CAR_Public/080807.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, August 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 156
  
                            Headlines

ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Settles Wash. Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
ALPHARMA INC: Still Faces New Jersey Suit Over FLSA Violations
APOLLO GROUP: Victorious in Arizona Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AVON: Opposes Class Status for Calif. Unordered Products Lawsuit
AVON: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Securities Lawsuit Dismissal Bid

AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit
AVON PRODUCTS: Wants New York ERISA Violations Suit Thrown Out
BLUE SQUARE: Sale of "Super Fresh Eggs" Suit Granted Dismissal
CASH AMERICA: Appeals Denial of Stay in Ga. Payday Loans Suit
CENTENNIAL COMMS: Reaches Settlement in Billing Practices Suit

CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Certify Class in "Veliz" Suit
CINTAS CORP: Still Faces Race and Gender Discrimination Lawsuits
COAST FINANCIAL: Stills Faces Florida Securities Fraud Lawsuit
COMMONWEALTH LAND: No Certification Hearing Date Yet in "Simon"
COMMONWEALTH LAND: No Certification Motion Yet in "Higgins" Case

COMMONWEALTH LAND: Court Partially Certifies Class in "Alberton"
DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal
DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits
FORD MOTOR: 2000 and 2001 Ford Focus Consumer Fraud Suit Settled
HSBC BANK: Faces Lawsuit in New York Over $1.75 ATM Fees

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Unions Sued Over Camp Surveillance
ISOLAGEN INC: Parties in Pa. Lawsuit Want to Resolve Case
LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Wants Title Insurance Suits Consolidated
LAWYERS TITLE: March 10, 2009 Hearing Set for "Henderson" Deal
LAWYERS TITLE: Still Faces "De Cooman" Lawsuit in Pennsylvania

MASCO CORP: Still Faces Ga. Suit Over Insulation Installation
MCGRAW-HILL COS: D.C. Court Transfers "Reese" Lawsuit to N.Y.
MILGARD: Appeals Court Affirms Class Denial in Windows Lawsuit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal Hearing in "Gwin" Lawsuit is Sept. 9
OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.

OIL COS: Ethanol-Blended Gas Ruins Engines, Florida Suit Says
PECO FOODS: Poultry Growers Challenge Rankings in Alabama Suit
ROTO-ROOTER: Settles Wage, Hour Violations Lawsuit in California
SCHOLASTIC CORP: Awaits Court Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in South Carolina

STRAUSS-ELITE: Forced to Make Gluten-Free Products for Celiacs
VITAS HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Overtime Wage Suit in California


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CIT GROUP: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
GT SOLAR: Brualdi Law Commences New Hampshire Securities Lawsuit
MF GLOBAL: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Coughlin Stoia Files Ind. Securities Fraud Suit
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Suit in Indiana



                           *********


ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Settles Wash. Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., reached a
tentative agreement resolving two consumer fraud class-action
suits over ChoiceDek composite decking, which cases are both
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, according to the company's July 30, 2008 Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended July 24, 2008.

                      Pelletz Litigation

On Feb. 26, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against AERT seeking to recover on behalf of the purchasers of
ChoiceDek composite decking for certain damages allegedly caused
by mold and mildew.

The suit, captioned "Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser company, Advanced
Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. and Lowe's Companies,
Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

The plaintiffs, who filed the suit on behalf of the purported
class, named as defendants AERT, Weyerhaeuser Co., and Lowe's
Cos., Inc., asserting causes of action for violation of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act, unfair competition or unfair
and deceptive trade practices in various states, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty,
and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

By agreement, the deadline for AERT to answer or otherwise
respond to the plaintiffs' complaint is April 18, 2008.  

                       Jamruk Litigation

On March 10, 2008, another set of plaintiffs filed another
purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on behalf of
the purchasers of ChoiceDek composite decking for damages
allegedly caused by mold and mildew.

The suit, captioned "Joseph Jamruk et al. vs. Advanced
Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. and Weyerhaeuser
company," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

The plaintiffs named as defendants AERT and Weyerhaeuser
company, asserting causes of action for misrepresentation,
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust
enrichment, and breach of express warranty.

                  Consolidation & Settlement

The suits have been combined, and the parties have notified the
court that a memorandum of understanding had been reached with
regard to a compromise and settlement.

A formal settlement agreement is in the process of being
negotiated and finalized and will be filed with the court upon
finalization.

Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. (AERT) --
http://www.aertinc.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets  
composite building materials that are used in place of
traditional wood or plastic products for exterior applications
in building and remodeling homes and for certain other
industrial or commercial building purposes.  The company's
products are sold by national companies, such as the
Weyerhaeuser Co., Lowe's Cos., Inc., and Therma-Tru Corp.  Its
composite building materials are marketed as a substitute for
wood and plastic filler materials for standard door components,
windowsills, brick mould, fascia board, decking and heavy
industrial flooring under the trade names LifeCycle,
MoistureShield, MoistureShield CornerLoc, Weyerhaeuser ChoiceDek
Premium, ChoiceDek Premium Colors, MoistureShield outdoor
decking and Basics outdoor decking.  AERT has manufacturing
facilities in Springdale, Lowell, and Tontitown, Arkansas;
Junction, Texas and Alexandria, Louisiana.


ALPHARMA INC: Still Faces New Jersey Suit Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alpharma, Inc., continues to face a purported class action
lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The complaint, captioned, "Jackson v. Alpharma, Inc., Case No.
3:07-cv-03250-GEB-JJH," alleges that, among other things:

       -- over 200 of the company's U.S. based pharmaceuticals
          sales representatives were denied overtime pay, in
          violation of state and federal labor laws, by being
          paid for 40 hour weeks even though they worked in
          excess of 55 hours per week; and

       -- that the company violated federal record-keeping
          requirements.

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

The suit is "Jackson v. Alpharma, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-03250-
GEB-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

       James E. Cecchi, Esq. (jcecchi@carellabyrne.com)
       Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Slstein, PC
       5 Becker Farm Road
       Roseland, NJ 07068
       Phone: 973-994-1700
       Fax: 973-994-1744

Representing the defendants is:

       Michael T. Bissinger, Esq. (mbissinger@daypitney.com)
       Day Pitney, LLP
       PO Box 1945
       Morristown, NJ 07962-1945
       Phone: 973-966-6300
       Fax: 973-966-1015


APOLLO GROUP: Victorious in Arizona Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., applauded the August 4 decision of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona in which Judge James
A. Teilborg overturned the previous verdict that had been
rendered in the plaintiffs' favor in the securities lawsuit  
arising out of the 2003 program review by the Department of
Education.

To recall, in October 2004, three class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  
The Court consolidated the complaints under the caption, "In re
Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-
PHX-JAT," and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on
May 16, 2005, by the lead plaintiff.

The Lead Plaintiff represents a class of the company's
shareholders who acquired their shares between Feb. 27, 2004,
and Sept. 14, 2004.  

The consolidated complaint specifically named the company, Todd
S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales, and Daniel E. Bachus, as
defendants.  

On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel
E. Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from the case.  

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Act by the company for defendants' allegedly material
false and misleading statements in connection with its failure
to publicly disclose the contents of a preliminary U.S.
Department of Education program review report.

The case proceeded to trial on Nov. 14, 2007.  

On Jan. 16, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs awarding damages of up to $5.55 for each share of
common stock in the class suit, plus pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest.  

The class shares are those purchased after Feb. 27, 2004, and
still owned on Sept. 14, 2004.  

The judgment was entered on Jan. 30, 2008, subject to an
automatic stay until Feb. 13, 2008.  

On Feb. 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion to stay
execution of the judgment pending resolution of its motions for
post-trial relief, which were also filed on Feb. 13, 2008,
provided that it post a bond in the amount of $95.0 million.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the company posted the $95-million bond with
the Court.  

Notably, at the Aug. 4 hearing, the Court found that an
analyst's report on which the plaintiffs' case heavily relied
was not a corrective disclosure.

Apollo Group called the ruling a vindication for its students,
alumni, employees and shareholders.  P. Robert Moya, Senior Vice
President, General Counsel and Secretary for Apollo Group, Inc.,
said, "It has always been Apollo Group's position that the
plaintiffs in the case did not suffer any damages arising from
the disclosure of the initial government report and its
unsubstantiated allegations, and we are pleased that the Court
has agreed."

