CAR_Public/080813.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 13, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 160

                             Headlines

ALLIED WASTE: Arizona Securities Lawsuit Dismissal Uncontested
AMERICAN ITALIAN: To Issue Shares Under $25-Mln. Suit Settlement
APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Still Faces Mo. Labor Code Violations Lawsuit
CIGNA CORP: Parties Appeal Connecticut Court Rulings in "Amara"
CITIGROUP INC: Wants Countrywide Securities Lawsuit Dismissed

CITIGROUP INC: Faces Several Lawsuits Over MAT Five Funds
CITIGROUP: Plaintiff's Injunction Request in Falcon Suit Denied
DELTA AIR: Handicapped Passenger Sues Airlines for Ill Treatment
DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: Hearing on Sex Crime Suit Set for Fall
FIMALAC SA: Lead Plaintiff Bids in Securities Suit Due Sept. 1

GANNETT CO: Colorado Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Lawsuit
GILEAD SCIENCES: 9th Circuit Reinstates Calif. Securities Suit
INTEL CORP: Still Faces Suits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Eleventh Circuit Mulls Appeals in OOIDA Lawsuit
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Claims Adjustment Lawsuit Gets Certified

MARICOPA COUNTY: Suit Over Inhumane Jail Treatment Resurrected
MICROSOFT: Live Hotmail Charges For Obnoxious Unwanted Messages
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Settles Ex-Worker's Lawsuit in California
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in Illinois
NCAA: Student Athletes Settle Antitrust Case in Calif. Court

NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Sept. 2, 2008 Hearing Set in Calif. Suit
NVR INC: Faces Multiple Overtime Wage Suits in Various States
PFIZER: Anti-Smoking Drug Chantix Causes Depression, Suit Says
PPL MONTANA: Court Rejects Proposed Deal in Asset Sale Lawsuit
RENT-A-CENTER: Sept. 8 Hearing for $11MM Labor Suit Deal Fixed

RENT-A-CENTER: Plaintiffs Fail to Appeal Dismissal of "Colon"
SWIFT TRUCKING: Court Gives Truck Drivers' Lawsuit Go-Ahead
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COS: Right-of-Way Suit Deal Gets Interim Nod
WELLS FARGO: Faces California Lawsuit Over Violation of Privacy
WILSHIRE ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuit Over NWJ Apartment Merger

XCEL ENERGY: Supreme Court Yet to Set Hearing Date for "Hoffman"
XCEL ENERGY: 5th Circuit Mulls Dismissal Appeal in Katrina Suit
XCEL ENERGY: Continues to Face Several Nev. Natural Gas Lawsuits

* 4 Attorneys Join Litigation Plaintiffs' Law Firm Motley Rice


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CARMAX INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Virginia
GT SOLAR: Kaplan Fox Files New Hampshire Securities Fraud Suit
REDDY ICE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in New York
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Brower Piven Files Ind. Securities Fraud Suit


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                            *********


ALLIED WASTE: Arizona Securities Lawsuit Dismissal Uncontested
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class-action
suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona against Allied Waste Industries, Inc., have not filed a
petition with the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the decision by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that affirmed
the dismissal of the case.

A consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed against
Allied Waste and five of its current and former officers on
March 31, 2005, consolidating three previously filed lawsuits.

The amended complaint asserted claims against all defendants
under Section 10 (b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and claims against the
officers under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act.

The complaint alleged that from Feb. 10 to Sept. 13, 2004, the
defendants caused false and misleading statements to be issued
in the company's public filings and public statements regarding
the company's anticipated results for fiscal year 2004.  The
lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On Dec. 15, 2005, at the company's behest, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the lawsuit, with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The appeal was fully briefed and
oral argument before the Court of Appeals was held on April 17,
2008.  On April 29, 2008, the Appeals Court affirmed the
dismissal with prejudice.

The due date for plaintiffs to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was July 28, 2008; the
company has not been served with such petition and the
plaintiffs' counsel stated that the plaintiffs did not file one,
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 "Steven Zack, et al. v. Allied Waste Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01640-MHM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge Judge Mary H.
Murguia, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com)
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd.
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

               - and -

          Richard Glenn Himelrick, Esq. (rgh@tblaw.com)
          Tiffany & Bosco, PA
          Camelback Esplanade II, 2525 E. Camelback Rd., 3rd Fl.
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: 602-255-6021
          Fax: 602-255-0103

Representing the defendants are:

          Shahzeb Lari, Esq. (shahzeb.lari@friedfrank.com)
          Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
          1 New York Plaza
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 1-212-859-8096
          Fax: 1-212-859-4000

               - and -

          Doug C. Northup, Esq. (dnorthup@fclaw.com)
          Fennemore Craig, P.C.
          3003 N. Central Ave., Ste. 2600
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913
          Phone: 602-916-5000
          Fax: 602-916-5562


AMERICAN ITALIAN: To Issue Shares Under $25-Mln. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Italian Pasta Co. (Pink Sheets: AITP) plans to issue
903,078 shares in the next month as part of a $25-million
settlement in "In re American Italian Pasta Corp. Securities
Litigation," which was brought on behalf of AIPC investors for
the period January 22, 2002, through August 17, 2005, the Kansas
City Business Journal reports.

The report recounts that shareholders have filed lawsuits
against American Italian since August 2005 when the firm started
reviewing its accounting practices.  The suits accuse the
company of improper inventory, underreporting marketing
allowances paid to distributors and improperly capitalizing
costs that should have been listed as expenses.

American Italian then said it is withdrawing financial results
for the last three years because they contained errors in
accounting for product promotion and overhead costs, Kansas City
Journal further recalls.

Seven suits were consolidated in December 2005 (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005).  In March, Judge Ortrie Smith granted
certification to the lawsuit designating three Iron Workers'
Union locals as lead plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter,
March 28, 2007).  The ironworkers' locals had employed Kent T.
Perry & Co. LC of Overland Park as local counsel.  Judge Smith
accepted Perry & Co.'s motion to make the New York law firm of
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross lead counsel.

In October 2007, American Italian entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with the lead plaintiffs in the securities class
action suit (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2007).

The settlement resolves federal securities law claims asserted
in the consolidated class action pending in federal court in
Kansas City, styled, "In re American Italian Pasta Company
Securities Litigation (Case No. 05-CV-0725-W-ODS)."  The federal
securities law claims will be settled for approximately
$25 million, comprised of $11 million in cash -- all of which
will be contributed by the Company's insurers -- and $14 million
in the Company's common shares.

The Stipulation applies to a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the Company's common shares on or after Jan. 23, 2002,
and who continued to hold such shares on Aug. 9, 2005, and
all persons who purchased the Company's common shares on or
after Aug. 10, 2005, who continued to hold such shares as of
Aug. 17, 2005.  Under the settlement, the Company's common
shares will be part of both the proposed fee award to
plaintiff's counsel and consideration to be distributed to the
class.

On Feb. 12, 2008, Judge Ortrie D. Smith of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri granted final
approval to the $25-million settlement (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 15, 2008).

Claims processing has recently been completed (Class Action
Reporter, July 2, 2008).

An Aug. 5 court order directing AIPC to issue the 903,078 shares
has a 30-day window for appeals, Kansas City Journal says.
After that, AIPC has 10 days to issue the shares.

AIPC will have about 20.26 million shares outstanding after
issuing the shares, based on the number of outstanding shares on
Aug. 8.

The suit is "In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Judge
Ortrie D. Smith, presiding.

The plaintiffs' lead counsel is:

           Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
           100 Park Avenue
           New York, NY 10017-5516
           Phone: 212-661-1100
           Fax: 212-661-8665
           Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com/


APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Still Faces Mo. Labor Code Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applebee's International, Inc., a restaurant concept that is
owned and operated by DineEquity, Inc., continues to face a
purported class action lawsuit in Missouri over alleged labor
code violations, according to DineEquity's Aug. 1, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

DineEquity is currently defending a collective action filed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act styled, "Gerald Fast v.
Applebee's International, Inc.," in which the named plaintiffs
claim that tipped workers in company restaurants perform
excessive amounts of non-tipped work for which they should be
compensated at the minimum wage.

The court has conditionally certified a nationwide class of
servers and bartenders who have worked in company-operated
Applebee's restaurants since June 19, 2004.

Unlike a class action, a collective action requires potential
class members to "opt in" rather than "opt out."

On Feb. 12, 2008, 5,540 opt-in forms were filed with the court.
Conditional certification is granted under a lenient standard
and the company will have an opportunity to have the class de-
certified following the close of discovery at the end of 2008.

The suit is "Fast v. Applebee's International, Inc., Case No.
2:06-cv-04146-NKL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Judge Nanette K. Laughrey,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Matthew A. Clement, Esq. (mclement@cvdl.net)
           Kari A. Schulte, Esq. (kschulte@cvdl.net)
           Timothy W. Van Ronzelen, Esq. (tvanronzelen@cvdl.net)
           Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C .
           231 Madison Street
           Jefferson City, MO 65101
           Phone: 573-635-7977
           Fax: 573-635-7414

                - and -

           Charles A. Gentry, Esq. (charles.g@carsoncoil.com)
           Brian K. Stumpe, Esq. (brian.s@carsoncoil.com)
           Carson & Coil, PC
           515 East High Street, P.O. Box 28
           Jefferson City, MO 65102
           Phone: 573-636-2177
           Fax: 573-636-7119

Representing defendants are:

           Daniel B. Boatright, Esq. (dboatright@spencerfane.com)
           Sarah Jane Bruer, Esq. (jbruer@spencerfane.com)
           Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP
           1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
           Kansas City, MO 64106-2140
           Phone: 816-474-8100
                  816-292-8122
           Fax: 816-474-3216


CIGNA CORP: Parties Appeal Connecticut Court Rulings in "Amara"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Both parties in the purported class-action suit against CIGNA
Corp. and the CIGNA Pension Plan over alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act have appealed certain
decisions made by U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut in the case.

On Dec. 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed the suit against the
company and the CIGNA Pension Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the CIGNA Pension Plan
who earned certain Plan benefits prior to 1998.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that:

       -- the Plan violated ERISA by impermissibly conditioning
          certain post-1997 benefit accruals on the amount of
          pre-1998 benefit accruals that these conditions are not
          adequately disclosed to plan participants; and

       -- the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against
          older employees.

The plaintiffs were granted class certification on Dec. 20,
2002.  They seek equitable relief.

A non-jury trial began on Sept. 11, 2006.  Due to the court's
schedule, the proceedings were adjourned and then the trial was
completed on Jan. 25, 2007.

On Feb. 15, 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor
of CIGNA Corp., and the CIGNA Pension Plan on the age
discrimination and wear away claims and finding in favor of the
plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims, but
deferred ruling on an appropriate remedy.

