John
Wooton, Esq., Micheal Caddell, Esq., Cynthia Chapman, Esq., and
Cory Fein, Esq., of the Houston firm of Caddell & Chapman -- the
first recall for the 1993 Marquis, as well as several other Ford
vehicles, was issued in 1999 after the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration reported 65 fires caused by the failure of
the SCD switch or its related circuitry.  The recall consisted
of replacing the switch with an identical switch and without
adding a fused wiring harness.

The Pedigos allege that Ford knew that there were serious
problems with the design, manufacturing, and placement of the
SCD switch, but continued to use the SCD switch anyway.

The report says that if a fused wiring harness is not used, the
switch can overheat because of a resistive short.  The SCD
switch typically is mounted on the brake proportioning valve is
instead mounted in the master cylinder at an angle.  This angle
allows metallic corrosion to settle in such a way that dendrite
growth can occur.  This dendrite growth changes the switch
electrical resistance and the switch's electrical current
carrying capacity increases.  The increase causes temperatures
to rise so high that it causes an open flame.

The SCD switch is also located as part of a circuit that always
has electricity flowing through it, even with the ignition off,
the report explains.  If a fused wiring harness is not used, the
switch can overheat because of a resistive short.

West Virginia Record recounts that since 1999, Ford has recalled
other vehicles utilizing the SCD switch six times.  In January
2005, 740,451 vehicles were recalled; in September 2005,
4.3 million; in August 2006, just after Ms. Pedigo's accident,
1.2 million; in March 2007, 155,000; in August 2007, 3.6
million; and finally in January 2008, 225,000 vehicles were
recalled -- including the 1993 Marquis.

The Pedigos believe that Ford is liable for its actions
regarding the SCD switch and the resulting fire and accident and
that the company is also negligent for failing to exercise
ordinary care in designing, marketing, manufacturing, and
selling the Marquis.

The suit states that the Pedigos are seeking a trial by jury to
award monetary damages for the destruction of their Marquis,
inconvenience and disruption of their work and activities
resulting from the fire, mental anguish, and personal injury.
They are also seeking punitive damages and litigation costs.


GT SOLAR: Sept. 30 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, reminds shareholders that Sept. 30,
2008, is the deadline to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

The suit is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock of GT Solar International, Inc., in connection with
the company's Initial Public Offering on or about July 23, 2008,
or who purchased shares thereafter in the open market.

For more information, contact:

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


LCA-VISION: Seeks Dismissal of Ohio Securities Fraud Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
LCA-Vision, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio against the company.

On Sept. 13, 2007, and Oct. 1, 2007, two complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers by Beaver County Retirement Board and
Spencer and Jean Lin, respectively, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, purportedly on behalf of a
class of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock
between Feb. 12, 2007, and July 30, 2007.  

On Nov. 8, 2007, an additional complaint was filed by Diane B.
Callahan against the company and certain of the company's
current and former directors and officers before the same court.  

This third action was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between
Feb. 12, 2007, and Nov. 2, 2007.  

All three actions have been consolidated into one case.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on April 19, 2008.  

The plaintiffs in the consolidated complaint are seeking damages
on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased the company's
common stock between Oct. 24, 2006, and Nov. 2, 2007, asserting
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

They allege that certain of the company's public disclosures
regarding its financial prospects and historical accounting for
bad-debt reserves and expenses were false or misleading.

On July 10, 2008, the company, together with the other
defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, according to the company's July 29, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Beaver County Retirement Board v. LCA-Vision Inc.
et al., Case No 1:07-cv-00750-SJD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Susan J. Dlott,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is

          Thomas P. Glass, Esq. (tpglass@strausstroy.com)
          Strauss & Troy
          Federal Reserve Building
          4th Floor, 150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120

Representing the defendants is:

          Grant Spencer Cowan, Esq. (gcowan@fbtlaw.com)
          Frost Brown Todd LLC
          201 E 5th Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182
          Phone: 513-651-6800
          Fax: 513-651-6745


NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Throws Out Residents' Bond Interest Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A North Carolina judge threw out a class-action lawsuit filed by
North Carolina residents seeking refunds on income tax they paid
on interest generated from out-of-state bonds, Whitney Woodward
writes for The Associated Press.

According to the report, taxpayers Lessie Dunn and Erwin Cook
Jr. had argued it was unconstitutional for North Carolina to tax
income from out-of-state bonds while exempting income from in-
state bonds.

The lawsuit, which was expanded to a class-action lawsuit to
include all such taxpayers, sought refunds for all individuals,
companies and entities who had paid such taxes since 2000.

North Carolina officials had contended that the refunds sought
would be difficult to calculate and could harm the state's
ability to balance its budget.  The AP notes that a 2004
legislative report estimated the refunds could cost the state
$150 million.

Subsequently, Forsyth Superior Court Judge R. Stuart Albright
dismissed the case in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in
May.

The AP relates that in a 7-2 decision on a case from Kentucky,
the high court had ruled that states can exempt interest
generated on their own bonds from taxes while taxing residents
for interest on out-of-state bonds.

"Because of the Supreme Court decision, there was no hope for
this case," Greensboro lawyer Norman Smith, Esq., who
represented the taxpayers in the North Carolina class-action
lawsuit, told the AP.  The lawsuit was filed in 2004.

The report notes that the court's majority opinion said the
state's tax exemptions on bonds used to fund roads, construction
and other projects had not injured commerce between states.

That decision calmed the fears of some industry groups, which
warned that ending the long-standing practice could cause
turmoil in the municipal bond market, and doomed the North
Carolina lawsuit, the AP adds.

The report points out that dozens of states, including North
Carolina, have tax systems similar to Kentucky.


