CAR_Public/080811.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 11, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 158

                             Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Retirement Plan Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: November Trial Scheduled for "Hoffman" Claims
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Homa" Lawsuit
AMEX BANK: Still Faces Canadian Cardmembers' Lawsuit in Quebec
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Appeal Hearing of $29MM Deal Set On Oct. 27

AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces California Suit Over Unlawful Use of Info
BIG 5: Faces 2 Lawsuits in California Over Purchasers' Zip Code
BROWARD SCHOOL DISTRICT: Part-Time Teachers Sue Over Pension
CAREMARK RX: Plaintiff Wants Alabama Lawsuit Proceedings Stayed
CAREMARK RX: Still Faces Pharmacy Benefit Managers Suit in Pa.

CAREMARK RX: Discovery Still Ongoing in Non-ERISA Members' Suit
CINGULAR WIRELESS: Appeals Court Reinstates Illegal Tax Lawsuit
CVS CAREMARK: Court Approves Shareholder Derivative Suit Deal
DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Brad Nailers Due to Injury Hazard
DIRECTV GROUP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Illegal Billing Charges

DOMINION RESOURCES: Court Approves Royalties Lawsuit Settlement
EXCEL TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Block $32-Per-Share Sale
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Ill. Suit Over Advice in Mars Inc. Purchase
GOODYEAR TIRE: Ohio Court Considers Final Approval of USW Deal
HARBOR FREIGHT: Recalls Work Lights Due to Fire & Shock Hazards

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Court Yet to Rule on ERISA Suit Dismissal Bid
JARDEN CORP: Court Certifies Class in N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
KANSAS CITY: Dropped from Amended Railway Surcharges Complaint
KKR FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Is On Oct. 6

KPMG LLP: Court OKs Overtime Redress Plan for Suit Settlement
LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Still Faces Several Manganese Lawsuits in Ohio
LOOK CYCLE: Recalls Bike Pedals Posing Fall Hazard to Cyclists
MOTOROLA INC: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for $20MM Securities Suit Deal
NCO FINANCIAL: Faces Texas Suit Over Debt Collection by Phone

NORTHWESTERN CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Injunction in "McGreevey"
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Court Awards $1.8MM to Plaintiffs' Attorneys
SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Faces Pa. Lawsuits Alleging ERISA Violations
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ga. Antitrust Suit
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Shareholders Nix Appeal of Kentucky Suit Dismissal

TOP SHIPS: $1.2MM N.Y. Suit Settlement Granted Final Approval
U.S. TOBACCO: Wins in Anticompetitive Conduct Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CARMAX INC: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Virgina
INDYMAC BANCORP: Susman Godfrey Files Calif. Securities Lawsuit
KKR FINANCIAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit



                            *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Retirement Plan Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. continues to seek the dismissal of a
purported class-action suit entitled "Paula Kritzman, et al. v.
American Express Retirement Plan et al.," which suit is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The plaintiff alleges that when the calculation of benefits
under the company's Retirement Plan was converted effective
July 1, 1995, from a final average pay formula to a "cash
balance" formula, the terms of the amended American Express
Retirement Plan (AXP) violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, as amended, in these ways:

       -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on reducing
          rates of benefit accrual due to the increasing age of a
          plan participant;

       -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's prohibition on forfeiture
          of accrued benefits; and

       -- the AXP Plan violated ERISA's present value calculation
          rules.

The plaintiff seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief
entitling the plaintiff and the purported class to benefits that
are the greater of:

       -- the benefits to which the members of the class would
          have been entitled without regard to the conversion of
          the benefit payout formula of the AXP Plan to a cash
          balance formula; and

       -- the benefits under the AXP Plan with regard to the
          cash balance formula.

The plaintiff also seeks pre- and post-judgment interest and
attorneys fees and expenses.

American Express has filed a motion seeking to dismiss the
complaint.

In July 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
issued a decision in a case not involving American Express,
captioned, "Hirt v. Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees,
Managers and Agents," finding that cash balance plans do not
discriminate based on age.

The company intends to rely on the Second Circuit's decision in
the Hirt case in its request that the District Court dismiss the
Kritzman case, according to American Express Co.'s July 31, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Kritzman v. American Express Retirement Plan et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00233-LAK-HBP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. (eciolko@sbclasslaw.com)
           Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz, & Kessler, LLP
           280 King of Prussia Road
           Radnor, PA 19087
           Phone: 610-667-7706
           Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendant is:

           Jeremy P. Blumenfeld Morgan, Esq.
           (jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com)
           Lewis & Bockius LLP
           1701 Market Street
           Philadelphia, PA 19103
           Phone: 215-963-5258
           Fax: 215-963-5001


AMERICAN EXPRESS: November Trial Scheduled for "Hoffman" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A November 2008 trial is slated for the remaining claims in a
purported class-action suit filed by charge card holders
against American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., a
subsidiary of American Express Co.

The suit is entitled, "Hoffman, et al. v. American Express
Travel Related Services Co., Inc., No. 2001-02281," which was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Alameda.  In January 2006, the Court certified a class in the
case.

In a case management order dated April 8, 2008, the Court
defined two classes:

        1. all persons who obtained American Express charge cards
           governed by New York law with billing addresses in
           California who purchased American Express' fee based
           travel related insurance plans from Sept. 6, 1995,
           through Feb. 12, 2008, and

        2. all persons who obtained American Express charge cards
           governed by New York law with billing addresses in
           states other than California who purchased American
           Express' fee based travel related insurance plans from
           Sept. 6, 1995, through Feb. 12, 2008.

The Court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify a class to
pursue claims on behalf of persons who held American Express
credit cards governed by Utah law.

The plaintiffs also allege that American Express violated
California and New York law by allegedly billing customers for
flight and baggage insurance that they did not receive.

American Express denies the allegations and thus filed a motion
for summary judgment asking that the case be dismissed as a
matter of law.

The summary judgment motion was partially granted in July 2008
when the Court dismissed certain claims against American Express
including claims for punitive damages.  Certain other claims
survived summary judgment.

A trial on the remaining claims is now scheduled for November
2008, according to American Express Co.'s July 31, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

American Express Co. -- https://www.americanexpress.com/ -- is a
global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Homa" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the purported class-action lawsuit "Homa v.
American Express Company et al." is appealing the trial court's
dismissal of the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, according to American Express Co.'s July 31, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The putative class-action suit was filed in June 2006 before the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The case alleges, generally, misleading and fraudulent
advertising of the "tiered," "up to 5%" cash rebates with Blue
Cash card.

The complaint initially sought certification of a nationwide
class consisting of "all persons who applied for and received an
American Express Blue Cash card during the period from Sept. 30,
2003 to the present and who did not get the rebate or rebates
provided for in the offer."

On Dec. 1, 2006, however, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint dropping the nationwide class claims and asserting
claims only on behalf of New Jersey residents who "while so
residing in New Jersey, applied for and received an American
Express Blue Cash card during the period from Sept. 30, 2003, to
the present."

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other unspecified
relief that the Court deems appropriate.

In May 2007, the Court granted the company's motion to compel
individual arbitration and dismissed the complaint.

The plaintiff then filed a Notice of Appeal of that decision
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The
appeal has been fully briefed and argument is expected in the
second half of 2008.

The suit is "Homa v. American Express Company et al.," filed  in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge
Joel A. Pisano, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
           Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, Esqs.
           210 Summit Avenue
           Montvale, NJ 07645
           Phone: 201-391-7000

Representing the defendants is:

           Louis Smith, Esq. (smithlo@gtlaw.com)
           Greenberg Traurig, LLP
           200 Park Ave.
           Florham Park, NJ 07932
           Phone: 973-360-7900


AMEX BANK: Still Faces Canadian Cardmembers' Lawsuit in Quebec
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMEX Bank of Canada, a unit of American Express Canada and
owned by American Express Co., continues to face a possible
class-action suit captioned "Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of
Canada," which was filed in the Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal.

The motion to authorize a class action alleges that prior to
December 2003, Amex Bank of Canada charged a foreign currency
conversion commission on transactions to purchase goods and
services in currencies other than Canadian dollars and failed to
disclose the commissions in monthly billing statements or
solicitations directed to prospective cardmembers.

The class, consisting of all Cardmembers in Quebec that
purchased goods or services in a foreign currency prior to
December 2003, claims reimbursement of all foreign currency
conversion commissions, CDN$1,000 in punitive damages per class
member, interest and fees and costs.