Then, on June 13, 2008, the court issued a decision ordering an
enhanced level of benefits from the existing cash balance
formula for the majority of the class, requiring class members
to receive their frozen benefits under the pre-conversion CIGNA
Pension Plan and their accrued benefits under the post
conversion CIGNA Pension Plan.

The court also ordered, among other things, pre-judgment and
post judgment interest.  It has stayed implementation of the
decision until the parties' appeals have been exhausted.

Both parties have appealed the court's decisions, 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 "Amara v. CIGNA Corp., et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-
02361-MRK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, Judge Mark R. Kravitz, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. (stephen.bruce@prodigy.net)
          805 15th St., NW Suite 210
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-289-1117
          Fax: 202-371-0121

               - and -

          Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq. (tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com)
          Moukawsher & Walsh
          Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Phone: 860-278-7000
          Fax: 860-548-1740

Representing the defendants are:

          Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq. (bbabbitt@rc.com)
          Robinson & Cole
          280 Trumbull St.
          Hartford, CT 06103-3597
          Phone: 860-275-8209
          Fax: 860-275-8299

               - and -

          Jeremy Blumenfeld, Esq. (jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: 215-963-5258
          Fax: 215-963-5001


CITIGROUP INC: Wants Countrywide Securities Lawsuit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of the consolidated
securities fraud class-action suit captioned "In Re: Countrywide
Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-
05295," 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 original complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements and material omissions regarding the
company's business and operations and that, as a result, the
price of the company's securities was inflated during the class
period, thereby harming investors.

Specifically, according to the complaint the defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding the changing quality
of the company's mortgage loan portfolio.

As late as April of 2007, the company stated that credit rating
agency Moody's upgraded the rating of the company's banking
segment and announced that its home loans segment was also under
review for possible upgrade.

Then, on June 12, 2007, the company boasted of its position as
the number one mortgage originator in the U.S.

These reassuring announcements served to conceal the alarming
growth of loan delinquencies and the increasing likelihood of
impairment charges, with resulting adverse impacts on the
quality of the company's collateralized debt obligations,
earnings and profits.

The complaint further alleges that on July 24, 2007, the company
finally announced the shocking news of over $417 million in
impairment charges and implementation of a $292.9 million loan
loss provision.

On the news, the price of Countrywide Financial stock tumbled
10.4%, closing at $30.50 per share.

Following this, on Aug. 9, 2007, within four days of reassuring
statements that purported the reliability and availability of
liquidity to meet short-term needs, the company adopted a new
risk disclosure, warning of short-term liquidity issues.  As a
result, on that day, the price of Countrywide Financial stock
fell again, losing $1.00 or 3.4%, to close at $27.86 per share,
on heavy volume of over 48.6 million shares.

On April 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in the matter filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint.

The defendants, including the company, filed motions to dismiss
the suit on June 10, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-05295-MRP-MAN," filed in the U.S.
Distirtc Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Mariana R. Pfaelzer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Nicholas J. Licato, Esq. (nlicato@scott-scott.com)
           Scott and Scott
           600 B Street, Suite 1500
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Phone: 619-233-4565

                - 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:

           Stacey S. Baron, Esq. (sbaron@goodwinprocter.com)
           Goodwin Procter LLP
           Exchange Place, 53 State Street
           Boston, MA 02109
           Phone: 617-570-1000

                - and -

           Steven D. Atlee, Esq. (satlee@winston.com)
           Winston & Strawn LLP
           333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
           Los Angeles, CA 90071
           Phone: 213-615-1700
           Fax: 213-615-1750


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Several Lawsuits Over MAT Five Funds
---------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc., is facing several purported class-action suits
alleging violations of the federal securities laws and Delaware
state law in connection with investments in MAT Five, LLC,
according to Citigroup's Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

One of the complaints allege that MAT Five, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC and
Citigroup Fixed Income Alternatives violated Section 12(a)(2) of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Delaware law (Class Action
Reporter, June 30, 2008).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that from late 2006 and
continuing into early 2007, Citigroup, through Citigroup Fixed
Income Alternatives and Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC
targeted many of its clients who were interested in fixed-income
investments which would provide higher yields.

The defendants marketed the MAT Five Fund to these clients and
disseminated a false and misleading Private Placement Memorandum
in connection with the issuance of hundreds of millions of
dollars of shares.  The Private Placement Memorandum and related
selling documents were false and misleading because they
represented that the Fund was a secure, non-volatile investment.
In reality, the Fund was a high-risk investment which could lose
substantial value if the markets changed or if it was not
properly managed.

Indeed, MAT Five Fund management employed risky strategies and
lost.  On March 20, 2008, CAI wrote a letter to investors which
stated that the recent credit crunch had rapidly accelerated and
spread into the municipal bond markets.  As a result, the cash
positions and net asset values of the MAT Five Fund had been
severely impacted, and they were going to indefinitely suspend
the fund's income distributions in an effort to preserve
liquidity.  At the time of the letter, the Fund had declined to
less than 10% of its original value and no further distributions
were made to the plaintiffs.

The putative class action lawsuits have been consolidated in the
Southern District of New York under the caption, "In Re MAT Five
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-04152-NRB."

Similar related actions have been commenced in California,
Delaware and New York state court.  The company removed the New
York state court action to federal court and currently is
responding to a motion for a preliminary injunction filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court action, which motion seeks to enjoin a
tender offer interest in MAT Five LLC.

Citigroup, Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/homepage/
-- is a diversified global financial services holding company
whose businesses provide a range of financial services to
consumer and corporate customers.  Citigroup is a bank holding
company.  As of March 31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into
four major segments: Consumer Banking, Global Cards,
Institutional Clients Group (ICG) and Global Wealth Management
(GWM).  It has more than 200 million customer accounts and does
business in more than 100 countries.


CITIGROUP: Plaintiff's Injunction Request in Falcon Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has denied the plaintiff's application for a preliminary
injunction in the purported class-action suit captioned,
"Ferguson Family Trust v. Falcon Strategies Two LLC et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-04723-SHS," which names several entities of
Citigroup, Inc., as a defendants.

On May 20, 2008, an investor in Falcon Strategies Two LLC filed
a putative class action complaint against Falcon and several
Citi-related entities, among others, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and
Delaware state law in connection with a tender offer for
interests in Falcon Strategies.

On June 17, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiff's application
for a preliminary injunction, 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 "Ferguson Family Trust v. Falcon Strategies Two LLC
et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-04723-SHS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Sidney H.
Stein, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants are:

           Charles Edward Davidow, Esq. (cdavidow@paulweiss.com)
           Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP
           1615 L Street, N.W., Ste. 1300
           Washington, DC 20036
           Phone: 202-223-7300
           Fax: 202-223-7420

                - and -

           Sean R. O'Brien, Esq. (sobrien@arkin-law.com)
           Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP
           590 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor
           New York, NY 10022
           Phone: 212-333-0200
           Fax: 212-333-2350


DELTA AIR: Handicapped Passenger Sues Airlines for Ill Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Hancock veteran who is confined to a wheelchair sued Delta Air
Lines in U.S. District Court in an effort to get it to comply
with federal law that requires the company to retrofit its
aircraft to meet the needs of handicapped passengers, Judy
Harrison writes for Bangor Daily News.

Harrel Sergeant claimed in his lawsuit filed on August 7 that on
April 9, 2008, he was "treated like baggage" on a flight from
Tucson, Ariz., to Atlanta, Ga.  According to Mr. Sergeant's
complaint, he and his wife were returning from a trip to the
Southwest.

Bangor Daily relates that Mr. Sergeant is asking the court to
certify his complaint as as class-action lawsuit so that other
handicapped Delta passengers could recover damages from the
airline.

The law, Mr. Sergeant's attorney, Evans Carter, Esq., of
Framingham, Mass., explains that at least half of the aisle
seats be removable, that aircraft with 60 or more seats have an
onboard wheelchair and that personnel offering boarding
assistance safeguard the safety and dignity of passengers, among
other requirements.  The Delta aircraft that the plaintiff and
his wife boarded had none of these features, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit is therefore seeking, among others:

      -- that Mr. Sergeant be paid $10,000;

      -- that Ms. Sergeant's attorney be paid $5,000;

      -- Delta and Northwest Airlines be in full compliance with
         regulations concerning handicapped passengers; and

      -- Flight crews be trained in properly aiding handicapped
         passengers.


DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: Hearing on Sex Crime Suit Set for Fall
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on June 26, 2008, that Ronald
Martin, whose brother left a suicide note that led to charges of
sex crimes against a Nova Scotia priest, had filed a class
action lawsuit against the Diocese of Antigonish, claiming the
diocese failed to protect the children in its care when it
became aware of the abuse.  The class action suit, filed on
June 24, 2008, also names the Roman Catholic Church and a church
official.

According to the CAR report, Mr. Martin's brother, David,
committed suicide in April 2002, leaving behind a note that
sparked a criminal investigation and charges of rape, buggery
and indecent assault against former priest Hugh Vincent
MacDonald.  These charges also involved 18 children between the
ages of eight to 15.

Mr. MacDonald, who served in various parishes in Pictou,
Guysborough and Antigonish counties and in Cape Breton, was
facing 27 charges when he died in 2004, the CAR report, citing
the Canadian Press, said.  Halifax lawyer John McKiggan filed
three separate civil lawsuits against the diocese soon after
Mr. MacDonald died and the criminal charges were withdrawn.

Canadian Press said that Mr. Martin's suit, also prepared by
Mr. McKiggan, was filed under Nova Scotia's new Class
Proceedings Act.  The class action, which contains allegations
not yet proven in court, involves claims that Mr. MacDonald and
several other priests were sexually abusing children in their
care between 1962 and this year.  The lawsuit also claims that
the diocese sent priests for treatment for "sexual deviations"
while failing to disclose their behavior to the proper
authorities.

In an open letter to other potential plaintiffs, Mr. Martin
related how his family was shocked when his brother took his
own life.  In the letter, Mr. Martin revealed that he, too, was
the victim of abuse.

In an update, The Cape Breton Post relates that a hearing on
whether to certify as a class action the lawsuit filed by
Mr. Martin will take place this fall.

Mr. McKiggan said that they are now in the process of preparing
necessary documents to apply for certification.

"The next step will be the application for certification, that
mini-trial or mini-hearing, but that won't take place for a
number of months yet," Mr. McKiggan said.


FIMALAC SA: Lead Plaintiff Bids in Securities Suit Due Sept. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a September 1, 2008
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Fimalac, S.A. (Paris:
FIM:PA) between July 26, 2006, and April 20, 2008, inclusive.

The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the business and operations of Fitch Group,
Inc. -- a majority-owned subsidiary of Fimalac -- thereby
artificially inflating the price of Fimalac stock.

For more information, contact:

           Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
           Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
           3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
           Bensalem, PA 19020
           Phone: 215-38-4847
           Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
           Website: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


GANNETT CO: Colorado Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued a
judgment dismissing all claims in the matter, "Wells, et al. v.
Gannett Retire Plan, et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-02671-RPM," which
was filed against Gannett Co., Inc., over alleged violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security 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 29, 2008.