Wayne Smith, Esq., partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and lead
counsel for Apollo Group, stated, "The Court's decision
validates the arguments made by Apollo Group since the beginning
of this case, namely, that the ultimate disclosure of the
initial report's contents caused no significant movement in
Apollo's stock price."

The consolidated action is "In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-02147," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Judge James A. Teilborg,
presiding.  

Representing the company is:

          Wayne Smith, Esq.
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, California 92612-4412
          Phone: 949-451-3800  
          Fax: 949-451-4220
          Web site: http://www.gibsondunn.com/


AVON: Opposes Class Status for Calif. Unordered Products Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc., has filed its opposition to a motion by the
plaintiffs seeking class-action status for the matter
"Blakemore, et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al.," which was
filed before the Superior Court of the state of California, Los
Angeles County.

Commenced in March 2003, the purported class action suit was
filed on behalf of Avon sales representatives who, "since
March 24, 1999, received products from Avon they did not order,
thereafter returned the unordered products to Avon, and did not
receive credit for those returned products."  

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, restitution and injunctive relief for alleged unjust
enrichment and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code.  

The company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three
subsequent amended complaints, asserting that they failed to
state a cause of action.  The Superior Court sustained these
demurrers and dismissed the plaintiffs' causes of action except
for the unjust enrichment claim asserted by one plaintiff.  The
court also struck the plaintiffs' class allegations.   

The plaintiffs sought review of these decisions by the Court of
Appeal of the State of California and, in May 2005, the Court of
Appeal reinstated the dismissed causes of action and the class
allegations.  

In January 2006, the company filed a motion to strike the
plaintiffs' asserted nationwide class.  In February 2006, the
trial court declined to grant the motion, but instead certified
the issue to the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory basis.  

In April 2006, the Court of Appeal denied the company's motion
and instructed the trial court to consider the issue at a
subsequent point in the proceedings.

In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification on behalf of "all Avon Sales Representatives who,
since March 24, 1999, and while residing in California, received
products from Avon they did not order, returned the unordered
products to Avon, paid for the unordered products, and/or paid
shipping costs for their return and did not receive
reimbursement therefore by Avon or Avon initially made
reimbursement therefore by means of a credit and later reversed
the credit."

In June 2008, Avon filed its opposition to the motion for class
certification, according to its July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Blakemore et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., B174825,
B175973," filed in ith the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County under Judge Wendell Mortimer.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jeffrey Huron, Esq.
         Huron Law Group
         1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-284-3400
         Fax: 310-772-0037
         Web site: http://www.huronlaw.com/


AVON: Plaintiffs Challenge N.Y. Securities Lawsuit Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
against Avon Products, Inc., filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, are opposing a
motion by the company to dismiss the suit.

In August 2005, the company reported the filing of two class
action complaints for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws.  These actions are:

     1. "Nilesh Patel v. Avon Products, Inc. et al.," and

     2. "Michael Cascio v. Avon Products, Inc. et al."         

The two actions were subsequently consolidated before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Master
File Number 05-CV-06803) under the caption "In re Avon Products,
Inc. Securities Litigation."  A consolidated amended class
action complaint for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws was filed in December 2005, naming Avon, an
officer and two officer/directors as defendants.  

The consolidated action, brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Feb. 3, 2004, and Sept. 20, 2005,
seeks damages for alleged false and misleading statements
"concerning Avon's operations and performance in China, the U.S.
. . . and Mexico."

The consolidated amended complaint also asserts that during the
class period, certain officers and directors sold shares of the
company's common stock.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint, asserting, among
other things, that it failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.  The plaintiffs have opposed that motion.

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

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-06803-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan,
presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Brian Philip Murray, Esq. (bmurray@murrayfrank.com)
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892

              - and -

         Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com)
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 212-964-0046

Representing the defendants is:

         Peter C. Hein, Esq. (PCHein@wlrk.com)
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: 212-403-2000


AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit, captioned
"Kendall v. Employees' Retirement Plan of Avon Products and the
Retirement Board," are appealing the dismissal of the case to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The suit was filed by a retired employee of Avon Products Inc.
who, before retirement, had been on paid disability leave for
approximately 19 years.  It was commenced in April 2003 before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

The initial complaint alleged that the Employees' Retirement
Plan of Avon Products violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and, as a consequence, unlawfully reduced the
amount of the plaintiff's pension.

The plaintiff sought a reformation of the Retirement Plan and
recalculation of benefits under the terms of the Retirement
Plan, as reformed for the plaintiff and for the purported class.  

In November 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging additional ERISA violations and seeking, among other
things, elimination of a social security offset in the
Retirement Plan.

The purported class includes "all Plan participants, whether
active, inactive or retired, and their beneficiaries and/or
Estates, with one hour of service on or after Jan. 1, 1976,
whose accrued benefits, pensions or survivor's benefits have
been or will be calculated and paid based on the Plan's unlawful
provisions."

In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

In September 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion
to dismiss and the plaintiff thereafter filed a notice of appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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

Avon Products, Inc. -- http://www.avoncompany.com/-- is a  
global manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products.  
Its products fall into three product categories: Beauty, which
consists of cosmetics, fragrances, skin care and toiletries
(CFT); Beauty Plus, which consists of fashion jewelry, watches,
apparel and accessories, and Beyond Beauty, which consists of
home products and gift and decorative products.


AVON PRODUCTS: Wants New York ERISA Violations Suit Thrown Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
class action lawsuit filed against the company and certain other
defendants before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District Court of New York over alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In October 2005, the company reported the filing of two class
action complaints for alleged ERISA violations:

      1. "John Rogati v. Andrea Jung, et al.;" and

      2. "Carolyn Jane Perry v. Andrea Jung, et al."  

These cases were subsequently consolidated under the caption,
"In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File Number
05-CV-06803," and a consolidated complaint for alleged ERISA
violations was filed in December 2005 before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the company,
certain officers, its Retirement Board and others as defendants.  

The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
Avon Products Inc. Personal Savings Account Plan and the Avon
Products Inc. Personal Retirement Account Plan and on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan "for whose individual
accounts the Plan purchased or held an interest in Avon
Products, Inc. . . . common stock from Feb. 20, 2004, to the
present."  

The consolidated complaint asserts breaches of fiduciary duties
and prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA arising out
of, inter alia, alleged false and misleading public statements
regarding the company's business made during the class period
and investments in company stock by the Plan and Plan
participants.  

In February 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, asserting that it failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.  The plaintiffs have
opposed that motion.

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

The suit is "In re Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master  
File Number 05-CV-06803," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan,
presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com)
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 212-964-0046

              - and -

         Brian Philip Murray, Esq. (bmurray@murrayfrank.com)
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
         275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-682-1818
         Fax: 212-682-1892

Representing the defendants are:  

         Peter C. Hein Wachtell, Esq. (PCHein@wlrk.com)
         Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-403-1237
         Fax: 212-403-2000

              - and -

         Melissa C. Rodriguez, Esq.
         (mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         101 Park Avenue, 37th Floor
         New York, NY 10178
         Phone: 212-309-6394
         Fax: 212-309-6273


BLUE SQUARE: Sale of "Super Fresh Eggs" Suit Granted Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Square-Israel Ltd. disclosed that the claim and request for
approval as a class action against it together with other
defendants in connection with their marketing of eggs labeled as
"Super Fresh Eggs" was dismissed by the court, at the
plaintiff's behest.

The Claim alleged that the defendants are marketing and
displaying for purchase eggs that are classified as "Super Fresh
Eggs" which are not subject to Israeli regulatory price
controls, and are thus minimizing the shelf space and display of
eggs that are subject to regulatory price controls (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008).

According to the claim, the defendants allegedly derive a higher
profit margin from the sale of such "Super Fresh Eggs" instead
of the regulated eggs.  The claim alleged that the defendants
coordinated their actions among each other, and that the
defendants and the companies involved in the marketing of eggs
are misleading consumers in violation of applicable consumer
protection laws.

The Claim requested relief in the form of monetary compensation
and a mandatory injunction to stop the current actions that are
allegedly misleading the consumers.

In its, recent decision, the court further determined that
should the plaintiff refile the claim, he would bear the
expenses of each defendant in the refiled claim, in the sum of
ILS15,000 plus VAT, interest, and linkage.

Blue Square-Israel Ltd. is a leading retailer in Israel.  A
pioneer of modern food retailing in the region.  Blue Square
currently operates 186 supermarkets under different formats,
each offering varying levels of services and prices.