The trial is scheduled to commence after the conclusion of the
trial in the matter captioned, "Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal et
al.," filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal (originally filed in April 2003), which has been
previously disclosed by the company and is scheduled to go to
trial in September 2008, according to American Express Co.'s
July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

American Express Co. -- https://www.americanexpress.com/ -- is a
global payments and travel company.  The company's principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card
products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and
businesses around the world.


ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Appeal Hearing of $29MM Deal Set On Oct. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hear
on Oct. 27, 2008, an appeal challenging the final approval of a
$28,000,000 settlement of a Multi-District Litigation proceeding
pending that names Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. as one of the
defendants.

On Oct. 19, 2004, Gallagher was joined as a defendant in a
purported class action suit originally filed in August 2004 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
OptiCare Health Systems Inc. against various large insurance
brokerage firms and commercial insurers.  The suit is "OptiCare
Health Systems Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04 CV 06954 (DC))."

An amended complaint alleges that the defendants used the
contingent commission structure of placement service agreements
in a conspiracy to deprive policyholders of "independent and
unbiased brokerage services, as well as free and open
competition in the market for insurance."

Since the fourth quarter of 2004, nine other similar purported
class actions have been filed alleging claims similar to those
alleged by the plaintiff in the OptiCare litigation and such
cases have been included in the MDL proceeding before the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On Dec. 29, 2006, Gallagher reached an agreement to resolve all
claims in the MDL and related matters.  Gallagher admitted no
wrongdoing, but chose to conclude its involvement, rather than
prolong what could have been a costly and burdensome lawsuit.

On April 17, 2007, the court granted preliminary approval of the
Gallagher Settlement.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the court granted final approval of the
Gallagher Settlement.

The Settlement provides for Gallagher to distribute $28 million
to current and former clients and others that purchased retail
insurance through Gallagher or other brokers named as defendants
in the MDL during the period beginning on Aug. 26, 1994, and
ending on Dec. 31, 2005.  Gallagher also agreed to pay up to
$8.9 million in attorney fees.

A notice of appeal was filed challenging the final approval of
the Settlement.  A hearing on the appeal has been scheduled for
Oct. 27, 2008, according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. -- http://www.ajg.com/-- is engaged
in providing insurance brokerage, risk management, and related
services to clients in the U.S. and abroad.  Its principal
activity is the negotiation and placement of insurance for its
clients.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces California Suit Over Unlawful Use of Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing is facing a class-action complaint
filed in Los Angeles Superior Court accusing it of unlawfully
using information from California's Megan's Law Web site when
performing background checks on job candidates, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Based in Roseland, N.J., Automatic Data Processing Inc. provides
computerized transaction processing, data communication and
information services.  The Company's segments include Employer
Services, Brokerage Services, Securities Clearing and
Outsourcing Services and Dealer Services.


BIG 5: Faces 2 Lawsuits in California Over Purchasers' Zip Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. is facing purported class-action
suits in California, alleging violations of the California Civil
Code, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 29, 2008.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed
before the California Superior Court in the County of Los
Angeles, entitled "Adi Zimerman v. Big 5 Sporting Goods
Corporation, et al., Case No. BC383834."

On May 31, 2008, the company was served with another complaint,
this time filed before the California Superior Court in the
County of San Diego, entitled "Michele Gonzalez v. Big 5
Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2008-00083307-
CU-BT-CTL."  This suit alleges violations of the California
Civil Code and California Business and Professions Code and
invasion of privacy.

Each complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf
of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in
California using credit cards and were requested to provide
their zip codes.  Each plaintiff alleges, among other things,
that customers making purchases with credit cards at the
company's stores in California were improperly requested to
provide their zip code at the time of such purchases.

Each plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory
penalties, injunctive relief to require the company to
discontinue the allegedly improper conduct and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The plaintiff in the Gonzalez case also seeks, on behalf of the
class members, general damages, special damages, exemplary or
punitive damages and disgorgement of profits.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/
-- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 343
stores in 10 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at
Dec. 31, 2006.


BROWARD SCHOOL DISTRICT: Part-Time Teachers Sue Over Pension
------------------------------------------------------------
A group of former and current Broward County part-time teachers
is suing the Broward County School District, claiming they never
got the chance to appeal a School Board decision to not make
pension or Social Security contributions for its temporary
employees, Kathy Bushouse writes for the South Florida Sun-
Sentinel.

According to the report, the lawsuit was filed in Broward County
Circuit Court by Pompano Beach attorney Jane Letwin, Esq.  It
seeks class-action status and, Ms. Letwin says, is expected to
affect more than 1,200 part-time teachers, classified by the
School District as temporary employees.

The lawsuit seeks $16 million from the school district --
$13,000 to pay each of the part-time teachers who did not get
pension or Social Security contributions from the district.

The report notes that, according to the suit, the school
district for years did not give temporary employees pension or
Social Security contributions.  However, in May 2003, district
officials told those temporary employees they would begin making
those contributions.

In 2004, the school district reversed itself, notifying
temporary employees that it would suspend those contributions,
Ms. Letwin relates in the suit.  Employees were not allowed to
appeal this decision, she says.

The suit is aimed at restoring the temporary employees' pension
and Social Security benefits.

School District spokesman Keith Bromery told Sun-Sentinel that
he had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment on the case.


CAREMARK RX: Plaintiff Wants Alabama Lawsuit Proceedings Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Lauriello, who had sued Caremark Rx Inc. over a 1999
settlement of various securities class action and derivative
lawsuits against Caremark and other entities, is asking for a
stay in his case against the company.

Caremark, which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark
Corp., was named in a putative class action suit filed in 2003
in Alabama state court by Mr. Lauriello, purportedly on behalf
of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities
class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and
others.

Other defendants in the lawsuit include insurance companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits.

The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in
compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was subsequently filed by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming Caremark, several insurance
companies and attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999
settlement.  This lawsuit was then stayed by the court as
a later-filed class action.

In 2005, the trial court in the Lauriello case issued an order
allowing the matter to proceed on behalf of the settlement class
in the 1999 securities class action.

Mr. McArthur then sought to intervene in the Lauriello case and
to challenge the adequacy of Mr. Lauriello as class
representative and his lawyers as class counsel.

The trial court denied Mr. McArthur's motion to intervene, but
the Alabama Supreme Court subsequently ordered the lower court
to vacate its prior order on class certification and allow
Mr. McArthur to intervene.

Caremark and other defendants have filed motions to dismiss the
complaint in intervention filed by Mr. McArthur.

In November 2007, the trial court dismissed the attorneys and
law firms named as defendants in the McArthur Complaint in
Intervention.  The court also denied the motions to dismiss that
complaint filed by Caremark and the insurance company
defendants.

In January 2008, Mr. Lauriello filed a motion to dismiss
Mr. McArthur's Complaint in Intervention, appealed the court's
dismissal of the attorney and law firm defendants, and filed a
motion to stay proceedings of the case pending his appeal.

CVS Caremark reported no further development in the matter in
its July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com/-- is a provider of
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.


CAREMARK RX: Still Faces Pharmacy Benefit Managers Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark Rx Inc., which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS
Caremark Corp., continues to face a purported class action
lawsuit, entitled "In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation," which is pending in Pennsylvania federal court.

Initially, various lawsuits have been filed alleging that CVS
Caremark and its subsidiaries -- Caremark Inc. and AdvancePCS --
have violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and
maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans.

                    Bellevue Drug Litigation

In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber Inc. (d/b/a
Burns Pharmacy) and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. (d/b/a Parkway
Drugs #4), together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National
Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action
suit against AdvancePCS in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking
treble damages and injunctive relief.

The claims were initially sent to arbitration based on contract
terms between the pharmacies and AdvancePCS.

                     North Jackson Litigation

In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson
Pharmacy Inc. and C&C, Inc. (d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc.)
filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court
against Caremark, Caremark Inc. AdvancePCS and two Pharmacy
Benefit Manager competitors, seeking treble damages and
injunctive relief.

The case against Caremark and Caremark Inc. was transferred to
Illinois federal court, and the AdvancePCS case was sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
AdvancePCS.

The arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending
developments in Caremark?s court case.

                           Consolidation

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs.

Caremark has appealed a decision which vacated the order
compelling arbitration and stayed the proceedings in the
Bellevue case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson
Pharmacy case, remain pending.

The consolidated action is now known as "In Re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation."

CVS Caremark reported no further development in the matter in
its July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com/-- is a provider of
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.


