CAR_Public/080812.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 12, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 159

                             Headlines

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Sixth Circuit Reverses ERISA Suit Dismissal
BANK OF MONTREAL: Quebec Court Authorizes Suit Over Penalties
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: September Hearing Set for Stock Swap Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: California Court Upholds Antitrust Lawsuit
CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Faces Former Employees' Lawsuit in California

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Fla. Suit Over Acuvue Contact Lenses
CRUM & FORSTER: Ruling in Suit Dismissal Appeal Expected in 2009
DIGIMARC: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected This Year
ECOLAB INC: Challenges $27.6M Arbitration Award for Calif. Suits
GANZ INC: Business Owners File Suit Over Webkinz Toy Supply

GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Mich. Securities Fraud Suit for $277MM
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Suit
KBR INC: Plaintiffs Withdraw Iraqi Overtime Lawsuit
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Court Dismisses Arizona Securities Lawsuit
MEDICAL INFORMATION: Mass. Court Still to Certify "Hubert" Suit

MRV COMMS: Faces Three Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
MRV COMMS: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Sept. 8
NCAA: Court Approves $10-Million Settlement with Ex-Athletes
NYMEX HOLDINGS: Cataldo Capozza Explains Proxy Supplement
PERINI CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Mass. Over Tutor-Saliba Merger

PROPERTY ID: Settles Lawsuit with Housing Department for $35MM
PROSOURCE PERFORMANCE: Sued Over Warning Labels in Protein Bars
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: To Pay $40M More to Settle Securities Suit
REDDY ICE: Investors' Bid as Lead Plaintiff Due on Oct. 7
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Awaits Summary Judgment in Securities Lawsuit

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Still Faces Savings Plan Members' Suit in N.J.
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Continues in K-DUR Antitrust Lawsuits
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Lawsuits Over VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE
SKYY SPIRITS: California Suit Alleges Over-Patriotic Labeling
SOUTHERN COPPER: Still Faces Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Kansas
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Suit in Illinois
TREMONT FINANCIAL: To Pay Law Students $60,000 to Settle Suit
TYSON FOODS: Sept. 16 Trial Slated for FLSA Lawsuit in Tennessee
TYSON FOODS: Sup. Ct. Denies Certiorari Petition in "De Asencio"

TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated FLSA Lawsuit
VALUECLICK INC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Third-Party Hijacking


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CARMAX INC: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in Va.
CARMAX INC: Brualdi Law Files Securities Fraud Suit in Virginia
COMPUCREDIT: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Georgia Securities Lawsuit
KKR FINANCIAL: Izard Nobel Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MF GLOBAL: Named Defendant in Weiss & Lurie N.Y. Securities Suit

NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
REDDY ICE: Coughlin Stoia Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Named Defendant in Weiss & Lurie Suit in N.Y.
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in Indiana



                            *********


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Sixth Circuit Reverses ERISA Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the
dismissal of a purported class action suit against American
Electric Power Co., Inc., which alleged violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
three putative class action complaints were filed against AEP,
certain executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging
violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an
investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP
stock.  The suits, which were later consolidated, were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Aside from American Electric Power, other defendants named are
American Electric Power Service Corp.; E. Linn Draper, Jr.; and
Thomas V. Shockley, III.

In July 2006, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification and dismissed all claims without prejudice.

In August 2007, the appeals court reversed the trial court's
decision and held that the plaintiff did have standing to pursue
his claim.  The appeals court remanded the case to the trial
court to consider the issue of whether the plaintiff is an
adequate representative for the class of plan participants.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio Judge Algenon L. Marbley, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          Stull, Stull and Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-687-7230
          e-mail: ssbny@aol.com

          James Edward Arnold, Esq. (jarnold@cpaslaw.com)
          Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott
          471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-469-1400

               - and -

          Joseph J. Braun, Esq. (jjbraun@strausstroy.com)
          Strauss & Troy - 1
          The Federal Reserve Bldg.
          150 E Fourth St., 4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
          Charlie L. Divine, Esq.
          Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Issa Mikel, Esq.
          George S. Wang, Esq.
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3954
          Phone: 212-455-2000
          Fax: 212-455-2502
          Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/


BANK OF MONTREAL: Quebec Court Authorizes Suit Over Penalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Marie-Christine Laberge of the Quebec Superior Court
authorized on Aug. 7, 2008, a class-action lawsuit against the
Bank of Montreal for penalties levied due to early repayment of
mortgages, New Brunswick Business Journal reports.

According to Business Journal, the Option consommateurs consumer
advocacy group has accused the bank as well as several other
institutions of charging penalties on the total amount of the
mortgage although contracts allow for the possibility of paying
off 20% of a mortgage annually without paying a penalty.

The group says, for example, that a homeowner who sells his
house and wants to pay off a $50,000 balance on a $100,000
mortgage would find himself paying a penalty on the whole
amount.  The advocacy group says the penalty should be
calculated on an amount of $30,000 given that contracts allow
borrowers to pay off $20,000 annually without penalty.

Option consommateurs also wants to file a class action suit
against the National Bank, Desjardins Group and TD Bank but
those actions have not yet been authorized, the report notes.

Fredy Adams, one of the lawyers for the consumer group, told
Business Journal that thousands of Quebecers are penalized each
year for early repayments of their mortgage.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: September Hearing Set for Stock Swap Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court scheduled a September 2008 hearing
with regard to the settlement of a breach of fiduciary duty
lawsuit filed against Cablevision Systems Corp. in connection
with the exchange of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock for
Cablevision NY Group common stock.

                       Delaware Litigation

In August 2002, purported class action complaints naming as
defendants Cablevision and each of its directors were filed in
the Delaware Chancery Court.

The actions, which allege breach of fiduciary duties and breach
of contract with respect to the exchange of the Rainbow Media
Group tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock, were
purportedly brought on behalf of all holders of publicly traded
shares of Rainbow Media Group tracking stock.

The actions sought to:

        -- enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking
           stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock,

        -- enjoin any sales of Rainbow Media Group assets, or,
           in the alternative, award rescissory damages,

        -- if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award
           rescissory damages,

        -- award compensatory damages, and

        -- award costs and disbursements.

The suits were consolidated into one action on Sept. 17, 2002,
and in October 2002, Cablevision filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action.

The consolidated action was stayed by agreement of the parties
pending resolution of a related action brought by one of the
plaintiffs to compel the inspection of certain books and records
of Cablevision.

On Oct. 26, 2004, the parties entered into a stipulation
dismissing the related action and providing for Cablevision's
production of certain documents.

On Dec. 13, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which Cablevision asked the Court to dismiss.

On April 19, 2005, the court granted the company's motion in
part, dismissing the breach of contract claim but upholding the
breach of fiduciary duty claim on the pleadings.

                        New York Litigation

In August 2003, a purported class action suit naming as
defendants Cablevision, the company's directors and officers,
and certain current and former officers and employees of the
company's Rainbow Media Holdings and American Movie Classics
subsidiaries was filed in the New York Supreme Court by the
Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana.

The suit relates to the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group tracking
stock exchange and allege, among other things, that the exchange
ratio was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group tracking
stock that was artificially deflated as a result of the improper
recognition of certain expenses at the national services
division of Rainbow Media Holdings.

The complaint alleges breaches by the individual defendants of
fiduciary duties.  It also alleges breaches of contract and
unjust enrichment by Cablevision.

The complaint seeks monetary damages and such other relief as
the court deems just and proper.

On Oct. 31, 2003, Cablevision and the other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of the previously filed lawsuits
pending in Delaware or, in the alternative, to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

On June 10, 2004, the court stayed the action on the basis of
the previously filed action in Delaware.

TRSL subsequently filed a motion to vacate the stay in the New
York action, and simultaneously filed a motion to intervene in
the Delaware action and to stay that action.  Cablevision
opposed both motions.

On April 19, 2005, the Delaware court denied the motion to stay
the Delaware action and granted TRSL's motion to intervene.  On
June 22, 2005, the court in the New York action denied TRSL's
motion to vacate the stay.

                          The Settlement

Cablevision reached an agreement in principle with respect to
the settlement of the Delaware action in the quarter ended
June 30, 2007.

In connection with the anticipated settlement, Cablevision
expects to seek dismissal of the New York action as well as the
Delaware action.

A hearing on the proposed settlement took place in April 2008.
At that hearing, the court ordered that certain discovery may
take place and deferred ruling on approval of the settlement.

A further hearing on the settlement has been scheduled for
September 2008, 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 30, 2008.

Cablevision Systems Corp. -- http://www.cablevision.com/-- is a
cable operator in the U.S. that operates cable programming
networks, entertainment businesses and telecommunications
companies.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: California Court Upholds Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District denied motions
that sought the dismissal of a purported antitrust class-action
suit entitled, "Rob Brantley et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:2007cv06101," which names Cablevision Systems
Corp. as a defendant.

The antitrust lawsuit was filed on Sept. 20, 2007, before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Cablevision and several other defendants, including
other cable and satellite providers and programming content
providers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have violated Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by agreeing to the sale and
licensing of programming on a "bundled" basis and by offering
programming in packaged tiers rather than on an "a la carte"
basis.

The plaintiffs, purportedly on behalf of a nationwide class of
cable and satellite subscribers, seek unspecified treble
monetary damages and injunctive relief to compel the offering of
channels to subscribers on an "a la carte" basis.

On Dec. 3, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
containing principally the same allegations as the original
complaint.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the defendants filed joint motions to dismiss
the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and on the
ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the claims
in the amended complaint.

The district court granted the defendants' motions on March 13,
2008, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their claims.

On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.  The second amended complaint contains many of the
same allegations as the original complaint, with limited
modifications to address certain of the deficiencies identified
in the court's March 13 order.

Two of the principal modifications were:

        -- to reform the relief requested from an order requiring
           programmers and cable providers to offer channels on
           an "a la carte" basis, to an order requiring
           programmers and cable providers to offer the option to
           purchase on an unbundled basis; and

        -- to allege that certain non-defendant programmers have
           been excluded from the market.

On April 22, 2008, the defendants filed joint motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint.  The court denied those motions on
June 26, 2008, 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 30, 2008.

The suit is "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
           Blecher & Collins
           515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
           Los Angeles, CA 90071
           Phone: 213-622-4222

Representing the defendants are:

           Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com)
           Davis Polk and Wardwell
           1600 El Camino Real
           Menlo Park, CA 94025
           Phone: 650-752-2005

           John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com)
           Arnold and Porter
           777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl
           Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513
           Phone: 213-243-4000

                - and -

           Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com)
           Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
           1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
           Washington, DC 20006
           Phone: 202-663-6321


CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Faces Former Employees' Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Russe Holdings, Inc., is facing a labor-related
lawsuit in California filed by two former employees, 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 28, 2008.