NORTHERN MARIANAS: $145 Checks Distribution Rumors Dispelled
------------------------------------------------------------
The Garment Oversight Board's chairman, Timothy Bellas,
dispelled rumors that some former factory employees are owed an
added $145 above the payments they are due to receive, Stefan
Sebastian of the Saipan Tribune reports.

In 1999, New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands on behalf of some garment workers who were
allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions.  A settlement
reached five years after provided an award close to
$20 million.  A $280,000 tax-related reserve was then set up.

The $130,000 tax reserve was allotted as:

     * $100,000 to cover any future federal tax penalties,

     * $25,000 to pay for efforts to secure abatements of all
        penalties (both Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
        and federal), and

     * $5,000 to pay for preparation of the settlement fund's
        2007 and 2008 tax returns.

The $156,000 balance of the fund are be remitted to the GOB,
which has offered to assume responsibility for obtaining refunds
and penalty abatements from the CNMI tax authorities.

The board's term was originally set to expire on July 29, 2007,
but the federal court extended this up to Dec. 31, 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, July 20, 2007).

In November 2007, the GOB began mailing out some checks to 74
garment workers who had problems encashing a check they received
from the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 27, 2007)

The workers were among the 356 workers who are all entitled to
checks totaling $53,000.  Mr. Bellas said the checks were
replacement checks and were not new money for the garment
workers.  Mr. Bellas said the check amounts range from a minimum
of $72.27 to a maximum of $799.50.

The original checks were issued by San Francisco-based claims
administrator Gilardi and Co.  They were returned to the GOB
because they have not been cashed.  Mr. Bellas said either they
are outdated or there are problems with the names or other
things.

In December 2007, the GOB laid out plans to distribute more than
$2.1 million to about 600 additional garment workers who claimed
they did not get any checks from the settlement (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 6, 2007).

The money was undistributed funds that the plaintiffs' counsel
turned over to the GOB.  

In July 2008, GOB issued 11,353 new checks and will be sending
out 1,031 -- amounting to $1,599,495 -- to some current and
former garment workers pursuant to the settlement of the labor
class action (Class Action Reporter, July 22, 2008).

The checks are the second they received under the settlement.

GOB has been distributing the checks to get rid of the leftover
money from the settlement funds.

In response to a recent letter to the editor of the Saipan
Tribune, Mr. Bellas said no $145 GOB checks are coming.

"There is no truth to the report that another $145 check will be
sent out after the current distribution," Mr. Bellas wrote in
the letter to Joaquin Romolor, a Portland, Ore. man whose letter
the Saipan Tribune published on Aug.1.

Mr. Romolor had written to the newspaper saying his sister-in-
law in China is still awaiting her check from the GOB, owed her
after she worked in a garment factory.  The letter suggests the
board has ignored his calls and notes she needs the money for an
operation on her diseased kidney.

Mr. Romolor urged Mr. Bellas to "take action as a man of justice
and peace."

Mr. Bellas, in a quick response, said that had Mr. Romolor sent
the letter directly to the board's office, it would have dealt
with his concerns.  In addition, Mr. Bellas said he has not
ignored Mr. Romolor's calls.

The GOB, Mr. Bellas added, has faced several logistical problems
linked to the distribution of the checks, such as checks sent to
the wrong address and checks that were never delivered to
workers by the local "agents" they designated to receive them on
their behalf.  Chinese settlement recipients have also reported,
he noted, that banks in China have in some cases refused to cash
the settlement checks.

"It is unfortunate, but there is no doubt that there will be
people who, while they were garment workers for the period
involved, may not receive any money from the settlement fund,"
Mr. Bellas wrote.

Moreover, Mr. Bellas dispelled a rumor circulated in a local
Chinese newspaper that some workers will receive an added bonus
check after the initial class-action suit payment.

Every party involved in the settlement, he added, must
"understand that the GOB has a limited term and we must complete
this process once and for all" and that former workers "need to
cash the checks as soon as possible."

For more details, contact:    

          Pamela M. Parker, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423
          
          Steven P. Pixley, Esq. (sppixley@aol.com)
          2nd Floor, CIC Centre
          Beach Rd., Garapan
          P.O. Box 7757
          SVRB, Saipan, MP 96950
          Phone: 670-233-2898/5175
          Fax: 670-233-4716


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: 9th Circuit Yet to Rule on ERISA Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal regarding the denial of class-action status to the
case entitled "In Re Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-00153-R-JC," which filed in the
U.S. District for the Central District of California against
Northrop Grumman Corp., according to the company's July 29, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is a consolidation of these two separately filed
Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action complaints:

      1. "Grabek v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al.,
         previously styled Waldbuesser v. Northrop Grumman
         Corporation, et al.," and
      
      2. "Heidecker v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al."

The plaintiffs in "Grabek" alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
the company, certain of its administrative and Board committees,
all members of the company's Board of Directors, and certain
company officers and employees with respect to alleged
excessive, hidden and otherwise improper fee and expense charges
to the Northrop Grumman Savings Plan and the Northrop Grumman
Financial Security and Savings Plan (both of which are 401(k)
plans).

The Heidecker case asserted similar claims, but dismissed the
company's Board of Directors.  

Each lawsuit sought unspecified damages, removal of individuals
acting as fiduciaries to such plans, payment of attorney fees
and costs, and an accounting.

The suits were consolidated under the caption, "In Re Northrop
Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation," for discovery and other
purposes, as each alleged similar issues of law and fact.  They
were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

On May 21, 2007, the Court granted a motion to dismiss with
prejudice the company and the Board of Directors from the Grabek
litigation.  A few days later, the Court entered an order
dismissing the company with prejudice from the Heidecker
lawsuit.

On Aug. 7, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The plaintiffs then sought leave to file
an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
on the issue of class certification.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the Ninth Circuit ordered that the trial
court proceedings be stayed pending its decision on whether to
grant appellate review.