CAREMARK RX: Discovery Still Ongoing in Non-ERISA Members' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit
filed before the Superior Court of the State of California
against Caremark Rx Inc. -- which merged with CVS Corp. to form
CVS Caremark Corp. -- on behalf of all California members of
non-ERISA health plans and all California taxpayers.

Caremark and its subsidiaries Caremark Inc. (now known as
Caremark, L.L.C.) and AdvancePCS (acquired by Caremark in March
2004 and now known as CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.) have been named in
the putative class action lawsuit filed by an individual named
Robert Irwin.

The lawsuit, which also names other Pharmacy Benefit Managers
as defendants, alleges violations of California's unfair
competition laws and challenges alleged business practices of
PBMs, including practices relating to pricing, rebates,
formulary management, data utilization and accounting and
administrative processes.

Discovery in the case is ongoing.

CVS Caremark reported no further development in the matter in
its July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com/-- is a provider of
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.


CINGULAR WIRELESS: Appeals Court Reinstates Illegal Tax Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California appeals court last week reinstated a class action
lawsuit against AT&T Inc.'s Cingular Wireless, brought by
consumers who said the mobile carrier had illegally passed a
state business tax on to them, Reuters reports.

Reuters relates that in recent weeks, the case is the second to
address the issue of what constitutes a wireless "rate,"
governed by the Federal Communications Commission, and what is a
"fee" and whether fees can be regulated by the states.

The report says that consumer advocates who intervened in the
case described it as a "shot across the bow" of wireless
carriers which they accused of charging improper fees, and a
"slap in the face" to regulators who failed to prevent it.

"The FCC and state regulators sat on their hands and let them
get away with it and finally ordinary people took matters into
their own hands . . . and they won," Regina Costa,
telecommunications researcher for The Utility Reform Network,
told Reuters.

Cingular is now fully owned by AT&T and operates under that
brand.

AT&T spokesman Marty Richter said the company has "not yet had
an opportunity to study the opinion, but we believe we have a
strong case and will continue a vigorous defense."

Reuters notes that decision is the second significant court loss
over billing issues for the wireless industry.  The report
recounts that a state court in Alameda County, California ruled
last month that early termination fees violate state law in a
class action lawsuit against Sprint Nextel Corp.

In the Cingular case, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
disagreed with the federal trial judge in Seattle who dismissed
the consumers' claims on the grounds that the Federal
Communications Act prohibits some state law claims against
mobile phone carriers, according to Reuters.  The appeals panel
ordered the trial court to determine whether it has jurisdiction
over the lawsuit, which alleges breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and violation of Washington's Consumer Protection
Act.

The report recalls that the plaintiff, Jared Peck, a former
Cingular Wireless employee, sued the carrier in 2006 after
finding that his bill for wireless service included a 31 cent
charge for Washington's Business & Occupation tax.

The state Supreme Court has ruled that businesses may pass on
the charge to customers, but only if disclosed and negotiated in
the final price of the goods or services.  Companies may not add
the charge as one of several fees and taxes after the purchase
price was agreed upon, the high court added.

The appeals court found, however, that the Cingular surcharge
had not been disclosed in its contract, Reuters further notes.


CVS CAREMARK: Court Approves Shareholder Derivative Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Tennessee state court has approved a settlement that resolves
several shareholder derivative lawsuits filed against Caremark
Rx, Inc. -- which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark
Corp.

In 2006, a number of shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in the Tennessee state court and the Tennessee federal court
against Caremark and various officers and directors of Caremark
seeking, among other things, a declaration that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties, imposition of a constructive
trust upon any illegal profits received by the defendants and
punitive and other damages.

The cases brought in the Tennessee federal court were
consolidated into one action in August 2006, and the
consolidated action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
by the plaintiffs in March 2007.

The cases brought in the Tennessee state court were also
consolidated into one action, and the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to add CVS and its directors as defendants and to
allege class action claims.

A stipulation of settlement was entered into by the parties on
July 5, 2007, which provided, among other things, that:

        -- the plaintiffs will dismiss the case and release the
           defendants from claims asserted in the action,

        -- a temporary restraining order issued by the court in
           March 2007 will be vacated,

        -- defendants will agree to maintain for at least four
           years a number of corporate governance provisions
           relating to the granting, exercise and disclosure of
           stock option awards, and

        -- the defendants will not oppose plaintiffs' petition
           for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses not to
           exceed $7.5 million.

As part of the settlement, the defendants specifically denied
any liability or wrongdoing with respect to all claims alleged
in the lawsuit, including claims relating to stock option
backdating, and acknowledged that they entered into the
settlement solely to avoid the distraction, burden and expense
of the pending litigation.

On July 14, 2008, the settlement was approved by the trial
court, according to CVS Caremark's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 28, 2008.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com/-- is a provider of
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.


DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Brad Nailers Due to Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
DEWALT Industrial Tool Co., of Towson, Md., in cooperation with
the  U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
14,000 DEWALT DC608 Cordless Brad Nailers.

The company said the nailer can operate when the lock-off
(safety) is in the locked position.  Also, the nailer can
operate when the trigger is not pulled and the contact trip is
depressed.  The unexpected ejection of a nail poses a serious
injury hazard to consumers.

DeWALT has received two reports of nailers operating when the
lock-off (safety) was in the locked position.  No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves the DEWALT DC608 18 Volt Cordless 2'18
Gauge Straight Brad Nailer with date codes 200728 through
200821.  "DC608" is located on the right side of the magazine.
The date code can be found on the underside of the handle, once
the battery pack is removed.  Units stamped with an "M"
following the date code are not included in this recall.

These recalled cordless brad nailers were manufactured in Mexico
and were being sold at wholesale distributors and retailers from
October 2007 through May 2008 for about $280.

Pictures of the recalled cordless brad nailers are found at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08352a.jpg

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08352b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the nailers and
contact DEWALT for the location of the nearest service center to
receive a free repair.

For additional information, contact DEWALT toll-free at
866-220-1481 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.DEWALT.com/


DIRECTV GROUP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Illegal Billing Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
The DirecTV Group, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint
before the Los Angeles Superior Court over an allegation that it
illegally bills for an incorrect amount of taxes on shipping
charges, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Headquartered in El Segundo, California, The DIRECTV Group, Inc.
(NYSE:DTV) -- http://www.directv.com/-- provides digital
television entertainment in the United States and Latin America.
It has two segments, DIRECTV U.S. and DIRECTV Latin America.
The DIRECTV U.S. segment provides direct-to-home digital
television services in the multichannel video programming
distribution industry in the United States.  The DIRECTV Latin
America segment provides digital direct-to-home digital
television services to approximately 1.6 million subscribers in
27 countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, and Puerto
Rico.


DOMINION RESOURCES: Court Approves Royalties Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia gave preliminary approval to a tentative settlement in
the purported class-action suit, "Jones et al. v. Dominion
Resources Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00671," which
erroneously named Dominion Resources Services, Inc., as a
defendant, according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

In 2006, Gary P. Jones and others filed the suit against
Dominion Transmission, Inc., Dominion Exploration and
Production, Inc., and Dominion Resources in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under Judge
Joseph R. Goodwin.

The plaintiffs are royalty owners, seeking to recover damages as
a result of the Dominion defendants allegedly underpaying
royalties by improperly deducting post-production costs and not
paying fair market value for the gas produced from their leases.

They seek class-action status on behalf of all West Virginia
residents and others who are parties to or beneficiaries of oil
and gas leases with the Dominion defendants.

Dominion Resources is erroneously named as a defendant as the
parent company of DTI and DEPI.

By order dated July 16, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved
settlement of the class-action suit and conditionally certified
a temporary settlement class.

The Court also dismissed Dominion Resources and added Dominion
Appalachian Development, LLC, as a defendant for the sole
purpose of settling the class claims.

