CAR_Public/080814.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, August 14, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 161

                            Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Mediation Fails in Delaware Securities Lawsuit
BAYER CORP: Faces 'One-A-Day' Lawsuit in Illinois Court
CUTERA CORP: Court Yet to Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
CUTERA INC: Continues to Face TCPA Violations Suit in Illinois
DELL INC: Penna. Suit Claims Sale of Defective Nvidia GeForce

DISH NETWORK: April 2009 Trial Scheduled for Retailers' Lawsuit
DISH NETWORK: Calif. Court Denies "Brantley" Dismissal Motion
DRUG COS: Zurich American Files Lawsuit Over Actimmune Marketing
FIFTH THIRD: First Charter Shareholders File Lawsuit in Ohio
FRANCHESCO'S RESTAURANT: Waitresses File Tipping Lawsuit

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
INDIAN TRUST: Judge Provides $455.6MM Restitution Settlement
INFOSONICS CORP: Reaches Comprehensive Deal in Securities Suit
INFOSONICS CORP: Reaches Comprehensive Deal in Derivatives Suit
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Gov't Pension Funds Sue Over Sub-Prime Losses

LEVI STRAUSS: Court Certifies Class for $5MM Settlement Purposes
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Pa. Court Set to Approve OSB Suit Settlement
METROLOGIC INSTRUMENTS: Former Workers Sue Over 2007 Layoffs
NISOURCE INC: Discovery Continues in W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit
NISOURCE INC: Wants Sup. Ct. to Review $404M Verdict in "Tawney"

NISOURCE INC: Ky. Royalties Suit Certification Hearing is Today
PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Two Securities Fraud Suits in Missouri
PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Labor-Related Lawsuit in California
PANERA BREAD: Still Faces California Labor Code Violations Suit
SAIA INC: Wants Georgia Fuel Surcharges Lawsuit Dismissed

SAIA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling Over "Cortez" Suit Settlement
STIFEL FINANCIAL: Faces Auction Rate Securities Lawsuit in Mo.
TRUCKING COS: Chimicles Investigates Potential Underpaying Suit
UNITED FIRE: Still Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits in La.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CARMAX INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Virginia Securities Fraud Suit
HUNSTMAN CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Utah Securities Lawsuit
KKR FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Brower Piven Files New York Securities Suit
REDDY ICE: Holzer & Fistel Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ADAMS GOLF: Mediation Fails in Delaware Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
No resolution was reached in a mediation session in connection
with a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending with
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against
Adams Golf, Inc.

Beginning June 1999, the first of seven class action complaints
was filed against the company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the three underwriters of its
initial public offering.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection
with the company's IPO.

In particular, the complaints alleged that its prospectus, which
became effective Jul. 9, 1998, was materially false and
misleading in at least two areas.  The plaintiffs alleged that
the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized distribution
of the company's products (gray market sales) threatened the
company's long-term profits.  They also assert that the
prospectus failed to disclose that the golf equipment industry
suffered from an oversupply of inventory at the retail level,
which had an adverse impact on sales.

An operative complaint was filed on Jan. 24, 2006, and discovery
closed on Aug. 11, 2006.  In November 2006, all summary-judgment
briefing was completed.  On Dec. 13, 2006, the company learned
that the judge from the U.S. District Court of the District of
Delaware under whom the case was assigned before was elevated to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.  All proceedings
had been postponed.

On Feb. 7, 2008, the company was notified that the case has been
reassigned to Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet.  There has been no
scheduling conference set yet, and there is no trial date set at
this time.

The parties participated in a mediation proceeding on April 8,
2008, but no resolution has been reached, according to the
company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Shockley, et al. v. Adams Golf Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:99-cv-00371-KAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, Judge Kent A. Jordan presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Carmella P. Keener, Esq. (CKeener@rmgglaw.com)
         Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess
         Citizens Bank Center
         Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070
         Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
         Phone: 302-656-4433

Representing the defendants are:

         Kevin G. Abrams, Esq.
         Abrams & Laster, LLP
         Brandywine Plaza West, 1521 Concord Pike, #303
         Wilmington, DE 19803
         Phone: 302-778-1000
         Fax: 302-778-1001

         Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq. (moyer@rlf.com)
         Richards, Layton & Finger
         One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551
         Wilmington, DE 19899
         Phone: 302-651-7700

              - and -

         John E. James, Esq. (jjames@potteranderson.com)
         Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
         1313 N. Market St, Hercules Plaza
         6th Flr, PO Box 951
         Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
         Phone: 302-984-6000


BAYER CORP: Faces 'One-A-Day' Lawsuit in Illinois Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Bayer Corp. is facing a class-action complaint before the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, over its "One-A-Day
WeightSmart" vitamins, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The suit claims Bayer fraudulently claimed its "One-A-Day
WeightSmart" vitamins would "prevent weight gain" especially for
people over 30, "increase metabolism," and paid a $3.2 million
fine for violating a Federal Trade Commission order for false
advertising.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801 on
behalf of all Illinois residents who purchased One-A-Day
WeightSmart during the class period.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's practices, representations, and
         omissions made in connection with the labeling,
         advertising, marketing, promotion and sales of One-A-
         Day WeightSmart were deceptive, unlawful or unfair in
         any respect, thereby violating the Illinois Consumer
         Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act;

     (b) whether the defendant's practices, representations and
         omissions made in connection with the labeling,
         advertising, marketing, promotion and sales of One-A-
         Day WeightSmart were deceptive, unlawful or unfair in
         any respect, thereby violating the Illinois Consumer
         Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act;

     (c) whether the defendant's practices, representations, and
         omissions made in connection with the labeling,
         advertising, marketing, promotion and sales of One-A-
         Day WeightSmart were false and misleading, thereby
         violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
         Business Practices Act;

     (d) whether the defendant violated the Illinois Consumer
         Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by the
         practices, representations, and omissions made in
         connection with the labeling, advertising, marketing,
         promotion and sales of One-A-Day WeightSmart within
         Illinois;

     (e) whether the defendant's conduct injured consumer, and
         if so, the extent of the injury; and

     (f) whether the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         damages, restitution and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs asks the court to enter an order:

     -- determining that the action is a proper class action
        maintainable under 735 ILCS 5/2-801;

     -- certifying the plaintiff as class representative;

     -- appointing the plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the
        class;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class economic, actual, and
        compensatory damages;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class restitution;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class disgorgement;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class declaratory and
        injunctive relief as requested;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and teh class their consequential
        and incidental damages;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class pre-judgment and post-
        judgment interest as provided by law;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class punitive damages as
        provided by law;

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class reasonable attorneys'
        fees and reimbursement of all costs for the prosecution
        of this action; and

     -- awarding plaintiffs and the class such other and further
        relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is "Theodora Camuy et al. v. Bayer Corp., Case No.
08CH29199," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq. (eaw@wtwlaw.com)
          Amber M. Nesbitt, Esq. (amn@wtwlaw.com)
          Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-346-2222
          Fax: 312-346-0022


CUTERA CORP: Court Yet to Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion that sought the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against Cutera,
Inc., and two of its executive officers.

Initially, two lawsuits were filed in April 2007 and May 2007,
respectively.  They were filed following declines in the
company's stock price.  The plaintiffs claim to represent
purchasers of the company's common stock from Jan. 31, 2007,
through May 7, 2007.