On Oct. 11, 2007, the Ninth Circuit granted appellate review,
which delayed the commencement of trial previously scheduled to
begin Jan. 22, 2008.

The suit is "In Re Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-00153-R-JC," filed in the U.S.
District for the Central District of California, Judge Manuel L.
Real, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Stephen M. Fishback, Esq. (sfishback@kfjlegal.com)
        Keller Fishback
        28720 Roadside Drive, Suite 201
        Agoura Hills, CA 91301
        Phone: 818-879-8033

               - and -

        Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
        Gainey and McKenna
        295 Madison Avenue, 4th Fl
        New York, NY 10017
        Phone: 212-983-1300


MAGMA DESIGN: $13.5MM Deal Proposed in Calif. Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A $13.5-million settlement has been proposed in the purported
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against Magma
Design Automation, Inc.

On June 13, 2005, The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust filed a
putative shareholder class action suit against:

      -- Magma Design Automation, Inc.,
      -- Rajeev Madhavan,
      -- Gregory C. Walker, and
      -- Roy E. Jewell.

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
information regarding the risk of Magma infringing intellectual
property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.

In March 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiff filed a further
amended complaint in June 2006, which the defendants again moved
to dismiss.  

The defendants' dismissal motion was granted in part and denied
in part by an order dated Aug. 18, 2006.  Specifically, the
order dismissed claims against several of the defendants.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the parties agreed to a settlement (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2008).

Recently, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and an Order of the Court, a settlement for
$13.5 million was proposed in the suit "In re Magma Design
Automation, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-05-2394 CRB."

The settlement class includes all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Magma Design Automation
during the period between October 23, 2002, through April 12,
2005, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California at 10:00 a.m., on November 21, 2008, to determine
whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the
application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

Deadline to file for objections is on October 27, 2008.  
Deadline to file claims is on December 17, 2008.

The suit is "Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. Magma Design
Automation, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-02394-CRB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Elizabeth P. Lin, Esq. (elin@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One California Plaza, 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-617-1200
         Fax: 213-617-1975
        
         Eric J. Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0878
         Fax: 212-818-0477

              - and -

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. (info@glancylaw.com)
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160

Representing the defendant is:

         Dale M. Edmondson, Esq. (dedmondson@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers
         2765 Sand Hill Road
         Menlo Park, CA 94025
         Phone: 650-473-2632
         Fax: 650-473-2601


POZEN INC: Wants North Carolina Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
POZEN, Inc., filed a motion that sought the dismissal of a
purported securities fraud class-action suit entitled "Brian
Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00559,"
which was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina.

The suit was filed against the company, its chairman and chief
executive officer, and one of its directors on Aug. 10, 2007, by
a holder of POZEN's securities.  It alleges, among other claims,
violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act arising out of allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company concerning its migraine drug
candidate, Trexima, during a purported class period of July 31,
2006, through Aug. 1, 2007.

By order dated Feb. 15, 2008, the Court appointed joint co-lead
plaintiffs.  On April 25, 2008, the company received the
plaintiffs' amended and consolidated complaint, which added two
current officers of the company as additional defendants.

The company and the individual defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint on June 26, 2008,
according to the company's July 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Brian Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-00559," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James Davidson, Esq. (jdavidson@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

               - and -

          Marcus Angelo Manos, Esq. (mmanos@nexsenpruet.com)
          Nexsen Pruet, LLC
          POD 2426
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Phone: 803-253-8275
          Fax: 803-253-8277

Representing the defendants are:

          Pressly Mcauley Millen, Esq. (pmillen@wcsr.com)
          Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
          POB 831
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: 919-755-2135
          Fax: 919-755-6067

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. (nporritt@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          1700 K St., N.W., Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20006-3817
          Phone: 202-973-8807
          Fax: 202-973-8899


SAFECO CORP: Settles Wash. Lawsuits Over Liberty Mutual Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAFECO Corp. has reached a settlement for two purported class-
action lawsuits over the proposed merger of the company with
Liberty Mutual Group, according to the company's July 29, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On May 9, 2008, a purported class action complaint, entitled
"Loring v. Brown, et al., Action No. Case No. 2:2008cv00733,"
was filed against SAFECO and its directors, allegedly on behalf
of SAFECO shareholders, before the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

The complaint alleges, among other matters, that the terms on
which the SAFECO board of directors agreed for SAFECO to be
acquired by Liberty Mutual constitute a breach of the directors'
fiduciary and other duties due to the inadequacy of the
consideration to be received by the class and the defendants'
alleged failure to explore other alternatives.

The suit seeks injunctive and other relief against consummation
of the merger and unspecified monetary damages.

On June 2, 2008, another purported class action complaint on
behalf of SAFECO's shareholders, entitled "Gotham Investors v.
Reynolds, et al.," was filed in King County, Washington Superior
Court, against SAFECO, its directors, and Liberty Mutual.

That action was subsequently removed by the defendants to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
under Case No. 2:08-cv-980.

The second complaint alleges that the merger agreement advances
the interests of SAFECO's directors and Liberty Mutual at the
expense of SAFECO shareholders, principally because of an
alleged failure to explore other possible transactions, and that
the preliminary proxy statement filed by SAFECO on or about
May 23, 2008, was deficient in failing to disclose the amount of
the compensation received by Morgan Stanley for its prior work
on behalf of Liberty Mutual and its expectation of future work,
as well as certain details of the methodologies used in
assessing the consideration to be received pursuant to the
merger agreement.

The plaintiffs, SAFECO and Liberty Mutual entered into a
memorandum of understanding reflecting a settlement in principle
of the complaints in both actions on June 24, 2008.