The suit is "Jones et al. v. Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00671," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge Joseph
R. Goodwin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Michael W. Carey, Esq. (mwcarey@csdlawfirm.com)
           Carey Scott & Douglas
           P.O. Box 913
           Charleston, WV 25323
           Phone: 304-345-1234
           Fax: 304-342-1105

                - and -

           Marvin W. Masters, Esq. (mwm@themasterslawfirm.com)
           The Masters Law Firm
           181 Summers Street
           Charleston, WV 25301
           Phone: 304-342-3106
           Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

           Thomas J. Allen, Esq. (Thomas_J_Allen@dom.com)
           Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
           445 West Main Street
           Clarksburg, WV 26301
           Phone: 304-627-3332
           Fax: 304-627-3305

                - and -

           W. Henry Lawrence, IV, Esq.
           (Hank.Lawrence@steptoe-johnson.com)
           Steptoe & Johnson
           P.O. Box 2190
           Clarksburg, WV 26302-2190
           Phone: 304-624-8000
           Fax: 304-624-8183


EXCEL TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Block $32-Per-Share Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Excel Technology Inc. is facing a class-action lawsuit in New
York County Supreme Court seeking to block GSI Group and Eagle
Acquisition Corp.'s plans to buy all the outstanding shares of
the company for $32 per share, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Excel Technology Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and
markets laser systems and electro-optical components.
Its headquarters are located in East Setauket, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Ill. Suit Over Advice in Mars Inc. Purchase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs & Co. is facing a class-action complaint before
the Cook County Circuit Court, State of Illinois, over
allegations that it offered biased advice in recommending the
$23 billion sale to Mars, Inc., for $80 a share, and concealed
its "substantial relationship" with Mars and Berkshire Hathaway,
which has a stake in Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This action challenges the action of Goldman Sachs in rendering
financial advice and a fairness opinion (which advice and
fairness opinion were for the benefit of plaintiff and the other
public shareholders of Wrigley) in connection with the sale of
Wrigley to Mars, and its wholly owned subsidiary New Uno
Holdings Corp.

Wrigley shareholders claim Goldman Sachs entered into "financing
commitments" with a Mars subsidiary and has connected that
subsidiary with investor Berkshire Hathaway.  Additionally,
Goldman Sachs also provided, and is currently providing,
investment banking and other financial services to Mars and
Berkshire Hathaway.

The lawsuit further claims Goldman Sachs had another interest in
the merger, since most of its $46 million transaction fee was
continent on a sale occurring.

As a result, shareholders say they were unable to get a fair,
unbiased opinion on the merger.

The complaint alleges that Goldman Sachs had a severe conflict
of interest as a result of its substantial relationship with
Mars and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (a relationship the magnitude
of which Goldman Sachs have concealed), and also a conflict
because the principal portion of the fee Goldman Sachs received
from Wrigley was contingent on a transaction occurring.  These
conflicts rendered Goldman Sachs unable to render unbiased
financial advice or an unbiased fairness opinion with regard to
the transaction, to the detriment of plaintiff and the other
public shareholders of Wrigley.

The plaintiff alleges causes of action for breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duties by Wrigley's directors.

The plaintiff asks the court for an order:

      -- declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a
         class action, and that plaintiff is a proper class
         representative;

      -- declaring that Goldman Sachs has breached its contract
         made in and for the benefit of plaintiff and Wrigley's
         other public shareholders;

      -- declaring that defendants have breached their fiduciary
         duties to plaintiff and the other public shareholders of
         Wrigley and aided and abetted such breaches;

      -- awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory and
         rescissory damages, as well as pre and post-judgment
         interest, as allowed by law;

      -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursement of this
         action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
         fees and other costs; and

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

The suit is "Ron Young et al. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., et al.,
Case No. 08CH28542," filed in Cook County Circuit Court, State
of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff is:

           Leland Shalgos, Esq.
           2650 West 51st Street
           Chicago, IL 60632
           Phone: 773-925-1700
           Fax: 773-925-1040


GOODYEAR TIRE: Ohio Court Considers Final Approval of USW Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has
yet to grant final approval to the proposed settlement in the
matter "Redington, et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
Case No. 5:07-cv-01999-JRA."

On July 3, 2007, the United Steelworkers and several retirees
filed a required class action suit against Goodyear regarding
the establishment of a Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary
Association, which is intended to provide healthcare benefits
for current and future USW retirees.

The parties recently agreed to settle the matter.  Under that
agreement, they agreed to create a VEBA trust fund.  As part of
the settlement, the court will certify the class of retirees
covered under the proposed VEBA.

Essentially, Goodyear has agreed to pay as much as $1 billion to
the fund, which then will have sole responsibility for union
retirees' health care costs.  The independent health care trust
stands to benefit the union's 30,000 retirees.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the District Court preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement among the parties.  A final approval of the
settlement has yet to be entered, according to the company's
July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Redington, et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber
company, Case No. 5:07-cv-01999-JRA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge John R. Adams,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Jeremiah A. Collins, Esq. (jcollins@bredhoff.com)
           Bredhoff & Kaiser
           Ste. 1000, 805 Fifteenth Street, NW
           Washington, DC 20005
           Phone: 202-842-2600
           Fax: 202-842-1888

           Jori B. Naegele, Esq.
           Gary, Naegele & Theado
           446 Broadway
           Lorain, OH 44052-1797
           Phone: 440-244-4809
           Fax: 440-244-3462
           e-mail: envirolit@aol.com

                - and -

           Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. (jsellers@cmht.com)
           Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
           500 West Tower, 1100 New York Avenue, NW
           Washington, DC 20005-3964
           Phone: 202-408-4600
           Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants is:

           Johanna Fabrizio Parker, Esq. (jfparker@jonesday.com)
           Jones Day
           901 Lakeside Avenue
           Cleveland, OH 44114
           Phone: 216-586-7263
           Fax: 216-579-0212


HARBOR FREIGHT: Recalls Work Lights Due to Fire & Shock Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Freight Tools, of Camarillo, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
58,000 Chicago Electric Halogen Work Lights.

The company said the halogen work lights can overheat and melt,
and pose a risk of fire and electrical shock to consumers.

There have been three reports of incidents in which the recalled
halogen work lights overheated and melted.  No injuries have
been reported.

The halogen work lights are 500 watts.  Model number 30858 is
included in this recall.  The lamp measures 7 inches wide x 5
inches high and is mounted on a yellow frame.  "UL Listed
E163392" and "Work Light 8F95" is printed on a sticker on the
back.  The model number is printed on the light's packaging.

These recalled halogen work lights were manufactured in China
and were being sold at Harbor Freight Tools stores nationwide,
Harbor Freight Tools' catalogs, and at
http://www.harborfreight.com/from February 2006 through March
2008 for about $10.

Pictures of the recalled halogen work lights are found at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08353a.jpg

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08352b.jpg

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08353c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the halogen work
lights and contact Harbor Freight Tools for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Harbor Freight Tools at
800-444-3353 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.harborfreight.com/or e-mail to
recalls@harborfreight.com


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Awaits Ruling on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against
Harley-Davidson, Inc., and certain of its officers.

Initially, a number of shareholder class action complaints were
filed between May 18, 2005, and July 1, 2005.  On Feb. 14, 2006,
the court consolidated all of the actions into a single case,
captioned "In re Harley-Davidson, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05-CV-00547," and lead plaintiffs were appointed.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
naming the company and officers Jeffrey L. Bleustein, James L.
Ziemer, and James M. Brostowitz, as defendants.  The
consolidated complaint alleges securities law violations and
seeks unspecified damages relating generally to the company's
April 13, 2005 announcement that it was reducing short-term
production growth and planned increases of motorcycle shipments
from 317,000 units in 2004 to a new 2005 target of 329,000 units
(compared to its original target of 339,000 units).

On Dec. 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in its entirety.  Briefing of the motion
to dismiss was completed in April 2007.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

The suit is "In re Harley-Davidson, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05-CV-00547," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (RRobbins@csgrr.com)
           Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
           120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
           Boca Raton, FL 33432
           Phone: 561-750-3000
                  888-262-3131
           Fax: 561-750-3364

                - and -

           Jacques C. Condon, Esq. (jcc@halewagner.com)
           Hale & Wagner SC
           205 E Wisconsin Ave - Ste 300
           Milwaukee, WI 53202-4207
           Phone: 414-278-7000
           Fax: 414-278-7590

Representing the defendants are:

           Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq. (salamuddin@morganlewis.com)
           Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
           77 W Wacker Dr - 5th Fl
           Chicago, IL 60601
           Phone: 312-324-1158
           Fax: 312-324-1001

                - and -

           Rebecca Wickhem House, Esq. (rwickhemhouse@foley.com)
           Foley & Lardner LLP
           777 E Wisconsin Ave
           Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300
           Phone: 414-297-5681
           Fax: 414-297-4900


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Court Yet to Rule on ERISA Suit Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action lawsuit against against Harley-Davidson, Inc., over
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

The ERISA class action suit was filed on Aug. 25, 2005, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

On Feb. 15, 2006, the court consolidated the ERISA action with
separate federal derivative and securities actions for
administrative purposes.