On June 11, 2008, a complaint was filed against the company in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, by two
former store employees (Shannon Palm and Kayla Lovato).

The complaint is styled as a class action and the causes of
action arise out of allegations of failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, requiring
employees to purchase store product and violations relating to
form of payment of wages.  It seeks unspecified damages,
penalties and attorneys' fees.

Charlotte Russe Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.charlotte-russe.com/-- is a mall-based specialty
retailer of fashionable, value-priced apparel and accessories
targeting young women in their teens and twenties.  During the
fiscal year ended Sept. 29, 2007 (fiscal 2007), the company
operated a total of 432 Charlotte Russe stores throughout 44
states and Puerto Rico.  The Charlotte Russe stores are located
in mall locations in spaces that average approximately 7,100
square feet.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Fla. Suit Over Acuvue Contact Lenses
------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in
Palm Beach County Court accusing it of failing to provide
customers with instructions and risk information for its Acuvue
contact lenses, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiff Karen Constantine alleged that the company's said
failure caused her to develop an eye infection.

Based in Issaquah, Wash., Costco Wholesale Corporation operates
membership warehouses that offer a selection of branded and
private label products in a range of merchandise categories in
no-frills, self-service warehouse facilities.


CRUM & FORSTER: Ruling in Suit Dismissal Appeal Expected in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit is expected to
issue a decision by 2009 in connection with the plaintiffs'
appeal of the dismissal of a purported class action suit over
allegations that Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. violated both the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and antitrust
statutes.

The company and U.S. Fire, among other insurance companies and
insurance brokers, have been named as defendants in the class
action complaint filed by policyholders alleging, among other
things, that the defendants used contingent commission structure
to deprive policyholders of free competition in the market for
insurance.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class
consisting of all persons who, between Aug. 26, 1994, and the
date of the class certification, engaged the services of any one
of the broker-defendants and who entered into or renewed a
contract of insurance with one of the insurer defendants.

In October 2006, the court partially granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, subject to the
plaintiffs' filing of an amended statement of their case.

The plaintiffs then filed their "supplemental statement of
particularity," and amended case statement.  In response, the
defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the suit.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice.   On
Sept. 28, 2007, the court dismissed the RICO case with prejudice
and declined to accept supplemental jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs' state law claims.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the trial
court's dismissals before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third
Circuit.

The plaintiffs' opening brief was filed and served on Feb. 19,
2008.  Opposition briefs were filed on April 7, 2008.

The plaintiffs filed their reply brief on April 24, 2008.  A
final ruling is not expected from the Court of Appeals before
early 2009.  The company and U.S. Fire continue to be named as
defendants.

The company reported no furtehr development in the matter in its
Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. -- http://www.cfins.com/--
through its eight subsidiaries, offers an array of
property/casualty insurance products to businesses, including
management liability, automobile, and workers' compensation
coverage.


DIGIMARC: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected This Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
Digimarc Corp. is expecting the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon to issue this year a ruling on an appeal
against the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
filed against the company.

Beginning in September 2004, three purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the
company's securities during the period April 17, 2002, to
July 28, 2004.

These lawsuits were later consolidated into one action for all
purposes.  The amended complaint, which sought unspecified
damages, asserted claims under the federal securities laws
relating to the company's restatement of its financial
statements for 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004 and
alleged that the company issued false and misleading financial
statements and issued misleading public statements about the
company's operations and prospects.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and entered judgment in the
company's favor.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The appeal was stayed pending
the recent U.S. Supreme Court's determination in another case of
issues relating to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
and briefing is scheduled to be completed by the end of the
year.

The company anticipates oral argument and a decision this year.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 1,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Garcia et al. v. Digimarc Corp. et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-01455-BR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Judge Anna J. Brown, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gary M. Berne, Esq. (gberne@ssbls.com)
          Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter
          PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: 503-227-1600
          Fax: 503-227-6840

               - and -

          Gary I. Grenley, Esq. (ggrenley@grebb.com)
          Paul H. Trinchero, Esq. (ptrinchero@grebb.com)
          Grenley Rotenberg Evans Bragg & Bodie PC
          1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: 503-241-0570
          Fax: 503-241-0914


ECOLAB INC: Challenges $27.6M Arbitration Award for Calif. Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab, Inc., is challenging an arbitration award, which, if
upheld, would result in a payment by the company of
approximately $27.6 million plus post-award interest for the
settlement of two purported class-action suits.

The company considers the award to be flawed and is evaluating
alternatives.  The decision concerns two California class
actions involving wage/hour claims affecting former and current
employees of Ecolab's Pest Elimination Division (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 26, 2007).

If the arbitration award stands, the amount is expected to be
fully offset by other one-time benefits for the full year 2007.
These one-time benefits include:

      * the previously announced $0.02 per share discrete tax
        benefit in the second quarter;

      * an expected third quarter discrete tax benefit totaling
        $0.03 per share due primarily to the impact on deferred
        taxes of legislated corporate tax rate reductions in the
        United Kingdom and Germany; and

      * a fourth quarter $0.02 per share gain on the expected
        sale of Peter Cox Limited, a leading United Kingdom
        provider of damp proofing, to Mavinwood PLC (LSE:MVW.L),
        the sale of which is scheduled to close shortly.

Ecolab believes that net of the known discrete tax benefits, the
sale of Peter Cox Limited and the arbitration award, results
from full year earnings are expected to be $1.64 - $1.66 per
share, the same as earnings without these one-time items.

Third quarter 2007 EPS was previously expected to be in a range
of $0.48-$0.49 compared with EPS of $0.43 in last year's third
quarter.

Ecolab continues to expect third quarter EPS, excluding the
award and third quarter discrete tax benefit, to be in the
$0.48-$0.49 range; however, the impact of the award, partially
offset by the third quarter discrete tax benefit, will likely
result in reported EPS of $0.44-$0.45.

The company intends to continue to challenge the decision and
the settlement, 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 30, 2008.

Ecolab, Inc. -- http://www.ecolab.com/-- develops and markets
products and services for the hospitality, foodservice,
healthcare and industrial markets.  The company provides
cleaning and sanitizing products and programs, as well as pest
elimination, maintenance and repair services primarily to hotels
and restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities, quick-
service (fast food and other convenience store) units, grocery
stores, commercial and institutional laundries, light industry,
dairy plants and farms, food and beverage processors, and the
vehicle wash industry.  The company operates in three business
segments: U.S. Cleaning & Sanitizing segment, U.S. Other
Services segment, and International segment.


GANZ INC: Business Owners File Suit Over Webkinz Toy Supply
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed by Grayslake business
owners against toy manufacturer Ganz, Inc., and Ganz USA, LLC,
for requiring them to purchase other unrelated items from Ganz
in order to receive supplies of the popular Webkinz plush toys,
Marcia Sagendorph writes for Grayslake Review.

According to the report, Scott and Sherri Comstock are the
owners of two boutiques in Grayslake -- The Cheshire Cat and The
Spotted Crocodile on Route 45.

Arthur Gold, Esq., of Gold and Coulson in Chicago, who
represents the Comstocks, explained that Webkinz are stuffed
animals originally released in April 2005.  They are both a toy
and an online game.  Each Webkinz comes with a special eight-
character code on their labels where the owner can gain access
to Webkinz World at http://www.webkinz.com/-- a Web site
maintained by Ganz.  The toy owner, typically a child, can then
manipulate a virtual version of the stuffed animal online and in
the real world.

The report relates that the toys are very popular and the
Comstocks wanted to carry the Webkinz in their stores.  In order
to receive more Webkinz, the suit alleges, the store owners were
required to buy other Ganz "core items" such as gift items,
collectibles, candles and costume jewelry.

"The law says that they should not be forced to purchase items
that they do not want just so they can get an item that is
popular," Mr. Gold said.

According to Grayslake Review, the class action suit is between
citizens of different states, with current plaintiffs in
Illinois, Massachusetts and California, and the defendants based
in New York and Canada, so it is a federal case.  The amount in
controversy is $5 million.

The report recounts that in early 2007, Ganz began requiring
retailers to purchase the Ganz tied-in core products in order to
be able to order Webkinz.  For example, the Comstocks had to
order $500 to $1,000 of core products before they were allowed
to order Webkinz, the suit alleges.  They say it violates anti-
trust laws.

Moreover, the suit claims, even after placing the order for the
core-products, approval for the Webkinz was not guaranteed.  The
Comstocks also had to pay an initial $20,000 for a credit line
to Ganz to receive the Webkinz.  Then, they were also required
to attend a trade show convention in Atlanta in July 2007 at
their expense.

The class action suit applies to "all existing retailer-
customers of Ganz or retailers who established an account with
Ganz in the United States from April 1, 2005, to the present
that ordered Webkinz from Ganz on the condition that they also
order products from Ganz's line of core-product."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 21, 2008,
California retailer Nuts For Candy had also previously filed a
class-action lawsuit against Ganz USA and its Canadian parent
firm, alleging that the conditions the toy manufacturer sets for
stocking its popular Webkinz plush line violate U.S. antitrust
laws.

According to the CAR report, this lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and
argues that Ganz's policy of requiring retailers to order $1,000
worth of its non-Webkinz "core" line in order to apply to become
a Webkinz plush seller, with no guarantee of becoming an
authorized Webkinz retailer, violates the Sherman Antitrust Act
and the Clayton Antitrust Act.

The CAR report also noted that the suit claims Ganz's policy
causes "monetary injury" to retailers, and argues that the
company "succeeded in making it more difficult for Plaintiff and
Class members to sell products that compete with Webkinz and/or
the [core] Ganz products by forcing Plaintiff to stock limited
retail shelf space with unwanted products, reducing Plaintiff's
ability to sell competing products."

According to the CAR report, the suit's class is open to all
persons or entities in the U.S. who established an account with
Ganz from July 1, 2006, onwards.  Nuts For Candy is seeking a
jury trial and is also requesting damages for all class members
"threefold their actual antitrust damages sustained," along with
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

Nuts For Candy is represented by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
Burlingame, CA.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Mich. Securities Fraud Suit for $277MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grant & Eisenhofer and Labaton Sucharow, co-lead counsel for the
plaintiffs in a federal securities case involving General Motors
Corp. have announced that a settlement has been reached whereby
GM will make a cash payment of $277 million.

Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP, which served as GM's outside
auditor during the period covered by the action, agreed to
contribute an additional $26 million in cash -- bringing the
total amount of the settlement to $303 million.

The action is pending before U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The
settlement requires Judge Rosen's approval.

The case stems from claims that General Motors issued a series
of false and misleading statements to investors about the auto
maker's financial health going back to 2000.

The lead plaintiffs in the case were Deka Investment GmbH, and
Deka International S.A., Luxembourg.

Lawyers working on behalf of the investors are Jay Eisenhofer,
Esq., and James Sabella, Esq., from Grant & Eisenhofer; and
Jonathan Plasse, Esq., Eric Belfi, Esq., and Richard Joffe,
Esq., from Labaton Sucharow.

The case is "In re General Motors Corp. Securities and
Derivative Litigation: MDL No. 1749," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an order granting International Rectifier Corp.'s motion
to dismiss, without prejudice, a consolidated securities fraud
class-action suit filed against the company, according to the
company's Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Following the company's disclosure on April 9, 2007, that its
Audit Committee was conducting an internal investigation into
certain revenue recognition matters, a series of putative class-
action lawsuits was filed against International Rectifier Corp.
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

Edward R. Koller filed the first complaint, on April 17, 2007,
on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of IR stock from
Oct. 27, 2005, through April 9, 2007 (Original Class Period).

The complaint named as defendants IR and certain of its present
and former officers and directors and alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based upon revenue
recognition errors at the company's Japan subsidiary.

On July 22, 2007, the court consolidated all of the securities
actions under the caption, "In re International Rectifier
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. CV 07-02544-JFW (VBKx)
(C.D. Cal.)," and appointed Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund
and General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, as co-lead
plaintiffs.

The Co-Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
Jan. 14, 2008, which purported to extend the Original Class
Period by nearly two years, from July 31, 2003, to August 29,
2007, and added claims based upon the company's disclosures that
certain former officers improperly allocated operating expenses
as restructuring charges, improperly assigned tax liability from
higher to lower tax jurisdictions and improperly accounted for
tax benefits associated with the granting of stock options.

The suit also named as defendants several of the company's
former officers, but did not name any of its past or present
directors except Eric Lidow and Alex Lidow, who were officers as
well.

The company filed a motion to dismiss these claims on March 6,
2008, on the grounds that Co-Plaintiffs failed to plead scienter
as to IR; failed to plead scienter as to the company; failed to
plead loss causation as to certain of those disclosures; failed
to plead an underlying violation of Section 10(b), which is a
predicate for a claim under Section 20(a); and improperly
expanded the class period without adequate notice.

The Co-Plaintiffs filed an opposition to this motion.

On May 23, 2008, the Court issued an order granting the
defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, on the ground
that the Co-Plaintiffs failed to plead detailed facts sufficient
to give rise to a strong inference of defendants' scienter.

The suit is "In re International Rectifier Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. CV 07-02544-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.),"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Judge John F. Walter, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Julie Juhyun Bai, Esq. (jbai@bermanesq.com)
           Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
           425 California Street, Suite 2100
           San Francisco, CA 94104
           Phone: 415-433-3200

                - and -

           Lori S. Brody, Esq. (lbrody@kaplanfox.com)
           Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
           1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460
           Los Angeles, CA 90067
           Phone: 310-785-0800

Representing the defendants are:

           Jacob I. Kiani, Esq. (jkiani@sheppardmullin.com)
           Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP
           333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor
           Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
           Phone: 213-620-1780

                - and -

           Jason DeBretteville, Esq.
           (debrettevillej@sullcrom.com)
           Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
           1870 Embarcadero Road
           Palo Alto, CA 94303-3308
           Phone: 650-461-5682


KBR INC: Plaintiffs Withdraw Iraqi Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the Iraqi Overtime Litigation filed against
KBR, Inc., have withdrawn their purported class-action suit
against the company.

During the fourth quarter of 2005, a group of present and former
employees working on the LogCAP contract in Iraq and elsewhere
filed a class action lawsuit alleging that KBR wrongfully failed
to pay time and a half for hours worked in excess of 40 per work
week and that "uplift" pay, consisting of a foreign service
bonus, an area differential, and danger pay, was only applied to
the first 40 hours worked in any work week.

The class alleged by the plaintiffs consists of all current and
former employees on the LogCAP contract from December 2001 to
present.  The basis of plaintiffs' claims is their assertion
that they are intended third party beneficiaries of the LogCAP
contract and that the LogCAP contract obligated KBR to pay time
and a half for all overtime hours.

The company has moved to dismiss the case on a number of bases.
On Sept. 26, 2006, the court granted the motion to dismiss
insofar as claims for overtime pay and "uplift" pay are
concerned, leaving only a contractual claim for miscalculation
of employees' pay.

In the fourth quarter of 2007, the class-action lawsuit was
withdrawn by the plaintiffs, 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 30, 2008.

KBR, Inc. -- http://www.kbr.com/-- is an engineering,
construction and services company supporting the energy,
petrochemicals, government services and civil infrastructure
sectors.  The company operates in six business units: Government
and Infrastructure, Upstream, Services, Downstream, Technology
and Ventures.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the company
announced the reorganization of its operations into six business
units.  Prior to the reorganization, the business activities
included in the Upstream, Services, Downstream and Technology
business units had previously been reported as part of the
Energy and Chemicals segment.  KBR provide services to a diverse
customer base, including international and national oil and gas
companies, independent refiners, petrochemical producers,
fertilizer producers, and domestic and foreign governments.  On
April 5, 2007, Halliburton Cp. completed the separation of KBR.


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Court Dismisses Arizona Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has
granted Limelight Networks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint captioned, "Mustafa v.
Limelight Networks, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02238-SRB."

In August 2007, the company, certain of its officers and current
and former directors, and the firms that served as the lead
underwriters in the company's initial public offering were named
as defendants in several purported class action lawsuits filed
in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Arizona and
the Southern District of New York.

The New York cases were transferred to Arizona and all were
consolidated into a single action.

The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint asserts causes of action
under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of a purported class of individuals who
purchased the company's common stock in its initial public
offering and pursuant to its Prospectus.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
omitted and misstated certain facts concerning the seasonality
of its business and the loss of revenue related to certain
customers.

On March 17, 2008, the company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims (Class Action
Reporter, April 2, 2008).

Recently, the Court dismissed the claims under Section 12(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933 with prejudice, and dismissed the
claims under Section 11 and 15, giving the plaintiffs the
opportunity to file an amended complaint as to those.

The suit is "Mustafa v. Limelight Networks, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-02238-SRB," filed in the U.S. District Courts for
the District of Arizona, Judge Susan R. Bolton presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rljacobs@pipeline.com)
           Paskowitz Law Firm PC
           60 E 42nd St., 46th Floor
           New York, NY 10165
           Phone: 212-867-1156
           Fax: 212-504-8343

Representing the defendants is:

           Maureen Beyers, Esq. (mbeyers@omlaw.com)
           Osborn Maledon PA
           2929 N. Central Ave.
           Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794
           Phone: 602-640-9305
           Fax: 602-664-2053


MEDICAL INFORMATION: Mass. Court Still to Certify "Hubert" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on the class certification and summary judgment
motions in a lawsuit filed against Medical Information
Technology, Inc., 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 30, 2008.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Michael Hubert, a former Meditech employee,
filed a complaint against the Medical Information Technology
Profit Sharing Plan; A. Neil Pappalardo, its Trustee and company
director; and five other company directors -- Lawrence A.
Polimeno, Roland L. Driscoll, Edward B. Roberts, Morton E.
Ruderman and L.P. Dan Valente.

The complaint is purportedly brought on the plaintiff's own
behalf and on behalf of a purported class consisting of "all
participants in the [Plan] who have received any distribution
since Jan. 1, 1998 and who did not receive the fair value of
their benefits."  It alleges that:

      -- the Trustee and Directors are fiduciaries of the
         Plan in valuing Meditech's common stock for purposes of
         redemption and payment of a participant's benefits
         under the Plan;

      -- the Directors, in connection with an annual
         contribution of the company's common stock to the Plan,
         have undervalued the company's common stock and have
         not paid retiring or terminating participants in the
         Plan the fair value of their interests in the Plan;

      -- Meditech's founders and controlling shareholders,
         including some of the Directors, have been buyers of
         Meditech common stock and have benefited from the low
         price established by Mr. Pappalardo and approved
         without adequate care by the other Directors;

      -- Mr. Pappalardo is not independent and that neither
         he nor the other Directors have relied upon an
         independent appraiser;

      -- by failing to fairly value the benefits due each
         employee participating in the Plan upon his or her
         termination, all of the defendants violated their
         fiduciary duties to the participants of the Plan and
         that as a result, the Plaintiff and members of the
         purported class are due benefits from the Plan; and

      -- the Directors violated fiduciary duties to the
         participants of the Plan in violation of the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action, a judgment
against the defendants, a permanent injunction ordering the Plan
to consult an outside appraiser in valuing the plan's assets,
removal of Mr. Pappalardo as the Plan Trustee, and damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 20, 2006, the judge dismissed the breach of fiduciary
duty claims brought against the individual defendants.

The remaining claim is an ERISA benefits claim against the plan,
the plan's trustee, and the company.  The judge did not rule on
the plaintiff's request for the complaint to be a class action.

In March 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for the
complaint to be certified as a class action.  Subsequently, the
plaintiff requested reconsideration of the decision, which was
also denied.

The plaintiff then sought permission to appeal the decision in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  In July 2007
this was also denied.  Discovery was closed on Nov. 27, 2007.

In March 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class
certification, which the defendants have opposed.  In April
2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which
the plaintiffs have also opposed.

A hearing on the class certification and summary judgment
motions took place on June 17, 2008.  The result is still
pending.

The suit is "Hubert v. Medical Information Technology Profit
Sharing Plan, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-10269-RWZ," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya
W. Zobel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael A. Collora, Esq. (mcollora@dwyercollora.com)
          Dwyer & Collora, LLP
          Federal Reserve Bldg., 600 Atlantic Ave., 12th Floor,
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: 617-371-1002
          Fax: 617-371-1037

Representing the defendants is:

          Kevin P. Martin, Esq. (Kmartin@goodwinprocter.com)
          Goodwin Proctor, LLP
          Phone: 617-570-1000
          Fax: 617-523-1231


MRV COMMS: Faces Three Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc., is facing several purported securities
fraud class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, according to the company's
Aug. 1, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended July 29, 2008.

                         Anits Litigation

On July 8, 2008, a putative class action suit was filed before
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by Zvi Anits against the company and certain of its present and
former officers.