In connection with the settlement:

       -- SAFECO has included certain additional disclosures in
          its proxy statement, and

       -- Liberty Mutual has agreed that for the six month
          period beginning on the date of closing of the Merger,
          Liberty Mutual will not, and will use its reasonable
          best efforts to cause its affiliates not to,
          consummate any transaction in which it sells 90% or
          more of SAFECO's assets (as existing on the date of
          consummation of the Merger) to an unaffiliated third
          party, whether by merger, consolidation, or otherwise,
          for an amount in excess of 120% of the amount that
          Liberty Mutual paid in connection with the Merger
          (including transaction costs incurred by Liberty
          Mutual and SAFECO and any debt assumed or issued in
          connection with the Merger), which is referred to as a
          flip transaction, unless Liberty Mutual pays or causes
          to be paid to the members of the shareholder class an
          amount equal to 10% of any amount in excess of 120% of
          the amount that Liberty Mutual paid in connection with
          the merger (including transaction costs incurred by
          Liberty Mutual and SAFECO and any debt assumed or
          issued in connection with the merger), up to a maximum
          payment of $15.0.

The settlement will not affect the amount or form of the merger
consideration that SAFECO shareholders are entitled to receive
in the proposed merger or otherwise modify the terms of the
transaction, other than in connection with the consummation of a
flip transaction.

Under the terms of the settlement, the parties have agreed to
enter into a stipulation of settlement that will dismiss the
claims in the two complaints with prejudice and release the
defendants, Liberty Mutual, SAFECO, and the current and former
directors of SAFECO, and their current and former affiliates,
representatives and advisors from all of the claims that were or
could have been brought in the settled litigation, including all
claims relating to the merger, the merger agreement and any
disclosure made in connection therewith.

Liberty Mutual has agreed to pay on behalf of all of the
defendants without contribution from them the sum of $850,000 to
plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses within five
business days after final dismissal of the two actions.

The settlement will be contingent upon, among other things,
confirmatory due diligence, consummation of the merger and final
court approval.

SAFECO Corp. -- http://www.safeco.com/-- is an insurance  
holding company.  The company, through its subsidiaries, is
licensed to provide property and casualty insurance along with
related services to drivers, homeowners and small and mid-sized
businesses in all 50 states in the U.S.  It has four business
segments.  The SAFECO Personal Insurance segment offers auto,
homeowners and other property and specialty insurance products
for individuals.  The SAFECO Business Insurance segment offers
business owner policies, commercial auto, commercial multi-
peril, workers' compensation, commercial property and general
liability policies for small and mid-sized businesses.  The
Surety segment offers bonds that provide payment and performance
guarantees for various businesses.  The P&C Other segment
includes run-off assumed reinsurance, large-commercial business
accounts and commercial specialty programs in run-off, SAFECO's
own self-insurance and other business and programs that it has
exited.


SCOR HOLDING: $84.6-Mln. Settlement Reached in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. investors have reached an $84.6-million settlement in a
class action lawsuit against Swiss insurance company SCOR
Holding AG, resolving their claims that the company's
predecessor hid financial woes from investors during an initial
public offering, Standford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse reports.

The report says SCOR agreed to pay $75 million to resolve claims
arising from Converium Holding AG's IPO in December 2001.

According to court documents, Converium's former parent company,
Zurich Financial Services, will pay $9.6 million, which reflects
an amendment to an earlier $30-million settlement reached in the
case before U.S. District Judge Denise Cote.  The judge ruled in
March that foreign investors could not be included in the class.  
The revised $9.6-million settlement will be paid to U.S.
investors who purchased Converium stock on the New York Stock
Exchange and the SWX Swiss Exchange.

Both SCOR and Zurich have reached separate settlement agreements
with foreign investors.  SCOR will pay $32 million to resolve
claims by foreign investors who purchased stock on the Swiss
exchange, said Robert M. Roseman, Esq., co-lead counsel for the
plaintiffs.  Zurich, on the other hand, said it will pay
$18.4 million to resolve the foreign claims.

The foreign settlement process will take place before the
Amsterdam Court of Appeals in the Netherlands, Mr. Roseman said.

A foundation including Greek institutional investor Avalon
Holdings AG, a former lead plaintiff in the U.S. litigation,
will be created to seek court approval for the settlements.

                       Factual Background

On Feb. 17, 2007, SCOR S.A. proposed an offer for the  
acquisition of the company to Converium AG's Board of Directors.  
The next day, Converium's Board unanimously rejected the offer,  
concluding that it fundamentally failed to recognize the value  
of Converium's franchise and growth prospects, and therefore it  
was not in the best interest of the Company, its shareholders,  
or its customers.

On February 26, 2007, SCOR formally pre-announced a tender offer  
to acquire certain Converium shares and on April 5, 2007, SCOR  
issued a Swiss Offer Prospectus relating to the Offer.   

The Offer Prospectus stated, in relevant part, among other  
things, that for each Converium share tendered, SCOR offers:

      -- 0.5 New SCOR Shares with nominal value of EUR
         7.8769723 each;

      -- CHF4 in cash;

      -- the Offer would not apply to the Company's American
         Depository Shares;

      -- SCOR's offer would be subject to a number of
         conditions, including valid acceptances for shares
         representing at least 50.01% of the Company?s share
         capital; and

      -- the Offer would not be made in or into the U.S.

On May 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,  
captioned, "Neil L. Sclater-Booth v. SCOR S.A. and Patinex AG,  
Civil Action No. 07 CV 3476 (GEL)."

The suit is alleging that SCOR and defendant Patinex AG failed  
to comply with certain disclosure requirements imposed by the  
U.S. securities laws in connection with SCOR's public tender  
offer in Switzerland for all publicly held registered shares of
Converium.