The ERISA plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint,
which named as defendants:

      -- the company,

      -- the Harley-Davidson Motor Company Retirement Plans
         Committee,

      -- the company's Leadership and Strategy Council, and

      -- current or former company officers or employees:

         * Harold A. Scott,
         * James L. Ziemer,
         * James M. Brostowitz,
         * Gail A. Lione,
         * Joanne M. Bischmann,
         * Karl M. Eberle,
         * Jon R. Flickinger,
         * Ronald M. Hutchinson,
         * James A. McCaslin,
         * W. Kenneth Sutton, Jr., and
         * Donna F. Zarcone.

In general, the ERISA complaint alleges on behalf of
participants in certain Harley-Davidson retirement savings plans
that the plan fiduciaries breached their ERISA fiduciary duties.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
ERISA complaint in its entirety.  Briefing of the motion to
dismiss was completed in April 2007.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

The suit is "Bosman v. Harley-Davidson Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-00912-CNC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

       Noah M. Golden-Krasner, Esq. (noah@mainstreetjustice.com)
       Law Offices of Noah Golden-Krasner
       354 W. Main St.
       Madison, WI 53703
       Phone: 608-441-8924
       Fax: 608-442-9494

            - and -

       Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
       Gainey & McKenna
       485 5th Ave., 3rd Fl.
       New York, NY 10017
       Phone: 212-983-1300

Representing the defendants are:

       Charles C. Jackson, Esq. (charles.jackson@morganlewis.com)
       Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
       77 W. Wacker Dr. - 5th Fl.
       Chicago, IL 60601
       Phone: 312-324-1156
       Fax: 312-324-1001

            - and -

       Nancy J. Sennett, Esq. (nsennett@foley.com)
       Rebecca E. Wickhem, Esq. (rwickhem@foley.com)
       Foley & Lardner, LLP
       777 E. Wisconsin Ave.
       Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300
       Phone: 414-297-5522
              414-297-5681
       Fax: 414-297-4900
            414-297-4900


JARDEN CORP: Court Certifies Class in N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
certified a class in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
filed against the Jarden Corp. in relation to the company's plan
to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc.

In January and February 2006, purported class action suits were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company and certain of its officers,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through
Jan. 12, 2006.  The suits were subsequently consolidated.

The company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire
The Holmes Group, Inc., on June 29, 2005.

On June 9, 2006, the Court appointed joint lead plaintiffs, who
filed an amended consolidated complaint against the company,
Jarden Consumer Solutions, and certain officers of the company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits
of the THG Acquisition.

The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20,
2006.

On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying the
defendants' dismissal motion.  The defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's denial of their request.

On Sept. 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion for
reconsideration, but reaffirmed its earlier denial of their
dismissal request.

On Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification.

In March 2008, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class
comprised of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period from June 29, 2005, through Jan. 11, 2006.

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

The suit is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corp., et al.,
Case No. 06-CV-00722," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Christopher J. Gray, Esq. (gray@cjgraylaw.com)
           Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C
           460 Park Avenue 21st Floor
           New York, NY 10022
           Phone: 212-838-3221
           Fax: 212-508-3695

           Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. (classattorney@aol.com)
           Paskowitz & Associates
           60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
           New York, NY 10165
           Phone: 212-685-0969
           Fax: 212-685-2306

                - and -

           Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@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:

           Stephen William Greiner, Esq.
           Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
           787 Seventh Avenue
           New York, NY 10019
           Phone: 212-728-8000
           Fax: 212-728-8111
           e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com


KANSAS CITY: Dropped from Amended Railway Surcharges Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., a subsidiary of the Kansas
City Southern, was no longer named as a defendant in an amended
consolidated complaint that was filed in a Multidistrict
Litigation against major U.S. Railroads over allegations that
they conspired in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

As of June 30, 2008, twenty-nine putative class-action suits
were on file against KCSR, along with the other Class I U.S.
railroads (and, in some cases, the Association of American
Railroads), in various Federal district courts alleging that the
railroads conspired to fix fuel surcharges in violation of U.S.
antitrust laws.

On Nov. 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that these putative class-action cases be consolidated
for pretrial handling before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, where the matters remain pending.

All of the plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Litigation filed a
consolidated amended complaint on April 15, 2008.

KCSR was not named as a defendant in that Consolidated Amended
Complaint pursuant to an agreement with the Multidistrict
Litigation plaintiffs to toll the statute of limitations, and
the Multidistrict Litigation will not proceed with KCSR as a
party, according to Kansas City Southern's July 31, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Kansas City Southern -- http://www.kcsouthern.com/-- is a
holding company with principal operations in rail
transportation.


KKR FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Is On Oct. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, reminds shareholders that October 6,
2008, is the deadline to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  the suit
was filed on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common
stock of KKR Financial Holdings in connection with the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued pursuant to its
May 4, 2007 merger and share issuance.

KKR and certain of its officers and directors are charged with
including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially false and
misleading statements in the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's Merger, in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933.

In particular, the complaint charges the defendants with
misrepresenting the risk related to the mortgage backed
securities held in its portfolio.  From highs of over $25 per
share in May through mid-July 2007, shares of the Company
currently trade at approximately $10 per share.

For more information, contact:

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


KPMG LLP: Court OKs Overtime Redress Plan for Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has
certified a class action suit against KPMG LLP (Canada) for
unpaid overtime, and has given his approval for its settlement.

KPMG's Overtime Redress Plan provides a framework for the
settlement.  The ORP, which the firm established in February
2008, was designed to ensure that all eligible current and
former employees were fully and fairly compensated, according to
the relevant provincial laws, for all statutory overtime since
January 1, 2000, that was determined to have been earned but
unpaid.

Justice Perell was advised that 90% of the outstanding overtime
payments have already been accepted by current and former
employees.

"We are very pleased that KPMG's ORP has now been approved by
the Court," said Bill MacKinnon, KPMG's CEO.  "When the claim
was commenced in September 2007, we conducted a thorough
investigation of our work practices.  At that time, we promised
that we would directly and fairly address our employees'
concerns about unpaid statutory overtime.  The prompt
implementation of the Overtime Redress Plan in February of this
year delivered on our commitment."

"It was always our intention that the ORP would be approved by
the Court," Mr. MacKinnon continued.  "We are pleased with the
Judge's decision, which adopts our ORP as the mechanism for
resolving all statutory overtime issues associated with the
claim."

                             About KPMG

KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership established
under the laws of Ontario, is the Canadian member firm
affiliated with KPMG International, a global network of
professional firms providing Audit, Tax, and Advisory services.
Member firms operate in 145 countries and have more than 123,000
professionals working around the world.

The independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated
with KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.  Each KPMG firm is
a legally distinct and separate entity, and describes itself as
such.


LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Still Faces Several Manganese Lawsuits in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., continues to face several
federal lawsuits in Ohio involving claims of manganese-induced
illness.

Up to eight class action lawsuits seeking medical monitoring
have been filed in state courts, six of which have been removed
and transferred to the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio.

                      Additional Litigation

In addition, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
seeking medical monitoring on behalf of current and former
welders in eight states, including three states covered by the
single-state class actions, with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

This case was also transferred to the MDL Court in Ohio.  A
motion to certify a medical monitoring class related to the case
was denied on Sept. 14, 2007, and the 16 individual claimants
dismissed their claims on March 20, 2008, according to the
company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.lincolnelectric.com/-- is a full-line manufacturer
and reseller of welding and cutting products. Welding products
include welding power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic
welding packages, fume extraction equipment, consumable
electrodes and fluxes.  The company's welding product offering
also includes regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding
and cutting.


LOOK CYCLE: Recalls Bike Pedals Posing Fall Hazard to Cyclists
--------------------------------------------------------------
Look Cycle USA, of San Jose, Calif., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
80,000 (40,000 pairs) KeO Bicycle Pedals.

The company said the steel axle inside the pedal can break,
posing a fall hazard to cyclists.

Look Cycle has received 14 reports of incidents with broken
pedals, including seven injuries which resulted in scrapes,
cuts, contusions, elbow pain, and a knee injury.