The named plaintiff in the Anits Lawsuit purports to represent a
putative class of persons who purchased the company's common
stock between March 31, 2003, and June 5, 2008.  The suit
asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
and Section 20(a), of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions during the
alleged class period concerning the company's stock option
practices and related reporting in its financial statements and
seeks class certification, damages in an unspecified amount plus
interest and costs and attorneys fees.

                        Ramsey Litigation

On July 11, 2008, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by Kevin D. Ramsey against the company and the same individuals
named as defendants in the Anits Lawsuit.

The named plaintiff in the Ramsey Lawsuit purports to represent
a putative class of persons who purchased the company's common
stock between July 24, 2003, and June 5, 2008.  The suit also
asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
and Section 20(a), of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions during the
alleged class period concerning the company's stock option
practices and related reporting in its financial statements and
seeks class certification, damages in an unspecified amount plus
interest and costs and attorneys fees.

                        Leopold Litigation

On July 30, 2008, a putative class action suit was filed before
the same court by Robert J. Leopold against the company and the
same individuals named as defendants in the Anits and the Ramsey
lawsuits.

The named plaintiff in the Leopold Lawsuit purports to represent
a putative class of persons who purchased the company's common
stock between March 31, 2003, and June 5, 2008.  The complaint
and has also asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Section 20(a), of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions
during the alleged class period concerning the company's stock
option practices and related reporting in its financial
statements and seeks class certification, damages in an
unspecified amount plus interest and costs and attorneys fees.

MRV Communications, Inc. -- http://www.mrv.com/-- is a supplier
of communications equipment and services to carriers,
governments and enterprise customers, worldwide.  The company is
a supplier of optical components, primarily through its wholly
owned subsidiaries: Source Photonics and Fiberxon.  The company
conducts its business along three principal segments: the
network equipment group, the network integration group and the
optical components group.  Its network equipment group provides
communications equipment that facilitates access, transport,
aggregation and management of voice, data and video traffic in
networks, data centers and laboratories used by
telecommunications service providers, cable operators,
enterprise customers and governments worldwide.  These products
include switches, routers, physical layer products and console
management products, as well as specialized networking products
for aerospace and defense applications.


MRV COMMS: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Sept. 8
------------------------------------------------------------
The Pomerantz Firm reminds MRV Communications Inc. investors of
the September 8, 2008 deadline for qualified investors to
request that the Court appoint them as lead plaintiff for the
class in the pending class action.

Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit against MRV and certain officers of the company in the
United States District Court, Central District of California.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of the Company between July 24,
2003, and June 5, 2008.

MRV Communications is a Delaware corporation which maintains its
principal executive office in Chatsworth, California.  The
company supplies communications equipment and services to
carriers, governments and enterprise customers worldwide.

The complaint alleges that unbeknownst to investors and contrary
to its public representations, MRV issued stock options that
were deliberately backdated in order to provide improper
windfalls to the individual defendants.  Moreover, the
defendants compounded the fraud by improperly accounting for the
backdated options, thereby, inflating reported results.
Finally, the company belatedly admitted that such misconduct had
taken place.

The complaint specifically alleges that:

      (1) the company backdated the actual grants of its stock
          options grants and improperly recognized stock-based
          compensation expenses related to its stock options
          grants;

      (2) the company failed to disclose that the stock option
          grants had not been accounted for in accordance with
          the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

      (3) the company materially understated tax expenses, since
          MRV had improperly deducted such expenses on its tax
          returns, thereby reducing the amount of taxes to the
          extent owed; and

      (4) the company failed to accurately report its financial
          statements and will now have to restate its historical
          financial statements for the period between 2002 and
          2008.

For more information, contact:

           Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
           Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
           1025 Connecticut Ave NW
           Washington, DC 20036, USA
           Phone: 888-476-6529
                  888-4.POMLAW


NCAA: Court Approves $10-Million Settlement with Ex-Athletes
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has approved a settlement between the National
Collegiate Athletic Association and 12,000 former student-
athletes seeking reimbursements for educational expenses, resume
preparation and career counseling, The Associated Press reports.

According to the AP, NCAA officials announced last week that the
U.S. district court in Los Angeles had approved the settlement
proposal, pursuant to which the NCAA will create a $10-million
fund for former student-athletes, thousands of whom joined in
the class-action lawsuit.

The NCAA denied any wrongdoing in the case and said it agreed to
settle the case to avoid additional expenses.

The students, who attended school between Feb. 17, 2002, and
Aug. 4, 2008, have three years to file claims with the NCAA, the
report notes.


NYMEX HOLDINGS: Cataldo Capozza Explains Proxy Supplement
---------------------------------------------------------
Cataldo J. Capozza, an original member and shareholder of NYMEX
Holding, Inc., who filed a class action lawsuit on March 17,
2008, in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of all NYMEX
shareholders, announced his decision not to seek to enjoin the
upcoming shareholder vote on the proposed sale of NYMEX to CME
Group, Inc., after the filing by CME of the Definitive
Additional Materials (Proxy Supplement) on August 7, 2008, in
connection with the proposed sale.

"I am firmly in favor of informed shareholder choice, and the
additional disclosures CME has made, which incorporated many of
my own proposals, give shareholders more meaningful information
to cast their vote.  I decided not to seek an injunction because
CME and NYMEX agreed to make disclosures I said were missing
from the proxy statement," Mr. Capozza said.

Mr. Capozza also announced his decision not to challenge, by
preliminary injunction, the validity or enforceability of the
Waiver and Release that Class A Members are required to sign to
collect payment for their rights under Exchange Bylaw 311(G).
Capozza intends to challenge the validity and enforceability of
the Waiver and Release in court.

"My action should not be construed as an endorsement of the
terms of this deal," Mr. Capozza said.  "To the contrary," he
added, "we will continue our effort in the Delaware Chancery
Court to contest the adequacy of the process leading up to the
proposed sale and the fairness of the price to be paid by CME if
the sale is approved by the shareholders and the members of the
Exchange."

According to Mr. Capozza, "We cleared an important hurdle today,
but we have not reached the finish line.  I still believe NYMEX
has considerable stand-alone value and is worth more to CME than
CME is paying.  Our Chairman, Richie Schaeffer, valued NYMEX at
$14 billion just one year ago.  NYSE Euronext was prepared to
offer $142 a share at the time.  Since then, NYMEX has posted
quarter after quarter of record results.  Unfortunately, because
of how Richie Schaeffer negotiated the deal, the value to NYMEX
shareholders has fallen by about 50 percent.  Meanwhile, Richie
Schaeffer, Jim Newsome, and the other senior managers of NYMEX
stand to pocket $65 million in severance payments.  They have
put us in a position where we have to choose between bad
management and a bad deal.  In my opinion, selling the company
in a bear market is too high a price to pay for bad management."

He added, "If the shareholders approve the sale, we will seek
damages to compensate the shareholders for billions of dollars
NYMEX management left on the table.  However, if the
shareholders vote down the sale (and vote AGAINST this deal),
our efforts will be directed to replacing management, developing
a new trading platform that will be second to none while we
maintain our business relationship with CME, and making sure
that NYMEX regains its position as the world's best commodities
marketplace.  That would be a much better use of the $65 million
that Richie Schaeffer, Jim Newsome, and the rest of our
'leadership' would be paid."

The Proxy Supplement contains important information about the
history of the merger and the way it was negotiated that was
missing from the proxy statement filed by CME on July 21, 2008.
Capozza urges all NYMEX shareholders to read the Proxy
Supplement carefully and to vote only after they have considered
all relevant information. Shareholders who have already voted
may change their votes any time before August 18, 2008.

                           Case Background

On March 17, 2008, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action suit in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware on behalf of shareholders of NYMEX Holdings, against
NYMEX, Richard Schaeffer, certain other directors and officers
of the company, and CME Group for breach of fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed sale of NYMEX to CME (Class Action
Reporter, March 19, 2008).

The complaint alleges that the director-defendants, aided and
abetted by NYMEX and CME, breached their fiduciary duties to
Mr. Capozza -- an original member and shareholder -- and the
other NYMEX shareholders by agreeing to sell NYMEX to CME for
grossly inadequate consideration.

The complaint also alleges that the proposed acquisition was
negotiated through a process that was fundamentally flawed.

In August 2007, NYMEX Chairman Richard Schaeffer valued NYMEX at
$14 billion.  Five months later, in January 2008, he negotiated
the sale to CME valuing NYMEX at $11 billion.  Now, despite
record results reported by NYMEX, the sale deal is worth only
$7 billion because of the sharp decline in the price of CME
stock.

Mr. Capozza is currently seeking a substantial improvement to
the terms of the proposed sale.

The suit is "Capozza v. NYMEX Holdings, Inc., et al.," filed
before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. (rifkin@whafh.com)
           Rachel Poplock, Esq. (poplock@whafh.com)
           Wolf Haldenstein
           270 Madison Avenue
           New York, NY 10016
           Phone: 212-545-4600


PERINI CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Mass. Over Tutor-Saliba Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP, disclosed that a class action lawsuit was
commenced in the Massachusetts Superior Court on June 17, 2008,
on behalf of shareholders of Perini Corp. against the Company,
Tutor-Saliba Corporation, and the individual members of Perini's
Board of Directors.

Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
April 2, 2008, as amended, in exchange for all the outstanding
stock of Tutor-Saliba, Tutor-Saliba shareholders will receive a
total of 22,987,293 shares of Perini common stock, representing
approximately 45% of the outstanding Perini common stock
following the completion of the transaction.

The Merger has been approved by Perini's Board of Directors but
requires the approval of Perini's common stockholders.  Such
shareholder approval, among other matters, is being sought by
the Perini Board of Directors at the Perini annual meeting of
shareholders that will be held on September 5, 2008.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, various disclosure
violations in the proxy statements issued by Perini in
connection with the Merger between Perini and Tutor-Saliba.

The plaintiff has alleged that Perini's shareholders are being
denied their fundamental right to make an informed decision on
whether to vote for or against the Merger.  Additionally, the
Complaint alleges that the Merger was agreed to without any
market check and that the Company's financial advisor is
conflicted.

The plaintiff intends to seek injunctive relief, inter alia,
enjoining the shareholder vote scheduled for September 5, 2008,
until additional information is provided in the proxy materials
concerning the Merger.

For more information, contact:

           Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
           Bull & Lifshitz, LLP
           18 East 41st Street, 11th Floor
           New York, NY 10017
           Phone: 212-213-6222
           Fax: 212-213-9405


PROPERTY ID: Settles Lawsuit with Housing Department for $35MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has settled
its federal lawsuit under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act against Property I.D. Corporation, a large hazard reporting
company in California, Realogy Corporation, Cendant Corporation
(now known as Avis Budget Group, Inc.) and Coldwell Banker
Residential Brokerage Corporation.