CASH AMERICA: Appeals Denial of Stay in Ga. Payday Loans Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc., is appealing the denial of its
motion to stay and compel arbitration by the State Court of Cobb
County, Georgia, in connection with a purported class action
lawsuit over payday loans.

On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed the purported class
action suit against Georgia Cash America, Inc.; Cash America
International, Inc.; Daniel R. Feehan; and several unnamed
officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America.  

The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the
most significant of which is that Cash America has been making
illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury
law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  

Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia
residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations.

The suit claims that Community State Bank is not the true lender
with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that its
involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge."  Based on
this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the
"de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's
affirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on
Cash America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration)
was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24,
2007, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

The case has been returned to the State Court of Cobb County,
Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the
trial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel
arbitration and stay the State Court proceedings.  

The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion to
compel arbitration was rendered moot after the discovery
sanction was handed down by the Court.  

Cash America is currently in the process of appealing these
latest orders from the Court.

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

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/
-- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.  
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


CENTENNIAL COMMS: Reaches Settlement in Billing Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Centennial Communications Corp. reached a tentative settlement
in one of several pending lawsuits against the company over its
billing practices, according to the company's July 30, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008.

Initially, the company was a party to several lawsuits in which
the plaintiffs have alleged, depending on the case, breach of
contract, misrepresentation or unfair practice claims relating
to its billing practices, including rounding up of partial
minutes of use to full-minute increments and billing for
unanswered and dropped calls.

The plaintiffs in these cases have not alleged any specific
monetary damages and are seeking certification as a class
action.

                           Settlement

Recently, the company settled one of these cases.  On Oct. 19,
2007, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement and on May 6, 2008, approval on a final basis.

The settlement provides for the certification of a class
consisting of all of the company's current and former customers.

In general, under the terms of the settlement, class members may
elect to receive a settlement benefit consisting of one of the
following:

       -- additional minutes of the company's airtime,
   
       -- a service credit on their wireless telephone bill in
          exchange for extending their wireless contract,

       -- a discount on certain accessories, or

       -- a pre-paid long distance calling card.

Centennial Communications Corp. -- http://www.centennialcom.com/
-- is a regional wireless and broadband telecommunications
service provider serving over 1.1 million wireless customers and
approximately 419,500 access line equivalents in markets
covering approximately 12.6 million Net Pops in the U.S. And
Puerto Rico.  


CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Certify Class in "Veliz" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
or an arbitrator has yet to issue a decision on the class
certification issue in the matter, "Paul Veliz, et al. v. Cintas
Corp."

The suit, filed on March 19, 2003, alleges that the company
violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable
to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers
exempt employees.  It also asserts related Employee Retirement
Income Security Act claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief or both.

On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging
additional state law wage and hour claims under the laws of
these states: Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.  

On Feb. 14, 2006, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint alleging state law claims in the 15
states only with respect to the putative class members that may
litigate their claims in court.

No determination has yet been made by the court or an arbitrator
regarding class certification.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008.

The suit is "Veliz et al. v. Cintas Corp.et al., (4:03-cv-1180
SBA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong,
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Scott A. Kronland, Esq. (skronland@altshulerberzon.com)
         Altshuler, Berzon et al.
         177 Post Street, Suite 300
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Phone: 415-421-7151
         Fax: 415-362-8064

Representing the company is:

         Cheryl A. Hipp, Esq.
         Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
         4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 516-479-8365


CINTAS CORP: Still Faces Race and Gender Discrimination Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corp. is still facing several purported class-action
lawsuits alleging either racial or sex discrimination towards
employees, according to the company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2008.

                      Serrano Litigation

The company is a defendant in a purported class action suit,
entitled "Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corp.," which was
filed on May 10, 2004, and pending with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.  

"Serrano" alleges that Cintas discriminated against women in
hiring into various service sales representative positions
across all divisions of Cintas throughout the U.S.   

On Nov. 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
intervened in the Serrano lawsuit.  

The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.

                       Avalos Litigation

Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action suit,
captioned "Nelly Blanca Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation,"
which is currently pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.  

"Avalos" alleges that Cintas discriminated against women,
African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service
sales representative positions in Cintas' Rental division only
throughout the U.S.   

On April 27, 2005, the EEOC intervened in the claims asserted in
Avalos.  

The Avalos plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.

                       Ramirez Litigation

The claims in "Avalos" originally were brought in the previously
disclosed lawsuit captioned, "Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas
Corporation (Ramirez)," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 20, 2004.  

On May 11, 2006, however, those claims were severed from  
"Ramirez" and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, where the case was re-named
"Avalos."

The non-service sales representative hiring claims in "Ramirez"
that have not been dismissed now remain pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, but were
ordered to arbitration and stayed pending the completion of
arbitration.  

The Ramirez purported class action claims currently in
arbitration include allegations that Cintas failed to promote
Hispanics into supervisory positions, discriminated against
African-Americans and Hispanics in service sales representative
route assignments and discriminated against African-Americans in
hourly pay in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the U.S.  

The Ramirez plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.  

No filings or determinations have been made in "Ramirez" as to
class certification.

                  Avalos & Serrano Consolidation

On July 10, 2006, "Avalos" and "Serrano" were consolidated for
all pretrial purposes, including proceedings on class
certification.  

The consolidated case is known as "Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly
Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos)," and
remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.  

No filings or determinations have been made in Serrano/Avalos as
to class certification.  

                       Grindle Litigation

On Feb. 20, 2007, a separate lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Wood County, Ohio, captioned, "Colleen Grindle, et
al. v. Cintas Corporation."

It was brought on behalf of a class of female employees at
Cintas' Perrysburg, Ohio location who allegedly were denied
hire, promotion or transfer to service sales representative
positions on the basis of their gender.  

The Grindle plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.  

No filings or determinations have been made in "Grindle" as to
class certification.

The Grindle case is stayed pending the class certification
proceedings in the consolidated Serrano case.

Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized  
products and services to businesses of all types throughout the
U.S. and Canada.  The products and services provided by Cintas
include uniforms and apparel; mats, mops and towels; restroom
and hygiene service; first aid and safety; fire protection;
branded promotional products; document shredding and storage;
cleanroom resources, and flame resistant clothing.


COAST FINANCIAL: Stills Faces Florida Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. -- which was acquired by First
Banks, Inc. -- and certain of its present and former officers
continue to face a consolidated class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida over alleged
violations of the federal securities laws.

Initially, the defendants were named in three purported class
action complaints, the first of which was filed before the Court
on March 20, 2007.

On June 22, 2007, an order was entered pursuant to which the
Court:

       -- consolidated the securities actions, with the matter
          proceeding under the docket for "Grand Lodge of
          Pennsylvania v. Brian P. Peters, et al., Case No.
          8:07-cv-429-T-26-EAJ," and

       -- appointed Troy Ratcliff and Daniel Altenburg as lead
          plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of the Private
          Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Subsequently, in August 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint.

The Amended Complaint added as defendants:

       -- the current members of the Holding company's Board of
          Directors,

       -- one former member of the Holding company's Board of
          Directors,

       -- the underwriters of the Holding company's Oct. 5, 2005
          public offering of common stock, and
        
       -- the Holding company's external auditors.

The Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of the Holding company's common stock between
Jan. 21, 2005, and Jan. 22, 2007.  

In general, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Holding
company's SEC filings and public statements contained
misstatements and omissions regarding its residential
construction-to-permanent lending operations and, more
specifically, regarding CCI and its affiliates and that the
Holding company's financial statements violated GAAP.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice with the
Court voluntarily dismissing their claims against Anne V. Lee
and Justin D. Locke without prejudice.

First Banks reported no development in the matter in its
July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Coast
Financial Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00479," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Judge Richard A. Lazzara, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the company is:

          Samuel J. Salario, Jr., Esq.
          (ssalario@carltonfields.com)
          Carlton Fields, PA
          4221 W Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000
          PO Box 3239
          Tampa, FL 33601-3239
          Phone: 813-229-4337
          Fax: 813-229-4133


COMMONWEALTH LAND: No Certification Hearing Date Yet in "Simon"
---------------------------------------------------------------
No hearing date was set for a motion that sought certification
of a class in a purported class-action lawsuit against
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., a subsidiary of
LandAmerica Financial Group, that accuses the company of
overcharging clients for owner's title insurance policy rates.