The recalled bicycle pedals were sold separately from bicycles.
Pedal models include KeO Classic, KeO Sprint, KeO HM and KeO
Carbon.  The model name is printed in white on the side of the
pedal.  Date codes between January 2004 and December 2005 are
included in this recall.  The date code for the KeO Classic,
Sprint and Carbon pedals is on a dial stamped onto the pedal.
The date code for the KeO HM is on the bottom of the pedal, with
the letters A through L corresponding to the month, and the
numbers 4 and 5 indicating 2004 or 2005.  "Ti" pedals are not
included in this recall.

These recalled bicycle pedals were manufactured in France and
were being sold at specialty bicycle retailers nationwide from
January 2004 through July 2007 for between $100 and $500.

Pictures of the recalled bicycle pedals are found at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08354a.jpg

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08354b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
bicycle pedals and return them to any authorized Look Cycle
dealer, or contact Look Cycle USA to arrange for shipping and
free repair.

For additional information, contact Look Cycle USA toll-free at
866-430-5665 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.lookcycle-usa.com/or e-mail to
KeoUpgrade@lookcycle-usa.com


MOTOROLA INC: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for $20MM Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has set an
Oct. 16, 2008 hearing to consider final approval of a
$20-million settlement in the matter, "Freeland v. Iridium World
Communications, Inc., et al.," which names Motorola, Inc., as a
defendant.

Initially, the company was named as one of several defendants in
various securities class action complaints arising out of
alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Iridium
satellite communications business (Class Action Reporter,
April 28, 2008).

The suits were later consolidated under the caption, "Freeland
v. Iridium World Communications, Inc., et al."

The consolidated lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged material misrepresentations
or omissions regarding difficulties in the satellite
communications business of Iridium World Communications, Ltd.,
Iridium, LLC, and Iridium Operating, LLC.  The alleged class
consists of purchasers of all Iridium securities during the
period from Sept. 9, 1998, to March 29, 1999.

On Jan. 9, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

In April 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle,
subject to court approval, to settle all claims against Motorola
in exchange for Motorola's agreement to pay $20 million.

On July 18, 2008, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and set a final settlement approval hearing for
Oct. 16, 2008, according to Motorola, Inc.'s July 31, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

The suit is "Freeland, et al. v. Iridium World Comm, et al.,
Case No. 1:99-cv-01002," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, Judge Judge Nanette K. Laughrey,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Douglas Graham Thompson, Jr., Esq. (dgt@ftllaw.com)
           Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran
           1050 30th Street
           NW Washington, DC 20007
           Phone: 202-337-8000
           Fax: 202-337-8090

                - and -

           Eric J. Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@murrayfrank.com)
           Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
           275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
           New York, NY 10016
           Phone: 212-682-1818
           Fax: 212-682-1892

Representing the defendants are:

           Jeffrey L. Willian, Esq. (jwillian@kirkland.com)
           Kirkland & Ellis
           200 East Randolph Drive
           Chicago, IL 60601
           Phone: 312-861-2000
           Fax: 312-861-2200

                - and -

           James F. Moyle, Esq. (james.moyle@cliffordchance.com)
           Clifford Chance U.S. LLP
           31 West, 52nd Street
           New York, NY 10019
           Phone: 212-878-8508
           Fax: 212-878-8375


NCO FINANCIAL: Faces Texas Suit Over Debt Collection by Phone
-------------------------------------------------------------
NCO Financial Systems is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
alleging that it tried to collect debts by illegally sending
automated telephone calls to customers with delinquent accounts,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit is "French v NCO Financial Systems, Inc., Case Number:
2:2008cv00311," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Judge T. John Ward, presiding, with referral
to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham.


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Injunction in "McGreevey"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana
Power Co., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00001-SHE," which names
Northwestern Corp. as defendant, are appealing a ruling by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana that enjoined
them from taking any further action in the case, 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 company was one of several defendants named in the class
action suit filed by former shareholders of The Montana Power
Co., most of whom became shareholders of Touch America Holdings,
Inc., as a result of a corporate reorganization of the Montana
Power Co.

The suit claims that the disposition of various generating and
energy-related assets by The Montana Power Co. were void because
of the failure to obtain shareholder approval for the
transactions.

The plaintiffs in the suit are thus seeking to reverse those
transactions, or receive fair value for their stock as of late
2001, when shareholder approval should have been sought.

The company is named as a defendant due to the fact that it
purchased The Montana Power L.L.C., which the plaintiffs claim
is a successor to the Montana Power Co.

In June 2006, the company and the "McGreevey" plaintiffs entered
into an agreement to settle the claims that were brought.

In November 2006, a Bankruptcy Court finally approved the
agreement and the claims were discharged.  The plaintiffs'
attorneys and the company filed a joint motion to dismiss the
claims against the company in the McGreevey lawsuits and no
objections were filed.

On March 16, 2007, the federal court denied the motions to
dismiss the company from the McGreevey lawsuits questioning the
benefits of the settlement to be received by the class members
in the settlement and the authority of the plaintiffs' counsel
to have negotiated the settlement without a class having been
certified by the federal court.

On Jan. 11, 2008, the U.S. District Court in Montana suggested
that the settlement agreement was invalid because the
plaintiffs' attorneys had not secured the court's permission to
engage in settlement discussions.

The District Court enjoined the plaintiffs from taking any
further action in the matter.  The plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's January 11th injunction to the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, where on July 10, 2008, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral arguments.  A determination is pending.

The suit is "McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-00001-SEH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana, Judge Sam E. Haddon, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Wade Dahood, Esq.
          Knight Dahood Mclean Everett & Dayton
          P.O. Box 727
          Anaconda, MT 59711-0727
          Phone: 406-563-3424
          Fax: 406-563-7519

          Milton Datsopoulos, Esq. (mdatsopoulos@dmllaw.com)
          Datsopoulos Macdonald & Lind
          201 W. Main, Central Square Building, Suite 201
          Missoula, MT 59802
          Phone: 406-728-0810
          Fax: 406-543-0134

               - and -

          Allan M. McGarvey, Esq. (amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com)
          McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey,
          745 S. Main Street
          Kalispell, MT 59901-2529
          Phone: 406-752-5566
          Fax: 406-752-7124

Representing the defendants is:

          Kimberly A. Beatty, Esq. (kim@bkbh.com)
          Browning Kaleczyc Berry & Hoven
          PO Box 1697
          Helena, MT 59624-1697
          Phone: 406-443-6820
          Fax: 406-443-6883


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Court Awards $1.8MM to Plaintiffs' Attorneys
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota ruled
that the plaintiffs' lawyers in a shareholder class action
lawsuit against Northwestern Corp., d/b/a NorthWestern Energy,
should receive approximately $1.8 million in fees and costs,
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.

In November 2005, the company and its directors were named
defendants in a shareholder class action and derivative action,
"City of Livonia Employee Retirement System v. Draper, et al."

The plaintiff claims, among other things, that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by not sufficiently negotiating
with Montana Public Power Inc. and Black Hills Corp., two
entities that had made public, unsolicited offers to purchase
NorthWestern.

On April 26, 2006, Livonia amended its complaint to add
allegations that company directors had erred in choosing the
Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited offer because it was not
the most attractive offer they had received for the company.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement which
provides that NorthWestern will redeem the existing shareholder
rights plan either following shareholder approval of the Merger
Agreement with BBI or upon termination of the Merger Agreement
with BBI -- whichever occurs first.

The Board may adopt a new shareholder rights plan if the
shareholders approve adoption of such a plan in advance or, in
the event that circumstances require timely implementation of
such a plan, the Board seeks and receives approval from
shareholders within 12 months after adoption.

After limited confirmatory discovery, the settlement agreement
has been filed.  In December 2006 the federal court indicated it
would not approve the settlement because it did not provide any
benefit to the class members.

Based on the federal court's order, the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice on the condition that the
federal court would retain jurisdiction over any award of
attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs' lawyers have filed a motion seeking discovery in
advance of its motion for an award of attorneys' fees.  The
motion was denied.  They then filed a request for attorneys'
fees and costs aggregating $9.9 million, to which request the
company had responded, arguing that plaintiffs' lawyers are
entitled to no fees.

The plaintiffs filed a reply in May 2007.  On May 24, 2007, the
company notified the federal court of the Montana Public Service
Commission's unanimous direction to its staff to draft an order
rejecting the proposed BBI transaction, noting that unless the
BBI transaction was approved, the plaintiffs' argument for
benefit to the estate would be moot and suggested that the
federal court delay any ruling until the MPSC reaches a final
decision on the BBI transaction.