More specifically, the suit alleges that:

      -- the Offer has triggered the application of the
         provisions of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of
         1934 governing tender offers, and that SCOR has
         violated Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act, which
         requires certain disclosures in connection with tender
         offers, and Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act, which
         prohibits fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative acts
         in connection with tender offers; and

      -- SCOR and Patinex violated Section 13(d) of the
         Exchange Act, by failing to disclose that SCOR and
         Patinex "acted as a group" in connection with the
         Offer.

On May 25, 2007, the parties reached a tentative settlement in
the matter.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered a scheduling order in which,  
among other things, the Court preliminarily certified the class,  
preliminarily determined that the suit was properly brought as a  
class action, and preliminarily found that the plaintiff was an  
adequate representative of the class.

The class consists of all U.S. persons holding shares of  
Converium and holders of Converium's American Depository Shares.

To contact Mr. Roseman:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-496-0300
          Fax: 215-496-6611
          e-mail: classaction@srk-law.com
          Web site: http://www.srk-law.com/


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Seeks Consolidation of Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood, who filed the first investor class action
lawsuit against SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., filed a motion
before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for
consolidation of all investor lawsuits to one court in Oklahoma,
where SemGroup and the individual defendants are located.

On July 21, 2008, Federman & Sherwood filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against Oklahoma-based SemGroup Energy Partners,
alleging SemGroup Energy's parent company SemGroup, L.P. --  
failed to disclose its financial difficulties or high risk for
financial problems associated with its risky crude oil hedge
transactions by the start of the class period, and then hiding
this information from investors in SGLP (Class Action Reporter,
July 23, 2008).

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Sept. 19 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, notifies non-U.S. shareholders and
others with losses greater than $100,000 that September 19,
2008, is the deadline for them to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities fraud class action lawsuit pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The suit is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., between Feb. 20,
2008, and July 17, 2008, inclusive.

For more information, contact:

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


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Court Partially Affirms Ruling in "Galura"
------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Court of Appeals partially affirmed the class
certification ruling by the Circuit Court of Hillsborough
County, Florida, in the matter "Galura, et al. v. Sonic
Automotive, Inc.," which was filed against Sonic Automotive,
Inc.

In this action, originally filed on Dec. 30, 2002, the
plaintiffs allege that the company and its Florida dealerships
sold an anti-theft protection product in a deceptive or
otherwise illegal manner, and further sought representation on
behalf of any customer of any of the company's Florida
dealerships who purchased the anti-theft protection product
since Dec. 30, 1998.  

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief on behalf of this class of customers.

In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the requested class of customers, but the court
has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in the
lawsuit.

Sonic subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's class
certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals.

In April 2007, the Florida Court of Appeals partially affirmed
the trial court's class certification, according to the
company's July 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--  
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  As of Feb. 22,
2008, the company operated 169 dealership franchises at 144
dealership locations, representing 33 different brands of cars
and light trucks, and 34 collision repair centers in 15 states.
Each of Sonic's dealerships provides services, including sales
of both new and used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement
parts and performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint
and repair services, and arrangement of extended service
contracts, financing and insurance and other aftermarket
products for its automotive customers.  


TOP SHIPS: Seeks Final Approval for $1.2MM N.Y. Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiff Joseph A. DeShayes Jr. asked the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to approved on a
final basis the proposed agreement between the class and Greek
oil-shipping company Top Ships Inc. -- formerly known as TOP
Tankers Inc. -- that would settle claims that the defendants
engaged in accounting fraud, the Stanford Law School Securities
Class Action Clearinghouse reports.

Initially, the company and certain of its executive officers and
directors were named as defendants in a putative securities
fraud class action lawsuit, which alleges violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The shareholders accused Top Tankers and its top executives of
omitting key financial data in order to boost the company's
stock price.  Questions about the shipping company's accounting
practices emerged when the company announced in June 2006 that
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating
the company's acquisitions dating back to 2004 and events before
the company announced the $550 million sale and leaseback of 13
vessels on March 13, 2006.  The company announced on Nov. 29,
2006, that its auditors, Ernst & Young, had resigned over the
accounting for the sale and leaseback of the vessels.

The case had subsequently been consolidated with nine additional
putative class action suits.

Top Tankers said that after its motion to dismiss the first
consolidated complaint in the case, the plaintiffs were "forced
to take the unusual step of abandoning a large portion of their
case, including their major theory of fraud," related to Top
Tankers mis-characterizing a distribution as a "special
dividend" and thereby overstating its financial condition.  
"What remains, after plaintiffs were compelled to concede these
allegations, is a bare skeleton of a complaint," Top Tankers
said.

In the new complaint, there was not one specifically pleaded
allegation suggesting that Top Tankers had meant to commit
fraud.  Nor did the complaint identify a single stock sale, or
anything else, that could explain why Top Tankers would have
done anything fraudulent.

Top Tankers asked for the complaint to be dismissed with
prejudice and without leave to replead since there is "no basis
whatsoever for the claim of fraud. . . ." (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 25, 2007).

In February this year, TOP Ships filed for the Court's approval
of a settlement agreement it reached with the lead plaintiffs in
the securities class action lawsuit pending against the company
and certain of its directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Class
Action Reporter, Feb 18, 2008).

The terms of the agreement call for a payment of $1.2 million
to the plaintiffs.  Attorney's fees for plaintiff's counsel,
which have not been determined, will be paid out of this amount.  
The settlement will be funded entirely by the company's
directors' and officers' insurance carriers.  The deal provides
that the company and its officers and directors will receive a
complete release of all the remaining direct claims against them
in the shareholder class action litigation.  Many of the claims
had already been dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiffs when
they amended their complaint after TOPS initially moved to
dismiss.

In April, Judge Colleen McMahon preliminarily approved the
settlement.