A putative class action suit was filed against Commonwealth by
Rodney P. Simon and Tracy L. Simon in the Court of Common Pleas
for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, on March 5, 2003.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had a practice of
charging original rates for owners title insurance policies when
lower, reissue rates should have been charged.  

The company initially responded by demanding that the actions be
arbitrated, but on final appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the
Court ruled that arbitration was not required for either suit.  

The plaintiffs in the suit are seeking to have the case
certified as a class action on behalf of all sellers of
residential property in Ohio, who paid the original rate from
1993 to the present, as requested in the original complaint,
although no hearing date on the class certification has been
scheduled.  

The suit demands an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  

No hearing date on the motion for class certification filed by
the plaintiffs in the suit has been scheduled yet, 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.

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com-- is a  
holding company.  Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  The company provides these products and
services to a customer group including residential and
commercial property buyers and sellers, real estate agents and
brokers, developers, attorneys, mortgage brokers and lenders,
and title insurance agents.   


COMMONWEALTH LAND: No Certification Motion Yet in "Higgins" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
No motion for class certification has been filed yet in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by Kenneth and Deette
Higgins against Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., a
subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group.

The suit was filed on Sept. 20, 2004, in the Circuit Court of
Nassau County, Florida.

On Feb. 3, 2005, the plaintiffs in the Higgins Suit filed an
amended class action complaint.  They allege that Commonwealth
had a practice of charging refinance borrowers higher basic
rates for title insurance, rather than the lower reissue rates
for which they are alleged to have qualified, and of failing to
disclose the potential availability of the lower rates.  

The plaintiffs seek to have the case certified as a class action
on behalf of all Florida persons or entities who refinanced
their mortgages or fee interests on the identical premises from
July 1, 1999, to the present where there was no change in the
fee ownership and who were charged a premium in excess of the
reissue premium.  They have demanded an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, declaratory relief, attorneys fees, costs
and pre-judgment interest.

Initial discovery occurred.  Commonwealth objected to discovery
requests made by the plaintiffs on the basis that they were
overly broad and burdensome.  The company also objected to
answering interrogatories and producing documents in the
possession of its agents.  The plaintiffs  moved to compel this
discovery, which motion was granted by the trial court.   

Commonwealth filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
First District Court of Appeal to overturn the trial court's
ruling.  

On March 6, 2008, the appellate court vacated the trial court's
order compelling discovery.  It held that a defendant could not
be required to produce such burdensome discovery prior to
certification of a class.  The appellate court remanded the case
to the trial court to craft a less burdensome order.  

No motion for class certification has been filed to date,
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.

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com/-- is a  
holding company.  Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  The company provides these products and
services to a customer group including residential and
commercial property buyers and sellers, real estate agents and
brokers, developers, attorneys, mortgage brokers and lenders,
and title insurance agents.   


COMMONWEALTH LAND: Court Partially Certifies Class in "Alberton"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
partially certified a class in a consumer fraud lawsuit filed by
A.D. Alberton on July 24, 2006, against Commonwealth Land Title
Insurance Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of LandAmerica
Financial 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.


The suit is alleging that Commonwealth charged rates for title
insurance in excess of statutorily mandated rates and failed to
disclose to consumers that they were entitled to reduced title
insurance premiums,(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 5, 2008).

The suit sought to certify a class on behalf of all consumers
who paid premiums for the purchase of title insurance on
Pennsylvania properties from Commonwealth at any time during the
year 2000 until August 2005 and qualified for a discounted
refinance or reissue rate discount and did not receive such
discount (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2007).

The plaintiffs asserted these claims:

     1. breach of express contract,

     2. breach of implied contract,

     3. money had and received,

     4. violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
        Consumer Protection Law,

     5. fraudulent misrepresentation,

     6. negligent misrepresentation,

     7. negligent supervision, accounting and

     8. unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs demanded an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, declaratory relief, triple damages, restitution, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and expert fees, plus
attorneys fees and costs.

A class certification hearing in the Alberton Suit was held on
Oct. 16, 2007.  

On Jan. 31, 2008, the court issued an order granting in part the
motion for class certification and certifying a class of all
persons who from July 25, 2000 until Aug. 1, 2005 paid premiums
for the purchase of title insurance from Commonwealth in
connection with a refinance of a mortgage or fee interest on
Pennsylvania properties that were insured by a prior title
insurance policy within ten years of the refinance transaction
and were not charged the applicable reissue rate or refinance
rate discount for title insurance on file with the Pennsylvania
Insurance Commissioner.

The suit is "Alberton v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance
company, Case No. 2:06-cv-03755-ER," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
          Freedman Boyd Daniels Hollander & Goldberg PA
          20 First Plaza Suite 700,
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Phone: 505-842-9960
          Fax: 505-842-0761
          e-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Samuel W. Braver, Esq.
          Buchanan Ingersoll PC
          301 Grant St., 20th Fl.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410
          Phone: 412-562-8939
          e-mail: braversw@bipc.com


DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal
with regard to the decertification of a purported class action
lawsuit that accuses DENTSPLY International, Inc., of
misrepresenting its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S., and Richard Nathan,
D.D.S., filed a class action complaint in San Francisco County,
California.   

The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of
the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who
have purchased it for use in oral surgery.  The court certified
the case as a class action on June 15, 2006, with respect to the
suit's breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims.

The class is defined as California dental professionals who
purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients.

The company filed a motion for decertification of the class,
which request was granted.  The plaintiffs have appealed this
decertification order to the California Court of Appeals.

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

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a  
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International, Inc., is still facing several lawsuits
that accuse the company of engaging in a conspiracy to violate
antitrust laws in relation to the sale of Trubyte teeth or
products containing Trubyte teeth.

Subsequent to the Department of Justice's filing of a complaint
in 1999, several private party class actions were commenced
based on allegations similar to those in the DoJ case, on behalf
of dental laboratories, and denture patients in 17 states who
purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth.

These cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.  The private party suits seek damages in
an unspecified amount.  

At the company's behest, the Court declared the lack of standing
of the laboratory and patient class action suits to pursue
damage claims.  

The plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which largely
upheld the decision of the District Court in dismissing the
plaintiffs' damages claims against DENTSPLY, with the exception
of allowing the plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a
theory of resale price maintenance between the company and its
tooth dealers.

The plaintiffs then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the
Third Circuit's decision, but the request was denied.

The plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed an amended complaint
asserting that DENTSPLY and its tooth dealers, and the dealers
among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the
antitrust laws.  

DENTSPLY and the dealers have filed motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' new claims, except for the resale price maintenance
claims.  

The District Court granted the motions filed by DENTSPLY and the
dealers, leaving only the resale price maintenance claim.  The
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims to the Third
Circuit.

Additionally, manufacturers of two competitive tooth lines and a
dealer, as a putative class action, have filed separate actions
seeking damages alleged to have been incurred as a result of the
company's tooth distribution practice found to be a violation of
the antitrust law.

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

DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a  
designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of
products for the dental market.


FORD MOTOR: 2000 and 2001 Ford Focus Consumer Fraud Suit Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 28, 2008, Judge Victoria Chaney of the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, granted final approval of the
settlement in a class action lawsuit providing reimbursement to
California owners and lessees of the 2000 and 2001 Ford Focus
for front brake repairs.

Under the settlement, Ford is making full reimbursement -- in
cash -- for qualifying repairs and claims.  This ruling clears
the way for reimbursement checks to be issued to Class members
who submit valid claims by September 16, 2008.

The plaintiffs alleged that the 2000 and 2001 models of the Ford
Focus contained a systemic brake defect that caused premature
wear and required replacement or repair of the front brakes and
rotors.  Because Ford contended that such repairs were excluded
from warranty coverage, class members were left to pay for these
repairs, even during the 3 year/36,000 mile "bumper to bumper"
warranty.  Repairs that are eligible for reimbursement under the
settlement must have been completed during the warranty period,
and include any first brake repair at or prior to 18,000 miles
of service and any additional repair within the original
warranty period.

Documentary proof of the repair, including the cost, mileage and
date of the repair, must be provided; many Class members who
cannot locate such records have been able to obtain copies from
the dealerships or other service facilities where the repair
work was completed.  Those who need assistance with obtaining
records are encouraged to contact the class counsel.

Steve Skalet, Esq., of Mehri & Skalet PLLC stated, "Plaintiffs
fought hard for the Class, and the settlement provides for a
full refund of all labor and material costs for eligible claims
without any cap or reduction based on the number of claims
made."