On July 25, 2007, the company advised the federal court that the
Merger Agreement was terminated based on the action by the MPSC
denying consideration of the revised proposal and denying
approval of the transaction.  At the time, the company noted
that there could be no benefit to our shareholders justifying an
attorneys' fee award in light of the termination of the BBI
transaction.

On Dec. 13, 2007, the federal court ordered additional
simultaneous briefing on the issue of whether, in light of the
BBI termination, the Livonia litigation had benefited the
company's shareholders.

In March 2008, the district court ruled that the plaintiffs'
lawyers should receive approximately $1.8 million in fees and
costs.

The company had filed an appeal of the court's order in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and had also filed a
lawsuit in South Dakota state court against the insurance
carrier as the carrier would not provide a definitive decision
that any award of attorneys' fees would be reimbursed by
insurance proceeds.

In May 2008, the litigation was settled, resulting in a payment
directly from the company's insurance carrier to the plaintiffs'
lawyers.

The suit is "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.
Draper, et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-04178-LLP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota, Judge Lawrence
L. Piersol, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Randall J. Baron, Esq. (randyb@csgrr.com)
          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          Provost and Umphrey Law Firm, LLP
          3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: 214-744-3000
          e-mail: provost_dallas@yahoo.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Filiberto Agusti, Esq. (fagusti@steptoe.com)
          Scott T. Bielicki, Esq. (sbielicki@steptoe.com)
          David F. Rifkind, Esq. (drifkind@steptoe.com)
          Andrew Sloniewsky, Esq. (asloniewsky@steptoe.com)
          Steptoe and Johnson, LLP
          1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-429-6428
                 202-429-6751
                 202-429-8094
                 202-429-6759

               - and -

          Roberto Antonio Lange, Esq. (rlange@dehs.com)
          Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith
          P.O. Box 1030
          Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030
          Phone: 336-2880
          Fax: 335-3639


SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Faces Pa. Lawsuits Alleging ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sovereign Bancorp, Inc., is facing two purported class-action
suits in Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the
Sovereign's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

In the first quarter of 2008, a former employee filed a putative
class-action suit in Pennsylvania federal court alleging that
the company violated ERISA in connection with the management of
certain plans.

The plaintiff alleges that the company knew or should have known
that the company's stock was not a prudent investment for the
company's retirement plan beginning on or about Jan. 1, 2007.

The complaint also alleges that the company provided the
putative class and the investing community with inadequate
disclosure concerning the company's financial condition,
resulting in the stock having an inflated value until the
company's disclosures in January 2008.

In April 2008, a similar putative class action suit was filed in
the same court by another former employee.  The complaint in the
second action asserts that the company caused retirement plan
assets to be invested in the company's stock when it was
imprudent to do so, caused the plan to purchase the stock while
not disclosing alleged financial problems and to pay above
market interest rates for a company loan, and failed to provide
complete and accurate information to participants in the plan.

In July 2008, the counsel for the respective plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint that expanded upon the
allegations set forth in the prior two actions.

The class period in the consolidated amended complaint was also
expanded to include the period from Jan. 1, 2002, to the
present.

Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.sovereignbank.com/--
serves as the parent company of Sovereign Bank, a federally
chartered savings bank. Sovereign had approximately 750
community banking offices, over 2,300 automated teller machines,
with principal markets in the Northeastern U.S.  Sovereign's
primary business consists of attracting deposits from its
network of community banking offices, and originating small
business and middle market commercial loans, multi-family loans,
residential mortgage loans, home equity loans and lines of
credit, and auto and other consumer loans in the communities
served by those offices.  Sovereign had three direct
consolidated wholly owned subsidiaries as of Dec. 31, 2007 with
Sovereign Bank being the only material subsidiary.


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ga. Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Jacobs et al. v. Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc., Case No. 4:2007cv00002," are appealing
certain rulings entered by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, according to Tempur-Pedic
International's Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit was filed on Jan. 5, 2007, and alleges violations of
federal antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic
mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain
distributors.

The action alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-Pedic
mattresses in the U.S. since Jan. 5, 2003, and seeks damages and
injunctive relief.

Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on
June 25, 2007, pursuant to a motion filed by the company.

Following a decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Leegin
Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.," on June 28, 2007,
the company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining counts of
the antitrust suit on July 10, 2007.

On Dec. 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result,
judgment was entered in favor of the company and the plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment," which request was denied in May 2008.

The plaintiffs filed on May 14, 2008, a Notice of Appeal
regarding the lower court's decision and the parties are
briefing the matter.

The suit is "Jacobs et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
Case Number: 4:2007cv00002," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Robert L. Vining,
Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Phillip D. Bartz, Esq. (pbartz@mckennalong.com)
           McKenna Long & Aldridge
           1900 K Street, NW
           Washington, DC 20006
           Phone: 202-496-7500

                - and -

           Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com)
           Chitwood Harley Harnes
           2300 Promenade II
           1230 Peachtree Street, NE
           Atlanta, GA 30309
           Phone: 404-873-3900
           Fax: 404-876-4476

Representing the defendants are:

           Jesse Anderson Davis, Esq. (adavis@brinson-askew.com)
           Brinson Askew Berry Siegler Richardson & Davis
           P.O. Box 5513, 615 West First Street, Omberg House
           Rome, GA 30162-5513
           Phone: 706-291-8853

                 - and -

           William N. Berkowitz, Esq.
           (bill.berkowitz@bingham.com)
           Bingham McCutchen, LLP
           150 Federal Street
           Boston, MA 02110
           Phone: 617-951-8375


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Shareholders Nix Appeal of Kentucky Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a putative class-action suit agreed to a
stipulation to throw out their appeal in connection with the
dismissal of the case, which was filed against Tempur- Pedic
International Inc. before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, according to Tempur-Pedic's
Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Between Oct. 7 and Nov. 21, 2005, five complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its directors and officers
purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased
the company's stock between April 22, 2005, and Sept. 19, 2005.

These suits were eventually consolidated and the appointed lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Feb. 27, 2006.

The lead plaintiffs assert claims arising under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  They
allege that certain of the company's public disclosures
regarding its financial performance between April 22 and
Sept. 19, 2005, were false and misleading.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs, fees and other
relief within the court's discretion.

In 2008, Tempur-Pedic filed a motion seeking the dismissal of
the consolidated securities fraud class action suit (Class
Action Reporter, March 17, 2008).

On March 28, 2008, the Court granted the company's request and
dismissed all claims against all the defendants, with prejudice
and without leave to re-plead.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that judgment on
April 24, 2008.

Since filing the notice of appeal, the plaintiffs agreed to a
stipulation to dismiss their appeal with prejudice, which
stipulation was entered on June 19, 2008.  This stipulation
fully and finally resolved the case in favor of the company and
all other defendants.

The suit is "Grillo, et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00410-JMH," filed in he U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Joseph M.
Hood, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Michelle M. Ciccarelli, Esq. (michelec@csgrr.com)
           Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
           655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Phone: 619-213-1058
           Fax: 619-231-7423

                - and -

           Peter E. Seidman, Esq. (pseidman@milbergweiss.com)
           Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, & Schulman, L.L.P.
           One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
           New York, NY 10119-0165
           Phone: 212-613-5625
           Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the defendants are:

           Michael D. Blanchard, Esq.
           (michael.blanchard@bingham.com)
           Bingham McCutchen, LLP
           One State Street
           Hartford, CT 06103-3178
           Phone: 860-240-2700
           Fax: 860-240-2800

                - and -

           Barry D. Hunter, Esq. (bhunter@fbtlaw.com)
           Frost Brown Todd, LLC
           250 W. Main Street
           2700 Lexington, Financial Center
           Lexington, KY 40507
           Phone: 859-231-0000
           Fax: 859-231-0011


TOP SHIPS: $1.2MM N.Y. Suit Settlement Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has given final approval to the $1.2-million settlement in a
class action securities lawsuit against Greek oil-shipping
company Top Ships Inc., formerly known as TOP Tankers Inc.,
Nigel Lowry writes for Lloyd's List.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In February this year, TOP Ships filed for the Court's approval
of a settlement agreement it reached with the lead plaintiffs in
the securities class action lawsuit (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 18, 2008).

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

In April, Judge Colleen McMahon preliminarily approved the
settlement.

In a motion filed on July 23, 2008, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Mr. DeShayes asked the
court for final approval of a proposed agreement (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 5, 2008).