The complaints generally allege that materially false statements
and omissions were made regarding the company's financial
prospects, and seek unspecified monetary damages.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases and gave
the plaintiffs until Dec. 17, 2007, to file a consolidated,
amended complaint.

On Jan. 31, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint.

The court held a hearing on this motion on May 22, 2008, but has
not yet issued its ruling, according to the company's Aug. 4,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Doug Hamilton, et al. v. Cutera, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-02128," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Vaughn R. Walker,
presiding.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0700
         Fax: 212-818-0477
         e-mail: info@labaton.com

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

              - and -

         Roy Jacobs & Associates
         350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000
         New York, NY 10118
         e-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com


CUTERA INC: Continues to Face TCPA Violations Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cutera, Inc., continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Originally, the suit was filed against the company in January
2008 in the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, by Bridgeport
Pain Control Center, LTD.  It seeks monetary damages, injunctive
relief, costs and other relief.

The complaint alleges that the company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the
plaintiffs and other recipients without the prior express
invitation or permission of the recipients.  Under the TCPA, the
recipients of unsolicited facsimile advertisements may be
entitled to damages of $500 per violation for inadvertent
violations and $1,500 per violation for knowing or willful
violations.

On Feb. 22, 2008, the company removed the case to the U.S
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and then
filed its response to the complaint on Feb. 29, 2008, according
to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Bridgeport Pain Control Center, Ltd. Vs. Cutera,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-01116," filed in the U.S District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge William J.
Hibbler, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. (ccombs@edcombs.com)
         Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
         120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Phone: 312-739-4200

Representing the defendants is:

          Eric Stephen Mattson, Esq. (emattson@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-853-7000


DELL INC: Penna. Suit Claims Sale of Defective Nvidia GeForce
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Inc. and Nvidia Corp. are facing a class-action complaint
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania alleging Dell sells notebook computers with
defective Nvidia GeForce 8M Series graphics processing units
that ruin the computers, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The GPU allegedly causes video functions to fail, multiple
images on the screen, random images to appear on the screen, and
horizontal or vertical lines on the screen.

The plaintiff brings this class action suit pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all others
who purchased a notebook PC manufactured by Dell that was
equipped with a NVIDIA GeForce 8M Series graphics processing
unit.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (i) whether the defendants have breached the implied
         warranty of merchantability to the Class;

    (ii) whether the Notebooks are merchantable as a result of
         the design defect;

   (iii) whether Defendant Dell was unjustly enriched by the
         retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred by
         Plaintiff and members of the Class;

    (iv) whether the Notebooks are defective because they are
         equipped with NVIDIA GeForce 8M Series GPUs composed
         from a weak material set of die/package combination;

     (v) whether the defendants knew, or was reckless in not
         knowing, that the Notebooks are defective; and

    (vi) whether, as a result of the defendants' misconduct,
         the plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages,
         restitution, equitable relief or other relief, and the
         amount and nature of such relief.

The plaintiff requests that the Court:

     a. certify this action as a class action under Rule 23;

     b. order the defendants to pay the plaintiff and the class
        an amount of actual damages to be determined at trial;

     c. order a recall of the Notebooks in the Class States;

     d. issue an injunction preventing the defendants from
        manufacturing and selling the Notebooks equipped with
        the NVIDIA GeForce 8M Series GPUs;

     e. issue an order granting the plaintiff reasonable costs
        and attorney's fees; and

     f. grant such other relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is "Cindy Poirier et al. v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No.
2:05-mc-02025," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr. Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr., PC
          519 Allegheny Building, 429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-391-5164
          Fax: 412-471-1033
          e-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

          Robert B. Weiser, Esq.
          Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
          The Weiser Law Firm, PC
          121 N. Wayne Ave.,Suite100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-225-2677
          Fax: 610-225-2678

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Michael A. Schwartz, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis
          Attorneys at Law
          28 West 44th Street - 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-404-2200
          Fax: 212-404-2226

          James V. Bashian, Esq.
          Law Offices of James V. Bashian, PC
          271 Route 46 West, Suite F207
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Phone: 973-227-6330
          Fax: 973-808-8665

               - and -

          Brant C. Martin Esq.
          Wick Phillips, LLP
          2100 Ross Ave., Suite 950
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-692-6200
          Fax: 214-692-6255


DISH NETWORK: April 2009 Trial Scheduled for Retailers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2008 trial is scheduled for a class-action suit filed
in California against DISH Network Corp. by certain of its
retailers.

During 2000, two lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado
state and federal court attempting to certify nationwide classes
on behalf of certain of the company's retailers.

The plaintiffs request that the courts declare certain
provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the
company and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to
award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs,
and other compensation.

The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of
the state court action.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts
and against all the state court action plaintiffs.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion for additional time to conduct
discovery to enable them to respond to the motion.

The state court granted limited discovery that ended in 2004.
The state court action plaintiffs, however, claimed that the
company did not provide adequate disclosure during the discovery
process.

The state court agreed, and recently denied the company's motion
for summary judgment as a result.  The final impact of the state
court's ruling cannot be fully assessed at this time.

In April 2008, the state court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion.  Trial has been set for April 2009,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

DISH Network Corp. -- http://www.dishnetwork.com/-- is a
provider of satellite delivered digital television to customers
across the United States.  DISH Network services include
hundreds of video, audio and data channels, interactive
television channels, digital video recording, high definition
television, international programming, professional installation
and around the clock customer service.


DISH NETWORK: Calif. Court Denies "Brantley" Dismissal Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied a motion that sought the dismissal of a purported class-
action suit, entitled "Rob Brantley et al. v. NBC Universal,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv06101," which names DISH Network
Corp. as a defendant.

On Sept. 21, 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite
subscribers filed the antitrust action against the company
before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast,
Cablevision, Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable,
NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney
Co.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to
bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the
ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which motion the
court denied in July 2008, according to the company's Aug. 4,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

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

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants are:

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

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

               - and -

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


DRUG COS: Zurich American Files Lawsuit Over Actimmune Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genentech Inc. and Intermune Inc. are facing a Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging they fraudulently marketed Actimmune for
idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Co. alleges
substantive and conspiracy violations of the RICO in violation
of 18 USC Section 1962(c) and (d), as well as violations of
various state consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all third-party
payors, health insurance companies, third-party administrators,
health maintenance organizations, self-funded health and welfare
benefit plans, and any other health benefit provider in the
United States and its territories.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the alleged conduct by defendants violated laws
         as alleged in the complaint;

     (b) whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to
         damages as a result of defendants' conduct;

     (c) whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to
         equitable and injunctive relief;

     (d) whether defendants' unlawful, unfair and deceptive
         practices harmed plaintiff and the class members; and

     (e) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by their
         deceptive practices.