The settlement will conclude with the filing of Consent Orders
in the Central District of California that will require the
companies to treat hazard disclosure reports as settlement
services and not resume operations of any hazard report
companies alleged by HUD to be shams.

Reflected in the settlement is a landmark ruling by the judge in
the case that HUD has the authority to seek a permanent
injunction and disgorgement of illegal profits from the
companies under RESPA.

A settlement in a related federal class action lawsuit requires
the companies to pay up to a combined $35 million dollars, much
of it to California consumers who purchased hazard disclosure
reports as far back as 1996.  HUD determined that its request
for an accounting and disgorgement of illegal profits in its
lawsuit will be satisfied through the defendants' payments to
consumers in the settlement of this private action filed under
RESPA.  As part of the settlement with HUD, Property I.D. and
the Realogy-related companies agree that they will pay
$7.5 million and up to $27 million, respectively.

HUD alleged that Property I.D. Corporation of Los Angeles made
improper payments to large real estate brokers in California
based on the referral of consumers to Property I.D. Such
referral-based payments are kickbacks and prohibited under
Section 8 of RESPA.

"I am extremely pleased the court agreed that HUD has the
authority to seek injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits
illegally received through kickback schemes in violation of
RESPA," said Brian Montgomery, HUD's Assistant Secretary for
Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner.  "This settlement
should be a warning to anyone who sets up sham affiliated
business arrangements designed to collect improper referral
fees, that HUD is willing and able to seek these remedies in
federal court."

RESPA was enacted in 1974 to provide consumers advance
disclosures of settlement charges and to prohibit illegal
kickbacks and unearned fees in the homebuying process.  Section
8 of the law prohibits a person from giving or accepting
anything of value in exchange for the referral of settlement
service business.

California state law requires home sellers or their agents to
disclose whether property is located within hazardous areas
including those prone to flooding, fires or earthquakes.
Consequently, California companies today provide "Natural Hazard
Disclosure Statements" to meet this state requirement.

Last year, HUD initiated this lawsuit after HUD's investigation
found that Property I.D. formed a number of sham affiliations
with real estate brokers.  These joint ventures did not actually
produce hazard disclosure reports and appeared to exist solely
for the purpose of funneling payments in exchange for the
brokers' referrals of business.  The joint ventures were all
located at the hazard reporting company's Los Angeles address,
had no employees of their own, and shared bank accounts.

The Department further discovered that the referring brokers
used a variety of methods to get their agents and franchisees to
refer customers to Property I.D. including:

      -- providing pre-printed listing contracts with Property
         I.D. pre-selected as the provider of the hazard
         disclosure report;

      -- giving branch managers a portion of the referral fee in
         their bonuses;

      -- implementing a mandatory policy that advised buyers to
         purchase Property I.D. hazard disclosure reports even
         though the buyer has no liability under California law;

      -- paying a portion of agent liability insurance when
         Property I.D. hazard disclosure reports were used.

In return for these referrals, the brokers were paid through
quarterly payments, $25 per report, or one-quarter of the total
report's cost.  The sham affiliated businesses did not provide
hazard disclosure reports to non-referred customers and shared
in profits based solely on the number of referrals made to
Property I.D.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) --
http://www.hud.gov-- is the nation's housing agency committed
to increasing homeownership, particularly among minorities;
creating affordable housing opportunities for low-income
Americans; and supporting the homeless, elderly, people with
disabilities and people living with AIDS.  The Department also
promotes economic and community development and enforces the
nation's fair housing laws.


PROSOURCE PERFORMANCE: Sued Over Warning Labels in Protein Bars
---------------------------------------------------------------
ProSource Performance Products and The Vitamin Shoppe are facing
a class-action complaint before the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Kings, over allegations that the
companies fail to include a warning label that Supreme Protein
Bars contain seafood or seafood derivatives, causing severe
allergic reactions, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff in the case demands judgment in a sum that exceeds
the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with
interest from May 24, 2007, plus the costs and disbursements of
this action.

The suit is "Mark A. Faraci, et al. v. Prosource Performance
Products, Inc.," filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Kings.

Representing the plaintiff is:

           David Scott, Esq.
           Paul Bledka, 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor
           New York, NY 10165
           Phone: 212-661-0001


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: To Pay $40M More to Settle Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc. has agreed to pay an
extra $40 million to settle a class-action securities fraud
lawsuit filed by shareholders, Examiner.com reports, citing a
regulatory filing by the company with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In addition, former Qwest Chief Executive Officer Joe Nacchio
and former Chief Financial Officer Robert Woodruff would
contribute a total of $5-million out of insurance proceeds,
according to the filing.

Examiner.com notes that the stipulation, which needs federal
court approval, was signed on August 4 and disclosed in Qwest's
second quarter report.

The report recounts that U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn
had approved a $400-million settlement in 2006.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 3, 2006, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted
final approval to the $400-million settlement -- $100 million of
which was deposited in an escrow account after preliminary
approval of the deal, $100 million deposited after final
approval, and $200 million deposited on Jan. 15, 2007, plus
interest at 3.75% per annum on the $200 million between the date
of final approval by the court and the date of payment.

However, Examiner.com relates, Mr. Nacchio and Mr. Woodruff were
excluded from this $400-million settlement.  The two appealed
and said Qwest was required contractually to indemnify them from
civil lawsuits.

In January this year, a three-judge appellate panel ordered
Judge Blackburn to more fully explain why he decided to leave
Mr. Nacchio and Mr. Woodruff exposed to further litigation.

Qwest spokeswoman Diane Reberger told Examiner.com that the
company is "settling this matter to resolve the risks it
presents and allow the prior settlement to go forward without
further delay."

Nelson Phelps, executive director of the Association of U.S.
West Retirees, called the development positive.  "Anything Qwest
can do to reduce future liabilities is a good thing, and to get
anything out of Nacchio and Woodruff is also a good thing," Mr.
Phelps said.

Qwest and U.S. West closed their merger in 2000, Examiner.com
recalls.  Qwest said it could terminate the agreement if a
certain number of plaintiffs opt out of the settlement.

                         Case Background

Originally, 12 putative class action lawsuits were brought
against Qwest Communications on behalf of purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities between May 24, 1999, and
Feb. 14, 2002.  The suits were consolidated as one class action
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The suits allege, among other things, that the defendants issued
false and misleading financial results and made false statements
about the company's business and investments, including making
materially false statements in certain of the company's
registration statements.

On Nov. 23, 2005, the company and certain other defendants, and
the putative class representatives entered into and filed with
the court a Stipulation of Partial Settlement to settle the
consolidated securities action against the company and certain
other defendants.

On Jan. 5, 2006, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement and certifying a settlement
class on behalf of purchasers of the company's publicly traded
securities between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002.

The suit is "New England Health, et al. v. Qwest Comm. Int'l.
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-01451-REB-CBS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Robert
E. Blackburn, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Dyer & Shuman, LLP
           801 East 17th Avenue
           Denver, CO 80218-1417
           Phone: 303-861-3003
           Fax: 800-711-6483
           e-mail: info@dyershuman.com

           Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
           2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204
           West Palm Beach, FL 33409
           Phone: 561-712-8000
           e-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net

           Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP
           600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Phone: 800-449-4900
           e-mail: support@milberg.com

           Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
           655 West Broadway, #1900
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Phone: 619-231-1058
           Fax: 619-231-7423
           Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com


REDDY ICE: Investors' Bid as Lead Plaintiff Due on Oct. 7
---------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, reminds shareholders that October 7,
2008, is the deadline for them to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities fraud class action lawsuit pending
with the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., between August 10, 2005 and
March 6, 2008, inclusive.

Reddy Ice and certain of the Company's officers and directors
are charged with making a series of materially false and
misleading statements related to the Company's business and
operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In particular, the complaint alleges that Reddy Ice violated
United States antitrust laws and recognized significant revenues
as the result of such illegal activities.

On March 6, 2008, Reddy Ice announced that "federal officials
executed a search warrant at the Company's corporate office in
Dallas" the day before.

For more information, contact:

           Lewis Kahn, Esq. (Lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
           Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
           650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
           New Orleans, LA 701
           Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Awaits Summary Judgment in Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on motions for summary judgment filed in connection with
a consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Schering-
Plough Corp.

Following the company's announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration had been conducting inspections of the company's
manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had
issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with
current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were
filed against the company and certain named officers.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material
information and making material misstatements.

Specifically, they allege that the company failed to disclose an
alleged serious risk that a new drug application for CLARINEX
would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing issues, and
they allege that the company failed to disclose the alleged
depth and severity of its manufacturing issues (Class Action
Reporter, March 22, 2007).

These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001,
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
shares of company stock from May 9, 2000, through Feb. 15, 2001.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.

The court certified the shareholder class on Oct. 10, 2003.
Notice of pendency of the class action was sent to members of
that class in July 2007.

Discovery has been completed, and motions for summary judgment
have been briefed and are pending.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 1,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:01cv829," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Katharine S. Hayden, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Robert J. Berg, Esq. (berg@bernlieb.com)
           Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
           2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200
           Fort Lee, NJ 07024
           Phone: 201-592-3201

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

           Andrew Robert Jacobs, Esq. (ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com)
           Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia Jacobs & Sprouls
           245 Green Village Road
           P.O. Box 901
           Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901
           Phone: 973-593-4900

                - and -

           Justin F. Johnson, Esq. (jfj.lejlaw@attglobal.net)
           Lunga, Evers & Johnson, Esqs.
           710 Route 46E, Suite 100
           Fairfield, NJ 07004
           Phone: 973-227-4200

Representing the defendant is:

           Douglas Scott Eakeley, Esq. (deakeley@lowenstein.com)
           Lowenstein Sandler, PC
           65 Livingston Avenue
           Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
           Phone: 973-597-2500


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Still Faces Savings Plan Members' Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. and a company executive continue to face a
breach of fiduciary duty suit that remains pending with the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The suit was filed on March 31, 2003, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty against the company, the company's Employee
Savings Plan administrator, and Richard Jay Kogan, who resigned
as chairman of the board on Nov. 13, 2002, and stepped down as
chief executive officer, president and director of the company
on April 20, 2003.

In May 2003, the company was served with a second putative class
action complaint filed before the same court with allegations
nearly identical to the complaint filed March 31, 2003.