Eligible claims filed to date have averaged about $350.00, with
some claims exceeding $1,200.00.  S. Ron Alikani, who originally
investigated consumers' complaints regarding their Ford Focus
front brakes problems, added, "Many consumers have expressed to
us their frustration about having to pay hundreds of dollars for
premature replacements of their Ford Focus front brake pads and
rotors.  I am delighted that in the near future they will
receive checks for their qualifying claims."

Notices and claim forms were mailed directly to the original
owners and lessees at their last known address, after
preliminary approval of the settlement.  Class members can
obtain additional information, including the Notice and Claim
Form at http://www.focusbrakeclass.com/and through this toll-
free number: 866-287-3696.

The plaintiffs' lead counsel are:

         Steven A. Skalet, Esq.
         Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
         1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
         Washington, DC 20036
         Phone: 202-822-5100
         Fax: 202-822-4997

              - and -

         Christopher Seeger, Esq.
         Seeger Weiss LLP,
         One William Street
         New York, NY 10004
         Phone: 212-584-0700


HSBC BANK: Faces Lawsuit in New York Over $1.75 ATM Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Bank USA NA is facing a class-action complaint before the
Central Islip, N.Y., District Court over allegations that it
charges customers a $1.75 ATM fee without notifying them first,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A., the United States subsidiary of the HSBC
Holdings plc, is a bank with its head office in New York City.


INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Unions Sued Over Camp Surveillance
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee alleges local unions illegally
installed hidden video cameras at a summer camp for
underprivileged children in order to spy on the camp operators,
who were members of a competing union, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The defendants named in the complaint are:

     -- International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

     -- International Brotherhood of Teamsters Law Enforcement
        League,

     -- International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 327,

     -- International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 667,

     -- Calvin Edward Hullet, and

     -- Joe T. Everson.

This complaint is an action for damages based upon defendants'
violations of the laws of the United States, the Civil Rights
Act, 42 UCS Section 1983 et seq., as well as violations of the
laws of the State of Tennessee.

Minor campers and their guardians say they were secretly
recorded as collateral damage in the power struggle between
local chapters of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and
the rival Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), who ran the camp.

On Feb. 9, 2006, the teamsters union replaced the FOP as the
collective bargaining agent for the Metropolitan Nashville
Police Department.  But in light of a movement to decertify the
teamsters and reinstate the FOP, the teamsters installed
surveillance equipment at the camp in order to obtain footage
that might be used against the FOP in the upcoming vote, the
lawsuit claims.

The children attending the camp were allegedly filmed in the
process, without their knowledge or permission.

About 40 to 50 disadvantaged kids attend a typical week-long
camp, the lawsuit claims.  "This constitutes an invasion of the
privacy rights in the photographs and films of the minor
children."

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of minor children (by
and through their guardians or parents) who were attendees at
the FOP camp for the three-week period where the defendants
secretly videotaped the children's activities.

The plaintiffs request:

     -- that the court certify a class action pursuant to Rule
        23(b)(3) and issue class notice;

     -- that this case be heard by a jury;

     -- that proper process be issued and served upon
        defendants, and that they be required to appear and
        answer the complaint within the time prescribed by law;

     -- that plaintiffs be awarded compensatory, special and
        statutory damages in an amount sufficient to fully and
        fairly compensate them for the injuries and damage they
        have incurred;

     -- that an award of punitive damages be assessed against
        the defendants in an amount sufficient to punish them
        for their misconduct and to deter them and others like
        them from committing similar acts in the future;

     -- that the costs of this action be awarded to the
        plaintiffs and attorneys' fees and costs be paid by the
        defendants, pursuant to 42 USC Section 1988; and

     -- that plaintiffs be awarded such other and further  
        relief, general and special, legal and equitable, to
        which the court may find the plaintiffs justly entitled.

The suit is "Lukas P. Merithew, et al. v. International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al." filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Randolph Smith, Esq. (drs@drslawfirm.com)
          Law Offices of David Rnadolph Smith & Edmund J.
          Schmidt III, 1913 21st Avenue South
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Phone: 615-742-1775
          Fax: 615-742-1223
          Web site: http://www.drslawfirm.com


ISOLAGEN INC: Parties in Pa. Lawsuit Want to Resolve Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter "Isolagen, Inc., Securities &
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:06-md-01741-RB," continue to
attempt toward reaching a resolution of the case.

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are defendants in various class action complaints
filed in August 2005 and September 2005, alleging securities
fraud and asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of publicly traded Isolagen securities between
March 3, 2004, and Aug. 1, 2005.

These lawsuits were:

       -- "Elliot Liff v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No. H-05-
          2887," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
          Southern District of Texas;

       -- "Michael Cummiskey v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
          05-cv-03105," filed in the U.S. District Court for
          the Southern District of Texas;

       -- "Ronald A. Gargiulo v. Isolagen, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
          05-cv-4983," filed in the U.S. District Court for
          the Eastern District of Pennsylvania," and

       -- "Gregory J. Newman v. Frank M. DeLape, et al., C.A.
          No. 05-cv-5090," filed in the U.S. District Court
          for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Liff and Cummiskey actions were consolidated on Oct. 7,
2005.  The Gargiolo and Newman actions were consolidated on
Nov. 29, 2005.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the Federal
Securities Actions to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The Liff and Cummiskey actions were stayed on Nov. 23, 2005,
pending resolution of the MDL Motion.  The Gargiulo and Newman
actions were also stayed on Dec. 7, 2005, pending resolution of
the MDL Motion.

On Feb. 23, 2006, the MDL Motion was granted and the actions
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where they have been jointly
captioned, "In re Isolagen, Inc. Securities & Derivative
Litigation, MDL No. 1741."

On April 4, 2006, the Pennsylvania District Court appointed
Silverback Asset Management, LLC; Silverback Master, Ltd.;
Silverback Life Sciences Master Fund, Ltd.; Context Capital
Management, LLC; and Michael F. McNulty as lead plaintiffs, and
the law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and
Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP as lead counsel in the Federal
Securities Litigation.

On July 14, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Isolagen common
stock or convertible debt securities between March 3, 2004, and
Aug. 9, 2005.

The amended complaint purports to assert claims for securities
fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Isolagen and certain of
its former officers and directors.  The amended complaint also
purports to assert claims for violations of Section 11 and 12 of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 against the company and certain
of its current and former directors and officers in connection
with the registration and sale of certain shares of Isolagen
common stock and certain convertible debt securities.

The amended complaint also purports to assert claims against
CIBC World Markets Corp., Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc.,
Canaccord Adams, Inc. and UBS Securities LLC as underwriters in
connection with an April 2004 public offering of Isolagen common
stock and a 2005 sale of convertible notes.

On Nov. 1, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint,
which motion was denied by the Court.

On Nov. 6, 2007, the court entered a scheduling order that
provides for discovery to be completed by June 8, 2009.  On
April 1, 2008, the court also entered an order staying the
schedule set forth in its Nov. 6, 2007, order for a period of 90
days and directing the parties to participate in mediation
before a private mediator.  

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
had set a June 2, 2008 mediation session for the matter.

The mediation occurred on June 2, 2008, and June 5, 2008, and
the parties continue attempts toward reaching a resolution of
the actions, 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 "Isolagen, Inc., Securities & Derivative Litigation,  
Case No. 2:06-md-01741-RB," filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Ronald L.
Buckwalter presiding.  
  
Representing the plaintiffs are:  
  
         Richard Eugene Norman, Esq.
         Crowley Douglas, et al.
         1301 McKinney, Suite 3500
         Houston, TX 77010
         Phone: 713-651-1771

              - and -
  
         Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
         Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone: 212-594-5300
     
Representing the company are:  
  
         Charles W. Schwartz, Esq.
         Skadden Arps, et al.
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 6800
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-655-5160

              - and -
  
         Robert W. Hayes, Esq. (rhayes@cozen.com)
         Cozen O'Connor
         1900 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-665-2094
         Fax: 215-665-2013


LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Wants Title Insurance Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
LandAmerica Financial Group is seeking the consolidation of
several purported class-action lawsuits over its title insurance
services, 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 company is a defendant in a number of other purported class-
action cases pending in various states that include allegations
that certain consumers were overcharged for title insurance and
related services.

LandAmerica is also defendant in multiple purported class-action
cases pending in federal district courts around the country
alleging various federal antitrust violations, additional claims
for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment as
well as other causes of action related to the rate-making
activities of title insurance companies.  