In a motion filed on July 23, 2008, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Mr. DeShayes asked the
court for final approval of a proposed agreement.

"When measured against the substantial benefit of the
settlement, the significant risks, time and expense in continued
prosecution of this action provide a more than adequate basis
upon which to find the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate," the plaintiffs said in court documents.

The July 23 motion also asked the court to grant an application
for an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses incurred in prosecuting the case.

Attorneys for the defendants said that Top Ships ultimately felt
the plaintiffs' claim was meritless.  "The company feels the
matter was resolved for a modest amount," Michael Bongiorno,
Esq., an attorney for the defense, said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs declined to comment, the report
says.

Deadline to file claims is on September 12, 2008 (Class Action
reporter May 22, 2008).

The first identified complaint is "Bhojwani v. Pistiolis et al.
Case No. 1:06-cv-13761-RCC," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard C.
Casey, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. (nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com)
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-983-9330
         Fax: 212-983-9331

         Mark C. Gardy, Esq. (mgardy@gardylaw.com)
         Gardy & Notis, LLP
         440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
         Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
         Phone: 201-567-7377

              - and -

         Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
         Kahn, Gauthier Swick, LLC
         650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Phone: 504-455-1400

Representing the defendants is:

         Justina Louise Geraci, Esq.
         (justina.geraci@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P.
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-295-6380
         Fax: 212-230-8888


TOYS R US: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us and Babies "R" Us are facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey over accusations that the companies violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make their stores
more accessible to customers in wheelchairs, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

One Geoffrey Way Wayne, NJ-based Toys "R" Us Inc. is a specialty
retailer of toys in the United States and Puerto Rico, and a
national specialty retailer of baby-juvenile products in the
U.S.  The Company sells merchandise through its Internet sites:
http://www.toysrus.com/and http://www.babiesrus.com/in the  
U.S., and through other Internet sites internationally.


VERIZON COMMS: FSIA Amendments Act Could Dismiss Calif. Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act
of 2008 could potentially dismiss several purported privacy
suits in California that names Verizon Communications, Inc., and
several other telecommunications companies as defendants,
according to the company's July 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Verizon, and a number of other telecommunications companies,
have been the subject of multiple class action suits concerning
its alleged participation in intelligence-gathering activities
allegedly carried out by the federal government, at the
direction of the President of the U.S., as part of the
government's post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist
attacks.

The plaintiffs generally allege that Verizon has participated by
permitting the government to gain access to the content of its
subscribers' telephone calls and records concerning those calls
and that such action violates federal and state constitutional
and statutory law.

Relief sought in the cases include injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees, and statutory and punitive damages.

On Aug. 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated and
coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The MDL Panel subsequently ordered that a number of "tag along"
actions also be transferred to the Northern District of
California.

On July 10, 2008, the President signed into law the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008, which provides for dismissal of these
suits by the court based on submission by the Attorney General
of the U.S. of certain specified certifications.

Verizon Communications, Inc. -- http://www.verizon.com/-- is  
engaged in providing communication services.  The two segments
of the company are Wireline and Domestic Wireless.  Wireline
communications services include voice, Internet access,
broadband video and data, next generation Internet protocol
network services, network access, long distance and other
services.  The company provides these services to consumers,
carriers, businesses and government customers both domestically
and internationally in 150 countries.  Domestic Wireless'
products and services include wireless voice, data products and
other services, and equipment sales across the U.S.


WARREN FUNERAL: Class Lawsuit Alleges Mistreatment of Deceased
--------------------------------------------------------------
A woman upset over the way her late mother's remains were
handled by Warren Funeral Chapel in 2006 has filed a class
action lawsuit in Boone County Circuit Court, Joe Meyer writes
for Columbia Daily Tribune.

According to the report, attorneys for Kathy Johnson filed a
lawsuit claiming that the plaintiff "suffered the indignity,
embarrassment, insult, and outrage of having her loved one's
remains negligently and intentionally mishandled" by the
respondents.

The named defendants are the funeral chapel and its owners,
Harold Warren Sr. and Harold Warren Jr., as well as "John Doe
Turner," who is described as the owner of Rockbridge Cemetery,
in the south of Columbia.  Daily Tribune notes that David Turner
is the caretaker of Rockbridge Cemetery, a family cemetery near
Rock Bridge Memorial State Park.

The suit is seeking an unspecified amount for damages as well as
punitive damages for Ms. Johnson and "others similarly
situated."

The report relates that Ms. Johnson has had longstanding
complaints about her treatment by Warren Sr. and is skeptical
that her mother is buried at Rockbridge Cemetery, as Warren Sr.
insisted to her.

"Money is the farthest thing from my mind," Ms. Johnson said of
the litigation.  "It's finding where my mother is at.  If she's
out there.  I'm hoping other people would join on."  Ms. Johnson
added that there are a lot of other people who don't have any
money and who have their family out at Rockbridge but do not
have anywhere to turn."

The report notes that Ms. Johnson's lawsuit says she entered
into an agreement on March 16, 2006, after the death of her
mother, 89-year-old Beckie Harris.  That agreement, according to
the suit, was for funeral services, the purchase of a casket, a
burial plot in Rockbridge Cemetery and burial services.

Ms. Johnson later "attempted to locate her mother's grave" in
Rockbridge Cemetery "but was unable to locate the grave," the
lawsuit states.  The Warrens and Mr. Turner "could not
definitely answer where, or even if, plaintiff's mother was
buried."

The lawsuit contends the Warrens violated the "right of
sepulchre" of the deceased.

Daily Tribune says that the suit casts a wide net defining
people who qualify for the class action as those who have
suffered "indignities, embarrassment, insult and outrage" after
their loved ones were not properly cared for or disposed of
after death by the Warrens.