On Oct. 6, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
which names as additional defendants seven current and former
directors and other corporate officers of the company.

The amended complaint seeks damages in the amount of losses
allegedly suffered by the Plan.  The court dismissed this
complaint on June 29, 2004, and shortly thereafter, the
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.

On Aug. 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
reversed the dismissal by the district court and the matter was
remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Zhu, et al. v. Schering Plough Corp, et al., Case
No. 2:03-cv-01204-KSH-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Judge Katharine S. Hayden,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. (jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com)
           Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
           Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
           Newark, NJ 07102-5003
           Phone: 973-623-3000

           Peter Houghton Levan, Jr., Esq. (plevan@hangley.com)
           Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
           20 Brace Road, Suite 201
           Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-2634
           Phone: 856-616-2100

           Susan D. Pontoriero, Esq. (sdp@njfamilylawyers.com)
           The Pontoriero Law Firm
           Brook 35 Plaza, Premier Executive Suites
           2150 Highway 35, Suite 250
           Sea Girt, NJ 08750
           Phone: 732-785-9700
           Fax: 732-785-9760

Representing the defendants is:

           Douglas Scott Eakeley, Esq. (deakeley@lowenstein.com)
           Lowenstein Sandler PC
           65 Livingston Avenue
           Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
           Phone: 973-597-2500


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Continues in K-DUR Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in several purported antitrust class
action lawsuits filed before the federal and state courts
against Schering-Plough Corp. with regards to the drug K-DUR.

Schering-Plough had settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith,
Inc., and ESI Lederle, Inc., relating to generic versions of
K-DUR, Schering-Plough's long-acting potassium chloride product
supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and
Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications.

Following the commencement of a Federal Trade Commission
administrative proceeding alleging anti-competitive effects from
those settlements, alleged class action suits were filed in
federal and state courts on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of K-DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and
Lederle.

These suits claim violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of
action.

These suits seek unspecified damages.  Discovery in connection
with the suits is currently ongoing.

The company reported no further development in the matters in
its Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com/-- is a
global science-based healthcare company with prescription,
consumer and animal health products.  Through internal research
and collaborations with business partners, Schering-Plough
discovers, develops, manufactures and markets advanced drug
therapies.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Lawsuits Over VYTORIN, ZETIA and ENHANCE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. is facing several purported class-action
suits in connection with the sale and promotion of the VYTORIN,
ZETIA, and ENHANCE products, according to the company's From
10-Q Aug. 1, 2008 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Since mid-January 2008, Schering-Plough has become aware of or
been served with litigation, including:

        -- civil class-action lawsuits alleging common law and
           state consumer fraud claims in connection with
           Schering-Plough's sale and promotion of the Merck &
           Co., Inc./Schering-Plough joint-venture products'
           VYTORIN and ZETIA;

        -- several putative shareholder securities class action
           lawsuits (where several officers are also named
           defendants) alleging false and misleading statements
           and omissions by Schering-Plough and its
           representatives related to the timing of disclosures
           concerning the ENHANCE results, allegedly in violation
           of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
           Exchange Act of 1934;

        -- a putative shareholder securities class action lawsuit
           (where several officers and directors are also named),
           alleging material misstatements and omissions related
           to the ENHANCE results in the offering documents in
           connection with Schering-Plough's 2007 securities
           offerings, allegedly in violation of the Securities
           Act of 1933, including Section 11; and

        -- several putative class action suits alleging that
           Schering-Plough and certain officers and directors
           breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA and
           seeking damages in the amount of losses allegedly
           suffered by the Plans.

Schering-Plough Corp. -- http://www.schering-plough.com/-- is a
global science-based healthcare company with prescription,
consumer and animal health products.  Through internal research
and collaborations with business partners, Schering-Plough
discovers, develops, manufactures and markets advanced drug
therapies.


SKYY SPIRITS: California Suit Alleges Over-Patriotic Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skyy Spirits LLC is facing a class-action complaint before the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego,
accusing it of inaccurately labeling its Skyy vodka as a
"Product of the U.S.A.," when the distinctive cobalt-blue
bottles are made in factories in Mexico, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

According to the complaint, California law prohibits the sale of
any merchandise on which the merchandise or on its container,
there appears the words "Made in America," "Product of U.S.A.,"
or similar words when the merchandise or any article, unit or
part thereof has been entirely or substantially made outside of
the United States.

Furthermore, the use of deceptive designations of geographic
origin (such as the designation, "Product of USA" on non-
American made products) is also prohibited in California.

Consumers say the false and misleading label violates laws meant
to protect consumers "from being misled when they purchase
products in the belief that they are advancing the interests of
the United States and its industries and workers."

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Section 382 on behalf of two ascertainable classes:

      (1) The CLRA class consists of all persons who purchased in
          California during the class period Skyy vodka packaged,
          advertised or marked "Product of USA" for personal,
          family or household purposes.  The class period is
          defined as the period of time beginning three years
          prior to the date of filing the complaint through the
          date of class certification.

      (2) The Unfair Competition Law class consists of all
          persons who purchased in California during the class
          period Skyy vodka packaged, advertised, or marked
          "Product of USA."  The class period is defined as the
          period of time beginning four years prior to the date
          of filing of the complaint through the date of class
          certification.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

      (a) whether each class member purchased the subject product
          from defendant;

      (b) whether defendant used false, misleading, and/or
          deceptive labeling in the origin of the subject
          product; and

      (c) whether defendant's conduct of labeling the subject
          product as a "Product of USA" constitutes violations of
          California Civil Code Section 1770(a)(4) and Business
          and Professions Code Sections 17200, 17500 and 17533.5.

The object of these laws is to protect consumers from being
misled when they purchase products in the belief that they are
advancing the interests of the United States and its industries
and workers.

The suit is "Jennifer Marin, et al. v. Skyy Spirits LLC, Case
No. 37-2008-00057115-CU-BT-NC," filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California, County of San Diego.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Neil B. Fineman, Esq.
           Fineman & Associates
           19713 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 570
           Yorba Linda, CA 92886
           Phone: 714-620-1125
           Fax: 714-701-0155


SOUTHERN COPPER: Still Faces Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp. continues to face a consolidated class
action derivative lawsuit filed before the Delaware Court of
Chancery, New Castle County, over the company's acquisition of
Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V.

Late in December 2004 and early January 2005, several actions
were filed against the company.  On Jan. 31, 2005, three suits
were consolidated into one action, "In Re Southern Copper
Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
961-N."

These three suits were:

      1. "Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corp., et al., Civil
         Action No. 961-N,"

      2. "Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and
         Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 969-N,"
         and

      3. "James Sousa v. Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil
         Action No. 978-N."

The complaint filed in "Lemon Bay" was designated as the
operative complaint in the consolidated lawsuit.  The
consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
company's common stockholders.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the transaction is the
result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the company's
directors and is not entirely fair to the company and its
minority stockholders.

The suit seeks, among other things, a preliminarily and
permanent injunction to enjoin the transaction, the award of
damages to the class, the award of damages to the company and
such other relief that the court deems equitable, including
interest, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Southern Copper Corp. -- http://www.southernperu.com/-- is an
integrated copper producer.  The Company produces copper,
molybdenum, zinc and silver.  All of its mining, smelting and
refining facilities are located in Peru and in Mexico, and it
conducts exploration activities in those countries and Chile.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., continues to face a purported
class action lawsuit captioned, "Harkness et al. v. The Boeing
Company et al.," which was filed before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas on Feb. 16, 2007.

The defendants were served with the suit in early April 2007.
Spirit AeroSystems, The Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for
IBEW, WEU and WTPU Employees and The Spirit AeroSystems
Retirement Plan for IAM Employees, along with The Boeing Co.,
and Boeing retirement and health plan entities, were sued by 12
former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or are employees of
Spirit.

The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and general contract law
and purport to bring the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly-situated individuals.

The putative sub-class members who have asserted claims against
the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005,
were employed by Boeing Aircraft Co. in Wichita, Kansas, and who
were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had at least 10
years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in a job
represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55 and
who went to work for Spirit on June 17, 2005.

Although there are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities are that the Spirit plans
wrongfully have failed to determine that certain plaintiffs are
entitled to early retirement "bridging rights" allegedly
triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing and that
the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully transferred
from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early retirement
"bridging rights" are not being afforded these individuals as a
result of their separation from Boeing, thereby decreasing their
benefits.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class, declaration that
they are entitled to the early retirement benefits, an
injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits,
payment of damages pursuant to breach of contract claims, and
payment of attorneys' fees.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2008.

The suit is "Harkness et al. v. Boeing et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-
01043-WEB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, Judge Wesley E. Brown, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas E. Hammond, Esq. (tehammond1@yahoo.com)
          Hammond, Zongker & Farris, L.L.C.
          727 North Waco, Ste. 200, P. O. Box 47370
          Wichita, KS 67201
          Phone: 316-262-6800
          Fax: 316-262-3770

               - and -

          Keira M. McNett, Esq. (kmcnett@dcbwash.com)
          Davis, Cowell & Bowe LLP
          1701 K. Street NW, Ste. 210
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-223-2620
          Fax: 202-223-8651

Representing the defendants are:

          Gregory L. Ash, Esq. (gash@spencerfane.com)
          Spencer Fane Britt & Browne
          40 Corporate Woods, Ste. 700, 9401 Indian Creek Parkway
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Phone: 913-345-8100
          Fax: 913-345-0736

               - and -

          James M. Armstrong, Esq. (jarmstrong@foulston.com)
          Foulston Siefkin LLP
          1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100
          Wichita, KS 67206-4466
          Phone: 316-291-9576
          Fax: 316-267-6345


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Roadhouse, Inc., continues to face a consolidated class-
action suit in Illinois that generally allege violations of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 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 24, 2008.

Initially two lawsuits were filed.  The suits are:

      1. "Nicole M. Ehrheart v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., and Does 1
         through 10, Case No. CA 07-54," which was filed against
         the company before the U.S. District Court for the
         Western District of Pennsylvania on March 26, 2007; and

      2. "Mario Aliano v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC, Texas
         Roadhouse, Inc., and Does 1-10, Case No. 07cv4108,"
         which was filed against the company before the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
         July 20, 2007.

Both suits allege that the company willfully violated the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act based on the alleged
practice of unlawfully including more information than is
permitted on the electronically printed credit or debit card
receipts provided to customers.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and a
permanent injunction against the alleged unlawful practice.

On April 7, 2008, the cases were consolidated by the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois as "In re: Texas
Roadhouse FACTA Litigation, Case Number 1:08-cv-2362. MDL No.
1927."