The plaintiff request that:

     -- the court determine that this action may be maintained
        as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to
        plaintiff's claims for declaratory, equitable and
        injunctive relief, and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims of
        damages, and declare plaintiff and its counsel as
        proper representatives of the class; and designating
        such 23(c)(4)(A) class issues and 23(c)(4)(B)
        subclasses as appropriate;

     -- the court enter an order appointing plaintiff's counsel
        as class counsel;

     -- the conduct alleged be declared, adjudged and decreed to
        be unlawful;

     -- plaintiff and the class be granted an award of damages
        in such amount to be determined at trial, with treble
        damages as provided by law, and prejudgment interest on
        all damages;

     -- plaintiff and the class be granted an award of punitive
        damages in such amount to be determined at trial;

     -- defendants be enjoined from continuing the illegal
        activities alleged;

     -- plaintiff and the class recover their costs and expenses
        of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees
        and expert fees as provided by law; and

     -- plaintiff and the class be granted such other, further,
        and different relief as the nature of the case may
        require or as may be determined to be just, equitable
        and proper by the court.

The suit is "Zurich American Insurance Co. et al. v. Genentech
Inc. et al., Case No. 08 3797 MMC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Kim E. Miller, Esq.
          Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
          12 E. 41st Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-455-1400
          Fax: 504-455-1498


FIFTH THIRD: First Charter Shareholders File Lawsuit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C., has filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of all former shareholders of First Charter Corp.
who acquired the common stock of Fifth Third Bancorp. in
connection with Fifth Third's acquisition of First Charter on
June 6, 2008, and who were shareholders of First Charter as of
November 26, 2007, and were solicited to vote on this
acquisition.

On August 16, 2007, First Charter announced that it signed a
definitive agreement to be acquired by Fifth Third for $31.00
per share, which would be paid in the form of 70% Fifth Third
common stock and 30% cash.  In connection with Fifth Third's
acquisition of First Charter, Fifth Third filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a Registration Statement and
Prospectus on Form S-4 on November 7, 2007, amended on
November 29, 2007.

The complaint alleges that Fifth Third and some of its senior
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
filing a Registration or Proxy Statement that was materially
false and misleading.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Registration or Proxy Statement failed to
disclose:

     (a) the Company's increasing exposure to certain poorly
         performing real estate markets, including Florida,
         Ohio, and Michigan;

     (b) the Company's growing exposure to late payments and
         defaults on mortgages and other non-performing loans;

     (c) the extent of the decline in the quality of the
         Company's Tier 1 capital base;

     (d) the deteriorating credit trends and increasing expenses
         in the Company's consumer loan portfolio;

     (e) the negative trends in the Company's home equity and
         commercial construction loans; and

     (f) the deterioration in the credit quality of its loans.

The truth began to emerge on June 18, 2008, when Fifth Third
announced that it was in need of capital and was planning a
$1 billion convertible preferred stock offering, a sale of "non-
core businesses" to raise an additional $1 billion in capital,
and a 66% reduction of its quarterly dividend, from $0.44 per
share to $0.15 per share.

On this news, the price of Fifth Third common stock declined 27%
from its previous close of $12.73 per share, to close on
June 18, 2008, at $9.26 per share on very heavy volume.  The
June 18, 2008 announcement of the previously concealed material
facts revealed that the market price of Fifth Third stock on the
five trading days prior to the June 6, 2008 closing of the
merger, upon which the exchange ratio of First Charter shares
was based, did not reflect the true value of Fifth Third shares.
The true value of Fifth Third shares during the five day
valuation period was materially less than the market value of
Fifth Third shares because of the non-disclosure of these
material facts.  As a result, First Charter shareholders did not
receive Fifth Third shares worth $31.00, but instead received
Fifth Third shares worth substantially less and should have
received additional Fifth Third shares in order to receive the
$31 value merger consideration that they agreed to, pursuant to
the Prospectus and Proxy statement.

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

The suit is "Sam McGee v. Fifth Third Bancorp., et al., Case No.
1:08-CV-539" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.


FRANCHESCO'S RESTAURANT: Waitresses File Tipping Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Waitresses, represented by James Bormes, filed a class action
tipping lawsuit, claiming Franchesco's Restaurant illegally
deducts 5% from tips that customers pay with credit cards,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Waitresses claim that they end up working for less than minimum
wage.

To contact Mr. Bormes:

          James Bormes
          Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C.
     8 South Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60603


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc., is facing a consolidated antitrust
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York over guaranteed investment contracts (GIC).

Between March and July 2008, the company was named along with
several other GIC industry participants as defendant in several
class-action suits, alleging federal antitrust violations
involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking treble
damages.

In June 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation consolidated the federal cases for pre-trial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under the case name, "In re Municipal Derivative
Antitrust Litigation."

Genworth Financial, Inc. -- http://www.genworth.com/-- is a
financial security company dedicated to providing insurance,
investment and financial solutions that help meet the
homeownership, life security, wealth management and retirement
security needs of more than 15 million customers, with a
presence in more than 25 countries.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the
Company operated through three segments: Retirement and
Protection, International and U.S. Mortgage Insurance.
Retirement and Protection segment offers a variety of
protection, wealth accumulation, retirement income and
institutional products.  Through the International segment the
Company is a provider of mortgage insurance products in Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Japan and multiple European
countries.  In the U.S., the company offers mortgage insurance
products predominantly insuring prime-based, individually
underwritten residential mortgage loans, also known as flow
mortgage insurance.


INDIAN TRUST: Judge Provides $455.6MM Restitution Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
After 12 years of litigation, a federal judge rejected claims
that the government owed American Indians $47 billion for
mismanaging their money held in a special trust fund, but ruled
they were owed less than 1% of the amount sought, Tom Doggett
writes for Reuters.

According to Bismarck Tribune, U.S. District Judge James
Robertson's ruling on Aug. 7 provided a $455.6-million
restitution settlement in "Cobell vs. Kempthorne."  Judge
Robertson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, referred to case law as grounds for his equitable
settlement figures, calling for "accurate evaluations of
difficult evidence," while not allowing a windfall for victims
"or punishment for wrongdoers."

                        Case Background

The lawsuit began in 1996 with a filing by Elouise Cobell, a
member of the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana, against the U.S.
Interior Department.  It was originally assigned to Judge Royce
Lamberth, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
ordered the case reassigned in 2006.

The class action suit is based on the government's admitted
mismanagement of a land trust, which the Congress called a
"Broken Trust," that was established in 1887.  The Broken Trust
was to handle the proceeds from the government-arranged leasing
of 11 million acres of Indian lands, mostly in the West.  As the
papers presented to Judge Robertson noted, the trust was
mismanaged by the government almost from its inception.  Despite
repeated orders from Congress and the Courts, the government was
years away from its long-promised accounting of the accounts,
(Class Action Reporter Jan. 8, 2008).

Reuters recounts that the trust includes 10 million acres of
land owned by individual Indians and 46 million acres belonging
to Indian tribes.  On these lands, the department manages more
than 100,000 leases and the money they generate from mineral
mining, oil and gas drilling, timber, livestock grazing,
recreational and agricultural uses are deposited into the trust.
That money is disbursed by the department to individuals and
tribes.

The government had proposed in March 2007 to pay $7 billion
partly to settle the lawsuit.  However, the proposal was
rejected by the plaintiffs, who estimated that the government's
liability could exceed $100 billion.  The Interior Department
estimates that it has spent $127 million on its accounting in
the past five years.

In late January 2008, a Legal Times report wrote, Judge
Robertson issued a 165-page opinion concluding that the Interior
Department is incapable of performing an accurate accounting of
the land trust fund.

According to another report by the Associated Press, Judge
Robertson said that the department's accounting for billions of
dollars owed to America Indian landholders has been
"unreasonably delayed" and is ultimately impossible.

                 Judge Robertson's Recent Ruling

Reuters says that Judge Robertson ruled that the model used to
estimate how much money was withheld by the government was
faulty because it "did not make use of the best available
evidence and did not make fair or reasonable comparisons of
data."  He said the there was no evidence of the "prodigious
pilfering of assets from within the trust system" that the
Indian plaintiffs had claimed and that they failed to prove the
government used any money from the fund for its own benefit.

Instead, Reuters notes, the judge accepted the Interior
Department's position that it was 99% confident that no more
than $455.6 million was missing from the trust fund.

"This statement has the character of an admission -- by
responsible civil servants -- that there are limits to what can
be confidently stated with respect to the (trust fund), and that
a history of accounting nonfeasance makes such a substantial
error plausible," Judge Robertson wrote in his ruling.

The judge has yet to determine how the $455.6 million
restitution will be awarded, Bismarck Tribune relates.  And his
opinion also states the Cobell litigation does not resolve "any
claims that IIM holders may have for damages against the
government."

              Plaintiffs Disappointed Over Ruling

Ms. Cobell, the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, told
Bismarck Tribune that lawyers representing thousands of the
American Indian landowners will appeal Judge Robertson's final
ruling.

Ms. Cobell said that the appeal will be filed soon, adding that
the litigation unfairly put the burden of proof for financial
mismanagement on Indian landholders instead of the Interior
Department.

"Expectations have been very high in Indian Country about this
case for a long time," said John Dossett, Esq., an attorney
representing the National Congress of American Indians, the
largest and oldest Indian advocacy organization in the country.
He described Judge Robertson's opinion as "disappointing" and "a
blow" because of its narrow scope in determining how much money
was owed to landowners.

Mr. Dossett contended that Judge Robertson only considered two
basic questions -- How much money was collected by the Interior
Department's agencies, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
and how much money should the department disburse to Indian
account holders.

"The department is gratified that the court recognized the
complexities and uncertainties involved in this case," James E.
Cason, associate deputy secretary of the Interior, said in a
statement.  "We look forward to working with the court, the
Congress and the plaintiffs to bring the case to final closure."

"We always believed much more of the money was never collected
in the first place," Mr. Dossett added.  "And that's always been
the biggest flaw in the BIA's system, is that they didn't have
an accounts receivable system in which they were able to make
collection efforts," if someone failed to pay.  "Far more has
never been collected than what was inaccurately distributed."

"It's a horrendous slap in the face after 120 years of injustice
to have this kind of ruling come down," said William Lomax,
president of the Native American Finance Officers Association,
or NAFOA, a financial management watchdog organization in
Phoenix, of the recent ruling.

Mr. Lomax told Bismarck Tribune that he is encouraging tribal
leaders to attend the NAFOA conference in Chicago on Sept. 3-4,
so they can continue to fight for accountability of Indian trust
funds.  He said tribal leaders will be asked to "step up" as the
appeal process moves forward.


INFOSONICS CORP: Reaches Comprehensive Deal in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
InfoSonics Corporation reached a settlement in the consolidated
class action lawsuit "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities
Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

Six securities action complaints, originally filed between June
and July 2006, were consolidated as "In Re: InfoSonics Corp.
Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231."

The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14,
2007, asserting claims for violation of section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A in
connection with the company's restatement announced June 12,
2006, and allegedly false and misleading statements and
accounting related to the company's distribution agreement with
VK Corp.

The suit seeks a declaration that it is a proper class action
pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as unspecified
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, expert witness fees, other costs, and other unspecified
relief.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006, to Aug. 9, 2006.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended consolidated complaint.  In April 2008, the Court
issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' dismissal motion.

In June 2008, the Court dismissed without prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims based on the defendants' restatement of first
quarter 2006 earnings and dismissed without prejudice all claims
against a certain individual defendant (Class Action Reporter,
June 27, 2008).

Recently, the parties in the case entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding -- which will be followed by Stipulations of
Settlement -- regarding settlement terms.  The settlement, which
is subject to among other things preliminary and final Court
approval after appropriate notice, would resolve all the claims
in the lawsuits.

The company settled these lawsuits to avoid the expense and
continued disruption to the business of protracted litigation
and the Company and its current and former officers and
directors deny any liability or responsibility for the claims
made and make no admission of any wrongdoing.

As part of the settlement, and in exchange for dismissals of the
lawsuits and releases, the Company has agreed to authorize
payment of $3.8 million (said sum to be inclusive of plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, in an amount to be determined by the Court).

It is anticipated that these settlement payments will be funded
entirely by the company's insurer.

The suit is "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead
Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com)
          Latham and Watkins
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101-3375
          Phone: 619-236-1234
          Fax: 619-696-7419


INFOSONICS CORP: Reaches Comprehensive Deal in Derivatives Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
InfoSonics Corporation reached a settlement in the derivative
action "In Re: InfoSonics Corporation Derivative Litigation,
Lead Case No. 06 CV 1336" filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

This lawsuit relates to the company's restatement of its first
quarter 2006 financial statements and a grant of stock options
in December 2005.

The parties in the case entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (which will be followed by Stipulations of
Settlement) regarding the settlement terms.  The settlement,
which is subject to among other things preliminary and final
Court approval after appropriate notice, would resolve all the
claims in the lawsuit.

The company settled this lawsuit to avoid the expense and
continued disruption to the business of protracted litigation
and the Company and its current and former officers and
directors deny any liability or responsibility for the claims
made and make no admission of any wrongdoing.

As part of the settlements, and in exchange for dismissals of
the lawsuits and releases, the company has agreed to make
certain corporate governance changes and to authorize payment of
up to $350,000 for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

It is anticipated that this settlement payment will be funded
entirely by the company's insurer.

Headquartered in San Diego, California, InfoSonics Corporation
(NASDAQ:IFON) -- http://www.infosonics.com/-- is a distributor
and provider of wireless handsets and accessories in Latin
America and the United States.  The company distributes products
of several original equipment manufacturers, including Samsung,
LG, Novatel and others.  InfoSonics is also involved in the
designing, sourcing and distributing of a line of products under
its own verykool brand, which includes entry level, mid-tier and
high-end products.  From its facility in Miami, Florida, where
the company has its Latin America sales and executive offices,
InfoSonics operates a warehouse and distribution center.  This
distribution center services customers in Latin America and the
United States.  The company has wholly owned subsidiaries in
Latin America, which conduct some of its business activities in
their respective regions of Latin America.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Gov't Pension Funds Sue Over Sub-Prime Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two local government pension funds are leading a U.S. class
action law suit against Lehman Brothers over sub-prime losses,
Professional Pensions reports.

According to the report, the Lothian Pension Fund and the
Northern Ireland Local Governmental Officers Superannuation
Committee are leading a group of pension funds from around the
world in the case.

The schemes allege that investment banking giant Lehman Brothers
caused them major financial losses as a result of sub-prime
investments.

A Lehman Brothers spokesman told Professional Pensions that the
company believes "that this suit is completely without
substance."

Sackers partner Peter Murphy shared with Professional Pensions
that this new case could trigger a shift in U.K. scheme attitude
towards class action suits.  He said that, "There has been a
historic reluctance for UK schemes to get involved in US class
action cases.  But there is a current growth in awareness and
recognition by trustees that they should be considering the pros
and cons of getting involved."

"The case against Lehman Brothers is about the credit crunch.
This could be a catalyst for schemes to say that the time is
right to become more involved," Mr. Murphy added.  "Obviously it
is less attractive when news is good about investments, when the
market is doing well there is not such as incentive. The current
market may put more pressure on people to take action, where
previously they decided not to."

Mr. Murphy further noted that local authority schemes have
traditionally been more involved in class action suits than
private schemes.


LEVI STRAUSS: Court Certifies Class for $5MM Settlement Purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
certified as a class action the suit, "In re Levi Strauss & Co.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-05605 RMW," for purposes of
a proposed settlement valued at $5 million in cash.

The suit is in connection with the company's April 6, 2001 and
June 16, 2003 registered bond offerings.  Aside from Levi
Strauss, the suit also names as defendants:

      -- the company's chief executive officer,

      -- its former chief financial officer,

      -- its corporate controller,

      -- its directors, and

      -- its underwriters.

The court previously appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the
selection of lead counsel in the matter.  The action purports to
be brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's bonds who
made purchases pursuant or traceable to the company's
prospectuses dated March 8, 2001, or April 28, 2003, or who
purchased the company's bonds in the open market from Jan. 10,
2001, to Oct. 9, 2003.

The action makes claims under the federal securities laws,
including Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, relating to the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filings and other public statements.

Specifically, the action alleges that certain of the company's
financial statements and other public statements during this
period materially overstated its net income and other financial
results and were otherwise false and misleading, and that the
company's public disclosures omitted to state that it made
reserve adjustments that plaintiffs allege were improper.

The plaintiffs contend that these statements and omissions
caused the trading price of the company's bonds to be
artificially inflated.  They seek compensatory damages as well
as other relief.

On July 15, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
case.  The matter came before the court on Oct. 15, 2004, and,
after oral arguments had concluded, the court took the matter
under submission.

On Sept. 11, 2007, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) and
20(a) claims in the case and dismissed the tax fraud aspects of
the Section 11 and 15 claims.  The Court also limited the
plaintiff class on the Section 11 and 15 claims by eliminating
from the class those bondholders who purchased the bonds in
private offerings and then exchanged them for registered bonds
in the subsequent exchange offer.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to the
tax-fraud claims Jan. 14, 2008, and the company stipulated with
the plaintiffs that its response will be due on or before
March 21, 2008, subject to court approval.

On Feb. 22, 2008, the parties agreed to settle the matter.

The parties finalized their settlement agreement, and filed a
request for preliminary approval of the settlement with the
court on June 18, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2008).

Recently, the suit has been certified as a class action for
purposes of the proposed $5 million settlement.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte at
9:00 a.m. on October 17, 2008, to determine whether the proposed
settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate
and to consider the application of lead counsel for attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on September 26,
2008.  Deadline to file claims is on November 7, 2008.

The suit is "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:03-cv-05605-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
          Timothy DeLange, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: 888-924-1888
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com/

               - and -

          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-371-6600
          Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/

Representing the defendants are:

         Erin E. Schneider, Esq. (eschneider@gibsondunn.com)
         Austin Van, Esq. (aschwing@gibsondunn.com)
         Schwing of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         One Montgomery St., 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-393-8276
                415-393-8210
         Fax: 415-374-8458


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Pa. Court Set to Approve OSB Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
is expected to approve Louisiana-Pacific Corp.'s settlement of a
purported class-action suit, captioned "In re OSB Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," by the fourth quarter of
2008.

Initially, the company was named as one of a number of
defendants in multiple class action complaints filed on or after
Feb. 26, 2006, before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

These complaints were dismissed or consolidated into two
complaints under one caption, "In Re OSB Anti-Trust Litigation,
Master File No. 06-CV-00826 (PD)."

The first complaint is a consolidated amended class action
complaint filed on March 31, 2006, on behalf of plaintiffs who
directly purchased OSB (oriented strand board) from the
defendants from May 1, 2002, through the date the complaint was
filed (the direct purchaser complaint).

The second complaint is a consolidated amended class action
complaint, filed on June 15, 2006, on behalf of plaintiffs who
indirectly purchased OSB from the defendants from May 1, 2002,
through the date the complaint was filed (the indirect purchaser
complaint).

The plaintiffs in both amended and consolidated complaints moved
for and received class certification and sought treble damages
totaling approximately $4.8 billion alleged to have resulted
from a conspiracy among the defendants to fix, raise, maintain
and stabilize the prices at which OSB is sold in the U.S., in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.

The plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser complaint also seek
similar remedies under individual state anti-trust and
competition laws as well as consumer protection laws.

The company believes that the claims asserted were without
merit, but after being ordered to settlement conference by the
judge in the cases, LP decided that in order to limit the risks
and costs associated with a prolonged trial schedule, it would
settle the direct and indirect lawsuits.

The settlement agreements are subject to court approval, which
is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2008, according to
the company's Aug. 4, 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 OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-
CV-00826 (PD)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

              - and

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com)
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300

Representing the defendants are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com)
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com)
         James H. Schink, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144
                312-861-2350

              - and -

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com)
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475


METROLOGIC INSTRUMENTS: Former Workers Sue Over 2007 Layoffs
------------------------------------------------------------
Metrologic Instruments employees who were laid off last year
filed a lawsuit against the company in federal court, saying the
company did not give them 60 days notice as required by law,
Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

According to Philadelphia Inquirer, the lawsuit, filed in the
U.S. District Court in Camden, seeks class-action status along
with damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses on behalf
of 13 South Jersey residents who were among a group of more than
100 workers terminated on June 8, 2007.

The suit asserts that Blackwood, N.J.-based Metrologic
Instruments violated the federal Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act and owes the workers 60 days' pay
and benefits.

The report says that other defendants named in the purported
class action lawsuit include Honeywell International Inc., which
acquired Metrologic a few weeks after the layoffs were announced
and now operates Metrologic as part of Honeywell Security.
Darius Adamczyk, who was named chief executive of Metrologic
three months before the layoffs, also is a defendant.

The plaintiffs are being represented by New Jersey labor lawyer
Robert F. O'Brien, Esq.


NISOURCE INC: Discovery Continues in W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit pending
with the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia
that alleges certain "select shippers," including certain
subsidiaries and affiliates of NiSource, Inc., have engaged in
an "illegal gas scheme" that constituted a breach of contract
and violated state law.

Initially, on July 14, 2004, Stand Energy Corp. filed a
complaint before the Kanawha County Court in West Virginia.
This suit is styled "Stand Energy Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corp., et al."

The complaint contains allegations against various NiSource
subsidiaries and affiliates, including Columbia Transmission and
Columbia Gulf, and asserts that those companies and certain
"select shippers" engaged in the illegal gas scheme,
constituting a breach of contract and violated state law.

The "illegal gas scheme" relates to the Columbia Transmission
and Columbia Gulf gas imbalance transactions that were the
subject of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission enforcement
staff investigation and subsequent settlement approved in
October 2000.

Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf filed a notice of
removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of West
Virginia on Aug. 13, 2004, and a motion to dismiss the suit on
Sept. 10, 2004.

In October 2004, however, the plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint, which clarified the identity of some of the
"select shipper" defendants and added a federal antitrust cause
of action.

On Jan. 6, 2005, the court denied the Columbia companies' motion
to strike the complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to
amend.

To address the issues raised in the Second Amended Complaint,
the Columbia companies revised their briefs in support of their
previously filed motions to dismiss.

In June 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Columbia companies' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  The Columbia companies have filed an answer to the
Second Amended Complaint.

One of the plaintiffs, Atlantigas Corp., was dismissed from the
case, and has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals.

On Dec. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
case as a class action.  The defendants filed their opposition
to this motion in March 2008.  All briefing has been completed.

Oral argument was heard on June 3, 2008, and the parties are
awaiting a decision by the court.  Discovery continues on the
merits, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge
Robert C. Chambers, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joshua I. Barrett, Esq.
          Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Esq.
          Molly McGinley Han, Esq.
          Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq.
          Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero
          604 Virginia Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: 304-342-0133
          Fax: 304-342-4605
          Web site: http://www.ditrapanolaw.com/

               - and -

          Robert C. Sanders, Esq.
          The Law Office of Robert C. Sanders
          12051 Upper Marlboro Pike
          Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-2922
          Phone: 301-574-3400
          Fax: 301-574-2153

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael S. Becker, Esq. (mbecker@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis
          Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-879-5000
          Fax: 202-879-5200

               - and -

          John H. Tinney, Esq. (JackTinney@tinneylawfirm.com)
          The Tinney Law Firm
          P. O. Box 3752
          Charleston, WV 25337-3752
          Phone: 304-720-3310
          Fax: 304-720-3315.


NISOURCE INC: Wants Sup. Ct. to Review $404M Verdict in "Tawney"
----------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource, Inc., along with other defendants in the purported
class-action suit entitled "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural
Resources, Inc.," is seeking a review by the U.S. Supreme Court
of a $404-million verdict in the case, according to the
company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, filed the
lawsuit before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County
in early 2003.

The suit alleges that the defendants underpaid royalties on gas
produced on their land by improperly deducting post-production
costs and not paying a fair value for the gas.

In December 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
add NiSource and Columbia Natural Resources, as defendants.  The
plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants fraudulently
concealed the deduction of post-production charges.

The court certified the case as a class action that includes any
person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due royalties
from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands lying
within the boundary of the state of West Virginia.

Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated
to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages
ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs.

On Jan. 27, 2007, the jury hearing the case returned a verdict
against all defendants in the amount of $404.3 million, which is
comprised of $134.3 million in compensatory damages and
$270 million in punitive damages.

In January 2008, the defendants filed their petition for appeal,
and on March 24, 2008, they filed their amended petition for
appeal before the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

On May 22, 2008, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
refused the defendants' petition for appeal.  The defendants are
preparing a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari.  The petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is due
August 20, 2008.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane
County, Judge Thomas Evans, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St.
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, West Virginia 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


NISOURCE INC: Ky. Royalties Suit Certification Hearing is Today
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has
scheduled an Aug. 14, 2008 hearing on oral argument for class
certification of the matter, "John Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake
Appalachia, L.L.C.," which names NiSource, Inc., as a defendant.

On Feb. 8, 2007, John Thacker filed the purported class action
suit, alleging that Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., failed to pay
royalty owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of
their oil and gas leases covering real property located within
the state of Kentucky.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2007,
which, among other things, added NiSource and Columbia Natural
Resources as defendants.

On March 31, 2008, the court denied a motion by the defendants
to dismiss the case.  The defendants then filed their answers to
the complaint on April 25, 2008.

On June 3, 2008, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class
consisting of all persons entitled to payment of royalty by
Chesapeake under leases operated by Chesapeake at any point
after Feb. 5, 1992, on real property in Kentucky.  The
defendants' response to this certification motion was filed on
July 18, 2008.

The court has scheduled oral argument on class certification
today, Aug. 14, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Case No.
7:07-cv-00026-GFVT," filed in the U.S. District Court of the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Thomas E. Meng, Esq. (tmeng@stites.com)
         Stites & Harbison PLLC
         250 W. Main Street, 2300 Lexington Financial Center
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-226-2300
         Fax: 859-425-7902

Representing the defendants are:

         Anne Adams Chesnut, Esq. (aac@gdm.com)
         Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, PLLC
         300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1100
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-288-4613
         Fax: 859-255-2742

              - and -

         Nora Clevenger Price, Esq.
         (pricenc@steptoe-johnson.com)
         Steptoe & Johnson
         1000 Fifth Avenue, Suite 250
         P.O. Box 2195
         Huntington, WV 25722-2195
         Phone: 304-522-8290
         Fax: 304-526-8089


PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Two Securities Fraud Suits in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Co. continues to face two purported securities
fraud class-action suits filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.

On Jan. 25, 2008, and Feb. 26, 2008, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the company and three of its current
or former executive officers by the Western Washington Laborers-
Employers Pension Trust and by Sue Trachet, respectively, on
behalf of investors who purchased the company's common stock
during the period between Nov. 1, 2005, and July 26, 2006.

Each complaint alleges that the company and the other defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 under the U.S.
Exchange Act in connection with its disclosure of system-wide
sales and earnings guidance during the period from Nov. 1, 2005,
through July 26, 2006.

Also, each complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other
relief as the court might find just and proper.

The company reported no development in the matters in its
Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 24, 2008.

Panera Bread Co. -- http://www.panerabread.com/-- operates
retail bakery-cafes.  As of Dec. 26, 2007, the company operated,
directly and through area development agreements with 39
franchisee groups, 1,167 bakery-cafes (501 company-owned and 666
franchise-operated, bakery-cafes) under the Panera Bread and
Saint Louis Bread Co. names.  Bakery-cafes are principally
located in suburban, strip mall and regional mall locations, and
operate in 38 states.  The menu includes a variety of year-round
favorites, complemented by new items introduced seasonally.
Panera Bread operates as three business segments: the company-
owned, bakery-cafe operations segment; the franchise operations
segment, and the fresh dough operations segment.  On Feb. 1,
2007, the company purchased 51% of Paradise Bakery & Cafe, Inc.
During fiscal year ended December 25, 2007, it opened 148
bakery-cafes, acquired 36 bakery-cafes from its franchisees,
closed eight bakery-cafes, and sold one company-owned, bakery-
cafe to a franchisee.


PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Labor-Related Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Co. continues to face a purported class-action suit
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern
California, entitled "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case
No. 3:08-cv-01071-SC."

The suit was filed on Feb. 22, 2008, against the company and one
of its subsidiaries by a former employee of the company, Pati
Johns.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code for
failure to pay overtime and termination compensation.  It seeks,
among other relief, collective and class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find
just and proper.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 4,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 24, 2008.

The suit is "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No.
3:08-cv-01071-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Northern California, Judge Samuel Conti, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7100
          Fax: 816-714-7101

Representing the defendants is:

          Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq. (MHEdwards@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Phone: 415-433-1940
          Fax: 415-743-6641


PANERA BREAD: Still Faces California Labor Code Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Co. continues to face a purported class-action suit
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Northern California.  The suit was filed on March 19, 2008,
against the company and one of its subsidiaries by Marion
Taylor, a former employee.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code for failure to pay termination
compensation and failure to provide rest and meal periods.  It
seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and
proper.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 4,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 24, 2008.

The suit is "Taylor v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No.
3:08-cv-01519-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Northern California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7100
          Fax: 816-714-7101

Representing the defendants is:

          Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq. (MHEdwards@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Phone: 415-433-1940
          Fax: 415-743-6641


SAIA INC: Wants Georgia Fuel Surcharges Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Saia, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated class
action complaint that was filed in a litigation over fuel
surcharges.

Initially, a lawsuit was filed in late July 2007 before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Saia and several other major Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) freight
carriers alleging that the defendants conspired to fix fuel
surcharge rates in violation of federal antitrust laws and
seeking injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys' fees.

Since the filing of the original case, similar cases have been
filed against Saia and other LTL freight carriers, each with the
same allegation of conspiracy to fix fuel surcharge rates.

The cases were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the plaintiffs
are seeking class action certification.

The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on
May 23, 2008.  They voluntarily dismissed these carriers as
defendants from the Amended Consolidated Complaint without
prejudice:

      -- R&L Carriers, Inc.;
      -- New England Motor Freight, Inc.;
      -- Southeast Freight Lines, Inc.;
      -- AAA Cooper Transportation;
      -- Jevic Transportation, Inc.; and
      -- Sun Capital Partners.

They also voluntarily dismissed Southern Motor Carriers Rate
Conference, Inc., without prejudice.

On June 25, 2008, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint on the
grounds that it failed to adequately plead collusion and
conspiracy, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Saia, Inc. -- http://www.saia.com/-- is a trucking company that
provides a variety of transportation and supply chain solutions
to a range of industries, including the retail, chemical and
manufacturing industries.  Saia serves a variety of customers by
offering regional and interregional less-than-truckload (LTL)
services and selected national LTL, and guarantee services.  The
company operates through its subsidiary, Saia Motor Freight Line
LLC (Saia Motor Freight), which is a multi-regional LTL carrier
that serves 33 states in the South, Southwest, Midwest, Pacific
Northwest and the West.


SAIA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling Over "Cortez" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter, "Hoany G. Cortez v. Saia Motor
Freight Line, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05388-R-E," is
appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California that denied preliminary approval to the
proposed settlement in the matter.

The company is a defendant in a lawsuit originally filed in July
2007 in California state court on behalf of California dock
workers, alleging various violations of state labor laws.  The
claims also include the alleged failure of the company to
provide rest and meal breaks and the alleged failure to
reimburse the employees for the cost of work shoes.

In August 2007, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

In January 2008, the parties negotiated a conditional class-wide
settlement under which the company would pay $0.8 million to
settle these claims.

In March 2008, the District Court denied preliminary approval of
the settlement and the named plaintiff filed a petition before
the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit seeking
permission to appeal this ruling.  The petition is now pending,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Hoany G. Cortez v. Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05388-R-E," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Manuel L.
Real, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregg A. Farley, Esq. (gfarley@farleyfirm.com)
          Law Offices of Gregg A. Farley
          11755 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-445-4024
          Fax: 310-445-4109

          Neal J. Fialkow, Esq. (nfialkow@pacbell.net)
          Neal J. Fialkow Law Offices
          215 North Marengo Avenue, Third Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Phone: 626-584-6060

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          Sahag Majarian II Law Offices
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Phone: 818-609-0807

Representing the defendants is:

          Pamela Carrolll Calvet, Esq. (pccalvet@bryancave.com)
          Bryan Cave
          120 Broadway, Ste 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
          Phone: 310-576-2390


STIFEL FINANCIAL: Faces Auction Rate Securities Lawsuit in Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stifel Financial Corp. and Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. are facing a
class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri over allegations the companies
violated securities laws by misleading investors about auction
rate securities, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Joseph Merrick claims that the defendants
represented to investors that auction rate securities were cash
equivalents or better than market money funds, and that the ARS
were highly liquid and meant for short-term investing.  But,
according to the complaint, ARS are actually complex, long-term
instruments with 30-year maturity dates or longer and that they
were only liquid at the time of the sale because the defendants
were artificially supporting and manipulating the market.

The suit states that on Feb. 13, 2008, 87% of all ARS markets
failed when all the other major broker-dealers refused to
support the market, leaving holders of more than $300 billion in
ARS with no means of liquidating the investments.

The class consists of all people who bought ARS from the
defendants between June 11, 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008.

The plaintiff asks the court for judgment:

     -- determining that this action is  a proper class action,
        designating plaintiff as lead plaintiff and certifying
        plaintiff as class representative under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and plaintiff's counsel
        as lead counsel;

     -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and
        the other class members against all defendants, jointly
        and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
        defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at
        trial, including interest thereon;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs
        and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
        fees and expert fees;

     -- awarding extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive
        relief as permitted by law, equity and the federal
        statutory provisions sued; and

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

The suit is "Joseph A. Merrick, et al. v. Stifel Financial
Corp., et al., Case 4:08-cv-01167-HEA," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          James R. Rosemergy, Esq.
          Joseph P. Danis, Esq.
          Michael Flannery, Esq.
          Corey D. Sullivan, Esq.
          Carey & Danis, LLC
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-725-7700
          Fax: 314-721-0905


TRUCKING COS: Chimicles Investigates Potential Underpaying Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP is investigating a potential class
action lawsuit against trucking companies for allegedly
underpaying their drivers.

Many truck drivers work pursuant to an employment contract that
calls for them to be paid based on the number of miles that they
actually drive.  Certain other benefits also accrue based on
these 'actual' mileage figures.

Chimicles & Tikellis is investigating whether certain trucking
companies may be systematically shortchanging their drivers by
calculating these mileage figures in an arbitrary and inaccurate
manner, such as by reference to the Household Mover's Guide and
other mileage charts.  It has been reported that certain
publications that may be used by some trucking companies measure
mileage between cities based on arbitrarily designated physical
locations, rather than based on the actual distance to a
delivery location.  As a result, certain trucking companies may
be systematically underpaying their drivers.

Chimicles & Tikellis is investigating whether calculating the
mileage figures in a manner other than by reference to the
'actual' miles driven amounts to a breach of the uniform
employment contract with the trucking company.  If you know of a
truck driver who may have been under-compensated based on
improper mileage calculations by their employer, please contact
the attorneys listed below.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph G. Sauder (JosephSauder@chimicles.com )
          Benjamin F. Johns (BenJohns@chimicles.com )
          Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: 610-642-8500


UNITED FIRE: Still Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Co. continues to face various lawsuits
relating to disputes arising from damages that occurred as a
result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, 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.

As of June 30, 2008, there were in excess of 400 such cases
pending, approximately 20 of which were styled as class actions.

These cases have been filed in both Louisiana state courts and
federal district courts.  These cases involve, among other
claims, disputes as to the amount of reimbursable claims in
particular cases, as well as the scope of insurance coverage
under homeowners and commercial property policies due to
flooding, civil authority actions, loss of use and business
interruption.

Certain of the cases also claim a breach of duty of good faith
or violations of Louisiana insurance claims-handling laws or
regulations and involve claims for punitive or exemplary
damages, while other cases claim that under Louisiana's so-
called "Valued Policy Law," the insurers must pay the total
insured value of a home that is totally destroyed if any portion
of such damage was caused by a covered peril, even if the
principal cause of the loss was an excluded peril.  Other cases
challenge the scope or enforceability of the water damage
exclusion in the policies.

Several actions pending against various insurers, including the
company, were consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery
and motion practice under the caption, "In re Katrina Canal
Breaches Consolidated Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-4182," in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

In light of an April 8, 2008 Louisiana Supreme Court decision
finding that flood damage was clearly excluded from coverage,
state and federal courts have been reviewing the pending suits
seeking class certification and other pending suits in order to
expedite pre-trial discovery and to move the cases towards
trial.

However, little has actually occurred, as many courts were
waiting on a request that the Louisiana Supreme Court reconsider
its decision.  That request was denied on July 8, 2008.  The
company expects litigation activity to resume now that the
Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled on the flood issue.

United Fire & Casualty Co. -- http://www.unitedfiregroup.com/--
is engaged in the business of writing property and casualty
insurance, and life insurance.  The company operates in two
segments: property and casualty insurance, and life insurance.
The property and casualty insurance segment markets forms of
commercial and personal property, and casualty insurance
products, including surety bonds and reinsurance.  The company
is licensed as a property and casualty insurer in 42 states,
primarily in the Midwest, West and South and is represented by
865 independent agencies.  The company's life insurance
subsidiary is licensed in 28 states, primarily in the Midwest
and West and is represented by 927 independent agencies.  United
Fire focuses on its commercial lines, which represented 92.6% of
its property and casualty premiums written for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.  United Fire's principal life insurance products
are single premium annuities, universal life products and
traditional life products.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CARMAX INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Virginia Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, commenced a shareholder class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of CarMax
Inc. common stock during the period between April 2, 2008, and
June 17, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges CarMax and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Specifically, the complaint alleges CarMax misrepresented
its ability to meet its financial expectations and failed to
disclose material changes that increased the Company's funding
costs.

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

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 888-508-6832 (toll-free)


HUNSTMAN CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Utah Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, gave
notice that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of all
purchasers of securities of Huntsman Corporation from June 26,
2007, through June 18, 2008, inclusive.

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

Huntsman is a manufacturer and marketer of differentiated
chemicals and pigments.  In or about May 2007, Huntsman began to
contact potential buyers about a sale of the Company.

On June 26, 2007, the Company announced that it had agreed to be
acquired by Basell AF for $25.25 per share.  Following this
announcement, on July 3, 2007, the Company announced that it had
received a superior merger proposal from Hexion Specialty
Chemicals, Inc., an affiliate of private equity firm Apollo
Management, L.P., for $27.25 per share.  On July 12, 2007, the
Company announced that it has agreed to be acquired by Hexion
for $28.00 per share.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Hexion merger proposal included a financing
         condition, and the debt financing of the acquisition
         was not fully committed;

     (2) that the Company had significantly understated its
         future net debt estimate prior to entering the Merger
         Agreement, and its net debt had dramatically increased
         since such time;

     (3) that the Company had significantly overstated its
         future net earnings prior to entering the Merger
         Agreement, and its future net earnings had dramatically
         decreased since such time;

     (4) that the Company's Pigment, Textile Effects and
         Performance Products segments were significantly
         underperforming relative to estimates and expectations,
         and in a disproportionate manner compared to other
         companies engaged in the chemical business;

     (5) that as a result, the equity value of Huntsman had
         significantly declined throughout the Class Period to
         the point where Hexion would be unable to obtain a
         solvency opinion necessary to complete the merger;

     (6) that the increase in total debt and decrease in
         earnings had caused the Company's financial health to
         significantly deteriorate and to trigger a material
         adverse effect ("MAE") in the Merger Agreement;

     (7) that due to the MAE, combined with the fact that Hexion
         could not secure a solvency opinion necessary for the
         merger, Hexion would be unable to complete the merger
         with Huntsman;

     (8) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (9) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and business
         prospects, including the consummation of the merger
         with Hexion, were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

Following the Company's original and subsequent merger
announcements, and the announcement that the Company had
received a superior merger proposal from Hexion, the Company's
shares dramatically increased in value.  In the weeks and months
following Huntsman's announcement that it had signed a
definitive Merger Agreement with Hexion, and with the Company's
securities trading at artificially inflated prices, Company
insiders sold 57,082,420 shares of the Company's stock for gross
proceeds of over $1.3 billion.

Then on June 19, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that Hexion had filed a lawsuit against Huntsman
seeking to terminate the Merger Agreement.  The suit filed by
Hexion revealed that three of Huntsman's five business segments
had significantly underperformed relative to expectations,
estimations and projections.  Further, citing the combination of
Huntsman's decreased earnings potential, as well as its
significant increase in net debt, Hexion disclosed that it was
unable to secure a financing Commitment Letter or solvency
opinion -- both necessary for the merger to successfully close.
Huntsman's deteriorating financial health -- given the dramatic
increase in net debt and decline in earnings -- meant that the
company had suffered a MAE, and in all likelihood the merger
will not be completed.  On this news, the Company's shares fell
$8.00 per share, or 38.35 percent, to close on June 19, 2008 at
$12.86 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 15,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


KKR FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of KKR Financial Holdings, LLC, pursuant or traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its May 4, 2007 merger and share issuance.

The complaint charges KKR and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

KKR is a specialty finance company that invests in multiple
asset classes.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus were false and misleading in that they misrepresented
and omitted material facts, including understating the risks
attributable to real-estate-related assets held by the Company,
the sufficiency of the Company's capital and KKR's mortgage-
related exposure.

The complaint also alleges that when, on August 15, 2007, KKR
issued a release which revealed that KKR would be selling
$5.1 billion in mortgage backed securities at a loss, the value
of KKR shares fell substantially below the original offering
price.

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/


NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Brower Piven Files New York Securities 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 New York on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of NovaGold Resources, Inc., during
the period between October 25, 2006, and November 23, 2007,
inclusive.

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

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants falsely portrayed NovaGold as a rapidly growing
company moving from an exploration and development company to a
gold and copper production company.  The complaint further
alleges that included in the materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period were those confirming the
economic viability of the Company's Galore Creek project.

After announcing one October 25, 2006 that development of the
Galore Creek project would require capital costs of
CDN$2.2 billion, in April 2007, the Company raised hundreds of
millions of dollars in a secondary stock offering.  When, on
November 26, 2007, the Company announced that it would suspend
activities at Galore Creek based on the results of an updated
feasibility study which estimated the capital costs for the
Galore Creek project to be Cdn $5 billion, 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
          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/


REDDY ICE: Holzer & Fistel Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, commenced a shareholder class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of Reddy
Ice Holdings, Inc., common stock during the period between
August 10, 2005, and March 6, 2008.

The complaint charges Reddy Ice and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Specifically, the complaint alleges Reddy Ice
misrepresented the Company's financial performance and prospects
and engaged in the unlawful restraint of trade.

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

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 888-508-6832 (toll-free)





                            *********

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  * * *