On Dec. 31, 2003, two employees of the company's television
station KUSA in Denver filed the suit against the company and
the Gannett Retirement Plan on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals who participated in the Plan
after Jan. 1, 1998 -- the date that certain amendments to the
Plan took effect.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the current
pension plan formula adopted in that amendment violated the age
discrimination accrual provisions of the ERISA.  They seek to
have their post-1997 benefits recalculated and seek other
equitable relief.

The court granted the plaintiffs motion to certify a class.

On July 1, 2008, subsequent to the end of the company's second
quarter, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the
defendants, and entered a judgment dismissing all claims of the
class plaintiffs and the individual plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs'
right to appeal the decision expired on July 31, 2008.

The suit is "Wells, et al. v. Gannett Retire Plan, et al., Case
No. 1:03-cv-02671-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Richard P. Matsch, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           John Hathaway Evans, Jr., Esq.
           (johnevans@hillandrobbins.com)
           Robert F. Hill, Esq. (roberthill@hillandrobbins.com)
           Hill & Robbins, P.C.
           1441 - 18th Street #100
           Denver, CO 80202
           Phone: 303-296-8100
           Fax: 303-296-2388

                - and -

           Douglas R. Sprong, Esq. (dsprong@koreintillery.com)
           Korein Tillery, LLC
           701 Market Street #300
           St. Louis, MO 63101
           Phone: 314-241-4844
           Fax: 314-588-7036

Representing the defendants are:

           Kerri Atencio, Esq. (kjatencio@hollandhart.com)
           Michael S. Beaver, Esq. (mbeaver@hollandhart.com)
           Parker Whitfield Dragovich, Esq.
           (pdragovich@hollandhart.com)
           Holland & Hart, LLP
           Phone: 719-475-6474
                  303-290-1600
           Fax: 303-290-1606

                - and -

           Margaret A. Clemens, Esq. (MClemens@nixonpeabody.com)
           Nixon Peabody, LLP
           Clinton Square, P.O. Box 31051
           Rochester, NY 14603
           Phone: 585-263-1453
           Fax: 585-263-1600


GILEAD SCIENCES: 9th Circuit Reinstates Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against Gilead Sciences,
Inc., that claimed the drug maker misled investors about demand
for its HIV drug Viread, Reuters reports.

The complaint is generally alleging that the defendants violated
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, by making certain alleged false and misleading
statements.

The lawsuit accused Gilead of fostering demand for Viread by
using improper marketing, including aggressively promoting off-
label uses for the drug after U.S. regulators ordered the
company to stop.

On May 12, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California executed orders dismissing in
its entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended
complaint associated with the purported class action against the
company, its chief executive officer, its chief financial
officer, its former executive vice president of operations, its
executive vice president of research and development, its senior
vice president of manufacturing, and its senior vice president
of research.  The dismissal order was entered on the grounds
that investors had failed to prove that their 2003 stock losses
were related to the off-label sales and to alleged false
statements the company made about Viread.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal (Class Action
Reporter, March 7, 2008).

Recently, the appeals court reversed the lower court's dismissal
order.

"Gilead's fortunes, as reflected in its stock price, depended
heavily on Viread's commercial success," the appeals court wrote
in its opinion.  "Ultimately, 75% to 95% of Viread sales
resulted from off-label marketing efforts," the court said.
"The company and its officers emphasized to the public that they
carefully complied with federal and state regulations, when in
fact they knew that they were acting unlawfully by aggressively
marketing Viread for off-label uses."

The appeals court reversed the decision of the district court
and sent the case back for further proceedings.

A Gilead spokeswoman said the company had no comment on the
opinion.

The suit is "In re Gilead Sciences Securities litigation, Case
No. 03-CV-4999," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins
presiding.

Representing thee plaintiffs are:

           Eric J. Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
           Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
           100 Park Avenue
           New York, NY 10017
           Phone: 212-907-0878
           Fax: 212-818-0477

           Robert S. Green, Esq. (rsg@classcounsel.com)
           Green Welling LLP
           595 Market Street, Suite 2750
           San Francisco, CA 94105
           Phone: 415-477-6700
           Fax: 415-477-6710

                - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

           John C. Dwyer, Esq. (dwyerjc@cooley.com)
           Grant P. Fondo, Esq. (gfondo@cooley.com)
           Cooley Godward, LLP
           Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
           Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
           Phone: 650-843-5000
           Fax: 650-857-0663


INTEL CORP: Still Faces Suits Over "High" Microprocessor Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corp. continues to face several lawsuits, including some
class-action suits, with regards to the higher prices of its
microprocessors, according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

In June 2005, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging
that Intel and Intel's Japanese subsidiary engaged in various
actions in violation of the Sherman Act and the California
Business and Professions Code, including providing secret and
discriminatory discounts and rebates and intentionally
interfering with prospective business advantages of AMD.

AMD's complaint seeks unspecified treble damages, punitive
damages, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Subsequently, AMD's Japanese subsidiary also filed suits before
the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court against
Intel's Japanese subsidiary, asserting violations of Japan's
Anti-monopoly Law and alleging damages of approximately
$55 million, plus various other costs and fees.

At least 82 separate class action suits, generally repeating
AMD's allegations and asserting various consumer injuries,
including that consumers in various states have been injured by
paying higher prices for Intel microprocessors, have been filed
with the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of
California, Southern District of California, and the District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and
Tennessee state courts.

All the federal class action complaints have been consolidated
by the Multi-district Litigation Panel to the District of
Delaware.

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.

Intel disputes AMD's claims and the class-action claims, and
intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously, the company's
regulatory filing says.

Intel Corp. -- http://www.intel.com/-- is a semiconductor
chipmaker, developing advanced integrated digital technology
platforms and components, primarily integrated circuits, for the
computing and communications industries.  Intel's products
include chips, boards and other semiconductor products that are
the building blocks integral to computers, servers, handheld
devices, and networking and communications products.  Its
component-level products consist of integrated circuits used to
process information, including microprocessors, chipsets, and
flash memory.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Eleventh Circuit Mulls Appeals in OOIDA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has yet to
rule on certain appeals made by both parties in the class-action
suit entitled "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-
01005-HLA-MCR," 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.

The putative class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 1, 2002,
by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., and
certain BCO Independent Contractors on behalf of independent
contractors who provide truck capacity to the company and its
subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements before the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the
company and certain of its subsidiaries.

The complaint was amended on April 7, 2005.  The Amended
Complaint alleged that certain aspects of the company's motor
carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent
Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and
sought injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and
attorney's fees.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the District Court granted a motion by the
plaintiffs to certify the case as a class action.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the District Court ordered the decertification
of the class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of
determining remedies.

Immediately thereafter, trial commenced for purposes of
determining what remedies, if any, would be awarded to the
remaining named BCO Independent Contractor Plaintiffs against
these Landstar subsidiaries:

        -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,
        -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and
        -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of
the defendants and issued written orders setting forth its
rulings related to the decertification of the class and the
denial of the plaintiffs' requests for damages and injunctive
relief.

The plaintiffs and the defendants each filed motions with the
District Court concerning an award of attorney fees from the
other party.

Both parties have filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit with respect to certain of the District
Court's rulings, including the judgments entered by the District
Court in favor of the defendants on the issues of damages and
injunctive relief.  The defendants have asked the Appellate
Court to affirm the rulings of the District Court that have been
appealed by the plaintiffs.  The defendants have also filed a
cross-appeal with the Appellate Court with respect to certain
other rulings of the District Court.

The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-
HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Cohen, Esq.
          Daniel R. Unumb, Esq.
          Paul D. Cullen, Esq.
          Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq.
          Joseph A. Black, Esq.
          Susan Van Bell, Esq.
          The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC
          1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20007-3770
          Phone: 202-944-8600
                 202-965-6100

          Michael R. Freed, Esq. (mrfreed@bmdpl.com)
          Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL
          Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: 904-366-1500
          Fax: 904-366-1501

               - and -

          Paul D. Cullen Sr., Esq.
          The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC
          1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 300, P.O. Box 25806
          Washington, DC 20007-3708
          Phone: 202-944-8600
          Fax: 202-944-8611

Representing the defendants are:

          Daniel R. Barney, Esq. (dbarney@scopelitis.com)
          Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, P.C.
          1850 M St., NW, Suite 280
          Washington, DC 20036-5804
          Phone: 202-783-5485

          Timothy W. Wiseman, Esq.
          Robert L. Browning, Esq.
          Gregory M. Feary, Esq.
          Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C.
          10 W. Market St., Suite 1500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968
          Phone: 317-637-1777
          Fax: 317-687-2414

               - and -

          Andrew Tysen Duva, Esq. (aduva@hklaw.com)
          Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II, Esq.
          (lhamilton@hklaw.com)
          Holland & Knight
          50 North Laura St., Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: 904-353-2000
                 904-353-2000 Ext. 25454
          Fax: 904-358-1872


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Claims Adjustment Lawsuit Gets Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp.
charging that the company failed to pay contractor overhead and
profit in some claims adjustments has been certified as a class
action in state court, The Times-Picayune reports.

The case, recently certified by Orleans Parish Civil District
Court Judge Yada Magee, is the fourth class action to be
certified against the state-sponsored insurer of last resort,
the report relates.

According to Times-Picayune, Citizens plans to appeal the
ruling.


MARICOPA COUNTY: Suit Over Inhumane Jail Treatment Resurrected
--------------------------------------------------------------
A decades-old lawsuit that alleges inhumane treatment at the
Maricopa County jails has been revived and will be heard by a
new judge, KTAR.com reports.

KTAR.com recounts that the class-action lawsuit was first filed
in 1977 and is headed back to court this week.  The suit alleges
that inmates who have not yet been convicted of a crime are
prevented from eating adequate food and are denied health care
and housing in violation of constitutional provisions that
protect them from punishment.

According to the report, inmate attorneys, in papers filed with
the U.S. District Court in Phoenix, paint a horrifying portrait
of life inside Maricopa County jails, including overcrowded
intake units to cries for medical care that go unanswered.

Phoenix attorney Debra Hill, Esq., who represents the inmates in
the class-action lawsuit, says Maricopa County Sheriff Joe
Arpaio and his staff provide unsafe jail environments for people
who are arrested and not even convicted.

"People should not become ill because they are served bad food
in jail," Ms. Hill said.  "They should not contract diseases
because they are placed in a cell with an infected inmate.  They
should not be denied needed medications."

Ms. Hill said Sheriff Joe Arpaio could save money on lawsuits by
providing a clean environment in the jails.  "I think if
Sherriff Joe would just spend the dollars necessary to provide a
basic, clean environment for the people in his jails, he could
avoid the grievances and lawsuits that have cost the county
millions of dollars," she added.

The inmates are specifically suing both the sheriff's office and
Correctional Health Services, a separate agency responsible for
the medical, mental and dental care of inmates.

However, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office denies the claims,
the report notes.  The office maintains that the jails are run
constitutionally.

Both pretrial and sentenced inmates have access to outdoor
exercise, recreation areas, educational programs, religious
services and substance-abuse classes, Jack MacIntyre, Esq., an
attorney and chief deputy for the sheriff's office, told
KTAR.com.  They're screened for health problems, fed a balanced
diet and may receive medical, psychiatric or psychological
services, he said.

"It's way beyond constitutional minimums," Mr. Macintyre
contended.  "The jail in this county is not punishment.  But it
sure is not a free ride."

KTAR.com says that U.S. District Judge Neil Wake will hear
testimony from expert witnesses, jail officials and inmates
during hearings that will begin this week and are expected to
last nearly a month.


MICROSOFT: Live Hotmail Charges For Obnoxious Unwanted Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed before
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, over allegations
that its Live Hotmail charges for obnoxious, unwanted messages,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Michael Criswell claims Microsoft's Windows Live
Hotmail service allows users to send unauthorized, unwanted text
messages -- which can be threatening and pornographic -- to
wireless phones, and to bill the recipients, and refuses to tell
recipients how to opt out of receiving them.

The class claims Microsoft rushed this obnoxious program to
market to compete with Google and Yahoo!, and that Microsoft
itself does not know how to cure this defect.

Mr. Crisswell brings this class action to stop the company's
practice of transmitting unauthorized text messages to the
wireless devices of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by its conduct.  He brings this action
on behalf of all wireless telephone subscribers in the nation
who suffered losses or damages as a result of incurring charges
on their cellular telephone bills from or on behalf of
Microsoft's Window Live not authorized by the subscriber.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

      (a) whether defendant tortuously interfered with contracts
          between plaintiff and the class, on the one hand, and
          their wireless carriers, on the other hand, by causing
          them to charged for products and services by their
          carrier that were unauthorized;

      (b) whether defendant has unjustly received money belonging
          to plaintiff and the class and whether under principles
          of equity and good conscience, defendant should not be
          permitted to retain it;

      (c) whether Microsoft's unauthorized transmission of text
          messages to the wireless devices of plaintiff and the
          class amounts to trespass to chattels; and

      (d) whether defendant's unauthorized transmission of text
          messages to the wireless devices of plaintiff and the
          class amounts to invasions of privacy.

The plaintiff requests that the court:

      -- certify this case as a class action on behalf of the
         class and appoint Michael Crisswell class
         representative, and appoint, KamberEdelson, LLC as lead
         counsel;

      -- enter judgment against Microsoft for all economic,
         monetary, actual, consequential, and compensatory
         damages caused by its conduct, and if its conduct is
         proved willful, award plaintiff and the class exemplary
         damages;

      -- award plaintiff and the class reasonable costs and
         attorneys' fees;

      -- award plaintiff and the class pre- and post- judgment
         interest;

      -- enter judgment for injunctive, statutory and
         declaratory relief as is necessary to protect the
         interests of plaintiff and the classes; and

      -- award such other and further relief as equity and
         justice may require.

The suit is "Michael Crisswell et al. cv. Microsoft Corp., Case
No. 08CH28929," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff are:

           Jay Edelson, Esq.
           Myles McGuire, Esq.
           Steven Lezell, Esq.
           KamberEdelson, LLC
           53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 550
           Chicago, IL 60604
           Phone: 312-589-6370


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Settles Ex-Worker's Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., has reached a settlement in the
purported class-action lawsuit filed by a former employee of 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 June 29, 2008.

A former employee of the Burbank, California Morton's steakhouse
filed the class and collective action in March 2006 before the
Superior Court in Los Angeles, California, alleging that the
sharing of tips with other restaurant employees violates federal
and state laws.  The case was brought on behalf of all current
and former California servers over a four-year period.

The plaintiff has not stated the amount of damages sought.

The company moved to dismiss the action, which motion was
granted.  The plaintiff has appealed the court's decision.

In February 2008, a memorandum of understanding was executed
between the parties of the suit to resolve the matter.  A joint
stipulation of settlement and release was executed in June 2008.

The settlement, however, is subject to final closing.

Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.mortons.com/-- is
engaged in the business of owning and operating restaurants
under the names Morton's The Steakhouse and Bertolini's
Authentic Trattorias.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc., is facing two purported class-
action lawsuits filed in Illinois by employees of 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 June 29, 2008.

In April 2008, a former employee of the Chicago, Illinois
Morton's steakhouse filed a nationwide class action complaint
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, alleging that the company failed to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In addition, also in April 2008, another former employee of the
Chicago, Illinois Morton's steakhouse filed a statewide class
action complaint in state court in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois County Department alleging that certain food
deductions, tip pooling practices and tip credits taken by the
company violate Illinois wage and hour laws.

The company filed motions to dismiss both complaints and compel
arbitration for both matters.

In July 2008, the plaintiff in the federal action filed a motion
to dismiss the lawsuit (without prejudice), which was granted by
the court.

The plaintiff in the state action has not stated the amount of
damages sought and, at this stage of the proceedings, it is not
possible to state the estimated damages sought by the plaintiff.

In general, the claimants are seeking restitution of tips, the
difference between the tip credit wage and the minimum wage,
recovery of unpaid compensation, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.mortons.com/-- is
engaged in the business of owning and operating restaurants
under the names Morton's The Steakhouse and Bertolini's
Authentic Trattorias.


NCAA: Student Athletes Settle Antitrust Case in Calif. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Aug. 12, 2008, that
earlier this month, the United States District Court 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.

More details regarding the deal were disclosed in a press
release in connection with the class action suit, captioned,
"White v. National Collegiate Athletic Association," that was
filed in Los Angeles by Division I football and men's basketball
players against the NCAA, charging that the NCAA unreasonably
restricted the amount of athletics-based financial aid which
colleges and universities could pay to student-athletes.

The settlement approved by the Court provides valuable new
benefits for class members.  Specifically, the settlement
enhances the financial aid potentially available to former,
current and future student-athletes in a variety of ways,
including:

      (a) The NCAA's agreement to provide, for the academic years
          2007-08 through 2012-13, an additional $218 million to
          NCAA Division I member institutions to allow under the
          current guidelines for the Student Athlete Opportunity
          Fund, with the NCAA encouraging the Division I member
          institutions to use the available funds for such aid to
          student-athletes with demonstrated financial needs.

      (b) The NCAA's agreement to provide, over a three-year
          period, a total of $10 million to be distributed to
          qualifying former student-athletes for reimbursement of
          certain educational expenses incurred in the future.
          Individual class members are eligible to receive up to
          $2500 per year for three years for educational expenses
          incurred in connection with accredited undergraduate,
          graduate, professional degree or professional
          certificate programs, and a one-time payment of $500
          toward career development programs.  Beginning Aug. 11,
          2008, class members may access claim forms for the
          Former Student-Athlete Fund at the following URL on the
          NCAA Web site:

          http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=29642

      (c) The NCAA's adoption of a rule permitting Division I
          schools to provide year-round, comprehensive health
          insurance to student-athletes.

      (d) The NCAA's agreement to investigate the possibility of
          offering student-athletes multiyear scholarships and
          aid through graduation.

      (e) The making of arrangements under which the NCAA's
          Division I member schools can provide basic accident
          insurance for injuries sustained by student-athletes
          while participating in college athletics.

For information contact:

           Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
           (smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com)
           Susman Godfrey LLP
           1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
           Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
           Phone: 310-789-3103


NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Sept. 2, 2008 Hearing Set in Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 2, 2008 hearing is set for the consolidated securities
fraud class-action suit, "In re Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 07-cv-1111-IEG-RBB," which was filed
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California against Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., and certain
individual defendants.

Initially, Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St.
Louis filed the suit on June 19, 2007, under the caption,
"Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc."

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the progress toward U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval and the potential for market success of
"indiplon" in the 15 mg dosage unit.

On June 26, 2007, a second purported class action with similar
allegations was filed with the same court.  That case was,
"Gopal Batra, Ph.D. v. Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc."

On Oct. 16, 2007, both purported class action lawsuits were
consolidated into one action under the caption, "In re
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, 07-cv-1111-
IEG-RBB."

The court also selected a lead plaintiff who filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative
complaint in the litigation.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the
potential for market success of indiplon in the 15mg dosage
unit.

On Jan. 11, 2008, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.   Following a hearing
on April 22, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss but
gave the lead plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

On June 11, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed the second
consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative
complaint in the litigation.

On July 8, 2008, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the SAC.  A hearing on the motion to dismiss
the SAC is scheduled to occur on Sept. 2, 2008, according to the
company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 07-cv-1111-IEG-RBB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Irma
E. Gonzalez, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Daniel S. Drosman, Esq. (DanD@csgrr.com)
           Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
           655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Phone: 619-231-1058
           Fax: 619-231-7423

           Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (sberman@sbclasslaw.com)
           Schiffrin and Barroway
           280 King of Prussia Road
           Radnor, PA 19087-3481
           Phone: 610-667-7706

                - and -

           Evan Jason Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
           Brodsky & Smith, LLC
           9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
           Beverly Hills, CA 90212
           Phone: 310-300-8425
           Fax: 310-247-0160

Representing the defendants is:

           Ryan E. Blair, Esq. (rblair@cooley.com)
           Cooley Godward Kronish
           4401 Eastgate Mall
           San Diego, CA 92121
           Phone: 858-550-6000
           Fax: 858-550-6420


NVR INC: Faces Multiple Overtime Wage Suits in Various States
-------------------------------------------------------------
NVR, Inc., continues to face several purported class action
lawsuits in Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York in
connection with unpaid overtime wages, 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.

In July 2007, former employees filed the lawsuits against the
company before the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania; the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton County,
Ohio;  the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina; and
the Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland; and the
Superior Court in New Jersey.

The suits allege that the company incorrectly classified its
sales and marketing representatives as being exempt from
overtime wages.

These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on
Oct. 29, 2004, by another former employee before the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages,
including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the
overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other
fees and interest, and where available, multiple damages.  The
suits were filed as purported class actions.

However, none of the groups of employees that the lawsuits
purport to represent have been certified as a class.

The lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and New
Jersey have been stayed pending further developments in the New
York action.

NVR, Inc. -- http://www.nvrinc.com/-- is engaged in the
construction and sale of single-family detached homes, town
homes and condominium buildings.  NVR also operates a mortgage
banking business.


PFIZER: Anti-Smoking Drug Chantix Causes Depression, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois over
allegations that it pushed its anti-smoking prescription drug
Chantix (varenicline) without warning customers it could cause
"depression, aggression, suicide, suicidal ideation, and
suicidal tendencies," CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges that Pfizer conspired to conceal facts and
evidence regarding the dangerous side effects of the
prescription drug Chantix by deliberately constructing clinical
studies which would conceal a multitude of side effects,
including but not limited to depression, aggression, suicide and
suicidal ideation, and suicidal tendencies, in order to realize
billions of dollars in profits from the sale of CHANTIX.