A motion for consolidation of those actions before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York was denied
by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation and the
defendant is now seeking the consolidation of the multiple cases
before one judge within each state.  

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com/-- is a  
holding company.  Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  The company provides these products and
services to a customer group including residential and
commercial property buyers and sellers, real estate agents and
brokers, developers, attorneys, mortgage brokers and lenders,
and title insurance agents.   


LAWYERS TITLE: March 10, 2009 Hearing Set for "Henderson" Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A March 10, 2009 fairness hearing was set for a proposed
settlement in a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed
over allegations that Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, overcharges
clients for owner's title insurance policy rates, 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 Jan. 25, 2002, Miles R. Henderson and Patricia A. Henderson
filed the putative class action suit against Lawyers Title in
the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  

Lawyers Title removed the case to the District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on March 6, 2002.  On June 28, 2002,
the District Court remanded the case to the Court of Common
Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had a practice of
charging original rates for owners title insurance policies when
lower reissue rates should have been charged.  

The suit demands an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  

The company initially responded by demanding that the actions be
arbitrated, but on final appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the
Court ruled that arbitration was not required for the suit.  

On remand to the trial court, the plaintiffs in the Henderson
Suit are now seeking to have the case certified as a class
action on behalf of all sellers and buyers of residential
property in Ohio who paid the higher original rate from 1992 to
the present.

In December 2007, a voluntary mediation was held in the suit
that resulted in a settlement.  The settlement has been
preliminarily approved by the court and a fairness hearing has
been set for March 10, 2009, after notice to the class.

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com/-- is a  
holding company.  Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  The company provides these products and
services to a customer group including residential and
commercial property buyers and sellers, real estate agents and
brokers, developers, attorneys, mortgage brokers and lenders,
and title insurance agents.   


LAWYERS TITLE: Still Faces "De Cooman" Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of
LandAmerica Financial Group, continues to face a purported
class-action suit filed by Shariee L. De Cooman in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

The original suit was filed on or about Aug. 12, 2005.  In
November 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the
suit, which alleges that Lawyers charged the basic rate rather
than a reissue or discounted rate to certain consumers.  The
suit seeks to certify a class on behalf of all owners of
residential real estate in Pennsylvania who, at any time during
the 10 years prior to Aug. 12, 2005, paid premiums for the
purchase of title insurance from Lawyers, qualified for a
reissue or other discounted rate, and did not receive such rate.  

The plaintiff demanded an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, punitive damages, triple damages, prejudgment interest,
and attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs.  

The court had set a class certification hearing date of Oct. 9,
2007.

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

LandAmerica Financial Group -- http://www.landam.com-- is a  
holding company.  Its products and services facilitate the
purchase, sale, transfer and financing of residential and
commercial real estate.  The company provides these products and
services to a customer group including residential and
commercial property buyers and sellers, real estate agents and
brokers, developers, attorneys, mortgage brokers and lenders,
and title insurance agents.   


MASCO CORP: Still Faces Ga. Suit Over Insulation Installation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corp. continues to face a purported class action lawsuit
in Georgia in connection with insulation installation.

Early in 2003, a suit was brought against the company and a
number of its insulation installation companies with the federal
court in Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that certain practices
violate provisions of the federal antitrust laws.  The complaint
requests class action certification.

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

Masco Corp. -- http://www.masco.com/-- manufactures,  
distributes and installs home improvement and building products.
Masco operates in five segments: Cabinets and Related Products,
which includes assembled and ready-to-assemble kitchen and bath
cabinets, home office workstations, storage products, bookcases,
and kitchen utility products; Plumbing Products, which includes
faucets plumbing fittings and valves, showerheads and hand
showers, and spas; Installation and Other Services, which
includes the sale, installation and distribution of insulation
and other building products; Decorative Architectural Products,
which includes paints and stains, and door, window and other
hardware, and Other Specialty Products, which includes windows,
window frame components and patio doors, staple gun tackers,
staples and other fastening tools, and hydronic radiators and
heat convectors.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: D.C. Court Transfers "Reese" Lawsuit to N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia transferred
the purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Reese v. Bahash,
Case No. 1:2007cv01530," which was filed against certain
officials of McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The putative shareholder class-action lawsuit was filed on
Aug. 28, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia against Robert Bahash, the chief financial officer of
the company, alleging claims under the federal securities laws
and state tort law concerning Standard & Poor's ratings,
particularly its ratings of subprime mortgage-backed securities.  
Mr. Bahash was not served with the complaint.

On Feb. 11, 2008, the District Court in the case entered an
order appointing a lead plaintiff and permitting plaintiffs to
amend the complaint on or before April 16, 2008.

On April 7, 2008, the District Court granted the application of
the lead plaintiff to extend the deadline for its amendment of
the complaint to May 7, 2008.

An amended complaint was filed alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  The company and another individual was
named as additional defendants.

The Amended Complaint asserts, among other things, that the
defendants failed to warn investors that problems in the
structured finance market, particularly the sub-prime lending
market, would negatively affect the company's financial
performance.  Service of the Amended Complaint was thereafter
effectuated.

On June 18, 2008, in response to a Consent Motion filed on
behalf of the company and the individual defendants, the
District Court entered an order transferring the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is  
a global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a
range of information products and services.  The company's
markets include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and
marketing information services.  In March 2007, Standard &
Poor's, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the
sale of its mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As
part of the transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund
data from Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through
a range of distribution channels, including printed books,
magazines and newsletters, online via Internet Websites and
digital platforms, through wireless and traditional on-air
broadcasting, and through a range of conferences and trade
shows.  The company's books and magazines are printed by third
parties.  


MILGARD: Appeals Court Affirms Class Denial in Windows Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling in
a class action lawsuit against Milgard Manufacturing, Inc. -- a
subsidiary of Masco Corp. -- over allegedly defective aluminum
windows.

The suit was served in February 2003 on Milgard Manufacturing,
in the Solano County, California Superior Court, alleging design
defects in certain of Milgard's aluminum windows.  It requests
class action status for all owners of homes in California in
which the windows are installed, and seeks replacement costs and
other damages.  

In August 2006, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The plaintiffs immediately filed a
notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeals.

In May 2008, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, according to Masco Corp.'s July 30, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Masco Corp. -- http://www.masco.com/-- manufactures,  
distributes and installs home improvement and building products.
Masco operates in five segments: Cabinets and Related Products,
which includes assembled and ready-to-assemble kitchen and bath
cabinets, home office workstations, storage products, bookcases,
and kitchen utility products; Plumbing Products, which includes
faucets plumbing fittings and valves, showerheads and hand
showers, and spas; Installation and Other Services, which
includes the sale, installation and distribution of insulation
and other building products; Decorative Architectural Products,
which includes paints and stains, and door, window and other
hardware, and Other Specialty Products, which includes windows,
window frame components and patio doors, staple gun tackers,
staples and other fastening tools, and hydronic radiators and
heat convectors.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal Hearing in "Gwin" Lawsuit is Sept. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Howard F. Bryan of Jefferson County Circuit Court will
hear on Sept. 9, 2008, arguments on motions to dismiss a
proposed class-action lawsuit filed by state employees against
Nationwide Life Insurance Co. and the Alabama State Employees
Association over allegations that they breached their fiduciary
duties under their defined contribution retirement plan,
BestWire Services reports.

On Nov. 20, 2007, Nationwide Life and Nationwide
Retirement Solutions, Inc., were named in a lawsuit filed with
the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, entitled, "Ruth
A. Gwin and Sandra H. Turner, and a class of similarly situated
individuals v. NLIC, NRS, Alabama State Employees Association,
PEBCO, Inc. and Fictitious Defendants A to Z."

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all participants
in the Alabama State Employees Association plan, excluding
members of the Board of Control during the Class Period and
excluding ASEA's directors, officers and board members during
the class period.  The class period is the date from which NLIC
and NRS first made a payment to ASEA or PEBCO arising out of the
funding agreement dated March 24, 2004, to the date class notice
is provided.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties, converted plan participants' properties, and
breached their contract when payments were made and the plan was
administered under the funding agreement.

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, an injunction,
disgorgement of amounts paid, compensatory and punitive damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other equitable
and legal relief to which the plaintiffs and class members may
be entitled.

On Jan. 9, 2008, NLIC and NRS filed a Notice of Removal of the
case to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama.  

On Jan. 16, 2008, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  On Jan. 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
move the case back to the original court.  