Attorneys Samuel Trapp, Esq., and William Nacy, Esq., represent
Ms. Johnson.

Daily Tribune points out that Attorney General Jay Nixon is
attempting to close the funeral home in another civil lawsuit
recently filed in Boone County Circuit Court, alleging the
Warrens violated health standards by handling bodies with their
bare hands, reusing caskets and storing organs from multiple
bodies in a trash bag.

According to the report, from July 11-16, state inspectors
removed seven bodies from the funeral chapel at 12 E. Ash St.,
including two bodies that had lain in the chapel basement nearly
a year.  Six additional bodies were later removed from the
funeral after the Warrens' attorney, Dan Viets, Esq., called
state inspectors and disclosed their existence, Columbia police
said.

The funeral home has agreed to temporarily close its premises in
Columbia and in Fulton until a court hearing seeking a
preliminary injunction later this month.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Still Faces Wage and Hour Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc., continues to face two separate wage and
hour lawsuits pending in California, which are each seeking
class-action status.

Both actions make the same general allegations that the
defendants failed to comply with certain California wage and
hour laws, including allegedly failing to provide meal and rest
periods, and failing to properly pay hourly and overtime wages.

The company reported no development in the matters in its
July 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a provider of  
integrated waste services in North America.  Through its
subsidiaries, the company provides collection, transfer,
recycling, disposal and waste-to-energy services.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Firm, Officials Dropped from "Harris" Matter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc., and all of its current and former
officers and directors have been dropped from the litigation,
"William S. Harris, et al. v. James E. Koenig, et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-00618-GK," according to the company's July 29, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

In April 2002, two former participants in WM Holdings' ERISA
plans filed the purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The lawsuit named as defendants:

       -- WM Holdings and various members of WM Holdings' Board
          of Directors prior to the acquisition of WM Holdings
          by WMI, including Pastora San Juan Cafferty, Steven
          Rothmeier and John C. Pope, each of whom is currently
          a director of WMI;

       -- the Administrative Committee of WM Holdings' ERISA
          plans and its individual members, which included
          former officers and directors of WM Holdings;

       -- various members of the Administrative Committee of
          WMI's ERISA plans, including former officers of WMI;

       -- various members of the Investment Committee of WMI's
          ERISA plans, including former officers of WMI and
          Robert G. Simpson; and

       -- State Street Bank & Trust, the trustee and investment
          manager of WMI's ERISA plans.

The lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of
ERISA plan participants based on allegations related to both the
events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the
securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in
1998 and the securities class action against WMI that was
settled in 2001.

Subsequently, the issues related to the latter class action have
been dropped as to WMI and all of its current and former
officers and directors, including Mr. Simpson.

The case is ongoing with respect to the other defendants,
including Ms. Cafferty, Mr. Rothmeier and Mr. Pope, in their
capacities as former directors of WM Holdings.  All of the
defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously.

The suit is "William S. Harris, et al. v. James E. Koenig, et
al., Case No. 1:02-cv-00618-GK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Gladys Kessler,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James Brian McTigue, Esq. (bmctigue@mctiguelaw.com)
          McTigue & Porter LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20015
          Phone: 202-364-6900
          Fax: 202-364-9960

               - and -

          Ellen M. Doyle, Esq. (edoyle@stemberfeinstein.com)
          Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC
          429 Forbes Avenue
          1705 Allegheny Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1639
          Phone: 412-281-8400
          Fax: 412-281-1007

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard L. Brusca, Esq. (richard.brusca@skadden.com)
          Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
          1440 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-2111
          Phone: 202-371-7140
          Fax: 202-661-8209

               - and -          

          Wilber H. Boies, Esq. (bboies@mwe.com)
          McDermott, Will & Emery
          227 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60606-5096
          Phone: 312-984-7686
          Fax: 312-984-7700


WCI COMMUNITIES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Sale of Condominium Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
WCI Communities, Inc., and its subsidiary, The Resort at Singer
Island Properties, Inc., are facing a purported class-action
lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, according to the company's July 29, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit was filed in January 2008 on behalf of all persons who
purchased one or more of the 239 hotel condominium units in the
Singer Island Resort.  The Singer Island Resort is located in
Palm Beach, Florida (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 4, 2008).

These purchasers have entered into rental management agreements
with respect to those condominium units, whose purchase price
aggregated to approximately $138.7 million.


The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Section 12(a)
(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section
77(l)(a)(1), by failing to register with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission the public offering of the Hotel Units.

The complaint also alleges that defendant WCI violated Section
15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77o, by controlling
the operations of its wholly owned subsidiary, defendant Singer
Island Resort, in offering the Hotel Units for sale without
registering them with the SEC.

The plaintiffs seek to rescind their acquisition of the Hotel
Units and want rescissory or other damages in an amount to be
proven at trial.  The complaint seeks rescission of the
condominium purchase agreements and rental management
agreements.

The suit is "Mastrella et al. v. WCI Communities, Inc. et al.,
Case Number: 9:2008cv80055," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley,
presiding.


* Williams Kherkher Offers Assessment of ARS-Related Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Williams Kherkher is offering a free confidential assessment of
claims by companies and individuals who have lost hundreds of
millions of dollars in auction rate securities.

In a notice specifically addressed to chief financial officers,
Williams Kherkher noted that many companies have been forced to
write down their losses due to investments in ARS, and that the
February 2008 collapse of the ARS market has affected companies
of all sizes and levels of ARS investment.

Williams Kherkher also noted that many companies are suffering
additional losses due to the illiquidity of their ARS
investment.

"If you are an executive with one of these companies, please
contact us for a confidential assessment of your company's
claim," the notice said.