Through a series of fraudulent schemes, Pfizer has implemented
its calculated and deceitful marketing campaign that began prior
to U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of CHANTIX, the
suit says.  Pfizer's scheme was implemented so it could tap into
the enormous market demand for a drug to aid in smoking
cessation.  Pfizer unlawfully marketed and promoted CHANTIX
through its conspiracies, and deliberately mislead physicians
and consumers into believing that CHANTIX was safe and
effective.

The plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class suffered
injuries resulting from Pfizer's illegal and fraudulent
activities, the suit further claims.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages suffered as a result of
these schemes under sections 1962(c) and 1962(d) of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons
residing in the United States who purchased, were prescribed and
ingested CHANTIX manufactured by Pfizer, Inc.

The suit is brought pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to recover compensatory, equitable, and actual
damages and attorney's fees suffered by the plaintiff and the
members of the class as a direct and proximate result of the
Pfizer's illegal activity in connection with the packaging,
advertising, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and
sale of its drug CHANTIX.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

      (a) whether Pfizer's transmission of payments paid to
          physicians, ghost-authors and others to make fraudulent
          statements in furtherance of the scheme to promote
          CHANTIX constitutes wire fraud;

      (b) whether Pfizer's agreement and activities in
          furtherance of its agreement with members of the
          Chantix Marketing Enterprise in furtherance of the
          scheme to promote CHANTIX, constitute an "enterprise"
          as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(4) that is engaged
          in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or
          foreign commerce;

      (c) whether the policies and practices described herein
          constitute Pfizer's conduct or participation, directly
          or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's
          affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity;

      (d) whether Pfizer has violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c);

      (e) Whether Pfizer has conspired, under 18 U.S.C. Section
          1962(d), to engage in the alleged activities and
          conduct;

      (f) whether Pfizer concealed adverse information from
          Plaintiff and the CHANTIX Class regarding CHANTIX;

      (g) whether the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
          recover compensatory, exemplary, punitive, and other
          damages as a result of Defendant?s fraudulent and
          unlawful conduct;

      (h) what is the proper mechanism for assessing and awarding
          damages and administering relief to Class Members,
          including the relief to reduce the threat of future
          harm to Class Members;

      (i) whether the defendant's conduct in selling, promoting,
          marketing and distributing CHANTIX fell below the duty
          of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and
          members of the class;

      (j) whether the defendant negligently, recklessly, or
          intentionally concealed information about the safety of
          CHANTIX from the plaintiff and class, as well as their
          physicians, hospitals, healthcare professionals, and
          the FDA;

      (k) whether the defendant under-reported the adverse events
          associated with CHANTIX;

      (l) whether the defendant's conduct constitutes fraudulent
          concealment;

      (m) whether the defendant's conduct constitutes fraudulent
          misrepresentation and fraud;

      (n) whether the plaintiff and the class have sustained
          irreparable harm and whether they are entitled to
          equitable relief including restitution and refund
          and, if so, the nature and extent of such damages;

      (o) whether the plaintiff class is entitled to compensatory
          damages and, if so, the nature and extent of such
          damages;

      (p) whether the defendant is liable for punitive damages
          and, if so, how much is necessary and appropriate to
          punish it for its conduct, deter others and fulfill the
          policies and purposes of punitive and exemplary
          damages;

      (q) how any and all punitive and exemplary damages
          awarded to Plaintiffs should be equitably allocated
          among the plaintiff and the class;

      (r) whether the defendant acted to defraud, misrepresent,
          and deceive the plaintiff and the class;

      (s) whether the defendant failed to adequately test its
          products;

      (t) whether the defendant failed to adequately reveal the
          results if any, that were yielded by the testing of
          their product to the plaintiff, the class, their
          physicians, hospitals, the FDA and other healthcare
          professionals; and

      (u) whether the defendant failed to adequately warn of the
          adverse effects of CHANTIX.

The plaintiff requests that judgment be entered against the
defendant and that the class be awarded treble damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is "Donna Myler et al. v. Pfizer Inc., Case 3:08-cv-
00568-MJR-DGW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff are:

           Lloyd M. Cueto, Esq.
           Law Office of Lloyd M. Cueto, PC
           7110 West Main Street
           Belleville, IL 62223
           Phone: 618-277-1554

           Christopher Cueto, Esq.
           Law Office of Christopher Cueto, PC
           7110 West Main Street
           Belleville, IL 62223
           Phone: 618-277-1554

           John J. Driscoll, Esq.
           720 Olive Street, #1800
           St. Louis, MO 63101
           Phone: 618-444-6049

                - and -

           Robert L. Salim, Esq.
           Attorney at Law
           1762 Texas Street
           Natchitoches, LA 71457
           Phone: 318-352-5999
           Fax: 318-352-5998


PPL MONTANA: Court Rejects Proposed Deal in Asset Sale Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana rejected a
proposed settlement in a purported class-action suit that names
as a defendant PPL Montana, LLC, according to parent company PPL
Corp.'s Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

In August 2001, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by a
group of shareholders of Montana Power against Montana Power,
the directors of Montana Power, certain advisors and consultants
of Montana Power and PPL Montana.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Montana Power
was required to, and did not, obtain shareholder approval of the
sale of Montana Power's generation assets to PPL Montana in
1999, and thus that sale "was null and void ab initio."

Among the remedies that the plaintiffs are seeking is the
establishment of a "resulting and/or constructive trust" on both
the generation assets and all profits earned by PPL Montana from
the generation assets, plus interest on the amounts subject to
the trust.

This lawsuit has been pending in the U.S. District Court of
Montana and the judge has placed this proceeding on hold pending
the outcome of certain motions currently before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the resolution of
which may impact this proceeding.

The judge in this case has not established a schedule to resume
the proceeding.

In September 2007, certain plaintiffs proposed a settlement of
certain claims not involving PPL and proposed a status
conference to discuss their proposal.  The judge held the status
conference in January 2008 and rejected the proposed settlement.

PPL Corp. -- http://www.pplweb.com/-- is an energy and utility
holding company, which through its subsidiaries, generates
electricity from power plants in the northeastern and western
U.S.; markets wholesale or retail energy primarily in the
northeastern and western portions of the U.S., and delivers
electricity to approximately four million customers in
Pennsylvania and the U.K.


RENT-A-CENTER: Sept. 8 Hearing for $11MM Labor Suit Deal Fixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court will hold a fairness
hearing on Sept. 8, 2008, to consider final approval of the
$11-million settlement reached in two labor violations lawsuits
against Rent-A-Center, Inc., that were granted class-action
status.

One of the suits, "Eric Shafer, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,"
is a state-wide class action suit originally filed on May 20,
2002, before the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles
County.

The other case, "Victor E. Johnson, et al. v. Rent-A-Center,
Inc.," was filed on Feb. 24, 2004, before the Orange County
Superior Court.

The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the company
improperly classified its California store managers as exempt
from overtime under California wage and hour law and failed to
pay them overtime.

In addition, they allege that the company failed to provide its
California store managers with meal and rest periods, failed to
pay store managers overtime due when their employment ended, and
engaged in unfair business practices.

The plaintiffs seek to recover back overtime wages and
accompanying waiting time penalties, civil penalties under
California Labor Code Section 2699, certain injunctive relief
and attorneys fees.

On July 15, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification.  The company opposed this.  The hearing on the
plaintiffs' class certification requests was held on May 12,
2006.

On June 23, 2006, the court granted class certification as to
the plaintiffs' claims for back overtime wages and accompanying
waiting time penalties, and as to their unfair business
practices claim.

The court denied class certification as to the plaintiffs' meal
and rest period claims and as to their claim for civil penalties
under California Labor Code Section 2699.

The plaintiffs assert that the class includes all store managers
employed by the company in California since September 1998,
which they estimate to be 700 to 1,000 members.

Equivalent hourly rates for annual salaries paid to the class
members ranged from approximately $16.83 to $31.25 per hour
based on a 40-hour workweek.

The plaintiffs assert that store managers were required to work
approximately 10-20 hours of overtime per week.  Overtime wages
would be calculated at 1.5 times the hourly rate.

In addition, California law provides for a waiting time penalty
in the amount of 30 days' compensation when all compensation due
to an employee is not paid upon separation.  The court's class
certification ruling is procedural only and does not address the
merits of the plaintiffs' claims.

The company believes that class certification was improper and
that its store managers are properly classified as exempt from
overtime.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the company reached a prospective settlement
with the plaintiffs to resolve the "Eric Shafer et al. v. Rent-
A-Center, Inc.," and "Victor E. Johnson et al. v. Rent-A-Center,
Inc.," coordinated matters.

Under the terms contemplated, the company anticipates that it
will pay an aggregate of $11 million in cash, including
settlement costs and plaintiff's attorneys' fees, to be
distributed to an agreed-upon class of employees from May 1998
through March 31, 2008.

A final approval hearing in connection with the deal is
scheduled for Sept. 3, 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.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. -- http://www.rentacenter.com/-- is a rent-
to-own operator.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company operated
3,081 company-owned stores nationwide and in Canada and Puerto
Rico, including 24 stores under the name Get It Now and eight
stores located in Canada under the name Rent-A-Centre.  The
company's subsidiary, ColorTyme, is a national franchisor of
rent-to-own stores.  The company's stores generally offer
durable products, such as major consumer electronics,
appliances, computers and furniture, and accessories under
flexible rental purchase agreements that generally allow the
customer to obtain ownership of the merchandise at the
conclusion of an agreed upon rental period.  Get It Now stores
offer merchandise on an installment sales basis.


RENT-A-CENTER: Plaintiffs Fail to Appeal Dismissal of "Colon"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action suit entitled
"Colon v. Thorn Americas, Inc.," which names Rent-A-Center,
Inc., as a defendant, have not filed an appeal from an order
that affirmed the dismissal of their case, thus ending the case.

The original plaintiffs filed the class action suit in November
1997 in New York state court.  The company, in connection with
its Thorn Americas, Inc. acquisition, assumed this matter.

The plaintiffs acknowledged that rent-to-own transactions in New
York are subject to the provisions of New York's Rental Purchase
Statute but contended the Rental Purchase Statute does not
provide the company immunity from suits for other statutory
violations.

The plaintiffs alleged that the company has a duty to disclose
effective interest under New York consumer protection laws, and
sought damages and injunctive relief for failure to do so.

The suit also alleged violations relating to excessive and
unconscionable pricing, late fees, harassment, undisclosed
charges, and the ease of use and accuracy of payment records.

In its prayer for relief, the plaintiffs requested class
certification, injunctive relief requiring the company to cease
certain marketing practices and price rental purchase contracts
in certain ways, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
rescission of the class members contracts, an order placing in
trust all moneys received by the company in connection with the
rental of merchandise during the class period, treble damages,
attorney's fees, filing fees and costs of suit, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and any further relief granted by the court.