Subsequently, on April 15, 2008, the Court remanded the case
back to state court in Jefferson County, Alabama (Class Action
Reporter, May 21, 2008).

Erica Lewis, a spokeswoman for Nationwide Life, said the company
strongly disagrees with the allegations and intends to
aggressively defend the case.

The suit is "Gwin, et al. v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company
et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00059-RDP," filed before the U.S.
District Court Northern District of Alabama, Judge R. David
Proctor presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James S. Christie, Jr., Esq.
          (jchristie@bradleyarant.com)
          Bradley Arant Rose & White
          P.O. Box 830709
          Birmingham, AL 35283-0709
          Phone: 521-8000

Representing the defendants are:
         
          J. Kirkman Garrett, Esq. (jkgarrett@csattorneys.com)
          Christian & Small LLP
          Financial Center, Suite 1800
          505 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2696
          Phone: 795-6588

          Rebecca G. DePalma, Esq. (rdepalma@waadlaw.com)
          White Arnold Andrews & Dowd PC
          2025 3rd Avenue, North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 323-1888

               - and -

          Joseph C. Espy, III, Esq. (jespy@mewlegal.com)
          Melton Espy & Williams PC
          301 Adams Avenue
          P.O. Drawer 5130
          Montgomery, AL 36103-5130
          Phone: 334-263-6621
          Fax: 334-263-7252


OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud
lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, according to the company's July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 28, 2008.

Initially, two putative class action complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its executive officers,
alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in
November 2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor
program funds.  

Each of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, and are captioned as:

       * "Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia
         McKay (Case Number, 07-14348)," filed on Nov. 6, 2007;
         and

       * "Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve
         Odland and Patricia McKay (Case Number, 07-81038),"
         filed on Nov. 5, 2007.

On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in "Nichols v. Office Depot,
et. al.," moved to consolidate the two class action lawsuits.

On March 21, 2008, the court entered an order consolidating the
cases.  The lead plaintiff in the consolidated case, the New
Mexico Educational Retirement Board, filed a consolidated
amended complaint on July 2, 2008.

The suit is "Nichols v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Case No.  
2:07-cv-14348-DTKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David J. George, Esq. (dgeorge@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Alleghney Building
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1618
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-338-2266

Representing the defendants is:

          Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq. (aflindsay@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan & Hartson
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-459-6500
          Fax: 305-459-6550


OIL COS: Ethanol-Blended Gas Ruins Engines, Florida Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th
Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, alleges
ethanol-blended gasoline containing more than 10% ethanol ruins
engines by dissolving fuel-system parts and depositing
contaminants, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The defendants named in the complaint are:

        * Shell Oil Co.
        * Motiva Enterprises, LLC
        * Exxon Mobil Corp.
        * Valero Energy Corp.
        * BP America Inc.
        * Chevron USA Inc.
        * ConocoPhillips Co.
        * Citgo Petroleum Co.
        * Hess Corp.
        * Texaco Group LLC
        * Sunoco Inc.
        * Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
        * Racetrac Petroleum Inc.

All major players in the gas industry know that ethanol-blended
gas absorbs water, and that a water-ethanol mixture is highly
corrosive, the lawsuit claims.

The gas companies then sell their "E10" fuel, knowing it will
likely become contaminated with water and cause engine damage,
the plaintiffs claim.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all Florida
persons and entities who have suffered damage from ethanol
blended fuels purchased from the oil company defendants.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants' ethanol blended gasoline was
         defective;

     (b) whether the defendants were negligent in the
         manufacture, distribution or sale of their ethanol
         blended gasoline;

     (c) whether the defendants failed to warn of the propensity
         of their ethanol blended gasoline to cause damage to
         automobile fuel systems and engine components;

     (d) whether the defendants had actual and constructive
         knowledge of the propensity of their ethanol gasoline
         to cause damage to automobile fuel systems and engine
         components;

     (e) whether the defendants breached the warranty of
         merchantability for their ethanol blending gasoline;
         and

     (f) whether or not the plaintiffs have been damaged by the
         wrongs complained in the suit, and if so, the measure
         of those damages and the nature and extent of other
         relief that should be afforded.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- certification of the proposed class and appointment of
        the named plaintiff as class representative;
  
     -- notice to Class Members to be paid for by the
        defendants;

     -- determination that the defendants have engaged in the
        alleged conduct;

     -- compensatory and general damages;

     -- pre-and post-judgment interest;
    
     -- taxable costs and attorneys' fees; and

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

The suit is "Miguel Durand, et al. v. Shell Oil Co., et al.,
Case No. 08-44 56 9CA 4," filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th
Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          William G. Wolk, Esq.
          HomerBonner             
          The Four Seasons Tower
          1441 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-350-5100
          Fax: 305-982-0084


PECO FOODS: Poultry Growers Challenge Rankings in Alabama Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peco Foods Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama over
allegations that it pays its chicken growers on a ranking system
that "wrongfully pits growers against each other" and
arbitrarily punishes growers for factors beyond their control,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is brought under the provisions of Rules 23(a),
23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for damages, court costs, and attorney's fees on
behalf of all persons or entities who are, or have been within
the six years preceding the filing date of the complaint,
growers who or which contracted with defendant to raise broiler
chickens under contract with Peco.

According to the complaint, Peco is a vertically integrated
poultry business that pays growers to raise its chickens for
slaughter.  It ranks the growers on a class system based on how
modern their chicken houses are, with Class A being the most
modern and Class C the least.

Higher-ranking growers typically receive higher pay. But growers
claim the defendant's system is arbitrary, and houses that are
only a few years old are classified as Class C.  Additionally,
all growers must compete against each other regardless of their
ranking, the lawsuit claims.

Growers claim Peco uses this unfair, deceptive and
discriminatory ranking system to "wrongfully manipulate" the
prices and "maintain financial dominance over growers," who
withhold criticism for fear of losing their business
relationship with Peco, which controls nearly every stage of
production from breeding and hatching to slaughtering and
processing.

Growers also say they have no control over the condition of the
birds they get, the type of food and medicine provided, or the
time Peco comes to collect its chicks.

Peco's manipulation of the market violates the Packers and
Stockyard Act, the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's conduct constitutes breach of
         contract;

     (b) whether the defendant's conduct violated the duty of
         good faith and fair dealing;

     (c) whether the defendant's conduct is unconscionable;

     (d) whether the defendant violated the provisions of the
         Packers and Stockyards Act;

     (e) whether the defendant enjoys monopsony power in the
         relevant market;

     (f) whether the defendant exercised its monopsony power;

     (g) whether the defendant's exercise of its monopsony power
         affected competition;

     (h) whether compensatory damages should be imposed, and in
         what amount; and

     (i) whether punitive damages should be imposed, and in what
         amount.

Class growers demand actual and punitive damages.

The suit is "Coleman Nabors, Jr., et al. v. Peco Foods, Inc.,
Case No. CV-08-CO-1384-W," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Milton Brown, Jr., Esq. (Milton@miltonbrownlaw.com)
          Milton Brown Law, PC
          2608 Eight Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Phone: 205-391-0620
          Fax: 1-866-353-7698


ROTO-ROOTER: Settles Wage, Hour Violations Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roto-Rooter, a subsidiary of Chemed Corp., settled a purported
class-action lawsuit in California over alleged class-wide wage
and hour violations at one California branch, according to
Chemed Corp.'s July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2008

The suit was filed in the San Mateo Superior Court by Stanley
Ita on April 2007.  It alleges failure to provide meal and break
periods, credit for work time beginning  from the first call to  
dispatch rather than arrival at first assignment and improper
calculations of work time and overtime.  

The case sought payment of penalties, interest and plaintiffs'
attorney fees.

After the suit was filed, the company offered a settlement to
certain members of the class and paid approximately $200,000.

In January 2008, the company agreed to a tentative settlement
with the remaining members of the class for approximately
$1.8 million.

The tentative  settlement was preliminarily  approved by the
court in May 2008.  The company anticipate final approval and
payment to be made during the third quarter of 2008.  