While the company has denied the plaintiffs' material
allegations, discovery has not yet begun.

Statutory damages range from $100 to $1,000 for each willful
violation of FACTA, and actual damages are available to
plaintiffs for each negligent violation of FACTA.

The suit is "In re: Texas Roadhouse FACTA Litigation, Case
Number 1:08-cv-2362. MDL No. 1927," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Charles R.
Norgle, Sr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Gary F. Lynch, Esq. (glynch@carlsonlynch.com)
           Carlson Lynch Ltd.
           36 N. Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 7635
           New Castle, PA 16107
           Phone: 724-656-1555

Representing the defendants are:

           Peter M. Cummins, Esq. (pcummins@fbtlaw.com)
           Frost Brown Todd LLC
           400 West Market Street, 32nd Floor
           Louisville, KY 40202
           Phone: 502-779-8190

                - and -

           W. Patrick Delaney, Esq.
           MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton
           100 State Street, Suite 700
           Erie, PA 16507-1459
           Phone: 814-870-7658
           Fax: 814-454-4647


TREMONT FINANCIAL: To Pay Law Students $60,000 to Settle Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Internet payday lender Tremont Financial LLC would pay $60,000
and refrain from making loans to any Wisconsin consumers under a
preliminary settlement in a class-action case brought by
University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School students and the
school's Consumer Law Litigation Clinic, Dennis Chaptman writes
for University of Wisconsin-Madison University Communications.

The suit alleges that Tremont Financial's loan contracts
violated certain provisions of Wisconsin's Consumer Act and
other common law provisions.  Tremont Financial denied the
allegations and has not admitted liability, the report notes.

According to Mr. Chaptman's report, Dane County Circuit Court
Judge Sarah O'Brien gave the deal interim approval in late July.
The settlement involves loans that up to 137 state residents
received from Tremont Financial between Nov. 1, 2004, and
Dec. 20, 2007.

As part of the proposed settlement, Tremont Financial would
release all class members from the obligation to pay outstanding
loans and contact credit-reporting agencies to seek the deletion
of any adverse information it may have reported about any class
member.  In return, all claims against Tremont Financial would
be dropped.

Established in 1991, the Consumer Law Litigation Clinic trains
students in civil litigation, provides client service and
advocates in the public interest, the report explains.  The
clinic has provided legal services to lower income clients while
providing law students the opportunity for real-world training.

The clinic handles individual and class action lawsuits in state
and federal courts covering a variety of consumer protection
issues, including misrepresentation and fraud, credit scams,
predatory lending, bad faith denial of insurance claims, anti-
trust violations, unfair debt collection practices and "fringe
banking" abuses by rent-to-own and payday loan companies.

"We are pleased that we were able to reach this agreement. It's
a good result for members of the class and for Wisconsin
consumers," Sarah Orr, director of the clinic, told Mr.
Chaptman.  "Beyond that, it provided meaningful, hands-on
litigation work for the students involved."


TYSON FOODS: Sept. 16 Trial Slated for FLSA Lawsuit in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 16, 2008 trial is scheduled for the class action lawsuit
captioned "Emily D. Jordan, et al. v. IBP, Inc. and Tyson Foods,
Inc.," which was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee.

On Nov. 21, 2002, ten current and former hourly employees of
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.'s (formerly IBP, Inc.) case-ready
facility in Goodlettsville, Tennessee, on behalf of themselves,
and other unspecified and "similarly situated" employees, claim
that the defendants have violated the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit alleges that defendants failed to pay employees for all
hours worked from the plant's commencement of operations in
April 2001.

In particular, the suit alleges that employees should be paid
for the time it takes to collect, assemble and put on, take off
and wash their health, safety and production gear at the
beginning and end of their shifts and during their meal period.

The suit also alleges that the company deducts 30 minutes per
day from employees' paychecks regardless of whether employees
obtain a full 30-minute period for their meal.

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the defendants did
not comply with the FLSA, and an award for an unspecified amount
of back pay compensation and benefits, unpaid entitlements,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorney fees and costs.

On Jan. 15, 2003, the company filed an answer to the complaint,
denying any liability.

On Jan. 14, 2003, the named plaintiffs filed a motion for
expedited court-supervised notice to prospective class members.

The motion sought to conditionally certify a class of similarly
situated employees at all of TFM's non-union facilities that
have not been the subject of FLSA litigation.

The plaintiffs then withdrew a request for conditional
certification of similarly situated employees at all of TFM's
non-union facilities and rather sought to include all non-exempt
employees that have worked at the Goodlettsville facility since
its opening.

On June 9, 2003, the company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
seeking the applicability of the injunction entered by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas and affirmed by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit "(Metzler v. IBP,
inc. 127 F. 3rd 959, 10th Cir. 1997)," which the Company
contends has a preclusive effect as to the plaintiffs' claims
based on pre- and post-shift activities.

The plaintiffs conducted discovery limited to that issue and
responded to the company's Motion for Summary Judgment on
June 18, 2004.  The company's Motion was subsequently denied by
the District Court in October 2004.

On Nov. 17, 2003, the District Court conditionally certified a
collective action based on clothes changing and washing
activities and unpaid production work during meal periods, since
the plant operations began in April 2001.

Approximately 573 current and former employees have opted into
the class.

On Aug. 20, 2007, both parties filed motions for summary
judgment.

Trial was again rescheduled and is now set to begin on Sept. 16,
2008.

The suit is "Jordan, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-
CV-1132," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Judge Aleta A. Trauger, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          144 Second Avenue North, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: 615-250-2000

               - and -

          Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Heidi R. Burakiewicz, Esq.
          Woodley & McGillivary
          1125 15th Street, NW Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-833-8855

Representing the defendants are:

          John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Esq.
          Jonathan Jacob Cole, Esq.
          Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
          Commerce Center, 211 Commerce Street, Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: 615-726-5600

               - and -

          Michael John Mueller, Esq.
          Joel Mark Cohn, Esq.
          Evangeline G. Paschal, Esq.
          Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
          1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-887-4000


TYSON FOODS: Sup. Ct. Denies Certiorari Petition in "De Asencio"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari
that was filed by Tyson Foods, Inc., in connection with an
earlier ruling issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit in the matter "De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc."

The suit was filed on Aug. 22, 2000, before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that
the defendants failed to compensate poultry plant employees for
all hours worked, including overtime compensation, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit contends that employees should be paid for the time it
takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as
changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing,
obtaining clothing and walking to and from the changing area,
work areas and break areas.

The plaintiff seeks or has sought to act as class
representatives on behalf of all current and former employees
who were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek back wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 22, 2006, the plaintiff appealed a jury verdict and
final judgment entered in the company's favor.

On Sept. 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case to the
District Court for further proceedings.  The company sought
rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on
Oct. 5, 2007.

The company then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.  The U.S. Supreme
Court denied the company's petition on June 9, 2008.

The suit is "De Asencio et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No.
00-cv-04294-RK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Robert F. Kelly,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Thomas J. Elliott, Esq. (tje@elliottgreenleaf.com)
           Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski, P.C.
           925 Harvest Drive, Suite 300
           P.O. Box 3010
           Blue Bell, PA 19422
           Phone: 215-977-1000
           Fax: 215-977-1099

           Brian P. Kenney, Esq. (briankenney@kle-law.com)
           Kenney Lennon & Egan
           3031C Walton Rd., Suite 202
           Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
           Phone: 610-940-9099

                - and -

           Robert J. O'Shea, Jr., Esq. (robertosheajr@aol.com)
           1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 200
           Philadelphia, PA 19102
           Phone: 215-636-0990

Representing the defendants is:

           James Lewis Griffith, Jr., Esq.
           (jgriffith@akingump.com)
           Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
           One Commerce Square
           2005 Market Street, Suite 2200
           Philadelphia, PA 19103
           Phone: 215-965-1200


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated FLSA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the matter, "In re: Tyson Foods, Inc.,
Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation, Case No. 4:07-md-01854-
CDL," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia, 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 28, 2008.

Lawsuits were filed against the company since the beginning of
fiscal 2007, alleging that the company failed to compensate
poultry plant employees for all hours worked, including overtime
compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

These lawsuits are:

        -- "Sheila Ackles, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (N. Dist.
           Alabama, Oct. 23, 2006);

        -- "McCluster, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (M. Dist.
           Georgia, Dec. 11, 2006);

        -- "Dobbins, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al." (N.
           Dist. Alabama, Dec. 21, 2006);

        -- "Buchanan, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al." (N.
           Dist. Alabama, Dec. 22, 2006);

        -- "Potter, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al." (N.
           Dist. Alabama, Dec. 22, 2006);

        -- "Jones, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al.," (S.
           Dist. Mississippi, Feb. 9, 2007)

        -- "Walton, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al." (S.
           Dist. Mississippi, Feb. 9, 2007)

        -- "Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al." (S.
           Dist. Mississippi, Feb. 9, 2007);

        -- "Balch, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (E. Dist.
           Oklahoma, March 1, 2007);

        -- "Adams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (W. Dist.
           Arkansas, March 2, 2007);

        -- "Atkins, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (M. Dist.
           Georgia, March 5, 2007);

        -- "Laney, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (M. Dist.
           Georgia, May 23, 2007); and

        -- "Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." (M. Dist.
           Georgia, May 23, 2007).

Each of these matters involves allegations that employees should
be paid for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift
activities such as changing into and out of protective and
sanitary clothing, obtaining clothing and walking to and from
the changing area, work areas and break areas.

The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek or have sought to
act as class representatives on behalf of all current and former
employees who were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek
back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees.

On April 6, 2007, the company filed a motion for transfer of the
lawsuits for coordinated pretrial proceedings before the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The motion for transfer was granted on Aug. 17, 2007.  The
cases, and five others, were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia, under the caption, "In
re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation."
The five additional cases are:

        -- "Armstrong, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W. Dist.
           Tennessee, Jan. 30, 2008);"

        -- "Maldonado, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E. Dist.
           Tennessee, Jan. 31, 2008);"

        -- "White, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E. Dist. Texas,
           Feb. 1, 2008);"

        -- "Meyer, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W. Dist.
           Missouri, Feb. 2, 2008);" and

        -- "Leak, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W. Dist. North
           Carolina, Feb. 6, 2008).

On Jan. 2, 2008, the judge in the MDL Proceedings issued a Joint
Scheduling and Case Management Order.  The Order granted
Conditional Class Certification and called for notice to be
given to potential putative class members via a third party
administrator.