The plaintiffs have not alleged a specific monetary amount with
respect to the request for damages.  The proposed class includes
all New York residents who were party to the company's rent-to-
own contracts from Nov. 26, 1994.

In November 2000, following interlocutory appeal by both parties
from a denial of their cross-motions for summary judgment, the
company obtained a favorable ruling from the Appellate Division
of the State of New York, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims
based on the alleged failure to disclose an effective interest
rate.  The plaintiffs' other claims were not dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a statewide class in December
2000.  The court heard the plaintiffs' class certification
motion on Nov. 7, 2001, and on Sept. 12, 2002, the court issued
an opinion denying in part and granting in part the plaintiffs'
requested certification.

The opinion granted certification as to all of the plaintiffs'
claims except the plaintiffs' pricing claims pursuant to the
Rental Purchase Statute, as to which certification was denied.

The parties have differing views as to the effect of the court's
opinion, and accordingly, the court granted the parties
permission to submit competing orders as to the effect of the
opinion on the plaintiffs' specific claims.

Both proposed orders were submitted to the court on March 27,
2003, and on May 30, 2003, the court held a hearing regarding
such orders.  No clarifying order has yet been entered by the
court.

From June 2003 until May 2005, there was no activity in the
case.  On May 18, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' claim and to decertify the class, based on the
named plaintiff's failure to schedule her claim in this matter
in her earlier voluntary bankruptcy proceeding.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion and asked the court to grant
them an opportunity to find a substitute class representative in
the event the court determined that the named plaintiff was no
longer adequate.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court issued an order denying that motion,
but noted that no motion to intervene or to add additional class
representatives had been filed.

On March 14, 2006, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion
seeking leave to intervene Shaun Kelly as an additional class
representative.

In response to the plaintiffs' motion, the court ordered the
parties to confer regarding a possible mediation and ruled that
the company could depose Mr. Kelly before filing any objection
to his intervention.

The plaintiffs' counsel did not respond to the company's
repeated requests to schedule Mr. Kelly's deposition or schedule
a mediation.

Accordingly, on Jan. 30, 2007, the company filed a notice
pursuant to the applicable rules requiring the plaintiffs to
serve notice of their intent to proceed with the case within 90
days.

On April 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a reply to the company's
notice, and on that same date, the plaintiffs' counsel offered
to produce Mr. Kelly for deposition.

In the reply to the company's notice, the plaintiffs moved the
court for an additional 180 days in which to conduct discovery
before filing a formal response to the notice, or in the
alternative, asked to be permitted to file a response
immediately and to conduct some limited discovery while awaiting
a trial date.

The plaintiffs' motion resulted in a notice from the court --
which the company received on May 7, 2007 -- that the case had
been dismissed on June 2, 2006, due to the parties' failure to
appear at a court-ordered conference of which neither the
company, nor to its knowledge, the plaintiffs had notice.  The
company also did not have notice of the dismissal order.

On July 16, 2007, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
vacate the dismissal order, and the company was served notice of
entry of the court's order on July 26, 2007.

On Aug. 20, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the July 16, 2007 order and then filed a motion to re-argue and
renew the motion to vacate based on new affidavit evidence not
submitted with the original motion.

The company opposed the motion for re-argument and renewal on
grounds that it did not establish a valid basis to reverse the
July 16, 2007 order.

By order dated Dec. 5, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to re-argue, and upon re-argument, confirmed its July 16,
2007 decision denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the
dismissal.

At the same time, the court ruled that the company's pending
motion to decertify the class and dismiss the case was deemed
moot.

The plaintiffs' counsel had until May 20, 2008, to perfect an
appeal from the July 16, 2007 order to the Appellate Division,
First Department, by filing a brief and record.  The plaintiffs'
appeal, if perfected, will be based upon the record made in
connection with their original motion to vacate.

The time period for the plaintiffs to perfect an appeal from the
July 16, 2007 order has now passed and this matter is now
closed, 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.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. -- http://www.rentacenter.com/-- is a rent-
to-own operator.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company operated
3,081 company-owned stores nationwide and in Canada and Puerto
Rico, including 24 stores under the name Get It Now and eight
stores located in Canada under the name Rent-A-Centre.  The
company's subsidiary, ColorTyme, is a national franchisor of
rent-to-own stores.  The company's stores generally offer
durable products, such as major consumer electronics,
appliances, computers and furniture, and accessories under
flexible rental purchase agreements that generally allow the
customer to obtain ownership of the merchandise at the
conclusion of an agreed upon rental period.  Get It Now stores
offer merchandise on an installment sales basis.


SWIFT TRUCKING: Court Gives Truck Drivers' Lawsuit Go-Ahead
-----------------------------------------------------------
Truck drivers who claim that Swift Transportation routinely
shorted them in pay will get their day in court after all, when
an Arizona appellate court judge reversed a lower court decision
which effectively dismissed the case earlier.

The order reverses the class certification ruling on a
consolidated class-action complaint filed on June 8, 2005, which
alleges the trucking giant uses a flawed method to calculate
mileage, shorting the drivers.

"We are very happy that the appellate court ruled in our favor,"
said Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro attorney Rob Carey, Esq.
"Since we filed the complaint, we've heard from numerous Swift
drivers that Swift's mileage calculation method robs them of
fair compensation.  These drivers deserve their day in court,
and now they'll get it."

The class-action suit originally sought to represent "all
persons who contracted with Swift Transportation with a
contractor agreement on the East Coast."  The plaintiff moved
for class certification on July 31, 2006, but the lower court
denied the motion, ruling the plaintiff didn't have a claim
under his proposed definition of the class and had not met the
requirements to proceed on behalf of a class.  In the memorandum
decision reversing the trial court, the Arizona Court of Appeals
found that the plaintiff does have a claim and can represent the
interests of all affected contract drivers.

The case claims that rather than paying drivers on actual miles
driven, the company calculates mileage using mileage charts.
The suit claims that in doing so, the company arbitrarily
assigns physical locations in large cities rather than
determining the actual distance to a delivery destination within
the city to shorten drivers' miles.

According to court documents, Swift's manager of contract
finance from 1998 until 2002 admits these calculations
consistently average six percent less than what drivers actually
log.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on Swift's failure
to pay for all miles driven, and failure to accurately calculate
miles.

Swift Transportation Co, Inc., headquartered in Phoenix,
Arizona, is the largest provider of truckload transportation
services in the United States, with line-haul, dedicated and
inter-modal freight services.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS COS: Right-of-Way Suit Deal Gets Interim Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts has granted preliminary approval to the proposed
settlements affecting people who own or owned land next to or
under railroad Rights of Way.

In April 2007, Waltham (Massachusetts) attorney Catherine
Colinvaux, Esq., on behalf of North Chelmsford couple Richard
and Corey Kingsborough, filed the class action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against several
telecommunications companies (Class Action Reporter, April 17,
2007).

The named defendants in the suit are:

      -- Sprint Communications Co. L.P.
      -- Qwest Communications Corporation and
      -- Level 3 Communications, LLC

The lawsuit claims that the defendants illegally ran fiber-optic
cables under railroad rights of way without getting approval
from neighboring landowners.

Beginning in the early 1980s, the companies or their
predecessors buried fiber-optic cable and installed related
telecommunications equipment within railroad Rights of Way
across the United States.  A railroad Right of Way is a strip of
land on which a railroad company builds and operates a railroad.

Sprint, Qwest, WilTel and Level 3 entered into agreements with
the railroads who own or occupy the Rights of Way, and under
those agreements paid the railroads for the rights to install
the telecommunications equipment within the Rights of Way at
issue in the case.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants illegally ran the cables to
install a nationwide fiber-optic network in a way to achieve
both lower costs and extra speed in installing their systems.

Under the law, the railroads were granted easements, sometimes
forced by the eminent-domain laws, across private property to
install train tracks.  But the lawsuit states the companies
named in this lawsuit had no legal right to allow the rights of
way for commercial telecommunications purposes with consent from
and compensation to the owners of the land adjacent to the
rights of way.

As a result of this unlawful use of the land, the companies in
the lawsuit have earned millions of dollars from rents, profits
and other benefits, according to the lawsuit.

Sprint, Qwest, WilTel and Level 3 contend that the permissions
granted by the railroads were sufficient, even where the
railroad did not own all property rights in the Rights of Way,
and deny any wrongdoing.

The class consists of all current or previous owners of land
next to or under a railroad Right of Way at any time since the
cables were installed.

A Proposed Settlement has been reached between certain defendant
telecommunications companies and a proposed class of current and
prior owners of land next to or under certain railroad Rights of
Way.  The deal resolves litigation over whether these defendants
had the right to install telecommunications facilities within
railroad Rights of Way without the consent of members of the
proposed settlement class.

The Proposed Settlement will provide cash payments to qualifying
class members based on various factors that include:

      -- the length of the Right of Way where the cable is
         installed,

      -- the state where the property is located, and

      -- how the railroad got its property rights.

The Proposed Settlement will also provide Sprint, Qwest, WilTel
and Level 3 with permanent Telecommunications Easements, which
give them the right to use the railroad Rights of Way for their
telecommunications equipment.

"We encourage all individuals who own land near a railroad Right
of Way to visit the Web site or call the toll-free number to
learn more about their legal rights and filing a claim,"
explained the class counsel.

Details on the Fiber-Optic Cable Settlement can be obtained
from: http://www.FiberOpticCableSettlement.com/

The suit is "Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10651-MLW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Mark L.
Wolf.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Andrew W. Cohen, Esq. (acohen@koonz.com)
           Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP
           2001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
           James Monroe Building, Suite 450
           Washington, DC 20006
           Phone: 202-822-1826
           Fax: 202-822-1828

                - and -

           Catherine M. Colinvaux, Esq. (ccolinvaux@zelle.com)
           Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP
           950 Winter Street, Suite 1300
           Waltham, MA 02451
           Phone: 781-466-0700
           Fax: 781-466-0701


WELLS FARGO: Faces California Lawsuit Over Violation of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank and America's Servicing Co. are facing a class-
action complaint before the Los Angeles Superior Court over
allegation that they violate privacy by taping harassing
collection calls, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges the companies violate state wiretap laws
by secretly recording and monitoring calls from "particularly
aggressive" collectors who subject mortgage debtors to "a
constant and unrelenting barrage of telephone calls."

CourtHouse News recounts that Wells Fargo uses ASC to dun its
own borrowers, and hires out ASC to dun debtors for other
lenders.

"Borrowers who fall behind on their mortgage payments receive a
constant and unrelenting barrage of telephone class from ASC,"
the complaint states.  "Aside from the harassing nature of this
practice, ASC also surreptitiously records and/or monitors
consumers' telephone conversations without informing consumers
or obtaining their consent and permission to do so.  This
practice violates California's Invasion of Privacy Act, is
negligent and violates common law privacy rights of California
consumers. It is for these violations that plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all class members, seek redress
from defendants."