Chemed Corp. -- http://www.chemed.com/-- operates through two  
wholly owned subsidiaries, VITAS Healthcare Corp. and Roto-
Rooter.  VITAS is a provider of end-of-life hospice care, and
Roto-Rooter is a provider of plumbing and drain cleaning
services.  In April 2008, the company's subsidiary, Roto-Rooter
Services Co., acquired the Roto-Rooter franchise covering
Topeka, Kansas, and the surrounding county.  VITAS focuses on
non-curative hospice care for terminally ill patients.  Through
its teams of nurses, home health aides, doctors, social workers,
clergy, and volunteers, VITAS provides direct medical services
to patients, as well as spiritual and emotional counseling to
both patients and their families.  Roto-Rooter is focused on
providing plumbing and drain cleaning services to both
residential and commercial customers.  The Roto-Rooter segment
provides repair and maintenance services to residential and
commercial accounts using the Roto-Rooter registered service
mark.


SCHOLASTIC CORP: Awaits Court Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion that sought the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
Scholastic Corp.

Initially, the Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund filed a
lawsuit on Aug. 20, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company; Richard
Robinson, the Corporation's Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer; and Mary Winston, the former Chief Financial
Officer of the Corporation.  The suit sought class action
status.

A second complaint was filed on Sept. 21, 2007, by Paul Baicu
against the same parties.

Each complaint claims in substance that the corporation made
false and misleading statements concerning its operations and
financial results during the period from March 18, 2005, through
March 23, 2006.

Both cases are styled as class actions on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the corporation's securities during such
time and asserts claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  They also seek unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and attorneys fees.

On Nov. 8, 2007, the suits were consolidated, under the caption,
"In re Scholastic Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:2007-cv-07402."

A final, consolidated complaint was filed on Jan. 11, 2008,
seeking unspecified compensatory damages, costs and attorney
fees.   

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Feb. 27,
2008, which motion was argued on June 25, 2008, and is awaiting
a decision by the court, according to the company's July 30,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re Scholastic Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:2007-cv-07402," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge George B. Daniels,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael Joseph Chepiga, Esq. (mchepiga@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-455-2598
          Fax: 212-455-2502


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonoco Products Co. is facing a securities fraud lawsuit filed
before the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, under the caption, "Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System, City of v. Sonoco Products Company et al., Case No. 08-
cv-02348," according to the company's July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 29, 2008.

The company was served with the complaint, filed by the City of
Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, on July 7, 2008.

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 7, 2007, and
Sept. 18, 2007, except officers and directors of the company.

The complaint alleges that the company issued press releases
during the class period that were materially false and
misleading because the company allegedly had no reasonable basis
for the earnings projections contained in the press releases,
and that such information caused the market price of the
company's common stock to be artificially inflated.

The suit also names certain company officers as individual
defendants and seeks an unspecified amount of damages plus
interest and attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, City of v.
Sonoco Products Company et al., Case No. 4:2008cv02348," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina,
Judge Terry L. Wooten, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
          (wehopkins@hopkinscampbell.com)
          Hopkins and Campbell
          P.O. Box 11963
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: 803-256-6152
          Fax: 803-256-6155

Representing the defendants is:

          William Clarence Boyd, Esq. (bboyd@hsblawfirm.com)
          Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd
          P.O. Box 11889
          Columbia, SC 29211-1889
          Phone: 803-779-3080
          Fax: 803-765-1243


STRAUSS-ELITE: Forced to Make Gluten-Free Products for Celiacs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celiac patients won a battle against Israeli food company
Strauss-Elite Ltd. after the Tel Aviv District Court approved a
settlement in a class action lawsuit over kosher-for-Passover
products labeled as gluten free, Nurit Roth writes for the
Haaretz Daily.

In 2006, Efrat and Yehoshua Peled filed the ILS357 million
class-action suit against Strauss-Elite and its candy subsidiary
claiming that the companies had labeled kosher-for-Passover
products as gluten free, which means they were safe for celiac
patients.

The couple later learned that the products did in fact contain
gluten.

The report states that under the recent settlement, the food
manufacturer will produce food items specifically for Israel's
celiac population for the next two years.

Furthermore, the deal provides that specific Elite production
lines will be cleaned and decontaminated twice annually in order
to meet strict European standards for gluten levels in products
labeled as gluten-free (less than 10 parts per million).

In addition, once a year, around Passover, production lines will
be cleaned to meet even more stringent gluten levels, the report
says.

Under the agreement, the products will cost the same as products
for the general population that contain gluten, even though it
costs substantially more to produce the former, according to the
report.

Moreover, the claimants in the class action were awarded
ILS50,000 plus legal expenses.

Strauss, formerly known as Strauss-Elite, is a food products
manufacturer in Israel.  It is the shared trademark of two
companies - Strauss and Elite, that merged in 2004.  Strauss
focuses mostly on dairy products while Elite focuses on
chocolate, coffee, and dry snack foods.


VITAS HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Overtime Wage Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
VITAS Healthcare Corp., a subsidiary of Chemed Corp., remains
party to a class action suit filed in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, in September 2006 by Bernadette
Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White.

The case alleges failure to pay overtime and failure to provide
meal and rest periods to a purported class of California
admissions nurses, chaplains and sales representatives.  It
seeks payment of penalties, interest and plaintiffs' attorney
fees.  

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

Chemed Corp. -- http://www.chemed.com/-- operates through two  
wholly owned subsidiaries, VITAS Healthcare Corp. and Roto-
Rooter.  VITAS is a provider of end-of-life hospice care, and
Roto-Rooter is a provider of plumbing and drain cleaning
services.  In April 2008, the company's subsidiary, Roto-Rooter
Services Co., acquired the Roto-Rooter franchise covering
Topeka, Kansas, and the surrounding county.  VITAS focuses on
non-curative hospice care for terminally ill patients.  Through
its teams of nurses, home health aides, doctors, social workers,
clergy, and volunteers, VITAS provides direct medical services
to patients, as well as spiritual and emotional counseling to
both patients and their families.  Roto-Rooter is focused on
providing plumbing and drain cleaning services to both
residential and commercial customers.  The Roto-Rooter segment
provides repair and maintenance services to residential and
commercial accounts using the Roto-Rooter registered service
mark.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CIT GROUP: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of CIT Group Inc. between April 18, 2007, and
March 5, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges CIT and certain of its officers and
directors with violations under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by withholding material facts from the investing public
during the Class Period including that tens of millions of
dollars in student loans to flight school students of Silver
State Helicopter were highly unlikely to be repaid and would
have to be written off.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/


GT SOLAR: Brualdi Law Commences New Hampshire Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., disclosed that a lawsuit has been
commenced 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 for violations of the federal securities laws.

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, 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.

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 toll free: 877-495-1187
                           212-952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


MF GLOBAL: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status
before the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the common
stock of MF Global.

The Complaint charges that MF Global and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false statements regarding MF Global's business
condition.

Specifically, MF Global concealed material deterioration in its
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.

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.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 29,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 800-797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Coughlin Stoia Files Ind. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action lawsuit on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana on behalf of purchasers of Zimmer Holdings Inc. common
stock during the period between January 29, 2008, and July 22,
2008.

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

Zimmer designs, develops, manufactures and markets
reconstructive orthopedic implants, including joint, dental and
spinal implants, trauma products and related orthopedic surgical
products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
materially misrepresented the Company and its products.
Specifically, the complaint charges that defendants failed to
disclose material flaws in the quality systems at Zimmer's
Dover, Ohio facility, which manufactured Zimmer Orthopedic
Surgical Products.

In addition, defendants failed to disclose that patients
receiving the Company's Durom Acetabular Component, used in
total hip replacement procedures, disproportionately experienced
cup loosening requiring additional corrective surgery after
implantation.

As a result of the defendants' materially false and misleading
statements, Zimmer's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

When the true condition of the Company, its facilities, and its
products began to come to light, the price of Zimmer stock
declined, falling from $70.88 to $66.01 per share in one day.

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

For more information, contact:

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


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Suit in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, disclosed that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Zimmer Holdings, Inc., between
January 29, 2008, and July 22, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Zimmer and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by materially
misrepresenting the Company and its products.

Specifically, the complaint charges that defendants failed to
disclose material flaws in the quality systems at Zimmer's
Dover, Ohio facility, which manufactured Zimmer Orthopedic
Surgical Products.

In addition, defendants failed to disclose that patients
receiving the Company's Durom Acetabular Component, used in
total hip replacement procedures, disproportionately experienced
cup loosening requiring additional corrective surgery after
implantation.

As a result of defendants' materially false and misleading
statements, Zimmer's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

When the true condition of the Company, its facilities, and its
products began to come to light, the price of Zimmer stock
declined, falling from $70.88 to $66.01 per share in one day.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 6,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 800-797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.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  * * *