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

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

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

               - and -

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

Representing the defendants is:

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


U.S. TOBACCO: Wins in Anticompetitive Conduct Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled
that U.S. Tobacco Co. is not liable in a class action lawsuit
because the plaintiffs did not rely on the company's allegedly
deceptive conduct, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Gregory Hunt sued the U.S. Tobacco, alleging that the company
engaged in anticompetitive conduct that artificially inflated
its prices by 7 cents per can.  He alleged that the company
stole or concealed its competitor's distribution racks and made
false, disparaging statements about its competitor's products.

The alleged misconduct included theft and concealment of
competitors' distribution racks and point-of-sale advertisements
at various stores, as well as dissemination of disparaging and
false statements about competitors' products.

Mr. Hunt further alleged that Smokeless concealed its
anticompetitive behavior, thereby leading "all consumers acting
reasonably under the circumstances to believe that they were
purchasing moist smokeless tobacco products at prices borne by a
free and fair market."

After removing the case to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1453 (permitting the
removal of certain class actions to federal court on diversity
grounds), Smokeless moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that Hunt failed
to allege that he had justifiably relied on Smokeless's
deceptive conduct and suffered harm as a result of that
reliance.

The District Court denied the motion, holding that "Plaintiff
does not need to establish reliance under the catch-all
provision of the Consumer Protection Law."

The Court reasoned that because the Consumer Protection
Law should be construed liberally, and because the legislature
added the words "or deceptive" to the catch-all provision in
1996, the provision should be read to relieve plaintiffs of
proving all the elements of common-law fraud.

The District Court granted Smokeless' motion to certify the
Court's order for interlocutory appeal, presenting the issue
whether a plaintiff is required to prove reliance in order to
state a deception claim under the amended catch-all provision of
the Consumer Protection Law.

In order to prevail, Judge Ambo ruled that Mr. Hunt would have
to prove that he suffered an "ascertainable loss" as a result of
the tobacco company's actions.  Mr. Hunt argues that he should
only have to prove that in a case of fraud, not merely
deception.

"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has applied a broad rule that
private plaintiffs must prove justifiable reliance under the
Consumer Protection Law," Judge Ambro wrote.  "We thus think it
is imprudent to create an exception for (deception)."

The suit is "Hunt v. United States Tobacco Co., No. 06-cv-1099,
2006 WL 2619806," on appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Honorable Ronald
L. Buckwalter, presiding.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CARMAX INC: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Virgina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, commenced a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of those who purchased the common
stock of CarMax, Inc., between April 2, 2008, and June 17, 2008,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges that CarMax and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false statements.  Specifically, it is alleged that,
during the Class Period, CarMax was not meeting internal sales
targets and was facing a 55% shortfall in its net income for
first quarter of fiscal year 2009, later prompting the Company
to suspend its financial guidance for the rest of fiscal 2009.

According to the complaint, CarMax publicly issued materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose:

      (i) that CarMax was not positioned to meet its sales
          targets or earnings objectives for fiscal 2009;

     (ii) that the Company had completed a refinancing of its
          warehouse facility which had materially increased the
          Company's funding costs; and

    (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants had no
          reasonable basis for their revenues and earnings
          guidance for fiscal 2009.

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/


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

This action enlarges the Class Period to begin earlier than the
Class Period (starting August 16, 2007) in the cases previously
filed.

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

The Complaint alleges that at the time such statements were
made, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that IndyMac was
not following prudent or proper loan origination procedures and
that it had ignored guidelines and prudent practices to
originate and securitize below standard mortgage loans,
resulting in increasing delinquencies and defaults and a growing
inability to raise capital by selling and securitizing these
risky loans.  As a result of Defendants' allegedly false
statements, IndyMac's stock traded at inflated levels throughout
the Class Period and its common stock reached a high of $37.50
per share when the market opened on June 6, 2007.

The truth about IndyMac's financial condition started to be
revealed on November 6, 2007 and continued to May 12, 2008, when
IndyMac announced that "We do not expect that IndyMac will be
able to return to overall profitability until the current
decline in home prices decelerates. . . . and we are not
currently forecasting a return to profitability this year."

The defendants also disclosed that "because of the significant
hits we've taken, our capital ratios clearly have been depleted"
and "our non-performing assets have continued to rise."  As a
result of the defendants' disclosures on May 12, 2008, IndyMac's
stock dropped to close at $2.32 per share on May 13, 2008, on
high volume, from a close of $3.43 per share on May 9, 2008 -- a
two-day decline of $1.11 per share, or 32%.

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

For more information, contact:

           Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. (mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com)
           Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
           1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
           Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
           Phone: 310-789-3102
           Web site: http://www.susmangodfrey.com/

                - or -

           Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
           Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
           Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager
           Berger & Montague, P.C.
           1622 Locust Street
           Philadelphia, PA 19103
           Phone: 1-888-891-2289
                  215-875 3000
           e-mail: investorprotect@bm.net
           Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com/


KKR FINANCIAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who acquired KKR Financial Holdings, LLC common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
its May 4, 2007 merger and share issuance.

The complaint charges KFN and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  KKR is
a specialty finance company that invests in multiple asset
classes.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was false
and misleading in that it misrepresented and omitted material
facts, including:

      (a) the problematic real-estate-related assets held by the
          Company were a much bigger risk to the Company than the
          Registration Statement had represented;

      (b) the Company's capital would be insufficient given the
          deterioration in its portfolio which would necessitate
          capital preservation and the need to raise capital to
          the detriment of common stockholders; and

      (c) the Company was failing to adequately record loss
          reserves for its mortgage-related exposure, causing its
          balance sheet and financial results to be artificially
          inflated.

During May, June and most of July 2007, KKR's stock traded above
$25 per share.  In late July, many mortgage-related companies'
stock prices declined, including KKR's. Nevertheless, KKR's
stock closed at $18.02 per share on August 13, 2007.  Then, on
August 15, 2007, KKR issued a release which revealed that KKR
would be selling $5.1 billion in mortgage backed securities at a
loss.  When this news was revealed, KKR's stock price collapsed
to as low as $9.39 per share, eventually closing at $10.52 per
share, a decline from the prior day of 31%.  KKR shares
currently trade for approximately $10 per share, a 63% decline
from the $26.90 per share at which they were sold to plaintiff
and the Class.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of KKR common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Company's false and misleading Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Merger.

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


NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of NovaGold Resources, Inc., from October 25, 2006,
through November 23, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges NovaGold and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NovaGold is engaged in the business of exploration and
development of mineral properties.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants falsely portrayed
NovaGold as a rapidly growing company on the verge of moving
from a mid-tier exploration and development company to a mid-
tier gold and copper production company by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the costs,
progress and viability of its multi-billion dollar Galore Creek
project.

The Class Period begins on October 25, 2006, when NovaGold
issued a press release touting the results of a feasibility
study performed by Hatch Ltd. that purportedly "confirmed" the
economic viability of the Galore Creek project.

According to a statement made by the Company's President and
CEO, Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse, in the October 25, 2006 press
release, "the Feasibility Study confirms that Galore Creek is
one of the world's largest undeveloped copper-gold-silver
projects with one of the lowest cash costs in the industry. . .
."  The Feasibility Study estimated the capital costs for the
Galore Creek project to be Cdn $2.2 billion.  The Hatch
Feasibility Study enabled the Company to successfully fend off a
hostile takeover bid by mining giant Barrick Gold by maintaining
the average closing price of the Company's shares above Barrick
Gold's $16 per share tender offer.  In fact, when fending off
Barrick Gold's takeover bid Nieuwenhuyse assured shareholders
"that at US$16, NovaGold shares are better than money in the
bank."  The Hatch Feasibility Study also allowed the Company to
raise hundreds of millions of dollars in an April 2007 secondary
stock offering, thus providing a strong motive for the
Defendants to misrepresent the Hatch Feasibility Study as a
bankable study.  Throughout the Class Period, the Company
regularly and systematically assured the investing public that
the construction of the Galore Creek project was on schedule and
on budget.

On November 26, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it would suspend activities at Galore Creek based
on the results of an updated feasibility study, which estimated
the capital costs for the Galore Creek project to be Cdn $5
billion -- approximately 127 percent greater than Hatch had
estimated in October 2006.  Upon the release of this news, the
Company's shares declined $10.76 per share, or more than 53%, to
close on November 26, 2007, at $9.48 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more information, contact:

           Darren J. Check, Esq.
           Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
           Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
           280 King of Prussia Road
           Radnor, PA 19087
           Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
                  1-610-667-7706
           e-mail: info@sbtklaw.co




                             *********

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  * * *