The potential class members hdve until April 18, 2008, to "opt?
in" to the class.  Approximately 13,800 employees and former
employees filed their consents to "opt-in" to the class.

As of April 18, 2008, the parties began conducting discovery for
a period of 240 days at eight of the company's facilities and
its corporate headquarters in Springdale, Arkansas.  Discovery
may be conducted at additional facilities in the future.

The suit is "In re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act
Litigation, Case No. 4:07-md-01854-CDL," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Judge Clay D.
Land presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Lee & Braziel LLLP
          1801 N. Lamar St., Ste. 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Phone: 214-749-1400
          Fax: 214-749-1010

          Brandon J. Burton, Esq.
          Burton & Associates
          308 NW 13th Street Ste 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Phone: 405-232-0555
          Fax: 405-232-1849

          Robert J. Camp, Esq. (rcamp@cochranfirm.com)
          The Cochran Firm
          505 North 20th St Ste 825
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205-244-1115
          Fax: 205-244-1171

               - and -

          Richard Celler, Esq. (richard@cellerlegal.com)
          Morgan & Morgan
          7450 Griffin Rd., Ste. 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: 954-318-0268
          Fax: 954-333-3515


VALUECLICK INC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Third-Party Hijacking
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliate marketing giant ValueClick, Inc., and its wholly owned
subsidiaries -- Commission Junction, Inc., and Be Free --
(collectively called ValueClick) are facing a class-action
lawsuit alleging the companies engaged in breach of contract,
negligence and unfair business practices, Jake Michaels writes
for the Associated Content.

The class action claims that ValueClick has failed to maintain
adequate monitoring and prevention of third-party hijacking and
theft of commissions owed to legitimate affiliates of CJ.
Hijackers were able to successfully steal commissions from
legitimate affiliates by using software such as adware, the
report states.

The lawsuit alleges that ValueClick knowingly turned a blind eye
to such commission theft and transaction fraud, because they
stood to benefit financially by "looking the other way".

Westlake Village, Calif.-based ValueClick, Inc. offers a suite
of products and services that enable marketers to advertise and
sell their products through all major online marketing channels?
display advertising, lead generation marketing, email marketing,
search marketing, comparison shopping, and affiliate marketing.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CARMAX INC: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in Va.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of CarMax, Inc. common stock during the
period between April 2, 2008, and June 17, 2008, inclusive.

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

The class action complaint alleges that the defendants issued
false and misleading statements concerning CarMax's financial
performance and prospects. In particular, 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, defendants improperly failed to
disclose that:

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

     (ii) CarMax 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, the Company had no
          reasonable basis for its financial guidance for fiscal
          2009.

In the meantime, the individual defendants allegedly sold
365,816 shares of their personally-held CarMax common stock for
gross proceeds in excess of $7.6 million.

On June 18, 2008, the Company announced its financial results
for the first quarter of fiscal 2009, the period ended May 31,
2008.  CarMax also announced that it was suspending its
financial guidance for the rest of fiscal 2009.  In response,
the price of CarMax's common stock fell approximately 11%,
closing below $17.00 per share.

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


CARMAX INC: Brualdi Law Files Securities Fraud Suit in Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of CarMax Inc. common stock during the
period between April 2, 2008, and June 17, 2008, for violations
of federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges 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.

On June 18, 2008, the Company issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2009, the
period ended May 31, 2008.  The Company also announced that it
was suspending its financial guidance for the rest of fiscal
2009.  Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $2 per
share, or approximately 11%, to close at $16.34 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 5,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


COMPUCREDIT: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Georgia Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia against CompuCredit Corporation (NasdaqGS: CCRT) and
various individuals on behalf of purchasers of CompuCredit
securities who purchased between November 6, 2006, and June 9,
2008.

The complaint alleges CompuCredit issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results.  As a result of CompuCredit's false
statements, its stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching its Class Period high of
$40.61 per share on December 12, 2006.

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

      (a) the Company's assets contained millions of dollars
          worth of impaired and risky securities, many of which
          were backed by loans to subprime borrowers;

      (b) the Company was not adequately accounting for its
          provision for loan losses in violation of Generally
          Accepted Accounting Principles, causing its financial
          results to be materially misstated;

      (c) the Company's improper marketing and collection
          practices would lead to large fines and would harm the
          Company's future results;

      (d) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
          losses and defaults related to its subprime customers
          than it had previously disclosed;

      (e) given the deterioration in the market for asset-backed
          securities related to subprime consumers, the Company
          would be forced to reduce its lending operations due to
          liquidity concerns as it relied upon the sale of its
          asset-backed securities to fund its ongoing operations;
          and

      (f) given the increased volatility in the subprime market
          and increased level of delinquencies and defaults that
          CompuCredit was experiencing, the Company had no
          reasonable basis to make projections about its
          financial results.

For more information, contact:

           Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
           Eitan Kimelman
           Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
           60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
           New York, NY 10165
           Phone: 212-697-6484
           e-mail: eitan@bgandg.com


KKR FINANCIAL: Izard Nobel Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the common
stock of KKR Financial Holdings, LLC, pursuant to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
its May 4, 2007 merger and share issuance.

The Complaint charges that KKR and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially
false statements.  Specifically, it is alleged that, the
Registration Statement was false and misleading in that it
misrepresented and omitted material facts, including:

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

     (ii) 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

    (iii) 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.

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/


MF GLOBAL: Named Defendant in Weiss & Lurie N.Y. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Lurie filed a class action lawsuit
against MF Global, Ltd., and two individuals associated with it,
before the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired MF common stock between March 17, 2008, and
June 20, 2008.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges the
defendants' false statements caused MF stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of defrauded
investors who purchased MF Global securities.

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

For more information, contact:

           Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
           James E. Tullman, Esq.
           David C. Katz, Esq.
           Weiss & Lurie
           The French Building
           551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
           New York City, NY 10176
           Phone: 888-593-4771
                  212-682-3025
           e-mail: infony@weisslurie.com


NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., disclosed that a lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of NovaGold
Resources, Inc., common stock during the period between Oct. 25,
2006, and Nov. 23, 2007, for 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, the defendants falsely portrayed
NovaGold as a rapidly growing 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.

On October 25, 2006, 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.

However, 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 percent, to close on November 26, 2007 at $9.48 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 23,
2007, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


REDDY ICE: Coughlin Stoia Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of Reddy Ice
Holdings, Inc., common stock during the period between Aug. 10,
2005, and March 6, 2008.

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

Reddy Ice is the largest manufacturer and distributor of
packaged ice in the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects.

According to the complaint, from at least 2002 to the present,
defendants engaged in a continuing agreement, understanding and
conspiracy in restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix,
maintain or stabilize prices for packaged ice in the United
States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1.

Moreover, defendants divided up the packaged ice market so that
they would not compete with other packaged ice makers, such as
Arctic Glacier International, Inc., and Home City Ice Co.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Reddy Ice failed to
disclose that:

      (a) the Company was recognizing significant amounts of
          revenues derived from illegal activities in violation
          of the U.S. antitrust laws; and

      (b) as a result, the Company's financial statements were
          not a fair presentation of Reddy Ice's results and were
          presented in violation of U.S. Generally Accepted
          Accounting Principles and U.S. Securities and Exchange
          Commission rules.

On March 6, 2008, after the markets closed, Reddy Ice issued a
press release announcing that "federal officials executed a
search warrant at the Company's corporate office in Dallas on
March 5, 2008."  Upon this news, on the next trading day, shares
of the Company's stock fell $7.73 per share, or 33%, to close at
$15.38 per share, on heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Reddy Ice common stock during the class period.

For more information, contact:

           Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
           David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
           Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
           655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Phone: 800-449-4900
           e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., common units during the period
between July 17, 2007, and July 17, 2008, and on behalf of
purchasers of SGLP's common units acquired pursuant and
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with SGLP's Initial Public Offering completed on or
about July 23, 2007, as well as all purchasers of SGLP common
units acquired pursuant and traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with SGLP's
secondary offering completed on or about February 20, 2008.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.

SGLP owns and operates a diversified portfolio of midstream
energy assets, including storage facilities, terminals and
pipelines in the United States.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements and
Prospectuses issued in connection with the IPO and Secondary
Offering were materially false and misleading, and omitted
material information necessary to make the statements made, in
light of such material omissions, not materially false and
misleading.  In addition, during the Class Period, a continuous
course of conduct was undertaken that operated as a fraud and
deceit upon plaintiff and the Class.  Various untrue and
misleading statements of material facts were made, and material
facts necessary in order to make the statements made not
misleading, were omitted.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statements and
Prospectuses issued in connection with the IPO and Secondary
Offering and the statements made during the Class Period failed
to disclose the adverse financial condition and lack of
liquidity of SemGroup L.P. (SGLP's Parent, from whom SGLP
derives more than 80% of its revenue) as a result of its
speculative, dangerous and unauthorized hedging and trading in
crude oil.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of SGLP common units during the Class Period and all purchasers
of SGLP common units acquired pursuant and traceable to SGLP's
IPO and Secondary Offering Registration Statements and
Prospectuses.

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


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Named Defendant in Weiss & Lurie Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Lurie filed a class action lawsuit
against SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of common units between July 17, 2007, and
July 17, 2008, and on behalf of all purchasers of SGLP's common
units acquired pursuant and traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the
Partnership's Initial Public Offering completed on or about
July 23, 2007, as well as all purchasers of SGLP common units
acquired pursuant and traceable to the Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the Partnership's
Secondary Offering completed on or about February 20, 2008.

The complaint charges SGLP, certain of its executive officers
and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants' false and misleading
statements, which materially misrepresented the Company's
financial results, among other things, caused and maintained the
artificial inflation of the price of SGLP common units, and
caused those securities to trade at prices in excess of their
true value.

The complaint also alleges that defendants are strictly liable
for the materially false and misleading statements contained in
the Registration Statements and Prospectuses.

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

For more information, contact:

           Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
           James E. Tullman, Esq.
           David C. Katz, Esq.
           Weiss & Lurie
           The French Building
           551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
           New York City, NY 10176
           Phone: 888-593-4771
                  212-682-3025
           e-mail: infony@weisslurie.com


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., commenced a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on
behalf of purchasers of Zimmer Holdings, Inc., common stock
during the period between January 28, 2008, and July 21, 2008,
for violations of federal securities laws.

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

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

As a result of defendants' materially false and misleading
statements, Zimmer's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.  When the true
condition of the Company, its facilities, and its products began
to come to light, the price of Zimmer stock declined, falling
from $70.88 to $66.01 per share in one day.

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

For more information, contact:

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






                             *********

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

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

                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *