CAR_Public/080818.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, August 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 163

                            Headlines

ADAPTIVE MKTG: CT Suit Alleges Running of Giant Internet Scam
AIRBORNE HEALTH: Settles False Advertising Suit for $30 Million
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Reaches $2M Deal in Colorado Securities Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Judge Hears Motion on "Buy" Buttons Removal Suit
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: California Labor Suit Remains in Arbitration

COMPUCREDIT CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Georgia
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Faces N.C. Suit Over "Payday Lending" Business
FACEBOOK INC: Accused of Privacy Violations in California Suit
GLOBALOPTIONS GROUP: Faces Overtime Wages Lawsuits in California
KIDS WITH CHARACTER: Recalls Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard

LAGARDERE SCA: European Plaintiff Voluntarily Drops U.S. Lawsuit
MOODY'S CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
NBC GENERAL CONTRACTORS: Sued by Workers for Violating Wage Laws
NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces Suit in Canada Alleging PBA Violations
NORTEL NETWORKS: Continues to Face Tenn. ERISA Violations Suit

OIL COS: Big Oil Ruins Boats with Ethanol Blends, Suit Claims
PARMALAT SPA: N.Y. Court Dismisses Class Suit vs BoA & Citigroup
PIONEER LIFE: Sued Over Home Health Care Insurance Policies
PYRAMID BREWERIES: Mediation Results in "Taylor" Suit Settlement
QUEST CHEROKEE: Discovery Ongoing in Kansas Suit Over Royalties

REALOGY CORP: Parties Seek Approval for Settlement in "Berger"
REQUEST JEANS: Recalls Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard
SAFEWAY INSURANCE: Sued Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
SAINT JOSEPH'S: Faces Ga. Suit Over Alleged Improper Admissions
SMART ONLINE: N.C. Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in "Gooden"

SUNRISE PROPANE: Faces Lawsuit Over Aug. 10 Toronto Explosion
TOUSA FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in Florida Over Vista Lakes Homes
TOUSA INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida
UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims in MDL-1663
UNUM LIFE: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in "Rombeiro" Case

UNUM LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Mogel" Insurance Suit
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Tenn. Court Denies Certification in "Taylor"
YAMAHA MOTOR: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over Rhino ATV Defect
YTB INTERNATIONAL: Agents Suit Calls Firm Illegal Pyramid Scheme


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

GT SOLAR: Spector Roseman Files New Hampshire Securities Suit
HUNTSMAN CORP: Spector Roseman Files Utah Securities Fraud Suit
REDDY ICE: Brian Felgoise Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit



                           *********


ADAPTIVE MKTG: CT Suit Alleges Running of Giant Internet Scam
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptive Marketing and Vertrue Inc. are facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut over allegations they run a giant Internet scam,
CourtHouse News reports.

The suit seeks to redress a deceptive and otherwise improper
business practice that defendants are perpetrating;
specifically, the practice of imposing unauthorized charges upon
unsuspecting consumers who order services or merchandise from
various Internet Web sites and whose personal and confidential
credit card and bank account information is then accessed,
hijacked or stolen by the defendants.

According to the CoutHouse report, Adaptive Marketing allegedly
steals credit card information from the Internet and bills
consumers for worthless "memberships" and "services" the victims
never ordered.

The plaintiffs claim Adaptive and its corporate parent, Vertrue
Inc., are running "one of the largest unauthorized consumer
billing operations in the United States."

Theplaintiffs say the defendants typically steal $12.95 to
$19.95 a month for worthless services that were not ordered.
The defendants allegedly do this "through the placement of
Internet advertising on various legitimate, and illegitimate,
Web sites.  The advertisements purport to sell membership
programs that provide discounts on various consumer goods and
services.  Because there is no legitimate demand for these
membership programs, defendants' Internet advertisements serve
as a pretext for gaining access to consumers' confidential
financial information in order to charge unauthorized fees. . .
. When consumers contact defendants to request that they remove
and refund the unauthorized fees charged to their credit cards,
they are given the runaround, and are unable to obtain refunds
of the unauthorized charges."

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a nationwide
class of all persons in the United States whose credit card,
bank debit card, or bank account information was obtained and
intercepted by defendants, and whose credit cards, bank debit
cards or bank account were charged fees or interest by
defendants for one or more membership programs maintained by the
defendants, including but not limited to membership in Shopping-
Essentials, during the period from Jan. 1, 2004, to the present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants violated the Electronic
         Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Section 2510;

     (b) whether the defendants violated the Electronic Funds
         Transfer Act, 15 USC Section 1693 et seq.;

     (c) whether the defendants violated the Connecticut Unfair
         Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 42-110a,
         et seq.;

     (d) whether the defendants are being unjustly enriched by,
         among other things, charging the plaintiff and the
         class unauthorized fees;

     (e) whether the defendants unlawfully converted the
         plaintiffs and the class' money for their own benefit;

     (f) whether the plaintiff and the class have sustained
         damages and, if so, the proper measure thereof; and

     (g) whether the defendants should be enjoined from the
         continued practices and policies with respect to the
         imposition of unauthorized charges and fees upon
         unsuspecting consumers.

The suit is "Kimberly Martin, et al. v. Adaptive Marketing et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          Jerome Noll, Esq.
          Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz PC
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Phone: 914-517-5000


AIRBORNE HEALTH: Settles False Advertising Suit for $30 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Airborne Health, Inc., the Bonita Springs, Florida-based maker
of the Airborne Effervescent Health Formula, an effervescent
tablet marketed as a cold prevention and treatment remedy, has
agreed to pay up to $30 million to settle Federal Trade
Commission charges that it did not have adequate evidence to
support its advertising claims.

The FTC's lawsuit also names Victoria Knight-McDowell, the
former schoolteacher who invented Airborne, and her husband
Thomas John McDowell, as defendants.  If the settlement is
approved by the court, it will prohibit the defendants from
making false and unsubstantiated cold prevention, germ-fighting,
and efficacy claims.  The monetary judgment will be satisfied by
the defendants' adding $6.5 million to the funds they have
already agreed to pay to settle a related private class-action
lawsuit, bringing the total settlement fund to $30 million.

"There is no credible evidence that Airborne products, taken as
directed, will reduce the severity or duration of colds, or
provide any tangible benefit for people who are exposed to germs
in crowded places," said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's
Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The FTC complaint and agreed-upon final order follow settlement
in November 2007 of a class-action lawsuit captioned "Wilson v.
Airborne, Inc. et al.," which is pending in federal court in the
Central District of California.  In that case, the defendants
have agreed to pay up to $23.51 million, which will be used for
consumer refunds and attorneys' fees.  If the class action suit
funds are exhausted, up to $6.5 million in additional funds for
consumer redress will become available as a result of the FTC
order.  One redress administrator will manage both pools of
funds and consumers will receive a single refund check.

The Wilson class action settlement provides refunds for
purchases of Airborne-branded products (including Airborne
Effervescent Health Formula, Airborne On-the-Go, Airborne Power
Pixies, Airborne Nighttime, Airborne Jr., Airborne Gummis, and
Airborne Seasonal Relief) made between May 1, 2001, and Nov. 29,
2007.

The defendants in the FTC suit have marketed Airborne Original
Effervescent Formula as a dietary supplement containing 17
ingredients, including vitamins A, C, E, zinc, and selenium.
Airborne products have been advertised nationally in print media
and on radio and television.  They have been sold by grocery
stores, drug stores, and mass merchandisers.

According to the FTC's complaint, there is no competent and
reliable scientific evidence to support the claims made by the
defendants that Airborne tablets can prevent or reduce the risk
of colds, sickness, or infection; protect against or help fight
germs; reduce the severity or duration of a cold; and protect
against colds, sickness, or infection in crowded places such as
airplanes, offices, or schools.  The FTC complaint also states
that the individual defendants in the case, the McDowells, made
false claims that Airborne products are clinically proven to
treat colds.

If consumer refund claims are not paid on time in the Wilson
lawsuit, or if the defendants have not paid at least
$23.5 million to settle any other similar class-action lawsuit
by December 31, 2009, the defendants must pay the entire
$30 million to the FTC, which will administer its own consumer
redress program.

In addition to prohibiting the defendants from making claims
that are false, misleading, or unsubstantiated by competent and
reliable scientific evidence, and providing additional funds for
consumer redress, the order authorizes the Commission to monitor
the defendants’ compliance with the order.

The FTC vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and
agreed-upon final order was 3-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas
Rosch dissenting.  These documents were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on
Aug. 13, 2008.  The complaint and agreed-upon final order name
the following defendants: Airborne Health, Inc., also doing
business as Airborne, Inc., and Knight-McDowell Labs; Airborne
Holdings, Inc.; Victoria Knight-McDowell; and Thomas John
McDowell, also known as Rider McDowell.

The deadline for submitting claims is September 15, 2008

Consumers seeking Airborne refunds for purchases of the product
can write to:

          Airborne Class Action Settlement Administrator
          PO Box 1897
          Faribault, MN 55021-7152
          Phone: 1-888-952-9080

Details regarding the Airborne settlement can be accessed at:

   http://www.AirborneHealthSettlement.com/


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Reaches $2M Deal in Colorado Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allos Therapeutics Inc. reached a $2-million settlement in a
securities class action lawsuit filed in Colorado against the
company and one of its former officers.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado in May 2004.  The complaint was then amended in
August 2004.  It was brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's securities during the period from
May 29, 2003, to April 29, 2004.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages relating to the
issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements regarding
the cancer drug EFAPROXYN during the class period and subsequent
declines in the company's stock price.

On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  In an opinion
dated Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the
plaintiffs' complaint failed to meet the legal requirements
applicable to its alleged claims.

On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

In October 2006, the parties held talks to settle the matter,
and on Feb. 6, 2008, they signed a stipulation of settlement,
resolving the case for $2,000,000.

The Court of Appeals accordingly has remanded the case to the
District Court for consideration of the settlement.  The
settlement is subject to various conditions, including without
limitation, approval of the District Court.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01030-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado, Judge Richard P. Matsch,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq. (jberens@dyershuman.com)
          Dyer & Shuman, LLP
          801 East 17th Avenue
          Denver, CO 80218-1417
          Phone: 303-861-3003
          Fax: 303-830-6920

Representing the defendants are:

         Tara L. Acton, Esq. (tacton@bw-legal.com)
         Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C.
         370 - 17th Street, Republic Plaza #4800
         Denver, CO 80202-5698
         Phone: 303-825-0800
         Fax: 303-629-7610

              - and -

         Paul Howard Schwartz, Esq. (schwartzph@cooley.com)
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         380 Interlocken, Crescent #900
         Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
         Phone: 720-566-4000
         Fax: 720-566-4099


AMAZON.COM INC: Judge Hears Motion on "Buy" Buttons Removal Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge  has started to hear motions from Amazon.com Inc. and
BookLocker.com in the class action suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District Court of Maine in response to
Amazon's threat to remove the "buy" buttons of publishers who
refuse to sign up with its on-demand printing subsidiary
BookSurge, The Bookseller reports.

Earlier, print-on-demand publisher BookLocker.com filed the suit
alleging Amazon violates antitrust law by demanding that all
PODs who sell through Amazon also use BookSurge, a company that
Amazon bought for that type of publishing (Class Action
Reporter, May 22, 2008).

The suit claims that Amazon bought On Demand Publishing -- d/b/a
BookSurge -- in 2005, and that on Feb. 10, 2008, "Amazon began
notifying POD publishing companies that Amazon and the Bookstore
would only directly sell to consumers POD Books that were
printed by BookSurge.

The class action claims that the move is an illegal tying
arrangement meant to drive competing publishers out of business.

BookLocker.com claims that most POD books are sold through the
Internet.  It claims that major chain bookstores "generally do
not stock books from POD publishers."

BookLocker sues on behalf of "thousands of POD publishers . . .
who in the aggregate publish hundreds of thousands of titles."
BookLocker says it has a catalog of 1,200 POD titles.

The plaintiff further claims that Amazon controls 70% of the
online book sales and is abusing its market power to squeeze out
competitors in print-on-demand publishing.

The plaintiff says it publishes its print-on-demand titles
through Amazon's largest POD competitor, Lightning Source,
which, before Amazon's illegal action, was printing 1 million
books a month for 4,300 publishers.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
Rules 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on behalf all POD publishers and publishing companies in the
United States who either had books listed for sale in the
Bookstore, or who had or have an application to have books
listed for sale in the Bookstore, at any time from February 10,
2008 through the conclusion of trial of this matter.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) the definition of the relevant market;

     (b) Amazon's market power within that market;

     (c) whether Amazon's conduct constitutes an illegal tying
         arrangement under the Sherman Act;

     (d) whether the contractual conditions Amazon and BookSurge
         impose upon the plaintiff and the class members are
         unfair and improper;

     (e) whether Amazon's conduct has or will cause damage to
         the plaintiff and the class members; and

     (f) the appropriateness of injunctive relief to restrain
         ongoing and future violations of the law.

The plaintiff ask the court:

     -- 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
        injunctive relief, and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims for
        damages and other monetary relief, and declaring
        Plaintiff as representative of the Class and its counsel
        as counsel for the Class;

     -- that the conduct alleged herein constitutes unlawful
        tying in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
        Act;

     -- that the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
        injunctive relief under the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
        Section 26, and other applicable law, enjoining Amazon
        from continuing or engaging in the unfair and anti-
        competitive activities alleged herein;

     -- that the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
        damages, penalties and other monetary relief provided by
        the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15, and other
        applicable law, including treble damages;

     -- that the plaintiff and the class recover their costs of
        suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and pre- and
        post- judgment interest;

     -- that the plaintiff and the class are entitled to an
        order requiring full restitution of all funds acquired
        from Amazon's unfair business practices, including
        disgorgement of revenues and profits;

     -- that the plaintiff and the class are 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 Bookseller recounts that Amazon asked that the case be
dismissed on the grounds that it has the right to decide whose
products it does or does not want to carry, while Booklocker.com
countered that Amazon is illegally trying to leverage its
domination of the market for selling paper books over the
Internet into similar domination of the unrelated print-on-
demand field.

A ruling is expected on Amazon's motion to dismiss sometime
after Labor Day, the report says.  If the case is not dismissed,
full arguments will be heard in court at a later date.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Anthony D. Pellegrini, Esq.
          (apellegrini@rudman-winchell.com)
          Rudman & Winchell
          84 Harlow Street – P.O. Box 1401
          Bangor, Maine 04402
          Phone: 297-947-4501
          Fax: 207-941-9715


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: California Labor Suit Remains in Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
A labor-related lawsuit against BJ's Restaurants, Inc.,
continues to remain in arbitration.

On Feb. 5, 2004, a former employee of the company, on behalf of
herself, and other BJ employees, filed a class action complaint
in the Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, with case
number BC310146.

On March 16, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
alleging causes of action for:

      -- failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;
      -- failure to allow meal breaks;
      -- failure to allow rest breaks;
      -- waiting time penalties;
      -- civil penalties;
      -- reimbursement for fraud and deceit;
      -- punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and
      -- disgorgement of illicit profits.

On June 28, 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her
second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action, and in
September 2004, she stipulated to binding arbitration of the
action.

On March 2 and March 19, 2008, one of the plaintiff's attorneys
filed a notice in the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency, alleging failure to keep adequate pay records and to pay
plaintiff minimum wage.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 5,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2008.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the
restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer
BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party
craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's
Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service
restaurant.  The company's menu features the BJ's signature
deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a
selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty
salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie.  The
company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-
house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are
produced and sold.


COMPUCREDIT CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class-
action suit in Georgia, entitled "Waterford Township General
Employees Retirement System vs. CompuCredit Corporation, et al.,
Civil Action No. 08-CV-2270," according to the company's Aug. 5,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on July 14, 2008, against CompuCredit and
four of the company's officers -- David G. Hanna, Richard R.
House, Jr., Richard W. Gilbert, and J. Paul Whitehead III.

In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements (or concealed information) regarding
the nature of the company's assets, accounting for loan losses,
marketing and collection practices, exposure to sub-prime
losses, ability to lend funds, and expected future performance.

The suit is "Waterford Township General Employees Retirement
System v. CompuCredit Corporation et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-
02270-TWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer, Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 770-392-0090

               - and -

          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423


COMPUCREDIT CORP: Faces N.C. Suit Over "Payday Lending" Business
----------------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Corp. and five of its subsidiaries are defendants in
a purported class-action suit entitled "Knox, et al., vs. First
Southern Cash Advance, et al., No 5 CV 0445," according to the
company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County,
North Carolina, on Feb. 8, 2005.  The plaintiffs allege that in
conducting a so-called "payday lending" business, certain of the
company's Retail Micro-Loans segment subsidiaries violated
various laws governing consumer finance, lending, check cashing,
trade practices and loan brokering.

The plaintiffs further allege that the company is the alter ego
of its subsidiaries and is liable for their actions.  They are
seeking damages of up to $75,000 per class member.

CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a
provider of various credit and related financial services and
products to or associated with the financially underserved
consumer credit market.  The company serves this market
principally through its marketing and solicitation of credit
card accounts and other credit products and servicing of various
receivables underlying originated accounts and portfolio
acquisitions. It operates through five segments: Credit Cards,
Investments in Previously Charged-Off Receivables, Retail Micro-
Loans, Auto Finance and Other.


FACEBOOK INC: Accused of Privacy Violations in California Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging it violated consumers' privacy and computer laws in a
joint venture with advertisers, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action brought by individuals whose privacy  was
violated by the actions of defendants, which were involved in an
online marketing joint venture.

The defendants include:

     -- Facebook,
     -- Blockbuster,
     -- Fandango,
     -- Hotwire,
     -- Sta Travel,
     -- Overstock.Com,
     -- Zappos.Com, and
     -- Gamefly.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all Facebook
members who, during the period of Nov. 7, 2007, to Dec. 5, 2007,
visited one or more the Facebook Beacon Activated Affiliates'
websites and engaged in one or more activities that triggered
the Beacon program to communicate with Facebook regarding the
activity.

The plaintiffs say Facebook altered its allegedly abusive and
illegal "Facebook Beacon" program from opt-out to opt-in
sometime in November 2007.

The plaintiffs demand more than $5 million in damages.

The suit is "Sean Lane et al. v. Facebook Inc. et al., Case No.
C08 03845," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. (ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com)
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          2757 Leonis Blvd.
          Vernon, CA 90058-2304
          Phone: 323-585-8696


GLOBALOPTIONS GROUP: Faces Overtime Wages Lawsuits in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
GlobalOptions Group, Inc., is facing two purported class actions
in federal and state court related to Facticon, Inc., which
suits were filed prior to the company's acquisition of the
assets of Facticon on Feb. 28, 2007.

                      Anchondo Litigation

The federal matter, entitled "Anchondo vs Facticon Inc. and
GlobalOptions Group, Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California by Peter Anchondo and
alleges that Facticon failed to pay overtime wages to workers.

Subsequent to the acquisition of the assets of Facticon by the
company, the company was added as a defendant in said case,
under the successor liability theory.

A motion for summary judgment was filed for the Court to contest
GlobalOptions' liability as a successor liable company.  On
March 7, 2008, the Court issued a ruling denying the company's
Motion for Summary Judgment and issued a ruling in favor of the
plaintiff, saying the company was in fact a successor-party to
the plaintiff's actions.

This ruling by the Court is in opposition to an earlier ruling
dated March 3, 2008, wherein it granted the company's Motion for
Summary Judgment.

The company filed a Motion for Reconsideration and the Judge
reversed his opinion, but ruled that the issue of successor
liability must be litigated.

In July 2008, the company reached a tentative agreement with the
the plaintiff to settle this matter with a cash payment of $635,
subject to Court approval.

                       Wonsch Litigation

The state court case, entitled, "Wonsch, et al. vs. Facticon
Inc. and GlobalOptions Group, Inc." was filed in the State Court
for the Central District of California.

The plaintiffs in the class action have alleged that Facticon
failed to pay overtime wages under the California Civil Code.

This action is similar to the Anchondo case, but is limited to
the state laws of California.

Subsequent to the acquisition, the company was added as a
defendant in said case, under the successor liability theory,
however, the company has not filed a response under the
successor liability claim since it has already filed a motion
with the California State Court to remove such case from the
California State Court and for such case to be merged with the
Anchondo case.  This request was granted by the California State
Court.

Although the cases have been merged, the company is required to
settle with each of the two plaintiff groups separately,
according to the company's Aug. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

GlobalOptions Group, Inc. -- http://www.globaloptions.com/-- is
an integrated provider of risk mitigation and management
services to government entities, Fortune 1,000 corporations and
high net-worth individuals.  The company enables clients to
identify, assess and prevent natural and man-made threats to the
well-being of individuals and the operations of governments and
corporations.  In addition, it assists its clients in recovering
from the damages or losses resulting from the occurrence of acts
of terror, natural disasters, fraud and other risks.  It
delivers risk mitigation and management services through four
business units: Preparedness Services, Fraud and Special
Investigative Unit Services, Security Consulting and
Investigations and International Strategies.


KIDS WITH CHARACTER: Recalls Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kids with Character LLC, of New York, N.Y., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,200 BongoCheetah Girls Jackets.

The company said the garments have a drawstring through the hood
which can pose a strangulation hazard to children.  In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled garments are Bongo Cheetah Girls Jackets with style
number 8N6003 and RN number 119132 printed on the care label.
The jackets were sold in girls sizes 4 through 6X.

These recalled hoodies were manufactured in China and were being
sold at Marshalls stores nationwide from November 2007 through
August 2008 for about $25.

Pictures of the recalled hoodies are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08356a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08356b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from
the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard, or return the garment
to either Marshalls' retail store or Kids with Character for a
full refund.

For additional information, contact Kids with Character collect
at 212-695-6343 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday.


LAGARDERE SCA: European Plaintiff Voluntarily Drops U.S. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP, of New York, told Forbes that a class action lawsuit
filed against French media group Lagardere SCA has been dropped
after the plaintiff decided to terminate the action on Aug. 4.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of individual European shareholder
Daniele Bobin, alleged insider trading in European Aeronautic
Defence & Space Co by Lagardere and German car maker Daimler AG,
the report says.

Forbes notes Lagardere as saying that it had always believed the
case was defective and without foundation and is "pleased with
this dismissal which marks the end of the case brought against
it."


MOODY'S CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Corp. is facing a consolidated securities fraud class-
action suit pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's
Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Initially, two purported class action complaints have been filed
by purported purchasers of the company's securities against the
company and certain of its senior officers, asserting claims
under the federal securities laws.

The first was filed by Raphael Nach before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 19, 2007.
The second was filed by Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on Sept. 26, 2007.

Both actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding,
entitled "In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:07-cv-08375-SWK," in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On June 27, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
securities during the period from Feb. 3, 2006, through Oct. 24,
2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business conduct,
business prospects, business conditions and financial results
relating primarily to MIS's ratings of structured finance
products including RMBS, CDO and constant-proportion debt
obligations.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
connection with the case.

The suit is "In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:07-cv-08375-SWK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Frederick W. Gerkens, III, Esq.
          (fgerkens@glancylaw.com)
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1430 Broadway, Suite 1603
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-382-2221
          Fax: 212-382-3944

          Ira M. Press, Esq. (ipress@kmllp.com)
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-371-6600
          Fax: 212-751-2540

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Hinerfeld, Esq. (bhinerfeld@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants is:

          Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. (nelless@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-558-4976
          Fax: 212-558-3338


NBC GENERAL CONTRACTORS: Sued by Workers for Violating Wage Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
NBC General Contractors Corp., a general contractor hired by
cities around the Bay Area to construct schools, city halls, and
other public buildings, is being sued by its workers over
allegations that the company did not follow California's
prevailing wage law and forced them to sign false timecards,
Paul T. Rosynsky writes for the Oakland Tribune.

In a lawsuit filed on July 17, 2007, before the Alameda County
Superior Court, NBC General Contractors is accused of ignoring
state labor laws by paying its workers minimum wage rather than
a predetermined rate required for public works projects, the
report notes.

Oakland Tribune says that the suit accuses NBC General
Contractors of failing to pay its workers overtime, forcing them
to sign fake timecards in order to receive paychecks, and
refusing to provide wage statements when requested by employees.

"The violations that we are aware of seem to date back many
years," said Oakland-based attorney Sharon Seidenstein, Esq.,
who filed the lawsuit along with labor attorney Ellyn Moscowitz,
Esq.  "The workers in this suit are fighting for justice . . .
and are demanding that NBC abide by the state's labor laws."

The report explains that state law generally requires
contractors working on public works projects to pay their
workers a set rate dependent on their job and skill level.  In
Alameda County, prevailing wages for construction workers range
from $10 an hour for a water well driller helper to $48 an hour
for an electrician specializing in cable splicing and welding,
according to the state's Department of Industrial Relations.  In
addition, state law also requires all employers to pay workers
overtime if the worker was on the job for more than 40 hours in
one workweek.

However, according to the lawsuit, NBC General Contractors paid
its workers below the prevailing rate with hourly wages ranging
from $8 to $25 and refused to pay overtime even though many
workers were required to report to a job site seven days a week.

Oakland Tribune notes that the workers became aware of NBC
General Contractors' violations after several left and became
members of the IBEW Local 595 union in San Francisco.  The
union, according to a news release, notified the company's
workers that they were being mistreated.

Ms. Seidenstein said the class-action lawsuit would potentially
represent about 150 workers and seeks to recover millions of
dollars in wages not paid and damages.

Oakland Tribune says that representatives for NBC General
Contractors could not be reached for comment.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces Suit in Canada Alleging PBA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks, Ltd., is facing a purported class-action suit
before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa, Canada,
alleging, among other things, that certain recent changes
related to Nortel's pension plan did not comply with the Pension
Benefits Act and common law notification requirements.

The suit was filed on June 24, 2008.  In it, the plaintiffs seek
declaratory and equitable relief and unspecified monetary
damages, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Nortel Networks Corp. -- http://www.nortel.com/-- is a global
supplier of networking solutions serving both service provider
and enterprise customers.  It supplies end-to-end networking
products and solutions that help organizations enhance and
simplify communications.  These organizations range from small
businesses to multi-national corporations involved in all
aspects of commercial and industrial activity, and from federal,
state and local government agencies and the military to cable
operators, wireline and wireless telecommunications service
providers, and Internet service providers. Nortel's networking
solutions include hardware and software products and services.
It designs, develops, engineers, markets, sells, supplies,
licenses, installs, services and supports these networking
solutions worldwide. Nortel operates in four segments: Carrier
Networks (CN), Enterprise Solutions (ES), Metro Ethernet
Networks (MEN) and Global Services (GS).


NORTEL NETWORKS: Continues to Face Tenn. ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corp. continues to face a consolidated class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Beginning in December 2001, NNC and certain of its then-current
and former directors, officers and employees, were named as
defendants in several purported class action lawsuits pursuant
to ERISA.  These lawsuits have been consolidated into a single
proceeding before the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee.

The consolidated lawsuit is on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Nortel Long-Term Investment Plan, who held
shares of the Nortel Networks Stock Fund during the class
period, which has yet to be determined by the court.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, material
misrepresentations and omissions to induce participants and
beneficiaries to continue to invest in and maintain investments
in NNC common shares through the investment plan.

The court has not yet ruled as to whether the plaintiff's
proposed class action suit should be certified, according to the
company's Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Nortel Networks Corp. 'ERISA' Litigation,
3:03-md-01537," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Middle Tennessee, Judge Judge John T. Nixon,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laurie B. Ashton, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback P.L.C.
          3101 N Central Avenue, Suite 900
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 602-248-0088

          George Edward Barrett, Esq.
          (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com)
          Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
          217 Second Avenue, N.
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: 615-244-2202

               - and -

          Clifton David Briley, Esq. (dbriley@bonelaw.com)
          Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC
          511 Union Street, Suite 1600
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Phone: 615-238-6392
          Fax: 615-986-7869

Representing the defendants is:

          Marc D. Ashley, Esq.
          Shearman & Sterling
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-6069
          Phone: 212-848-4000


OIL COS: Big Oil Ruins Boats with Ethanol Blends, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida alleges that big oil companies
ruin boats with ethanol blends, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The defendants named in the complaint are:

     -- Chevron USA Inc.
     -- Exxon Mobil Corp.
     -- BP America, Inc.
     -- Shell Oil Co.
     -- ConocoPhillips Co.
     -- Tower Energy Group

In or around 2004, major gasoline manufacturers began to replace
methyl tertiary-butyl ether as an oxygenate in gasoline, and
began to use ethanol as a supplement to the gasoline that they
sold to the consuming public.  Unfortunately, when used in
boats, ethanol blended gasoline will eventually:

     (i) expire more quickly around water;

    (ii) cause damage to boat engines and fuel systems; and

   (iii) cause significant damage to the fiberglass fuel tanks
         -- necessitating their replacement.

The class claims the major refiners knew the ethanol-blend gas
would do this, but sold it to boat owners anyway, without
warning them.  The class also claims the ethanol blends "expire
more quickly around water."

The classes that the plaintiffs seek to represent are:

     Class A: All persons who own boats and who filled the
              boat's fuel tank with gasoline blended with
              ethanol from a gasoline retailer in Florida;

     Class B: All persons in Florida who own boats with a
              fiberglass fuel tank and who filled the fiberglass
              fuel tank with gasoline blended with ethanol from
              a gasoline retailer in California;

     Class C: All persons in Florida who own boats with a
              fiberglass fuel tank that had to be replaced due
              to damage caused by the use of gasoline blended
              from a gasoline retailer in California.

Th plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the use of ethanol blended gasoline as fuel for
         boats is an intended and reasonably foreseeable use;

     (b) whether defendants' ethanol blended gasoline is
         defective as designed;

     (c) whether a reasonable consumer would consider
         defendants' ethanol blended gasoline defective when
         used and stored in an intended and reasonably
         foreseeable manner;

     (d) whether defendants failed to warn of the propensity of
         their ethanol blended gasoline to cause damage
         particular to boats;

     (e) whether defendants had actual and constructive
         knowledge of the propensity of their ethanol gasoline
         to cause damage to boats;

     (f) whether defendants failed to disclose material facts;

     (g) whether defendants engaged in unfair, unlawful and
         deceptive business practices; and

     (h) whether plaintiff and the members of the classes have
         been damaged by the wrongs complained of, and if so,
         the measure of those damages and the nature and extent
         of other relief that should be afforded.

The plaintiffs ask:

     -- the court to certify the proposed class;

     -- the court to adjudge and decree that defendants have
        engaged in the conduct alleged;

     -- for restitution and disgorgement on certain causes of
        action;

     -- for an injunction ordering defendants to cease and
        desist from engaging in the unfair, unlawful, and
        fraudulent practices alleged;

     -- for compensatory and general damages according to proof
        on certain causes of action;

     -- for special damages according to proof on certain causes
        of action;

     -- for costs of the proceedings;

     -- for reasonable attorneys fees as allowed by Sections
        501.211(2) and 501.2105, Florida Statutes; and

     -- for any and all such other and further relief that the
        court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Erick Kelecseny, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc. et
al., Case No. 08-CV-61294-Altonaga-Brown," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          David L. Ferguson, Esq.
          The Kopelowitz Ostrow Firm, PA
          200 S.W. First Avenue, 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdal, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-525-4100
          Fax: 954-525-4300


PARMALAT SPA: N.Y. Court Dismisses Class Suit vs BoA & Citigroup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has dismissed the securities class action
lawsuit against Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. in
relation to the collapse of Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A.,
Bloomberg News reports.

Judge Kaplan said the dismissal was mandated by a recent U.S.
Supreme Court ruling that made it more difficult to sue banks
and auditors for a client's fraud, referring to the "Stoneridge
v. Scientific-Atlanta" case.

"Investors must show reliance upon a defendant's own deceptive
conduct," Mr. Kaplan said. "Plaintiffs' evidence falls well
short of this standard."

Both BoA and Citigroup said they are pleased with the ruling.

                        Case Background

Investors led by Hermes Focus Asset Management Europe Ltd.
commenced a class action lawsuit against Parmalat's former
management, banks -- including BoA and Citigroup -- and
auditors, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The investors purchased or acquired securities of
Parmalat Finanziaria and its subsidiaries and affiliates between
and including Jan. 5, 1999, and Dec. 18, 2003, in reliance on
the company's materially false and misleading financial
statements and other public statements.

The investors sought more than US$8 billion in damages after
they lost their money when Parmalat collapsed in December 2003
due to substantial operating losses that had been concealed for
over a decade.

In May 2008, Parmalat reached an agreement with investors to
settle the securities class action.  Parmalat said it will issue
around 10.5 million shares of stock in full satisfaction of any
and all claims asserted against it in the class action,
worldwide.  Parmalat will also incur up to EUR1 million of the
cost of notifying the class members of the settlement.

In July 2, 2008, Judge Kaplan certified the settlement class,
composed of shareholders who purchased Parmalat stock between
Jan. 5, 1999, and Dec. 18, 2003.

Judge Kaplan also stipulated that the settlement class excludes
Parmalat; all defendants named in the case; any officers and
directors of Parmalat or its subsidiaries; and banks and
insurance companies employed by Parmalat.

The case is "In Re Parmalat Securities Litigation, 04-MD-
01653," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Manhattan).

                        About Parmalat

Headquartered in Milan, Italy, Parmalat S.p.A.
-- http://www.parmalat.net/-- sells nameplate milk products
that can be stored at room temperature for months.  It also has
about 40 brand product lines, which include yogurt, cheese,
butter, cakes and cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and
vegetable sauces, soups and juices.

The company's U.S. operations filed for chapter 11 protection on
Feb. 24, 2004 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-11139).  Gary
Holtzer, Esq., and Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, represent the Debtors.  When the U.S. Debtors filed
for bankruptcy protection, they reported more than US$200
million in assets and debts.  The U.S. Debtors emerged from
bankruptcy on April 13, 2005.

Parmalat S.p.A. and its Italian affiliates filed separate
petitions for Extraordinary Administration before the Italian
Ministry of Productive Activities and the Civil and Criminal
District Court of the City of Parma, Italy on Dec. 24, 2003.
Dr. Enrico Bondi was appointed Extraordinary Commissioner in
each of the cases.  The Parma Court has declared the units
insolvent.

On June 22, 2004, Dr. Bondi filed a Sec. 304 Petition, Case No.
04-14268, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Parmalat has three financing arms: Dairy Holdings Ltd., Parmalat
Capital Finance Ltd., and Food Holdings Ltd.  Dairy Holdings and
Food Holdings are Cayman Island special-purpose vehicles
established by Parmalat S.p.A.  The Finance Companies are under
separate winding up petitions before the Grand Court of the
Cayman Islands.  Gordon I. MacRae and James Cleaver of Kroll
(Cayman) Ltd. serve as Joint Provisional Liquidators in the
cases.  On Jan. 20, 2004, the Liquidators filed Sec. 304
petition, Case No. 04-10362, in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York.  In May 2006, the
Cayman Island Court appointed Messrs. MacRae and Cleaver as
Joint Official Liquidators.  Gregory M. Petrick, Esq., at
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, and Richard I. Janvey, Esq.,
at Janvey, Gordon, Herlands Randolph, represent the Finance
Companies in the Sec. 304 case.


PIONEER LIFE: Sued Over Home Health Care Insurance Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all
citizens or residents of Florida who purchased a Limited Benefit
Home Health Care Coverage Certificate of Insurance from Pioneer
Life Insurance Company in the state of Florida where Pioneer
Life or Washington National has rejected all or a portion of a
claim on the Policy due to the Lifetime Maximum Benefit Amount
having been reached.

The complaint charges the Washington National Insurance
Corporation with claims for breach of contract.

For more information, contact:

          Dreier LLP
          499 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-328-6100
          Fax: 212-328-6101
          e-mail: info@dreierllp.com
          Web site: http://www.dreierllp.com/


PYRAMID BREWERIES: Mediation Results in "Taylor" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in the purported class-action
suit filed against Pyramid Breweries, Inc., by a former alehouse
employee who is alleging that he and other employees were denied
adequate opportunity to take meal and rest breaks as required by
California law.

The suit, "Taylor v. Pyramid Breweries Inc., et al., Case No.
07AS02039," was filed in the Sacramento California Superior
Court.  It was filed as a potential class action, but no motion
requesting certification of the case as a class action has been
filed.

The company entered into mediation proceedings with the
plaintiff on April 1, 2008, and subsequently entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding as a result of such mediation.

The parties stipulated to class certification for purposes of
settlement only.  The settlement is subject to final court
approval, which is scheduled for consideration by the court on
Oct. 3, 2008, and provides for a settlement payment of not more
than $1.3 million, including specified fees and costs, according
to the company's Aug. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Pyramid Breweries Inc. -- http://www.pyramidbrew.com/-- is a
brewer of craft beers.  It produces and markets beer under the
Pyramid and MacTarnahan's brand names.  The company owns two
alehouse restaurants adjacent to its full production breweries
under the Pyramid Alehouse and MacTarnahan Taproom brand names
in Berkeley, California and Portland, Oregon, respectively, and
three alehouse restaurants located in Walnut Creek and
Sacramento, California and Seattle, Washington.  It produces a
line of full-flavored, hand-crafted beers brewed in small
batches using traditional brewing methods.  The company
distributes its products through a network of selected
independent distributors who deliver directly to local grocery
stores, convenience stores, restaurants and taverns.  It has two
operating segments: beverage operations and alehouses.


QUEST CHEROKEE: Discovery Ongoing in Kansas Suit Over Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit filed
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
against Quest Cherokee, LLC, a unit of Quest Resource Corp, over
royalty payments.

Certain alleged mineral and overriding royalty interests owners
in land located at the Kansas portion of the Cherokee Basin
filed the putative class action lawsuit against Quest Cherokee
on Aug. 3, 2007.

The suit is captioned, "Hugo Spieker, et al. v. Quest Cherokee,
LLC, Case No. 07-1225-MLB."  The named plaintiffs allege that
Quest Cherokee failed to properly make royalty payments to them
and the putative class by, among other things, paying royalties
based on reduced volumes instead of volumes of gas measured at
the wellheads, and by allocating certain expenses to plaintiffs'
interests.

The plaintiffs allege that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million.  Discovery in the case is ongoing.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Spieker et al. v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, Case No.
6:07-cv-01225-MLB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, Judge Monti L. Belot, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Charles E. Millsap, Esq. (cmillsap@fleeson.com)
          Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, L.L.C.
          1900 Epic Center, 301 N. Main, PO Box 997
          Wichita, KS 67201-0997
          Phone: 316-267-7361
          Fax: 316-267-1754

Representing the defendant is:

          David E. Bengtson, Esq. (dbengtson@stinson.com)
          Stinson Morrrison Hecker LLP
          1625 N. Waterfront Pkwy., Suite #300
          Wichita, KS 67206-6602
          Phone: 316-265-8800
          Fax: 316-265-1349


REALOGY CORP: Parties Seek Approval for Settlement in "Berger"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter "Berger v. Property ID Corp., et al.,
Case No. 05-5373," which names Realogy Corp. and certain of its
subsidiaries as defendants, have filed a motion that sought
preliminary approval of the settlement reached in the case.

The original complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 25, 2005, alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The suit, as amended later, was filed by Mark Berger against
Cendant, Century 21, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
company, and related entities, among other defendants, who are
parties to joint venture agreements with Property I.D. Corp.,
which markets and sells natural hazard disclosure reports in the
State of California.

The complaint names additional defendants, including certain
Realogy subsidiaries and several Prudential Real Estate
companies, which also had joint venture relationships with
Property I.D.

The complaint, as amended to date, alleges, among other things,
violations of RESPA, which restricts direct or indirect payments
from real estate settlement service providers for the referral
of business to other providers, and further alleged unlawful
business practices under the California Business and Professions
Code.  Mr. Berger alleges that the joint ventures are sham
arrangements that unlawfully receive payments or referral fees
in exchange for business.

The defendants have responded that they do not consider natural
hazard disclosure reports to be settlement services and
accordingly, the provision of such services is not within the
purview of RESPA.

In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class, which request was granted by the Court on April 28, 2008.
Classes were certified against the Realogy defendants and the
Pickford defendants, but not against the Silver Oak defendants
or the RE/MAX defendants as the plaintiffs had no class
representative for those joint ventures.

Mediation was held on Aug. 14, 2007, Oct. 23-24, 2007, April 4,
2008, and May 9, 2008.

At the mediation hearing on May 9, 2008, the company and the
plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle the matter as it
relates to claims against the company and its subsidiaries.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company
anticipates, based on its current assumptions, that the
aggregate amount it will pay in the settlement (including
attorneys' fees and costs of claims administration) will be
$4 million (the amount of the company's reserve at March 31,
2008).

The settlement is subject to execution of a written settlement
agreement, court certification of a class and court approval.
By order dated May 21, 2008, the Court stayed the case and
directed that a motion to approve the settlement be filed by
July 21, 2008.

By Order dated July 24, 2008, the Court extended the deadline to
file a motion to approve the settlement to Aug. 4, 2008.  The
motion for preliminary approval was filed on Aug. 4, 2008,
according to the company's Aug. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Mark Berger v. Property ID Corp. et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-05373-GHK-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge George H. King, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Caryn Becker, Esq. (cbecker@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
         Embarcadero Ctr W, 275 Battery St, 30th Fl
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000

              - and -

         Jenna Whitman, Esq. (jwhitman@lchb.com)
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein
         275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-956-1000

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael C. Baum, Esq. (mbaum@rpab.com)
         Resch Polster Alpert & Berger
         9200 Sunset Boulevard, 9th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90069
         Phone: 310-277-8300


REQUEST JEANS: Recalls Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Request Jeans, of New York, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,200
Drawstring Hoodies.

The company said the hoodies have a drawstring through the hood
which can pose a strangulation hazard to children.  In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the short sleeve hoodie (Item number
11188SG) and the Long sleeve hoodie (Item number 11218LG).  The
short sleeve hoodie has "Request" printed all over and was sold
in olive green and light blue.  The long sleeve hoodie has a
butterfly design on the back of the hoodie and on the chest and
was sold in white and olive green.

These recalled hoodies were manufactured in China and were being
sold at mass merchandisers and other retail stores nationwide
from January 2007 through March 2007 for about $36.

Pictures of the recalled hoodies are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08357a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08357b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from
the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard, or return the garment
to either the place of purchase or to Request Jeans to receive a
refund.

For additional information, contact Request Jeans collect at
212-302-0077 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday.


SAFEWAY INSURANCE: Sued Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Safeway Insurance Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging it
improperly denies claims for damages done to stolen cars that
are recovered, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff brings this breach of contract action on behalf of
all Safeway Insurance customers who have been denied coverage
for physical damage to cars that occurred when the cars were
taken without authorization and then recovered with physical
damage.

The plaintiff brings this case on behalf of all automobile
insurance policyholders for whom, within 10 years of the filing
of the complaint, Safeway Insurance denied claims for physical
damage to vehicles that were taken without authorization and
subsequently recovered based on exclusion.

The plaintiff requests:

     (a) that the court certify this case as a class action on
         behalf of the class;

     (b) that plaintiff and the class be awarded actual damages
         in an amount to be determined at trial;

     (c) that plaintiff and the class be awarded prejudgment
         interest;

     (d) that the court grant declaratory relief declaring the
         correct interpretation of exclusion;

     (e) that the court grant injunctive relief requiring
         American Access to apply the correct interpretation of
         exclusion;

     (f) that plaintiff and the class be awarded costs incurred
         in bringing this action together with reasonable
         attorneys' fees and expenses;

     (g) that plaintiff and the class be awarded appropriate
         damages under 215 ILCS 5/155; and

     (h) that the court award such other and further relief as
         the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Deborah Johnson, et al. v. Safeway Insurance Co.,
Case No. 08CH29597," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John G. Jacobs, Esq.
          Bryan G. Kolton, Esq.
          The Jacobs Law Firm, Chtd.
          122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-427-4000


SAINT JOSEPH'S: Faces Ga. Suit Over Alleged Improper Admissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saint Joseph's Hospital of Atlanta is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County alleging
it breached contract with patients through improper admissions
and billing practices, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether SJHS instructed and trained its staff and
         contractors to ignore SJHS' relatively simple patient
         designation as to appropriate inpatient status and
         encouraged them to admit patients under an inpatient
         status whenever possible in order to increase SJHS'
         revenues;

     (b) whether SJHS knowingly ignored or encouraged staff and
         contractor violations of SJHS' relatively simple
         patient designation as to appropriate inpatient status
         and improper admissions of patients under an inpatient
         status;

     (c) whether SJHS failed to implement adequate policies
         and procedures to ensure that its staff and
         contractors complied with SJHS' relatively simple
         patient designation procedures as to appropriate
         inpatient status when those patients did not meet
         applicable inpatient admission criteria;

     (d) whether SJHS breached its contractual obligations to
         its patients in engaging in its improper billing
         scheme;

     (e) whether SJHS violated its implied contractual duties of
         good faith and fair dealing to class members by
         engaging in its improper billing scheme;

     (f) whether SJHS has been unjustly  enriched at class
         members' expense by engaging in its improper billing
         scheme;

     (g) whether SJHS violated any fiduciary duties to class
         members by engaging in its improper billing scheme;

     (h) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to an award of damages against SJHS, and, if so, in
         what amount; and

     (i) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled
         to an award of punitive damages against SJHS, and if
         so, in what amount.

The plaintiff asks the court for an order:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action,
        certifying the class and appointing plaintiff and
        such other plaintiffs as representative of the class;

     -- appointing the law firm of Page Perry LLC as class
        counsel, and James A. Dunlap, Jr., LLC as class co-
        counsel;

     -- awarding all actual, exemplary and punitive damages in
        an amount to be determined at trial; and

     -- granting such other relief, including injunctive relief,
        as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Dorothy J. Rivard, et al. v. Saint Joseph's
Hospital of Atlanta, Inc., Case No. 2008CV155034," filed in the
Superior Court of Fulton County.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          David J. Wrogley, Esq.
          Page Perry LLC
          1040 Crown Pointe Parkway, Suite 1050
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 770-673-0047
          Fax: 770-673-0120

               - and -

          James A. Dunlap, Jr.
          James A. Dunlap, Jr., LLC
          801 West Conway Dr., NW
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Phone: 404-354-2363
          Fax: 404-745-0195


SMART ONLINE: N.C. Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in "Gooden"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina has appointed a lead plaintiff in the purported
securities fraud class-action suit against Smart Online, Inc.,
according to the company's Aug. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Robyn L. Gooden filed the purported class action suit on
Oct. 18, 2007, naming as defendants the company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, Maxim Group LLC, and
Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased the company's securities from May 2,
2005, through Sept. 28, 2007, and were damaged.

The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws,
including violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5.  It asserts that the defendants participated in
a fraudulent scheme to manipulate trading in the company's
stock, allegedly causing plaintiffs to purchase the stock at an
inflated price.

The complaint requests certification of the plaintiff as class
representative and seeks, among other relief, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest, plus reasonable costs
and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On June 24, 2008, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff for the class action.

The suit is "Gooden v. Smart Online, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00785-WO-PTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, Judge William L. Osteen, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Guy W. Crabtree, Esq. (gwc@pwkl.com)
          Pulley Watson King & Lischer, P.A.
          POD 3600
          Durham, NC 27702
          Phone: 919-682-9691
          Fax: 919-688-9107

Representing the defendant is:

          Nicholas I. Porritt (nporritt@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          1700 K St., N.W., Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20006-3817
          Phone: 202-973-8807
          Fax: 202-973-8899


SUNRISE PROPANE: Faces Lawsuit Over Aug. 10 Toronto Explosion
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced on behalf of all persons who
were evacuated as a result of the propane explosion that
occurred at the Sunrise Propane distribution plant located on
Murray Street in Toronto, Ontario, at 3:50 a.m. on August 10,
2008.

Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., of Sutts, Strosberg LLP said the
proposed class action names Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc.
and the City of Toronto as defendants.

Homeowners Anna and Frank Manco, on their own behalf and on
behalf of other residents who were injured, evacuated and whose
homes were destroyed or damaged, allege that their damage was
caused by the negligence of these defendants.  The Mancos were
evacuated, suffered physical injuries and their home was
severely damaged as a result of the massive explosion.  The
Mancos seek general damages, punitive damages and other relief.

Mr. Strosberg says that "It is a tragedy that almost 30 years
after the Mississauga train derailment, propane facilities
continue to be permitted to subsist in residential areas."

For more information, contact:

          Harvey T. Strosberg
          Jacqueline A. Horvat
          Sutts, Strosberg LLP,
          600 Westcourt Place
          251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor ON N9A 6V4
          Phone: 519-561-6228
                 519-561-6245
          Web site: http://www.strosbergco.com/


TOUSA FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in Florida Over Vista Lakes Homes
-------------------------------------------------------------
TOUSA Financial Services, a unit of TOUSA, Inc., is facing a
purported class action lawsuit in Florida over homes that were
built on the site of a former bombing range, according to the
company's Aug. 12, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs, purchasers of homes in the Vista Lakes community
near Orlando, Florida, filed the class-action complaint.  They
seek recovery under theories of fraud, breach of contract,
strict liability, negligence, and civil conspiracy.

Because the plaintiffs named debtor defendants TOUSA, Inc.,
TOUSA Homes, Inc. -- d/b/a Engle Homes Orlando -- and TOUSA
Homes, LP, as defendants in this action, it was removed to
federal court.

The plaintiffs then agreed to dismiss the debtor-defendants and
the parties entered into a stipulation for remand.

The state court case has been re-opened and the parties still
remaining as defendants include TOUSA Financial Services (which
has not been served) and Universal Land Title, Inc.

The plaintiffs have granted an extension on the response to the
complaint and the discovery requests up to and including
Aug. 18, 2008 in order to re-evaluate their claims against the
defendants and amend their complaint.

TOUSA, Inc. -- http://www.tousa.com/-- designs, builds and
markets detached single-family residences, town homes and
condominiums.  The company conducts homebuilding operations
through its consolidated subsidiaries and unconsolidated joint
ventures in various metropolitan markets in nine states, located
in four geographic regions, which are also its segments:
Florida, the Mid-Atlantic, Texas and the West.  The company
markets its homes to a diverse group of homebuyers, including
first-time homebuyers, move-up homebuyers, homebuyers who are
relocating to a new city or state, buyers of second or vacation
homes, active-adult homebuyers and homebuyers with grown
children who want a smaller home (empty-nesters).  On Jan. 29,
2008, TOUSA and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization relief under the provisions of
Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort
Lauderdale Division.


TOUSA INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
TOUSA, Inc., is facing a purported securities fraud class-action
suit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under the caption, "Durgin, et al., v.
TOUSA, Inc., et al., No. 06-61844-CIV," according to the
company's Aug. 12, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Beginning in December 2006, various stockholder plaintiffs
brought lawsuits seeking class action status in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  At a
hearing held on March 29, 2007, the Court consolidated these
actions and heard arguments on the appointment of lead plaintiff
and counsel.

On Sept. 7, 2007, the Court appointed Diamondback Capital
Management, LLC, as the lead plaintiff and approved
Diamondback's selection of counsel.  Pursuant to a scheduling
order, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
Nov. 2, 2007.

The consolidated complaint names TOUSA, all of TOUSA's
directors, David Keller, Randy Kotler, Beatriz Koltis, Lonnie
Fedrick, Technical Olympic S.A., UBS Securities LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and JMP
Securities LLC, as defendants.  The alleged class period is
Aug. 1, 2005, to March 19, 2007.

The consolidated complaint alleges that TOUSA's public filings
and other public statements that described the financing for the
Transeastern Joint Venture as non-recourse to TOUSA were false
and misleading.  It also alleges that certain public filings and
statements were misleading or suffered from material omissions
in failing to disclose fully or describe the completion and
carve-out guaranties that TOUSA executed in support of the
Transeastern Joint Venture financing.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of
the Securities Act against all defendants other than Ms. Koltis
for strict liability and negligence regarding the registration
statements and prospectus associated with the September 2005
offering of 4 million shares of stock.

The consolidated complaint asserts related claims against
Technical Olympic, S.A., and Konstantinos Stengos, Antonio B.
Mon, David Keller and Tommy L. McAden as controlling persons
responsible for the statements in the registration statements
and prospectus.

The consolidated complaint also alleges claims under Section
10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act for fraud with respect to various
public statements about the non-recourse nature of the
Transeastern debt and alleged omissions in disclosing or
describing the Guaranties.

These claims are alleged against TOUSA, Messrs. Mon, McAden,
Keller and Kotler and Ms. Koltis.

Finally, the consolidated complaint asserts related claims
against Messrs. Mon, Keller, Kotler and McAden as controlling
persons responsible for the various alleged false disclosures.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, plus fees and costs,
on behalf of themselves and the putative class of purchasers of
TOUSA common stock and purchasers and sellers of options on
TOUSA common stock.

On Jan. 30, 2008, TOUSA filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint on the grounds that the
plaintiffs:

        -- could not establish materially false or misleading
           statements or omissions;

        -- could not establish loss causation;

        -- failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise
           to a strong inference of scienter; and

        -- lacked standing to pursue a Section 11 claim.

Many of the other defendants also filed motions to dismiss and
signed on to TOUSA's dismissal request.

On Feb. 4, 2008, TOUSA filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy notifying the Court that TOUSA filed for bankruptcy
on Jan. 29, 2008.

On Feb. 5, 2008, the Court entered an order staying the action
as to TOUSA pursuant to Section 362 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
The action continues with respect to defendants other than
TOUSA.

On April 30, 2008, Diamondback Capital moved to withdraw as lead
plaintiff, and was permitted by the court to do so.  On July 15,
2008, the Court entered an order appointing the Bricklayers &
Trowel Trades International Pension Fund as the new lead
plaintiff.

On July 30, 2008, the new plaintiff filed a notice of intent to
file an amended complaint.  Following this notice of intent, the
Court denied as moot, without prejudice, the defendants'
previously filed motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

Under the current schedule set by the Court, the plaintiff must
file its amended complaint by Aug. 29, 2008.

The suit is "Durgin v. Technical Olympic USA, Inc. et al., Case
No. 0:06-cv-61844-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Kenneth A. Marra, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Julie Prag Vianale, Esq. (jvianale@vianalelaw.com)
          Vianale & Vianale
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-4750
          Fax: 561-392-4775

Representing the defendants are:

          David Paul Ackerman, Esq. (dackerman@alslaw.com)
          Ackerman Link & Sartory
          222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1250
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-838-4100
          Fax: 561-838-5305

          Francis A. Anania, Esq. (FAnania@anania-law.com)
          Anania Bandklayder Blackwell & Baumgarten
          100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 4300
          Miami, FL 33131-2144
          Phone: 305-373-4900
          Fax: 305-373-6914

               - and -

          Tracy Ann Nichols, Esq. (tracy.nichols@hklaw.com)
          Holland & Knight
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-374-8500X7717
          Fax: 305-789-7799


UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims in MDL-1663
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation captioned "In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663," which
names Unum Group, as a defendant, are appealing the dismissal of
several key claims in the matter.

The company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with many
other insurance brokers and insurers, have been named as
defendants in a series of putative class action complaints that
have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation.

The plaintiffs in MDL No. 1663 filed a consolidated amended
complaint in August 2005, which alleges, among other things,
that the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws,
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, and various state common law
requirements by engaging in alleged bid rigging and customer
allocation and by paying undisclosed compensation to insurance
brokers to steer business to defendant insurers.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
November 29, 2005.  On April 5, 2007, the defendants' dismissal
motion was granted without prejudice as to all counts except the
ERISA counts.

The plaintiffs were granted a last opportunity to file an
amended complaint, and they did so on May 22, 2007.

On June 21, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and for summary judgment on all counts.

On Aug. 31 and Sept. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs' federal antitrust
and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ERISA counts
was granted on Jan. 14, 2008.  All pending state law claims were
dismissed without prejudice.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit in connection with the order
dismissing their federal antitrust and RICO claims.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- formerly UnumProvident
Corp., is a provider of group and individual income-protection
insurance products in the U.S., and the U.K.


UNUM LIFE: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in "Rombeiro" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Life Insurance Co. of America, a unit of Unum Group, is
appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, on
an interlocutory basis, a ruling that certified a class in the
purported class-action suit that was filed against the company
over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

On July 15, 2002, "Rombeiro v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of
America, et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of California
and subsequently was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.  It alleges that the plaintiff
was wrongfully denied disability benefits under a group long-
term disability plan.

On Jan. 21, 2003, an amended complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of individuals that were denied or terminated
from benefits under group long-term disability plans, seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief and payment of benefits.

On April 30, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
a motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint.  On May 14,
2003, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint seeking
similar relief.

Between November 2002 and November 2003, six additional similar
putative class action suits were filed in (or later removed to)
federal district courts in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

The complaints allege that the putative class members' claims
were evaluated improperly and allege that the company and its
insurance subsidiaries breached certain fiduciary duties owed to
the class members under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act and various
state laws.

The suits seek various forms of equitable relief and money
damages, including punitive damages.

These actions all were transferred to the Eastern District of
Tennessee multidistrict litigation.  On Dec. 22, 2003, the court
entered an order consolidating all of the actions for all
pretrial purposes under the caption, "In re UnumProvident Corp.
ERISA Benefit Denial Actions," and appointed a lead plaintiff.
A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Feb. 20, 2004.

A court-ordered mediation concluded with a settlement of all
individual claims brought by seven of the 15 named plaintiffs.

An eighth plaintiff has subsequently resolved her claims through
the process established under the regulatory settlement
agreements.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the court certified a (b)(2) class consisting
of:

      "all plan participants and beneficiaries insured under
      ERISA governed long-term disability insurance
      policies/plans issued by UnumProvident and the insuring
      subsidiaries of UnumProvident throughout the United States
      who have had a long-term disability claim denied,
      terminated, or suspended on or after June 30, 1999, by
      UnumProvident or one or more of its insuring subsidiaries
      after being subjected to any of the practices alleged in
      the complaint."

The company is appealing the class certification order to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on an interlocutory
basis.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- formerly UnumProvident
Corp., is a provider of group and individual income-protection
insurance products in the U.S., and the U.K.


UNUM LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Mogel" Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class-action suit "Mogel et al.
v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, Case No. 1:07-cv-
10955-NMG," which was filed against Unum Life Insurance Co., a
unit of Unum Group, have appealed the dismissal of their case to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for First Circuit.

In May 2007, Roy Mogel, Todd D. Lindsay and Joseph R. Thorley
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated filed the
suit against Unum Life Insurance in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

This is a putative class action suit alleging that the company
breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under
group life insurance policies when the company paid certain life
insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing Retained
Asset Accounts rather than checks.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss all claims.  The plaintiffs have appealed that decision
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for First Circuit.

The suit is "Mogel et al. v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of
America, Case No. 1:07-cv-10955-NMG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Nathaniel M.
Gorton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          M. Scott Barrett, Esq. (barrettecf@aol.com)
          Barrett & Associates
          P.O. Box 5233
          Bloomington, IN 47407-5233
          Phone: 812-334-2600
          Fax: 812-337-8850

          John C. Bell, Esq. (john@bellbrigham.com)
          Bell & Brigham
          457 Greene Street
          Augusta, GA 30901
          Phone: 706-722-2014
          Fax: 706-722-7552

               - and -

          Charles M. Delbaum, Esq. (cdelbaum@nclc.org)
          National Consumer Law Center
          77 Summer St., 10th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-542-8010
          Fax: 617-542-8033

Representing the defendants is:

          Byrne J. Decker, Esq. (bdecker@pierceatwood.com)
          Pierce Atwood
          1 Monument Square
          Portland, ME 04101
          Phone: 207-791-1100
          Fax: 207-791-1350


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Tenn. Court Denies Certification in "Taylor"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Tennessee federal court denied a motion that sought the
certification of a class in the putative class-action suit,
entitled, "Taylor v. UnumProvident Corp., et al."

The suit was filed on April 30, 2003, originally in the
Tennessee Circuit Court.  It was subsequently removed to federal
court.

The suit alleges claims against UnumProvident and certain
subsidiaries on behalf of a putative class of long-term
disability insurance policyholders who did not obtain their
coverage through employer sponsored plans and who had a claim
denied, terminated, or suspended by a UnumProvident subsidiary
after Jan. 1, 1995, seeking equitable and monetary relief.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated various state
laws by engaging in unfair claim practices and improperly
denying claims.

The court subsequently granted in part the company's motion for
summary judgment in "Taylor," dismissing plaintiff's request for
equitable relief on her breach of contract claim and dismissing
any claim plaintiff may make for punitive damages under the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

The former claim is the principal claim upon which class
certification is sought.

The court reserved ruling on the remainder of the pending motion
for summary judgment.

On July 7, 2008, the federal court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- formerly UnumProvident
Corp., is a provider of group and individual income-protection
insurance products in the U.S., and the U.K.


YAMAHA MOTOR: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over Rhino ATV Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, disclosed that Scott
Smith, age 42, from Twain Harte, California, filed a personal
injury lawsuit against Yamaha Motor Corporation in California
Superior Court in Orange County.  The lawsuit charges that the
Yamaha Rhino side-by-side is a dangerously unstable and
defective all terrain vehicle.

On August 20, 2006, Mr. Smith was a passenger in a  2006 Yamaha
Rhino that  tipped  over at a low rate of speed.  Mr. Smith
suffered severe injuries to his right leg, and was left
permanently impaired.

"The Rhino incident has had a devastating impact on my life,"
stated Mr. Scott Smith.  "My right leg was crushed by the
Rhino's roll bar.  The pain has been unbearable.  For over a
year I was confined to bed while having to undergo seven
surgeries.  I will never again be able to hike, ski or
participate in other outdoor activities that I enjoyed.”

The complaint alleges that the Yamaha Rhino side-by-side
contains multiple design flaws rendering it dangerously unstable
and unduly prone to tipping and rolling over.  These defects
include a top-heavy design resulting in a high center of
gravity, and a dangerously narrow track width.  "The design
flaws make the Rhino dangerously susceptible to tipping and
rolling, even when being driven at slow speeds," stated Robert
J. Nelson, Esq., a partner at Lieff Cabraser, which represents
Mr. Smith.


"I hope that my lawsuit sends Yamaha a clear message that it
must recall the Rhino and fix its stability flaws before more
riders are severely injured or worse, killed," Mr. Smith added.

Despite hundreds of Rhino rollover accidents, there has been no
formal recall of the vehicle by Yamaha.  Instead, in August
2007, Yamaha announced that free of charge it would install half
doors and a passenger handhold for Rhinos manufactured from 2004
through 2007.  For the 2008 Rhino, Yamaha has added the half
doors and a handhold as standard equipment.

The complaint charges that Yamaha has made no design changes to
improve the stability or handling of the Yamaha Rhino, in spite
of the availability of safe and inexpensive alternative designs
and feasible modifications.  "While its retrofit program was a
step in the right direction, Yamaha has neither acknowledged nor
addressed the Rhino's core stability problems," stated Mr.
Nelson.  "The tip overs and terrible accidents will continue to
occur so long as the stability problems are not fixed."

                   About Plaintiffs' Counsel

Described by The American Lawyer as "one of the nation's
premiere plaintiffs firms," Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, enjoys a national reputation for professional integrity and
the efficient and responsible prosecution of our clients'
claims. From its offices in San Francisco, New York and
Nashville, Lieff Cabraser represents over 100 persons across
America seriously injured in Rhino accidents.

Persons injured in Yamaha Rhino accidents should visit
http://www.yamaharhinorolloverandrecall.com/ a Web site
operated by Lieff Cabraser, to learn more about the dangers
posed by the Yamaha Rhino, get answers to frequently asked
questions, and read a guide to their legal Lieff Cabraser
personal injury lawyers will promptly review each case submitted
without charge or obligation.


YTB INTERNATIONAL: Agents Suit Calls Firm Illegal Pyramid Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former agents for YTB International filed a class-action lawsuit
against the company, alleging it is an illegal pyramid scheme,
MSN Money reports.

According to the report, the lawsuit seeks $100 million in
damages.

MSN cites the company as saying in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to defend the
case vigorously.

The report recounts that a suit was filed on Aug. 4, 2008, by
California Attorney General Jerry Brown Jr. against YTB and the
company's founders, Lloyd Tomer, Scott Tomer, Kim Sorensen and
Andrew Cauthen, for allegedly operating an illegal pyramid
scheme.  The lawsuit seeks $15 million in fines and restitution.

More than 90 people over the past three years have complained
about YourTravelBiz.com to the Better Business Bureau of eastern
Missouri and southern Illinois.  More than 40 of those
complaints were lodged this year, the BBB said.

Earlier this month, thousands of agents attended a national
convention in St. Louis, where they defended the company as
legitimate, MSN notes.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

GT SOLAR: Spector Roseman Files New Hampshire Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, on behalf of investors
who purchased GT Solar International Inc. common stock in its
initial public offering or on the open market on July 24, 2008.

On July 23, 2008, GT Solar commenced its initial public
offering, selling 30.3 million shares of common stock at $16.50
each.  One day after GT Solar's IPO -- at 3:15 a.m. on July 25,
2008 -- LDK Solar Co., Ltd., the Company's largest customer,
unexpectedly announced that it had "signed a contract" to
purchase DSS furnaces from JYT Corporation through 2010.  This
announcement caused shares of GT Solar to close at $12.49 per
share, 24% below the IPO price, on July 25, 2008.

The complaint alleges that, in light of LDK's announcement, the
Registration Statement for the IPO contained false and
misleading statements and omitted material facts concerning
sales of and demand for DSS furnaces, GT Solar's most important
product.  This included statements about sales to GT Solar's
largest customer, LDK, which represented 62% of the Company's
revenue in the fiscal year ended on March 31, 2008.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the IPO Registration
Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose that:

     (1) GT Solar was losing significant business from its
         largest customer, LDK;

     (2) that LDK would begin purchasing DSS furnaces from one
         of GT Solar's main competitor, JYT Corporation; and

     (3) GT Solar had already experienced a significant decline
         in orders received from LDK.

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

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-844-5862


HUNTSMAN CORP: Spector Roseman Files Utah Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., commenced a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Huntsman Corporation between June 26, 2007,
through June 18, 2008, inclusive.

Huntsman markets differentiated chemicals and pigments products.

In May 2007, the Company decided to put itself up for sale and
contacted potential buyers.  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 received a merger proposal from
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc., an affiliate of private equity
firm Apollo Management, L.P., for $27.25 per share.  The Company
finally announced on July 12, 2007, that it has agreed to be
acquired by Hexion for $28.00 per share.

The Complaint alleges that Huntsman and certain of its officers
and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
disseminating false and misleading information which resulted in
the artificial inflation of the Company's stock price.

Specifically, it is alleged 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 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 merger announcements, and the
announcement of Hexion's proposal, the Company's shares
significantly increased in value.  Taking advantage of the
increase in stock price after Huntsman's announcement that it
had signed a definitive Merger Agreement with Hexion, Company
insiders sold 57,082,420 shares of the Company's stock for gross
proceeds of over $1.3 billion.

On June 19, 2008, the Company stunned investors when it
announced that Hexion had filed a lawsuit against Huntsman
seeking to terminate the Merger Agreement alleging that three of
Huntsman's five business segments had significantly
underperformed relative to expectations, estimations and
projections.  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.

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

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-844-5862


REDDY ICE: Brian Felgoise Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., commenced a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., securities between August 10, 2005,
and March 6, 2008, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq.
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: 215-886-1900
          e-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net





                            *********

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  * * *