Representing the plaintiffs is:

           Paul Kiesel, Esq.
           Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP
           8648 Wilshire Boulevard
           Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
           Phone: 310-854-4444
           Fax: 310-854-0812
           e-mail: info@kbla.com


WILSHIRE ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuit Over NWJ Apartment Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wilshire Enterprises, Inc., disclosed that a purported class
action complaint has been filed in connection with the proposed
merger of the company with a wholly owned subsidiary of NWJ
Apartment Holdings Corp., an affiliate of NWJ Companies, Inc., a
privately owned real estate development company.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the merger
consideration is unfair and that the Company's definitive proxy
materials were deficient in certain respects.

The suit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
money damages, attorney's fees and costs.

The Company regards the allegations in the complaint as
completely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the
action.

Wilshire is an American Stock Exchange listed corporation
engaged in the acquisition, ownership and management of real
estate properties in Arizona, Florida, New Jersey and Texas.


XCEL ENERGY: Supreme Court Yet to Set Hearing Date for "Hoffman"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Supreme Court has yet to set a hearing date for
oral argument in the discretionary review of the matter,
"Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co.," which was filed before
the Minnesota state district court in Hennepin County against
Xcel Energy, Inc.'s subsidiary, Northern States Power Co.

Filed on March 15, 2006, the complaint was brought on behalf of
Northern States Power-Minnesota's residential customers in
Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota for alleged breach of a
contractual obligation to maintain and inspect the points of
connection between NSP-Minnesota's wires and customers' homes
within the meter box.

The plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota's breach results in an
increased risk of fire and that it is in violation of tariffs on
file with the Minnesota Power Utilities Commission.

The plaintiffs thus seek injunctive relief and damages in an
amount equal to the value of inspections they claim NSP-
Minnesota was required to perform over the past six years.

NSP-Minnesota has filed a motion for dismissal on the pleadings,
which motion was heard on Aug. 16, 2006.

In November 2006, the court issued an order denying the
dismissal motion, but later, pursuant to a motion by NSP-
Minnesota, certified the issues raised in NSP-Minnesota's
original motion for appeal as important and doubtful, and NSP-
Minnesota filed an appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

In January 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined the
plaintiffs' claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine and
remanded the case to the district court for dismissal.

The plaintiffs have petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for
discretionary review, and in April 2008, the court granted the
petition.  The matter has been briefed by both parties.  A date
for oral argument has not yet been set, 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

Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/-- is a holding
company, with subsidiaries engaged in the utility business.  On
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, Xcel Energy's operations included
the activity of four wholly owned utility subsidiaries that
serve electric and natural gas customers in eight states.  The
utility subsidiaries are National States Power Co., Minnesota
(NSP-Minnesota), National States Power Co., Wisconsin (NSP-
Wisconsin), Public Service Co. of Colorado (PSCo) and
Southwestern Public Service Co., Mexico (SPS).  The utilities
serve customers in portions of Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota,
New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.
Along with WYCO Development LLC, (WYCO) a company formed to
develop and lease new natural gas pipeline and compression
facilities, and WestGas Interstate, Inc., Colorado (WGI), an
interstate natural gas pipeline company, these companies
comprise the continuing regulated utility operations.


XCEL ENERGY: 5th Circuit Mulls Dismissal Appeal in Katrina Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of  Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to rule
on a motion appealing the dismissal of the matter, "Comer, et
al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.," which names Xcel
Energy, Inc., the parent of Minnesota-based Northern States
Power Co., as a defendant.

In April 2006, Xcel Energy received notice of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of Mississippi.

The lawsuit names more than 45 oil, chemical and utility
companies, including Xcel Energy, as defendants and alleges that
the defendants' CO2 emissions "were a proximate and direct cause
of the increase in the destructive capacity of Hurricane
Katrina."

The plaintiffs allege, in support of their claim, several legal
theories, including negligence and public and private nuisance
and seek damages related to the loss resulting from the
hurricane.

In August 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
against all the defendants on constitutional grounds.

In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Oral arguments
were presented to the Court of Appeals on Aug. 6, 2008.  It is
uncertain when the Court will reach a decision, 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 "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          F. Gerald Maples, Esq. (federal@geraldmaples.com)
          Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq. (mmayberry@geraldmaples.com)
          F. Gerald Maples, PA
          902 Julia Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Phone: 504-569-8732

               - and -

          Randall Allan Smith, Esq. (rasmith3@bellsouth.net)
          Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. (smwiles@smithfawer.com)
          Smith & Fawer
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-525-2200
          Fax: 504-525-2205


XCEL ENERGY: Continues to Face Several Nev. Natural Gas Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy, Inc., and its subsidiaries continue to face
multiple lawsuits in Nevada with regards to the sale of natural
gas in the U.S.

e prime, a subsidiary of Xcel Energy Markets Holdings Inc.,
which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy, Inc., was in
the business of natural gas trading and marketing.  It has not
engaged in natural gas trading or marketing activities since
2003.

Twelve lawsuits have been commenced against e prime and Xcel
Energy (and NSP-Wisconsin in one instance), alleging fraud and
anticompetitive activities in conspiring to restrain the trade
of natural gas and manipulate natural gas prices.

Xcel Energy, e prime, and NSP-Wisconsin deny these allegations
and will vigorously defend against these lawsuits, including
seeking dismissal and summary judgment, the company says.

The initial gas trading lawsuit, a purported class action suit
brought by wholesale natural gas purchasers, was filed in
November 2003 with the U.S. District Court in the Eastern
District of California.  e prime is one of several defendants
named in the complaint.  This case is captioned, "Texas-Ohio
Energy vs. CenterPoint Energy."

The other eleven cases arising out of the same or similar set of
facts are captioned:

        1. "Fairhaven Power Company vs. EnCana Corporation et
           al.;"

        2. "Ableman Art Glass vs. EnCana Corporation et al.;"

        3. "Utility Savings and Refund Services LLP vs. Reliant
           Energy Services Inc. et al.;"

        4. "Sinclair Oil Corporation vs. e prime and Xcel Energy
           Inc.;"

        5. "Ever-Bloom Inc. vs. Xcel Energy Inc. and e prime et
           al.;"

        6. "Learjet, Inc. vs. e prime and Xcel Energy Inc et
           al.;"

        7. "J.P. Morgan Trust company vs. e prime and Xcel Energy
           Inc. et al.;"

        8. "Breckenridge Brewery vs. e prime and Xcel Energy Inc.
           et al.;"

        9. "Missouri Public Service Commission vs. e prime, inc.
           and Xcel Energy, Inc. et al.;"

       10. "Arandell vs. e prime, Xcel Energy, NSP-Wisconsin et
           al.;" and

       11. "Hartford Regional Medical Center vs. e prime, Xcel
           Energy et al."

Many of these cases involve multiple defendants and have been or
are in the process of being transferred to Judge Phillip Pro of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, who is the
judge assigned to the western area wholesale natural gas
antitrust litigation.  An exception is the Missouri Public
Service Commission case, which was remanded to Missouri state
court in November 2007.

In April 2005, Judge Pro granted a motion by the defendants to
dismiss the case based upon the filed rate doctrine in "Texas-
Ohio Energy."

Based upon this same legal doctrine, Judge Pro subsequently
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in "Fairhaven Power
company," "Ableman Art Glass," and "Utility Savings and Refund
Services."

The plaintiffs subsequently appealed these dismissals to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In September 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the dismissal and remanded the lawsuits to Judge Pro for
consideration of whether any of plaintiffs' claims are based
upon retail rates not directly barred by the filed rate
doctrine.

e prime and some other defendants were dismissed from the
Breckenridge lawsuit in February 2008, but Xcel Energy remains a
defendant in that lawsuit and e prime Energy Marketing was added
as a defendant in February 2008.

All of the gas trading lawsuits are in the early procedural
stages of litigation.

No trial dates have been set for any of these lawsuits; however,
the defendants' motions to dismiss are pending in the Missouri
Public Service Commission matter, and the defendants' motions
for summary judgment are pending in the Learjet and J.P. Morgan
matters.

An Early Neutral Evaluation session took place on July 16, 2008,
on the "Abelman," "Ever Bloom," "Fairhaven," "Texas-Ohio," and
"Utility Savings" cases, but a settlement was not reached.

Trial for all cases venued in Nevada will likely be set for late
2009 or early 2010, 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.

Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/-- is a holding
company, with subsidiaries engaged in the utility business.  On
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, Xcel Energy's operations included
the activity of four wholly owned utility subsidiaries that
serve electric and natural gas customers in eight states.  The
utility subsidiaries are National States Power Co., Minnesota
(NSP-Minnesota), National States Power Co., Wisconsin (NSP-
Wisconsin), Public Service Co. of Colorado (PSCo) and
Southwestern Public Service Co., Mexico (SPS).  The utilities
serve customers in portions of Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota,
New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.
Along with WYCO Development LLC, (WYCO) a company formed to
develop and lease new natural gas pipeline and compression
facilities, and WestGas Interstate, Inc., Colorado (WGI), an
interstate natural gas pipeline company, these companies
comprise the continuing regulated utility operations.


* 4 Attorneys Join Litigation Plaintiffs' Law Firm Motley Rice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motley Rice LLC, one of the nation's largest plaintiffs'
litigation firms, announced the addition of four attorneys to
its Securities and Consumer Fraud practice group.

Attorneys Mary Joyce Carlson, Esq., John C. Duane, Esq., William
S. Norton, Esq., and Daniel C. Rome, Esq., all bring their
individual talents and resources to the firm's work on behalf of
investors, consumers and victims of wrongdoing.

Ms. Carlson joins Motley Rice with over 25 years of experience
in labor, healthcare and employment law.  Ms. Carlson has
consulted with and represented labor organizations such as:

      -- Service Employees International Union;

      -- American Federation of State, County and Municipal
         Employees;

      -- The International Brotherhood of Teamsters;

      -- The United Food and Commercial Workers International
         Union; and

      -- UNITE HERE, CLC (merged entity of the former Union of
         Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees and the
         former Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees
         International Union).

In addition to her broad knowledge in areas such as healthcare
and employment benefits litigation matters and advocacy before
licensure and regulatory agencies, Ms. Carlson's history of
strong relationships with unions greatly complements both the
foundation and current work of Motley Rice.

Ms. Carlson brings her experience representing labor unions and
other clients in both the public and private sectors to her work
with the Motley Rice Securities and Consumer Fraud practice
group. Carlson will also assist the Motley Rice Anti-Terrorism
and Human Rights practice group in their efforts to seek redress
for victims of violent crime and terrorism in the United States
and abroad.  She has been actively involved in the ABA Rule of
Law Project to train governments and countries in designing and
administering labor and human rights accords.  Additionally, she
has served in a consulting role with the London based
International Trade Union Center for Labor and Human Rights.

She is the former General Counsel to the Heath Care Division of
the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the largest
health care industry union in the United States.  She also
served as Deputy General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board under the appointment of President Clinton, as a
consultant with the State Department and Ministry of Labor in
Chile and was Of Counsel to Washington, D.C.-based litigation
firm James & Hoffman, P.C. Carlson earned a Juris Doctor from
Duke University School of Law and is licensed in Georgia.

Also joining Motley Rice is Mr. Duane, a former federal
prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
South Carolina, where he prosecuted a variety of cases,
including white collar and violent crimes.  He brings trial
experience and a training background to both the securities and
aviation litigation teams at Motley Rice.  Mr. Duane was the
2004 Assistant United States Attorney of the Year for the
Charleston Division.  Prior to joining the U.S. Attorney's
Office, Mr. Duane worked on criminal and civil cases for several
years as a law clerk for Senior U.S. District Judge C. Weston
Houck.  He earned a Bachelor of Arts from the College of
Charleston, a Juris Doctor from the University of South Carolina
School of Law, and is licensed in South Carolina.

Prior to joining Motley Rice, Mr. Norton gained litigation
experience representing clients in complex securities class
actions, involving both SEC investigations and electronic
discovery with a large New York-based law firm.  He clerked in
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and
has been involved with multiple legal outreach and community
programs.  Mr. Norton earned a Bachelor of Science from the
University of South Carolina and a Juris Doctor from Boston
University School of Law.  He is licensed in Massachusetts and
New York.

Mr. Rome joins Motley Rice from Automated Trading Desk, LLC,
where he served as the compliance manager, ensuring operational
compliance at a firm trading over 300 million shares a day.
During the past twelve years he has served in various positions
within the securities industry, ranging from selling securities
to working in a client services capacity, however he has spent
most of his career addressing securities compliance.  Mr. Rome
is a member of the AML Strategic Leadership Group.  He earned a
Bachelor of Arts from West Chester University of Pennsylvania
and a Juris Doctor from Widener University School of Law.  He is
licensed in Pennsylvania.

"We are delighted that each of these talented attorneys chose to
join our team," stated Joe Rice, Esq., Motley Rice co-founding
member.  "Their experiences representing U.S. and foreign
businesses in diversified complex matters will greatly enhance
our securities practice and our focus on corporate governance
and shareholders' rights," Mr. Rice added.

Motley Rice LLC -- http://www.motleyrice.com/-- is one of the
nation's largest plaintiffs' litigation firms.  Motley Rice
attorneys gained recognition for their litigation targeting bad
business practices which have negatively impacted workers, the
environment, public entities, aviation passengers, innocent
victims of terrorism and shareholder value.  Today, with nearly
70 attorneys and hundreds of staff, the firm continues to handle
complex litigation, including cases in the areas of securities
fraud, shareholder rights, aviation, asbestos bankruptcy, and
human rights. The securities and consumer fraud practice group,
composed of attorneys, business analysts and investigators,
utilizes up-to-date case analysis and litigation strategies and
has been appointed lead counsel in multiple cases.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CARMAX INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of CarMax, Inc., 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 under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

CarMax is a nationwide retailer of new and used automotive
vehicles.

According to the complaint, CarMax publicly issued materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that
CarMax was not positioned to meet its sales or earnings
objectives for fiscal 2009; that the Company had completed a
refinancing of its warehouse facility which had materially
increased the Company's funding costs; and that the Company had
no reasonable basis for their revenues and earnings guidance for
fiscal 2009.

The complaint alleges that after the Company announced its
financial results for the quarter ended May 31, 2008, and
suspended its financial guidance for the rest of fiscal 2009,
the value of the Company's shares declined.

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

For more information, contact:

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


GT SOLAR: Kaplan Fox Files New Hampshire Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
against GT Solar International, Inc., and certain of its
officers and directors that alleges violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or acquired the common stock of GT Solar pursuant or traceable
to the Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's July 23, 2008
initial public offering.

Also named as defendants are certain underwriters of the IPO.

The Complaint alleges that on July 23, 2008, GT Solar
accomplished its IPO of 30.3 million shares at $16.50 per share
for proceeds of $500 million.  As further alleged, on July 24,
2008, in its first day of trading, GT Solar's common stock
closed at $14.59 per share.

However, as alleged, before the market opened on July 25, 2008,
LDK Solar Co, Ltd., GT Solar's largest customer, issued a press
release announcing it had signed a contract to purchase the same
type of equipment it was purchasing from GT Solar from one of GT
Solar's competitors and on this disclosure the price of GT
Solar's stock declined to as low as $9.30 per share before
closing at $12.59 per share on July 25, 2008, representing a 24%
decline from the IPO price.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the
IPO failed to disclose the true extent of the risks surrounding
the Company's relationship with LDK, including the fact that GT
Solar was at imminent risk of losing out on a contract for
future orders from LDK, its single largest customer.

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

For more information, contact:

           Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
           Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
           Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
           Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
           850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
           New York, NY 10022
           Phone: 800-290-1952
                  212-687-1980
           Fax: 212-687-7714
           e-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com

                - or -

           Laurence D. King, Esq.
           Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
           350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
           San Francisco, CA 94104
           Phone: 415-772-4700
           Fax: 415-772-4707
           e-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


REDDY ICE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in 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.

Reddy Ice and certain of its officers and directors are alleged
to have violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false statements concerning the Company's financial
performance and prospects.

Specifically, Reddy Ice allegedly failed to disclose that:

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

     (ii) 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 the SEC rules.

On March 6, 2008, Reddy Ice issued a press release announcing
that federal officials executed a search warrant at the
Company's corporate office in Dallas. On this news, shares of
the Company's stock fell $7.73 per share to close at $15.38 per
share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 7,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

           Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
           Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
           39 Broadway, Suite 1601
           New York, NY 10006
           Phone: 212-363-7500
           Fax: 212-363-7171
           Web site: http://www.zlk.com/


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation has commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common units of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., during the
period between July 17, 2007, and July 17, 2008, inclusive.

This action, expanding the class period and claims asserted in
earlier filed actions, arises under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and has been brought on
behalf of those who purchased common units of SGLP pursuant to
the Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued in
connection with SGLP's Initial Public Offering completed on or
about July 23, 2007, and in connection with its secondary
offering of common units on February 13, 2008.

SGLP provides storage, gathering, and transportation services
for companies engaged in the production, distribution, and
marketing of crude oil.

The Complaint alleges that SGLP's parent SemGroup, L.P., was in
financial difficulty or at high risk for such financial
difficulty as a result of its investment in risky crude oil
hedge transactions by the start of the class period, but hid
this from investors in SGLP, including by providing limited
representations about its relationship with the Parent and risks
surrounding the Parent's operations.  The allegations in the
complaint also indicate that in February 2008, SGLP effected a
secondary offering, where it sold 6 million units at $23.90 for
proceeds of $137 million and that the Company borrowed
substantial funds and purchased the Parent's asphalt business
for $387 million.

It is alleged in the Complaint that this transaction was
designed to financially prop up the Parent.  The Complaint
explains that the Prospectus for the Offering described the
positive relationship between SGLP and the Parent and described
how important the Parent was to SGLP since it was SGLP's primary
customer and provided almost all of the Company's revenue, but
that there was no discussion of the Parent's financial
difficulties or risk factors.

The complaint further alleges that by July 11, 2008, SGLP unit
values began to decline on increased trading volume despite the
release of no adverse news and that on July 17, 2008, SGLP unit
prices declined 50% to $11.00 on greatly increased volume of
5.7 million units, after material adverse news which had been
withheld by defendants began to leak, thus forcing the
defendants to issue a statement after the market closed on
July 17, 2008 revealing that the Parent was experiencing
liquidity issues and was exploring various alternatives,
including raising additional equity, debt capital or the filing
of a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code.  The complaint indicates that as a result,
the price of the Company's units continued to decline, wiping
out almost $300 million in unit holder value.

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

For more information, contact:

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


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Brower Piven Files Ind. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Zimmer Holdings, Inc., during
the period between January 29, 2008, and July 22, 2008,
inclusive.

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

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants'
materially false and misleading statements caused Zimmer's
common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices and that,
when the Company disclosed problems with its facilities and
problems with a hip replacement product, the price of Zimmer
stock declined.

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

For more information, contact:

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


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
September 22-24, 2008
   MEALEY'S NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION SUPERCONFERENCE
     BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
       Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, Arizona
         Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

September 23-24, 2008
   DEFENDING CONSUMER FRAUD ECONOMIC INJURY CLAIMS
     American Conference Institute
       Union League, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
         Phone: 888-224-2480

October 23-24, 2008
   Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
     Mass Torts Made Perfect
       Bellagio, Las Vegas
         Phone: 1-800-320-2227

October 27-28, 2008
   POSITIONING THE CLASS ACTION DEFENSE FOR EARLY SUCCESS
     American Conference Institute
       FireSky Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, Arizona
         Phone: 888-224-2480

October 29-30, 2008
   AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT LIABILITY
     American Conference Institute
       Sutton Place Hotel, Chicago, Illinois
         Phone: 888-224-2480

November 7, 2008
   NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
     American Bar Association
       New York
         Phone: 800-285-2221

December 9-11, 2008
   DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
     American Conference Institute
       Millennium Broadway Hotel, New York
         Phone: 888-224-2480

July 9-10, 2009
   CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND
     DEFENSE STRATEGIES
       Practising Law Institute
         New York
           Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
December 4-5, 2008
   ASBESTOS LITIGATION
     American Law Institute - American Bar Association
       Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

December 13, 2008
   MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
     Mealeys Seminars
       Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
         e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
   CEB Online
     e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
       Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
   (2004)
     CEB Online
       e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
   (2005)
     CEB Online
       e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
         Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
   (2007)
     CEB Online
       e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
         Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 26TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
   (2008)
     CEB Online
       e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
         Phone: 1-800-232-3444

DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS
   CEB Online
     e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
       Phone: 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
   CEB Online
     e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
       Phone: 1-800-232-3444

GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT
   DEVELOPMENTS
     CEB Online
       e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
         Phone: 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
   YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
     CEB Online
       e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
         Phone: 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
   WRITTEN DISCOVERY
     CEB Online
       e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
         Phone: 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
   CEB Online
     e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
       Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
   CEB Online
     e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
       Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
   CEB Online
     e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
       Phone: 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
   LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
     Online Streaming Video
       e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
   LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
     Online Streaming Video
       e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
   LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
     Online Streaming Video
       e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
   Big Class Action
     e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
   Online Streaming Video
     LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
       e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
   Online Streaming Video
     LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
       e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
   Online Streaming Video
     LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
       e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
   Big Class Action
     e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
   Online Streaming Video
     LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
       e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
   LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
     e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
   Online Streaming Video
     LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
       e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
   Online Streaming Video
     LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
       e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
   LawCommerce.Com
     e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
   SALES AND ADVERSTISING
     American Bar Association
       Phone: 800-285-2221
         e-mail: abacle@abanet.org






                             *********

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  * * *