Williams Kherkher and Shepherd, Smith, Edwards & Kantas have
attorneys licensed to practice in Arkansas, California,
Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

Williams Kherkher can be reached at 1-800-220-9341.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Brualdi Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of ArthroCare, Corp. common stock during
the period between January 24, 2008, through July 18, 2008, for
violation of the federal securities laws.

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

As a result, ArthroCare indicated that it expects ArthroCare's
reported revenue in 2006 will be reduced by $4 million to
$7 million, and that for 2007, reported revenue will be reduced
by $20 million to $25 million.

Further, ArthroCare revealed on July 21, 2008, that reported
revenue for the first quarter of 2008 will be reduced by
$2 million to $5 million, and that "the restatement will result
in material reductions in operating income and net income for
the annual and quarterly periods being restated."

Upon that announcement, shares of ArthroCare plummeted from its
close of $40.03 on July 18, 2008, to a close of $23.21 on
July 21, 2008, the next day of trading, on extraordinary volume
-- a drop of over 42%.

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

For more information, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006  
          Phone: 212-952-0602
                 877-495-1187


GT SCHOLAR: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.H.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire on behalf of purchasers of GT Solar International,
Inc. common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's false
and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its July 23, 2008 initial public offering.

The complaint charges GT Solar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

GT Solar and its subsidiaries provide manufacturing equipment
and "turnkey" manufacturing solutions to the photovoltaic
industry worldwide.

The complaint alleges that on July 23, 2008, GT Solar
accomplished its IPO of 30.3 million shares at $16.50 per share
for net proceeds of $500 million, pursuant to the Registration
Statement.

The proceeds from the Offering went to GT Solar Holdings, LLC.
GT Solar Holdings intended to use the net proceeds it received
via the Offering to make a distribution to its shareholders.  In
its first day of trading, GT Solar closed at $14.59 per share on
July 24, 2008.

The following day, on July 25, 2008, before the market opened,
LDK Solar Co., LTD, GT Solar's largest customer, issued a press
release announcing that it had signed a contract to purchase
production equipment from one of GT Solar's competitors.  On
this news, GT Solar's stock price declined to as low as $9.30
per share before closing at $12.59 per share on July 25, 2008,
losing 13% of its value in its second day of trading.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement failed to
disclose the true extent of the risks surrounding the Company's
relationship with LDK, including the fact that the Company was
at imminent risk of losing out on a contract for future orders
from LDK due to delays in shipping production equipment to LDK.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of GT Solar common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with its July 23,
2008 IPO.

For more information, contact:

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
                 800-449-4900
          Fax: 619-231-7423


GT SOLAR: Federman & Sherwood Files N.H. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
against GT Solar International, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

This lawsuit was filed on behalf of those purchasers of GT Solar
International, Inc., common stock in connection with the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued by the Company in
connection with its July 23, 2008 Initial Public Offer.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 30,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


INDYMAC BANCORP: Berger & Montague Files Calif. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C., filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock, preferred stock
and preferred units of IndyMac Bancorp Inc. between April 26,
2007, and May 12, 2008, inclusive.

This action enlarges the Class Period to begin earlier than the
Class Period in the cases previously filed that began on
August 16, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that IndyMac Chief Executive Officer
Michael W. Perry, and former Chief Financial Officer A. Scott
Keys violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements about
IndyMac's financial health, including statements assuring
investors that IndyMac, as a prime rather than subprime lender,
would be less affected by the turmoil in the housing, mortgage
and credit markets, that it was prudently managing its risks,
that it had prudent asset quality and that its financial
condition was sound.

The Complaint alleges that at the time such statements were
made, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that IndyMac was
not following prudent or proper loan origination procedures and
that it had ignored guidelines and prudent practices to
originate and securitize below standard mortgage loans,
resulting in increasing delinquencies and defaults and a growing
inability to raise capital by selling and securitizing these
risky loans.

As a result of Defendants' allegedly false statements, IndyMac's
stock traded at inflated levels throughout the Class Period and
its common stock reached a high of $37.50 per share when the
market opened on June 6, 2007.

The truth about IndyMac's financial condition started to be
revealed on November 6, 2007, and continued to May 12, 2008,
when IndyMac announced that "we do not expect that Indymac will
be able to return to overall profitability until the current
decline in home prices decelerates. . . . and we are not
currently forecasting a return to profitability this year."
Defendants also disclosed that "because of the significant hits
we've taken, our capital ratios clearly have been depleted" and
"our non-performing assets have continued to rise."

As a result of Defendants' disclosures on May 12, 2008,
IndyMac's stock dropped to close at $2.32 per share on May 13,
2008, on high volume, from a close of $3.43 per share on May 9,
2008 -- a two-day decline of $1.11 per share, or 32%.

On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank, the majority owned subsidiary
and principal asset of IndyMac, was seized and closed by the
Office of Thrift Supervision.  The Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation was appointed receiver of the Bank.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 11,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 1-888-891-2289
                 215-875-3000


MF GLOBAL: Brualdi Law Files New York Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., disclosed that a 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, through
July 13, 2008, for violation of the federal securities laws.

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.

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.  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.

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.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
July 31, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006  
          Phone: 212-952-0602
                 877-495-1187


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., securities during
the period from February 20, 2008, through July 17, 2008,
including purchasers of SemGroup units sold through the
Company's February 13, 2008 secondary offering.

The complaint asserts that the Company's parent -- SemGroup L.P.
-- was at high risk for financial problems due to its investment
in risky crude oil hedge transactions during the Class Period.

The complaint also asserts that the Company was engaged in
improper self-dealing transactions with its parent in an effort
to support its parent.

On July 17, 2008, it was revealed that the Company's parent
filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code due to lack of available funds.

As a result of these adverse disclosures the complaint asserts
that SemGroup's investors were damaged.

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

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060
          Weekends Phone: 917-797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/






                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *